Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/5/1984Wednesday, September 5, 1984 .11 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, September 5, 1984, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman; Richard -N. Bird;. and Margaret C. Bowman. Absent was William C. Wodtke, Jr., who was out of town. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Chris Paull, Assistant County Attorney; Jeffrey K. Barton, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. Chairman Scurlock left the meeting temporarily as he was needed in the Ballot Room, and Vice Chairman Lyons called the meeting to order. Reverend Jack Diehl of Our Savior Lutheran Church gave the invocation, and Vice Chairman Lyons led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Vice Chairman Lyons asked for any additions to the agenda, and there were none. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Vice Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 8, 1984. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Scurlock being out of the room temporarily and Com- missioner Wodtke being absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved the Minutes of August 8, 1984, as written. 107S E P 5 1984 BOOK J pa,F u S E P 5 1994 Vice Chairman Lyons asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 15, 1984. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Scurlock being out of the room temporarily and Com- missioner Wodtke being absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved the Minutes of August 15, 1984, as written. CLERK TO THE BOARD The Board reviewed memo from the Administrator as follows: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: August 28, 1984 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners ' SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMIT - " RENEWALS FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES: County Administrator The following individuals have applied to the Clerk's Office for pistol permit renewals: Frederick 0. White Francis V. Casano, Jr. All requirements of Ordinance 82-27 have been met and are in order. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved the issuance of renewal pistol permits to Frederick 0. White and Francis V. Casano, Jr. 2 i CONSENT AGENDA Administrator Wright asked that Item N be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion, and Commissioner Bird requested that Items D and F be removed also. Chairman Scurlock entered the meeting at 9:12 o'clock A.M. and took over the Chair. �'A. Report Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk: Change of Polling Place, Precinct 21, to the Elks Club, 1350 26th St., Vero Beach. iB. Budget Amendment - Law Library The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director as follows: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Aug.,16, 1984 FILE: q�(� FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, OMB Director SUBJECT: Indian River County Law Library REFERENCES: The following budget amendment is to correctly record the reimbursement from the Law Libray for salaries and benefits of the part time Law Librarian Account Title Reimbursements Regular Salaries Social Security Retirement Workmen's Comp. Account No. Increase Decrease 001-000.36940.00 1,591 001-904.516-11.12 1,340 001-904-516-12.11 96 001-904-51612,12 147 001-904-516,12.14 8 3 Boor 8 Fn 109 SEP 5 1984 BOOK 8s,��. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the above budget amendment. eC. Budget Amendment - Interior Alterations Admin. Bldg. The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director as follows: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: August 23, 1984 FILE: V V4 CIO ''''cam �s61 SUBJECT: Interior Alterations at the 10 c �gso 't 'f Administration BuilDISTding l�r y Commissioners LIST �{ a 1.Administrator Attorney FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, REFERENCES: Personnel OMB Director Public Works Community i)ev, Utilities Finance Other _ 1--1 is During last year's budget preparations, we estimated the amount of funds needed J for improvements at the County Jail as we did not know what improvements would be required. There is an excess of funds in the account and it is needed for interior alterations at the Administration Building. The staff recommends that the following budget amendment be done to handle the alterations. Account Title Account No. Increase -,-�Decrease Other Imp. -except Bldgs 102-906-523-66.39 12,600 Other Imp. -except Bldgs -102-220-519-66.39 12,600 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the above budget amendment. SIE. Budget Amendment - Sheriffs Department ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the following budget amendment, noting that it is a line to line transfer only. 4 a INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Sheriff's Department TO: Indian River COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Budget Accounts .10 Personal Services .30 Operating Expenses .60 Capital Outlay .35:10 Office Supplies .49:48 Other Charges & Obligations .52:45 Food for Jail Contingency TOTAL BUDGET No.: BUDGET ACCOUNT AMENDMENT 1. 3 FY: 1983-1981r DATE REQUESTED Sevtember 5, 1984 I hereby request approval for the amendment of the Sheriff's Department budget as set forth below: Original Budget or Last Amended FY 1983-84. $ 481,474 s R.T. "Tim" Dobeck Sheriff Amendments Requested $ 759,578 $ This is to acknowledge receipt by the Boar of County Commissioners Date: 9/5 8 4 Signature Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Title: Chairman, lndi,an Rives 49a.rd Form 82-7.4 Budget Including Amendments Requested $ 481,474 179,304 9,513 7,691 6,740 69,856 $ X59,578 cri c Ln This is to certify that this budget account amendment has been co Appr ved /- V- Date: Signature Jeffrey K. Barton � Title:- mer—Offtee—a€—Management- and Budget W C� Bowen Supply Co., Ltd., Plant City, Fla. S E P 5 1994 66. Weather Teletype Lease BOOK 119 The Board reviewed the following memo of General S�rvices Director "Sonny" Dean: TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS DATE: August 6, 1984 FILE: OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: County Administrator Weather Teletype Lease FROM: H. T. "Son y' Dean REFERENCES: General Services Director Attached is subject lease for a modified piece of equipment we now have. This will be a cost savings item not only in the annual lease but operating supplies too. Due to this cost savings I respectfully request the Board of County Commissioners to authorize the County Administrator to execute this Lease Agreement. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized the Administrator to execute lease with RCA for Weather Teletype equipment, as follows: N Data Communications Equipment Agreement RCA Service Company A Division of RCA Corporation Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08358 ja8i .3 Between Technical Services Contract Administration LM Lessee: Ind!a iZl'.VeA County Lessor: RCA Corporation (Billing Address) (RCA Service Company, cepa tment oA Emehgenctj Management a division thereof) hereinafter referred to as RCA 1840 25th StAeet Veho Beach, FtoAida. 32960 hereinafter referred to as Lessee. I190 Day Minimum Rental I New Customer One Year Minimum Rental Add'I Equip. Existing Customer Two Year Minimum Rental ' ' Taxable I I Three Year Minimum Rental XI Exempt/Attach Certificate Other THREE YEAR LEASE PURCHASE Purchase Order No. WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF TERMINATION REQUIRED 90 DAYS PRIOR TO EXPIRATION OF INITIAL TERM OR 90 DAYS THEREAFTER. RCA and Lessee agree as follows: t. RCA shall lease to Lessee and maintain in normal working order during the term of the lease the equipment listed in the Schedule of Equipment below or attached hereto, it being understood that such Schedule may be amended from time to time by mutual agreement of the parties hereto. 2. Normal working hours under this lease will be 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Mondays through Fridays excluding RCA recognized holidays. 3. Terms: This lease shall become effective the day after completion of the installation and shall, as to each item of equipment listed hereunder, continue in effect as specified by plan indicated above unless terminated in accordance with the requirements of the plan selected. Schedule of Eouioment 4. Prices: The price quoted below will remain in effect for the initial period of the lease. If, after the initial period of the lease, RCA finds it necessary to increase charges for the equipment leased, Lessee will receive written notification thereto at least 90 days prior to the effective date of such change. Said increased charges shall be effective as of the date indicated in the notification unless Lessee, at its option, exercisable by giving written notice to RCA within 30 Slays after receipt of such notification, elects to cancel the agreement. Lessee's notice of termination shall terminate the lease 90 days after receipt of said notice of termination. Lessee shall be responsible for lease payments until the effective date of termination and the payment of a per terminal removal charge at the then prevailing rate. Invoices are due upon presentation. Quantity Model Description Ship To Contact install Rate Mo. Rental 1 1501 WeatherWriter Model 43 St Add 1840 25th Stteet $120 $82.00 1 1571 Weather Board Contact ( 305) 567-2154 t ts�a PI 1� Phone Stephen J. We,2.?z 0 0 RCA Service Company I PCCPP Arrpntance (a division of RCA Corporation) - \,-Wdhaet WAigh Title: Counta AdminiAthatna By: Authorized Agent Date: ?—tel' 'Fr / Date: 04-00-075 7/80 7 SEP 5 1984 nn'K Rider RCA Service Company A Division of RCA Corporation BOOK 58 u,-,414- Notwithstanding t,-, 14 Notwithstanding paragraph entitled Until Lessee has made all payments and "The continuation o6 teaeerd 'Entire Agreement' thereof, this Rider is complied with all conditions and obliga- obligations heteundu .6haU be hereby m de a pa of the Lease greement for tions herein to be performed by it, RCA contingent upon the avinuat app - WAA reserves title to, and a security interest the Board a County under the Uniform Commercial Code, in p y the equipment, the proceeds thereof (the Commi, zioneu of Indian Riven EL term proceeds is included herein solely to County o4 thOde Jund3 nece6zany protect RCA against Lessee's unauthorized bon payment o4 ai?,2 dcheduted e ui m nt between RCA Co q p Corporation disposition of the equipment and does not nth p„ I aq any authorize any sale or transfer of the equipmenil� '`'��^-� c ed OJL a 0 dine (RCA Service Comp division thereof), by Lessee without RCA's written consent) and94-Ven 6.i�Si°aQ. yeau which occur ander ! all accretions, additions, accessories, dutringlnehnee yeah tea�se- replacements and substitutions thereto or puncha3e. Leuee may teArm5iate therefor in order to secure Lessee's payment of,tW agtement without 4WttheA the purchase price hereunder and performance t iabitit on tAe date 0 the of all obligations herein to be -performed by y dated Lessee. beginning of any 4discat yeah Joh which Jund3 ane not appno ph i a ted 19 Lessee represents and agrees that no financing by the de. very Jitom Zed zee to At the expiration of the full term of this statement covering the equipment or any teA.dolt oJ mitten notice oJ the proceeds thereof, except any executed by Lease, title to the leased equipment shall Lessee and RCA, is on file in any public office non appnop�uaiian. Ai:2 payment automatically vest in Lessee, providing all and that the Lessee will not create or permit obt igationb o f teuee and it6 payments due under the terms of this Lease to exist any lien or encumbrance or permit any .inteneat .in the equipment AaU have been made, Lessee has complied with all other provisions of the Lease, and security interest to attach to any of the cease upon lne dale oenmin- tAe 6vao m Lessee also pays to RCA $1.00 for equipment or proceeds thereof, other than the a teas to security interest created by this agreement and ati6n. g / /T7 other than additional rights, if any, of RCA. a4 jec t teh?1ina t i on 0 J the agnee- Lessee will join with RCA in executing one or meat under tG�f�s phoVt6ion -ij more financing statement and will execute Jundb ane avattabte 6Otb th is Oh other documents pursuant to the Uniform 6unc ti,onaZa?y .6im.t eaiz equipment. " Commercial Code in form satisfactory to RCA This Rider supersedes the paragraph of the whenever deemed by RCA to be necessary or Lease entitled 'Entire Agreement'. desirable, and Lessee agrees to do and hereby appoints RCA its attorney-in-fact to do, at the option of RCA, all acts and things which RCA may deem necessary or desirable to perfect and continue perfected the security interest contemplated by this agreement. 04-10-011 5/73 Agreed to and accepted: RCA Corporation (RCA Service Company, a division thereof) Typed Name County Admi n. ztAa to,% Title q -K -�� Date 0 Indian Riven County assee Y Signature Title Date M M M lication for $26,000 for Round Island Park Improvements The Board reviewed the following memo from County Engineer Griffith: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: August 28, 1984 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Michael Wright, County Administrator SUBJECT: Round Island Ramp, Docks and Daybeacons FROM: "VG" Griffith, Jr. P.E. REFERENCES: County Engineer DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The County submitted to the Department of Natural Resources an application on Oct. 24, 1983 for a Boating Improvement Program Grant in the amount of $17,347 to construct subject project. Approval was received and the County advertized for bids on May 14 through June 11, 1984 for subject project and opened the bids on June 11, 1984. The low bid was $35,375 which was extremely higher than our estimate of $17,347. At the advice of County Attorney Gary Brandenburg, the.Board was requested to authorize rejection of the bids and approval was received at the July 18th meeting. After discussing this project with Mr. Robert Mutch, President of Mid -Atlantic Dredging Inc. who was a low bidder on the project, we established some modification that reduced the cost of the project to $26,000. This will include Road and Bridge constructing the ramp. Jim Davis, Public Works Director, informed the Parks and Recreation Committee of the difference between the bids and our estimates at the Committee's. July 12, 1984 meeting. Mr. Davis asked the Committee to approve the amount of $26,000 and recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the project be rebid. The Committee members present were in agreement with Mr. Davis' request but could not formally approved it for lack of a quorum. Committee Chairman Dick Bird stated he would bring the matter to the Board of County Commissioners attention. Before this project can be from the Department of Natural to DNR must be accompanied with approval to submit same. RECOMMENDATION rebid, we must have an agreement Resources (DNR). The application the Board of County Commissioners It is requested that the Public Works Division be authorized to submit an application to DNR for a Project Agreement in the amount of $26,000 to implement subject project. 9 SEP 5 JQ8 A coax 58 �r c� 115 _I SEP 5 1954 BOOK r�C ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized the Public Works Division to submit an application to DNR for $26,000 for Round Island Park Ramps, Docks and Daybeacons. APPLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK +/I. One -Year Extension - Contracts for County Attorney and Administrator ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved one-year extensions of the Contracts for the County Attorney and Adminis- trator and authorized the signature of the Chairman to same. 10 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and GARY M. BRANDENBURG entered into an employment contract on December 7, 1983, attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners and Gary M. Brandenburg now desire to extend the contract for an additional one-year period. NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Paragraph 1 of Exhibit "A" is hereby amended to read; "This shall be considered a contract for a definite term for both parties under the laws of the State of Florida. The initial term of this contract shall commence on October 1, 1983, and shall end on September 30, 1986, and shall continue for subsequent one-year periods thereafter unless terminated by either party according to the provisions of Paragraph 6." 2. The remainder of Exhibit "A" is hereby ratified and shall remain in full force and effect. DATED this 5th day of September 1984. Attest Freda Wright, JpAerk � SEP_ 5 1984 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA��a� 011 `,. By / C g II �E'• Chairman ---- 11 Boor 59 c�,E 117 SEP 5 1984 Bo% 58'^...' AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WHEREAS, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS and MICHAEL WRIGHT entered into an employment contract on December 7, 1983, attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners and Michael Wright now desire to extend the . contract for an additional one-year period. NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Paragraph 1 of Exhibit "A" is hereby amended to read; "This shall be considered a contract for a definite term for both parties under the laws of the State oil Florida. The initial term of this contract shall commence on October 1, 1983, and shall end on September 30, 1986, and shall continue for subsequent one-year periods thereafter unless terminated by either party according to the provisions of Paragraph 6." 2. The remainder of Exhibit "A" is hereby ratified and shall remain qqin f ll force and effect. (/ DATED this day of 6WILL , 1984. 5th Sep ember, 1984 Attest Breda Wright, ,Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA B y G Chairman 12 . Out -of -County Travel - SACC Conference ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved out -of -County travel for all Commissioners and appropriate staff to attend the SACC Conference in Miami October 3rd to 5th. Vi. Out -of -County Travel - Water Pollution Control ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved out -of -County travel for Chairman Scurlock to attend the Water Pollu- tion Control Federation 57th Annual Conference in New Orleans, La., October 1-4. L. Cancellation October 3rd Regular Board Meeting ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) canceled the Regular Board Meeting of October 3rd in order for the Commissioners to be able to attend the SACC Conference in Miami. . Approval Site Plan Extension - Lawhon The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Craver: 13 SEP 5 198 A BOOK FR UF 58 FRUF 190 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 21, 1984 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: JAMES LAWHON'S REQUEST SUBJECT: FORSITE PLAN APPROVAL EXTENSIORobert M. eat ng, ICP Planning & Development Division THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried 111) Chief, Current Development Section FROM: Karen M. CraverV REFERENCES: J. Lawhon Staff Planner DIS:KAREN It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 5, 1984. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: A site plan application submitted by James Lawhon was approved by the Planning and zoning Commission on September 8, 1983. The plan proposed the placement of a 6 foot high chain link fence to enclose an area for open storage. The 3.3 acre project site is located on the east side of Old Dixie Highway, north of 11th Street, SW. Subsequently, an amended plan was submitted to include property on the west side of Old Dixie for the purpose of obtaining fill for the property on the east side. Due to the alteration of the elevations of the two properties, this amendment was approved with the condition that a Stormwater Management permit application be submitted. On July 19; 1984, the Director of Public Works issued the Type "A" Permit. Mr. Lawhon does not feel that he will be able to erect the fence prior to the September 8, 1984, site plan approval _ expiration date. Therefore, Mr. Lawhon is requesting a 1 year extension of site plan approval, as provided for in Section 23 (h)(1) a, Appendix A of the County Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of James Lawhon's request for a 1 -year extension of the site plan approval to erect a 6 foot high chain link fence. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a one year extension of site plan approval for James Lawhon as recommended by staff. 14 r �:0. Release of Easement - Porter The Board reviewed memo of Code Enforcement Officer Davis, as follows: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 29, 1984 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: RELEASE OF EASEMENT SUBJECT: QUEST BY JACKYE V. �? - ��, s PORTER - SUBJECT PROPERTY Robert M Keatiing, PCP — _ LOTS 9 & 10, BLOCK 10, Planning & Development Director KINGS HIGHLAND SUBDIVI- SION - HROUGH: Larry W. Burkhart Chief, Code Enforcement Department FROM:Betts REFERENCES: J. porter Code Enforcement Officer DIS:CDENF It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 5, 1984. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The County has been petitioned by Jackye V. Porter, owner of the subject property, for release of the common side lot 3 foot easement of Lots 9 and 10, Block 10 'Kings Highlands Subdivi- sion, being the northerly 3 feet of Lot 9, Block 10, and the southerly 3 feet of Lot 9, Block 10, Kings Highlands Subdivi- sion. Lot 9 is 86.70 feet in width and 129 feet in depth. Lot 10 is 70 feet in width and 127 feet in depth. It is Ms. Porter's intention to consolidate the lots and construct a single family residence on the site. The current zoning classification is R-1, Single Family Dis- trict. The land use designation is MXD, Mixed Use District, up to 14 units per acre. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power & Light Company, Jones Intercable, Florida Cablevision, and the Indian River County Utilities and Right -of -Way Departments. Based upon their review, there were no objections to the release of the easement. The zoning staff analysis, which included a site visit, showed that drainage would be adequately handled. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to the Board, through the adoption of a resolution, the release of the common side lot 3 foot easement of Lots 9 and 10, Block 10, Kings Highlands Subdivision, being the northerly 3 feet of Lot 9, Block 10, and the southerly 3 feet of Lot 10, Block 10, Kings Highlands Subdivision. 15 SEP 5 1934 BOOB 5 8 FACE �.�� Boa 5.8 F,9GE, � ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Resolution No. 84-58 approv- ing release of the common side lot 3 foot easements, Lots 9 and 10, Block 10, Kings Highlands Subdivisions, as requested by Jackye V. Porter. RESOLUTION N0. 84 -5 8 WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release the camn side lot 3 foot easements of lots 9 and 10, Block 10, Kings Highlands Subdivision, according to the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book 4, page 90, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of Kings Highlands Subdivision for public utility purposes, and WHEREAS, the request for such release of easements have been submitted in proper form; NOW, THEREF'ORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF CA= OF imim RIVER COUNTY, FmRim, that the following lot line easements in Kings Highlands Subdivision shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows: Those coffwn side lot 3 foot easements of lots 9 and 10, Block 10, Kings Highlands Subdivision, according to the Plat of the same filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida, in Plat Book 4, Page 90. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they hereby are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot line easements hereinabove referred to in form proper for recording and placing in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. This 5th day of sntpmber , 1984. BY: 2� G .ez� Don Scurlock, Jr., 16 P. Letters of Agreement - 14th St. & 40th Ave. Cul de Sac !� Landscaping and Paving), The Board reviewed memos from the Attorney Brandenburg, as follows: TO: Don C. Scurlock, Jr.. DATE: August 20, 1984 FILE: Commission Chairman Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird, Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr., Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman, Commissioner SUBJECT: 14 Street and 40 Avenue/cul-de-sac FROM: Gary M. Brandenburg, REFERENCES: County Attorney At a previous meeting, the Board of County Commissioners received and conceptually approved a petition by the homeowners on 40 Avenue for the installatin of a cul-de-sac. Subsequently, the Commission held a public hearing and abandoned that portion of the right of way necessary to perform the work. At that time, the Board approved requesting and negotiating prices for the construction. Three firms were requested to price the construction; Trodglen Paving Co. $7,400.00 Pan American $8,350.00 Dickerson $5,465.05 Attached to this memorandum, you will find a breakdown on the construction costs, together with a letter agreement. 100% of the,cost of this project will be assessed against the homeowners, amounting to approximately $250 per lot. REQUESTED ACTION: Approve letter of agreement with Dickerson of Florida, Inc. and authorize work to commence. 17 S E P 5 1954 BooK 58 F� cr 11?3 I _ I a Boos Fls� �.4 TO: Don C. Scurlock, Jr., DATE. August 28, 1984 Commission Chairman Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird, Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr., Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman, Commissioner SUBJECT: FILE: 14 Street 'and 40 Avenue/cul-de-sac FROM: Gary M. Brandenburg, REFERENCES: County Attorney This is a companion item with the asphalt work to be performed by Dickerson, Inc. This office contacted three landscaping firms and received two proposals for the necessary landscape work involved in construction of a cul-de-sac. The proposals received are as follows; Riverside Landscaping $2,365.00 Glenn & Mike's Land- scaping Co. $1,235.00 Attached to this memorandum, you will find a breakdown on the landscaping costs submitted by Glenn & Mike's Landscaping Co. 100% of the cost of this landscaping will be assessed against the homeowners requesting this action. REQUESTED ACTION: Approve Glenn & Mike's Land- scaping Co.'s proposal and authorize execution of the attached letter agreement. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved Letters of Agreement with Dickerson of Florida and Glenn & Mike's Landscaping as recommended above and authorized work to commence. 18 ®� DICKERSON FLORIDA, INC. A COMPANY OF THE DICKERSON GROUP, INC. Indian River County 1840 25th ,Street Vero Beach, Fla. 32960 Attention: County Attorney Reference: 14th Street Cul -De -Sac Laurel Court Gentlemen: P.O. DRAWER 719 • STUART, FLORIDA 33495 phone (305) 287-8820 August 14, 1984 We are pleased to present the following quotation on items of construction at the above location. This quotation is effective for thirty (30) days. It is based on a mutually acceptable contract being signed within thirty (30) days and is based on current material prices. If these prices escalate prior to our signing a contract, these increases will have to be reflected in the contract price. If we are awarded this project, we will require an escalation clause for Bituminous material in accordance with the Florida Department of Transpor- tation specifications, i.e., Asphalt Price Index. All work will be done in a neat, workmanlike manner and in accordance with the plans and specifications. All work to be guaranteed as to materials and workmanship for a period of one (1) year from date of completion. If the prices as stated meet with your approval, will you please sign in the designated space below and return one (1) copy to us. Upon receipt of a signed copy, we will prepare a mutually acceptable contract. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to quote you. C t:�li�t it���r2y JRW:slm QUOTATION ACCEPTED: Board of'Count' Commissioners FIRM EIndian River County, Florida Very truly yours, ERSON FLORIDA, INC. w s R. Widmann, or Vice President BY `� ' 4= Don Scur ock, Jr. rmanTITLE DATE:SPP-temher 5, 1-984 ATTACHMENT 14th*STREET'EUL=DE=SAC-LAUREL'COURT AUGUST 14, 1984 Grading 1. LS 1,500.00 1,500.00 8" Compacted Subgrade 531. SY 0.55 292.05 6" Coquina Base 250. SY 5.00 1,250.00 * 1" Type I Asphalt 531. SY 2.00 1,062.00 Miami Curb 270. LF 4.30 1,161.00 Sod 1. LS 200.00 200.00 Total $5,465.05 * Notes: Staking, Permits and Testing by Owner. Work to be done in conjunction with Laurel Court (Our Job No. FS -0319) SEP 5 1984 BPI 0 58 SEP 5 1984 BOOP( 58 fil.UG Frapood Page No. 01 Pages GLENN & MIKE'S LANDSCAPING, INC. 7550 North US #1 VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 (305) 567-7155 Axl. Mn. G. Bnandenbung PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO PHONE DATE Indian Riven Co. 567-8000 8/27/84 STREET JOB NAME 184V 25th St. 40th. Ave Cut-de-zac CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE JOB LOCATION Veno Beach, F.2 32962 ARCHITECT DATE OF PLANS JOB PHONE We hereby submit specifications and estimates for: _. _.._,_.. ........... 46 Viburnum Odon 24"x030" high (Ftetcha) ........ ._ _ 11 Wax Myxtte 30"t03611 high (Otd Road Way) 22 V.ibumum Odon 2411x030" high (Fat Ne.ighbo41. .1 Bottteba"h 111xo131_ high. 3 Live OaFL6 8'xo9' high Cwt-de-aac Waxen, Fettit i,zen, _ 4emovaZ of g UTA.6 Atkip p 90 day gua4anxee with pnopen waxeA ing 8 maintenance ienance Hedge to be .in6xatted .in6.ide Nonxh PnopeAty Line o6 homeownen6. Hedge to be .i n.6xaUed jum ditch on We6x6.i de to hence on Ea.6x6ide. _........... _ ..... .. _... ....... _ ............. .._ ............ ._..... _ .... ..... Arlftr t r' form /�i xir{ti.fC re '� Sul#fer .c _ ... ......................... .... ............. .............. ........:.. .......................... ..... ..... ......................... ........ .................................. ........ .... "1 �• 1 l ..... .. ... ............ Cou ry Attorney _. Mr 11Xapost hereby to furnish material and labor — complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: Payment to be made as follows: dollars ($ All material Is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifica• Authorized tions involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an Signature extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tomado and other necessary insurance. Note: This proposal may be Our workers are fully covered by workmen's Compensation Insurance. withdrawn by us if not accepted within days. Arae ntJt 111 i rOVpfint —The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. ment will be made as outlined above. Date of Acceptance: °eT —.7 Signature Signature C FORM 118-3 COPYRIGHT 1960 - Available from �kic, Groton. Mass. 01460 20 P. Budget Amendment - Police Academy Trust Fund ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the following Budget Amendment as recommended by OMB Director Barton: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: August 29, 1984 FILE: U FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, OMB Director SUBJECT: Police Academy Trust Fund REFERENCES: The following budget amendment is to allocate funds for the education and training of the Sheriff's personnel. ccount Title ��Account No. Meeting & Seminars 103600-52.1^35.43 Reserve for Contingency 103-600,52149.91 Reserve Balance in Police'Acamdemy Trust Fund $8,117. as of 8/20/84 ` Irrci^ease `� Decrease 4,000 �D. Budget Amendment - IBM Copier The Board reviewed the following memo: 4,000 21 BOOK 58 �'A-,A? SEP 5 1984 BOOK 58 P,r TO: Board f County Commissioners DATE: August 24, 1984 FILE: DISTRIBUTION LIST Commissioners c�'°� o��q SUBJECT: Administrator ! oCOU �® �� IBM Copier Attorney SS�oNFgs �� Personnel �Er L Public Works Community Dev. Utilities FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton REFERENCES: Finance OMB Director Other 41 C_ -C_'.- 0.-1� _ - At your meeting of June 20, 1984, the staff explained how the funding for the copier in the mail room would go over -budget before the end of this fiscal year. The following budget amendment is to allocate the funds to make two payments on the new copier and to pay for the excess copies fees from the old copier. Account Title Account No.Increase Rent -Office Equip 001-251-519-34.43 1,323 Maint-Office Equip 001251-5.19,34.63 1,895 Reserve for Contingency001-199-513-99.91 Balance in Reserve $209,615 as of Aug 20, 1984 Decrease 3,218 Commissioner Bird wished to know what was done with the old copier, and OMB Director Barton explained that we sold it to the Property Appraiser and he will pay off the balance. Commissioner Bird hoped the amount involved was in excess of $1,500, and Mr. Barton confirmed that it was. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the above budget amendment. 4F. Execution of Standard Contract for County Public Health Units Commissioner Bird referred to Page 9 of the above contract which refers to fees being set both by the Department and the County. He felt that at budget time it 22 had been stated those fees would remain in the county to help subsidize the health unit, and the contract makes it sound as if it all goes to the state. Dr. Tucker, County Health Director, explained that there are two types of fees - state mandated and county fees. He noted there is at least one more way their revenues are derived, i.e., by assisting certain other state agencies in their inspections of facilities such as restaurants, etc. Those monies are transferred to those agencies and then at the end of the year they are given to the Health Department by interagency transfer. Dr.Tucker informed the Board that the state has not defined all the fees they are going to mandate, and, therefore, it is impossible for the Department to say exactly what the County fees are; they will have to wait until the state firms up their policies. OMB Director Barton explained how the County will be credited for different fees and assured the Board that the bookkeeping and accounting tracks all the different sources of revenue. Commissioner Bird asked if this contract is something new, and the OMB Director confirmed that this is the first year and it is being required in all counties. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the Standard Contract for County Health Units and authorized the signature of the Chairman. SAID CONTRACT WILL BE PUT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED. 23 Boor. 58 Fmu 1?9 S E p 5 1984 BOCK 58 ; r ,;F 1:30 N. Public Hearing Date for Breezy Village Water & Sewer Co. Rate Increase The Board reviewed memo of the Franchise Administrator as follows: TO: The Honorable Members of theDATE: August 28, 1984 FILE: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Terrance G. Pinto Utility Services Director BREEZY VILLAGE WATER & SEWER SUBJECT: COMPANY, INC., RATE REQUEST FROM: Joyce S. Hamilton REFERENCES: Franchise Administ for Utility Services DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On May 2, 1984, the Board instructed the Utility Staff to make the necessary investigation of the information presented and come back with a proposed Order re the rate structure for the Breezy Village Water and Sewer Company, Inc., Franchise. The Board further in- structed the staff to allow Attorney Henderson and representatives from the Breezy Village Property Owners Association(hereinafter referred tn.asBVPOA) to have input to the process. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSES: Staff has worked since that date with both the applicant (his attorney and accountant) and representatives of BVPOA. Each have submitted exhibits which differ from the exhibits submitted for the May 2 public hearing. It is Staff's opinion that these new exhibits warrant another public hearing and in which sworn testimony can be taken from both the applicant and representatives of BVPOA. Staff met with representatives of BVPOA and their attorney, Cal Brown, on August 28., 1984 and advised that we felt another public hearing was warranted. Attorney Brown asked for sixty (60) days to prepare his .case. The final revised rate packet was received by the BVPOA on July 28, 1984. The applicant has requested the hearing to be held as soon as possible. The Staff will be teady to hold the public hearing on October 17, 1984. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending the.hearing date be set by the Board and that date to be either October 17 or November 7. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unani usly set a date of November 8, 1984, at 1: 0 o'clock P. M. for the public hearing on the Breezy Village Water & Sewer Co. Rate Increase.as they did not wish to have the hearing on a Regular Commission day. 24 I�REZONING R-1 TO C-1 (LUCINDA EDDY)�,,%� The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL 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 — L , i Court, was pub- lished In said newspaper in the Issues Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at ti Q ; IW ' Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore 1 . 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 N' 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 OOliNlt LINtt CANA advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and (SEAL) s" �`; ` ''., ff', � _ .. � „� •, `� � syr � NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing toconsiderthe adoption'of a County ordinance rezoning land from R-1, Sin- gle -Family District, to C-1, Commercial District: Subject property Is owned by Lucinda,Wardali Eddy and is located East of 27th Avenue (SR607) at tfte South County Line a The subject property is described as: ,y! A parcel of land being a part of Tract 13 iless canal) iri.Section 35; Township 33 South Range 39 East, according to the last general plat of lands of Indian River Farms Company, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 25, public -records of St- Lucie County, Rdrida, now Indian. River County, Florida, described as follows`'tP i; Begin at the intersection of the South Township Zine of fiownship 33' South and the East right-of-way line of Emerson Avenue, and fun North a distance of 100 feet to the Point of;. ,f;;. Beginning; thence run East a distance of .647.50 feet; thence run North of a distance of" ' t 307.63 feet; thence run West a distance of 647.50 feet; thence run South a distance of 307.63 feet to the Point of Beginning s The west 305 feet thereof. ' A public hearing at which parties in interest kind citizens shall have an* opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, In, the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero . Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, September 5,1984, at 9:15 a.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 purposes, he/she may need to •ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made; which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. - Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Don C. Scurlock Jr. Chairman rwg. 14, 24. 1664. Chief Planner Richard Shearer reviewed staff memo and recommendation: 25 SEP 5 1984 BOOK 58 PPE 131 800K 58 P'' C 032 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 27, 1984 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners LUCINDA WARDALL EDDY DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: REQUEST TO REZONE 2.2 ACRES R-1, SUBJECT: FAMILYFROM DIISTRICT,STOGLE- 'a Robert M. Keating, AICP C-1, COMMERCIAL Planning & Development Director DISTRICT FROM: fz chard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Eddy Rezoning Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 5, 1984. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Lucinda Wardall Eddy, the owner, is requesting to rezone approximately 2.2 acres located north of the County Line canal and 300 feet east of 27th Avenue from R-1, Single -Family district (up to 6.2 units/acre), to C-1, commercial District. The subject property is part of a 4.4 acre parcel of land which is split into two parts by a zoning district boundary. The west half of this parcel is zoned C-1.. The applicant is requesting that the east half of this parcel also be zoned C-1. On June 6, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners designated the subject property and the land immeditely west of it as part of a neighborhood commercial node. On July 26, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section., an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description.of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property contains a single-family residence and a mobile home. The land north and east of the subject property contains a fish farm and is zoned A, Agricultural district. South of the subject property, across the County Line canal in St. Lucie County, is a nursery and Lakewood Subdivision. West of the subject property, across 27th Avenue, are the Pony Keg and a Zippy Mart zoned C-1. further west is a single-family subdivision zoned R-1. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan generally designates the subject property and the land north and east of it as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). However, the subject property has been designated as part of a neighborhood 26 a � � commercial node. The land west of the subject property is designated as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). Rezoning the subject property to C-1 would be consistent with the neighborhood commercial node designation, the C-1 zoning for the other commercial uses in this area, and would provide one zoning classification for the 4.4 acre parcel. Transportation System The subject property has direct access to 27th Avenue (classified as an arterial street on the County's Thoroughfare Plan). Retail development of the subject property could attract up to 2,092 Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT). Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. - Utilities The subject property is not served by County water nor wastewater facilities. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above analysis, particularly the neighborhood commercial node designation of the subject property, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recom- mends approval. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Ordinance 84-56 rezoning 2.2 acres north of County Line Canal and east of 27th Avenue to C-1 as requested by Lucinda Eddy. 27 SEP 5 1984 BOOK 58 FADE 133 0 r� BOOK 58 rn-13 ORDINANCE NO. 84-56 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 being a part of Tract 13 (less canal) in Section 35, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, according to the last general plat of lands of Indian River Farms Company, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 25, public records of St. Lucie County, Florida, now Indian River County, Florida, described as follows: Begin at the intersection of the South Township line of Township 33 South and the East right-of-way line of Emerson Avenue, and run North a distance of 100 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence run East a distance of 647.50 feet; thence run North a distance of 307.63 feet; thence run West a distance of 647.50 feet; thence run South a distance of 307.63 feet to the Point of Beginning. LESS The West 305 feet thereof. Be changed from R-1, Single -Family District, to C-1, Com- mercial 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 5th day of September 1984. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY:11 DON SCURLCfCK, JR. Chairman CA W /90UNTY-INITIATED REZONING - E of 27TH VE. N of REBEL RD. TO R- 2 D J�- 0c The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 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-Joumal, a daily newspaper published at Vero %Beach hiin Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being o _w in the matter o 7 N x Wss sa o .3 7 .000JECT... N �- ,.•� q t , LU -1 r i in the - Court, was pub -- R- a 1-11 lished in said newspaper in the Issues of E R _Na ACR Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at l *� S. I s�a+.-) 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. - ■ ' • - - ; I 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 1 SS advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. n Sworn to and subscrib d bef a me s day of AA.D. 19IfY 2k NOTICE — PUBUC HI'cAltilfJ© siness Manager) Notice of hearing initiated by Indian River County to consider the adoption of a County ordi- nance rezoning land from C-1, Commercial District to R-1, Single -Family District to R -2D, Multiple- 1 Family District. Subject properly located South of the South Relief Canal, East of 27th Avenue State Road 60 and North of Ftfih Street, S.W. P (Clerk of the Circuit ourt, n ian River County, Florida) The subject property is described a3' � • �1 . '' '' ;' (SEAL) THE WEST 20 ACRES OF TRACT 5, IN SECTION 23; TQWNSHIP 33S, RANGE 39E AC- -; CORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY SUBDIVI- SION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, SAID LAND NOW LYING AND BEING IN ` INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. •. _ LESS THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: - ' COMMENCING AT THE NW CORNER OF TRACT 5; RUN SOUTH 125' TO THE SOUTH' <" RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE SOUTH RELIEF CANAL THENCE RUN EASTERLY 25' TO THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 27TH AVENUE (STATE ROAD 607) TO POINT OF ' BEGINNING, THENCE EASTERLY 210', RUN SOUTHERLY 165' RUN'WESTERLY 210' TO RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 27TH AVENUE (STATE ROAD 607) THENCE RUN NORTHERLY. 165' TO POINT OF BEGINNING. i, A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the County i Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, September 5, 1984, at 9:15 a.m. If any person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matte►, he/she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purposes, he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which included testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Don C. Scurlock Jr. Chairman Aug. 14, 24, 1984. Chief Planner Shearer reviewed staff memo, as follows: 29 SEP 5 1984 BOOK 58 E'AGE 135 SEP' 5 1984 TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners BOOK 58 PA -U 136 DATE: July 27, 1984 FILE: DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: ` SUBJECT: Rober M. Keatfhcj, AMP Planning & Development Director COUNTY -INITIATED RE- QUEST TO REZONE 17.5 ACRES FROM C-1, COMMER- CIAL DISTRICT, & R-1, SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT, TO R -2D, MULTIPLE - FAMILY DISTRICT FROM: R hard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Co. Init. ZC-074 Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 5, 1984. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Indian River County is requesting to rezone 17.5 acres located south of the South Relief Canal, east of 27th Avenue, and north of Rebel Road (5th St. SW), from C-1, Commercial District, and R-1, Single -Family District (up to 6.2 units/acre), to R -2D, Multiple -Family District (up to 6 units/acre). On June 6, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4 -to -0 to deny a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan by redesignating 7.42 acres located north of Rebel Road and east of 27th Avenue from LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre), to Commercial. At that time, the County agreed to initiate a request to rezone that 7.42 acre parcel from C-1 and R-1 to R -2D. On July 26, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property contains three single-family residences, a mobile home, and vacant land. The west half of the subject property is zoned C-1 and the east half is zoned R-1. North of the subject property is a convenience store and the South Relief Canal. East of the subject property is undeveloped land zoned R-1. South of the subject property, across Rebel Road, is undeveloped land zoned C-1 and R-1. West of the subject property, across 27th Avenue, is Skatetown, the E -Z Brew Coffee Service, a real estate office, and a mobile -home park zoned C-1. Further west is a single-family subdivision zoned R-1. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the land north, south, and east of Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre) 30 the subject property, and it, as LD -2, Low -Density The land west of the � � r subject property is designated as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). Rezoning the subject property to R -2D would provide a good buffer between the commercial activities on the west side of 27th Avenue and the single-family zoning east of the subject property.` Transportation System The subject property has direct access to 27th Avenue (classified as an arterial street on the County's Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum development of the subject property under the R -2D zoning would generate 651 average annual daily trips (AADT). Under the current zoning, the maximum development of the C-1 property could attract up to 7,130 AADT and the R-1 property could generate up to.400 AADT. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. Utilities County water and wastewater facilities are not currently available for the subject property. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the subject property be rezoned from C-1 and R-1 to R -2D, Multiple -Family District. Chief Planner Shearer noted that this rezoning was initiated because of a Comprehensive Plan amendment request made earlier. Mrs. Eddy at that time made a rezoning request which was denied, but the Commission indicated they would consider a request for rezoning to multiple family and staff recommended a larger area be rezoned. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 in favor of the proposed rezoning, and R -2D would be consistent with the LD -2 Land Use designation. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Attorney Sam Block came before the Board representing Mr. & Mrs. Manny Holmes, who own the piece of property on the northeast corner that is being excluded from the rezoning and property to the south and west of the corner piece which is being included. Attorney Block stated that his clients are not opposed to the concept that has been 31 BOOK 58 FA;E 1��7 � SEP. 5 �9�4 S EP 5 1984 Boox 58 . j%U138 discussed; their concern is that they have owned this property for about 20 years and on the property that is being excluded and will remain commercial there is a convenience store and a gas station operation. On their adjoining property is another building which is being included in the rezoning to residential. This building was used over the years for storage, although it is not being used now. In addition, there are tanks underground between the properties, and these were put in in 1974 when the gas station operation came into being. The county at that time approved a site plan that included 1.9 acres rather than the .8 acre that is being excluded. What the Holmes are requesting is that the County allow their 1.79 acres to remain commercial, which is the original area they had for their commercial operation. Commissioner Bird felt what was shown as excluded was more than .8 acres, and Attorney Block believed that what was shown was not drawn to scale. Chief Planner Shearer explained that the Holmes have three parcels of land, which together would represent about 2 acres. One of the parcels has the existing commercial structure on it; they have an additional parcel to the east of the commercial building, which parcel is split down the middle by the zoning district and is half R-1 and half C-1; and they have about .5 of an acre to the south of the commercial building that is'zoned C-1. They would like all these parcels to be excluded. The Chairman asked why staff is opposed to excluding that property. Chief Planner Shearer explained that they just left out that parcel that had the commercial building on it. Since the other two parcels weren't being used for anything, staff felt they should be rezoned in conformance with the Land Use Plan. 32 M Chairman Scurlock felt the applicant wants to make that irregular area into a rectangle. Mr. Shearer stated that the measurement is 165 x 210, and it actually is a rectangle. Staff's main intent is to rezone in conformance with the Plan and the property to the east is split by the zoning district. Attorney Block stated that they only want the portion excluded that is in the commercial zoning. All they are talking about is a difference of one acre, and they do not see that as not in conformity with the Plan. Mr. Shearer felt with .8 acres, there may not be development for quite sometime; increasing the size, --however, might encourage someone to put in a new building. He felt it is up to the Commission to decide whether that is good or bad. Discussion continued, and Commissioner Lyons commented that if we begin to give here, the question is where do we stop? Planning Keating explained that it is not the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan to create non -conformities. The parcel that was exempted has an existing commercial use on property that was zoned commercial; it is conforming; and that is why it was left out. Chairman Scurlock asked if the other parcel which is being left out ever appeared as a site plan, and Attorney Block informed the Board that the site plan for the 1.79 acres was approved by the County in 1974 and he has it with him. Planning Manager Keating pointed out that if the building was not constructed, the site plan would have been voided. Planner Shearer noted that the property to the south has an old building that is not being used but he felt it was there before the site plan. Attorney Block confirmed 33 S E P 5 1984 Box 58 f'AGE 139 S E P 5 1994 Booz 5$ F�, Ia 140 that building was about 20 years old, but the improvements with the underground gas tanks are shown on the site plan. Chairman Scurlock believed if a site plan was approved and the property considered as one tract, that gives the applicant's request some legitimacy. Commissioner Bird agreed. He stated that without that document he would vote against the Holmes' request. Based on the site plan approval, however, he would feel the whole piece is grandfathered in. Mrs. Lucinda Eddy came before the Board and stated that she is not objecting to Attorney Block's request, but she wished to point out that for 25 years she wanted her corner for commercial, and the Board turned her down last time. Chairman Scurlock noted that Mrs. Eddy had not had a site plan, and Commissioner Bird stated that the main difference is the Holmes had an existing commercial business in operation when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, and they are grandfathered in. Mrs. Eddy continued to argue that she had planned for years based on commercial and she is in the same block and she is ready to build. She felt it is logical for the whole block to be commercial. The Chairman determined that no one further wished to be heard. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to approve Ordinance 84-57 with exemption of the property as noted by Attorney Block, the evidence being the survey presented. 34 Commissioner Lyons did not feel that just a site plan is good enough to keep a reservation for this, and if the Commission goes with this at all, he felt possibly the commercial should go all the way to 6th Street. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. Commissioner Lyons and Chairman Scurlock voted in opposition and the MOTION FAILED on a 2 - 2 vote. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 84-57 rezoning property to R -2D as recommended by staff. 35 SEP 5 1984 AMOK 58 FA,c 141 SEP 5 1994 B0101K 58 F {."-C142 84-57 ORDINANCE NO. 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: THE WEST 20 ACRES OF TRACT 5, IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 335, RANGE 39E, ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, SAID LAND NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: COMMENCING AT THE NW CORNER OF TRACT 5; RUN SOUTH 125' TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE SOUTH RELIEF CANAL, THENCE RUN EASTERLY 25' TO THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 27TH AVENUE (STATE ROAD 607) TO POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE EASTERLY 2101, RUN SOUTHERLY 165', RUN WESTERLY 210' TO RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 27TH AVENUE (STATE ROAD 607) THENCE RUN NORTHERLY 165' TO POINT OF BEGINNING., Be changed from C-1, Commercial District and R-1, Single - Family District to R -2D, Multiple -Family District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 5th day of September 1984. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER:'COUNTY 01 BY: %ft. /L I+� G DON C. SCU OCK, JR. Chairman 36 L APPEAL OF DENIAL OF REZONING REQUEST TO M-1 (01HAIRE) f� The hour of 9:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit:, VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily r 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 `'',. /fin , 0 in the matter of ✓ N� a '�` / In the /n/ Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of `LLG9-� `:!/ .2!4 WK 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 matterat 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, d/L Sworn to and subscribed befre me is day of A.D. 19 0 77 �) (S ass Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court. In River County, Florida) (SEAL) 1 r F d di b L K n-tj1 . I r r ` `< C I N "A- A i � i _`.ft9ro ISE i4 A t s 1 vn•IaYB,IECT u � r '�� j /ROPRRTT x O LM i b A. 1 Sze' NOTICE — PUBUC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a County ordinance rezoning land from A. Agri- culture, to M-1, Restricted Industrial. The subject property is presently owned by MICHAEL O'HAIRE and THOMAS F. O'HAIRE III and is located % mile south of SR 60 on 100th Avenue. The subject property is described as: The East 28.47 feet of Tract 10, and Tract 15, less the West 26.5 acres, except the North 30 feet thereof, in Section 4, Township 33 South,; Range 38 East, according to the last general plat of lands of the Indian River Farms Company, as recorded In the office of the Clerk of the . Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, in, Plat Book 2, Page 25; said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. The Board of County Commissioners will conduct a public hearing regarding the appeal by,the applicant of the decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend disapproval of the rezoning request. The public hearing, at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an oppor- tunity 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, September 5, 1984, at 9:30 a.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 purposes, he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Don C. Scurlock Jr. Chairman Aug. 14, 24, 1984. _- Chief Planner Richard Shearer made the staff presentation, as follows: 37 SEP 5 1984 BOOK 58 FACE143 S E P 5 1954 BOOK 58 FAC 144 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 20, 1984 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners O'HAIRE REQUEST TO RE- ZONE 15.4 ACRES FROM A, DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, TO M-1, RESTRICTED K,, �iy�, �2�`' SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Robert M. Keating VAICP Planning & Development Director' O� FROM: Richard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: O'Haire 15.4 Acres Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 5, 1984. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Michael O'Haire, and Thomas O'Haire, III, the owners, are requesting to rezone 15.4 acres located one-quarter mile south of State Road 60 on 100th Avenue from A, Agricultural District, to M-1, Restricted Industrial District. The applicants intend to use this property for warehouses or retail uses. On July 26, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to deny this request. Their reasons for denial were that the County has spent considerable time working with the nodes, the nodes cannot expand indefinitely without some outer boundary, and that there was not sufficient room in the I-95 and State Road 60 node to include the subject property. The applicants have appealed this decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is currently undeveloped. North of the subject property is Kennilworth Estates, a single-family subdivision,containing 7 houses and two mobile homes, zoned A, Agricultural District. East of the subject property is undeveloped land zoned C-1, Commercial District, and LM -1, Light Manufacturing District. South and west of the subject property are citrus groves zoned A, Agricultural District. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and all of the land north, south, and west of it as AG, Agricultural. The land east of the subject property has been included in the 300 acre commercial/industrial node at the intersection of I-95 and State Road 60. The applicants are proposing to include their property in this node. i A map of the I-95 and S.R. 60 commercial node has been prepared to show the proposed outer limit boundaries of the node (including 600 acres) and the flexible boundaries of the node (including 300 acres). This map is included as attachment #3 and is the same map that was presented at the node workshops and the same map that has been used to evaluate other requests to be included in the I-95 and S.R. 60 node. The subject property is not included within the flexible boundary nor within the outer limit boundary of the node. Since the I-95 and S.R.60 node was enlarged from 230 acres to 300 acres last Spring, the County has rezoned 40.89 acres west of 98th Avenue (southeast of the subject property) to M-1, Restricted Industrial District, and has included an additional 50.58. acres of land (located east of the subject property) in the node. Presently, 120 acres of land west of 98th Avenue are included in the node (including 91.47 acres of undeveloped land), and another 100 acres of existing commercial and industrial uses to the east of 98th Avenue are included in the node. The necessary infill property to connect these proper- ties includes an additional 80 acres. Based on the location of the existing commercial and industrial uses, the undeveloped land that has been included in the node, and the necessary infill land, there are not 15.4 acres of land left in this node that can be allocated to the subject property. Transportation System The subject property has direct access to 100th Avenue (classified as a local street on the Thoroughfare Plan). Developing the subject property for warehouses or as an industrial park would attract 1,490 Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT). Developing the subject property for retail uses could attract up to 5,082 AADT. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. Utilities County water and wastewater facilities are not available for the subject property. RECOMMENDATION Based on the preceding analysis, including the Planning and Zoning recommendation, the existing and committed commercial and industrial land use configuration, the fact that there is insufficient allocation remaining to include the subject property in the node, and the fact that the subject property is outside of the proposed outer limit boundary of the node, staff recommends that this rezoning request be denied. 39 SEP 5 1984 POOK � FADE 145 _I S E P 5 1984 BOOK 58 Mr. Shearer reported that staff analyzed the request and found there was not sufficient acreage to include the subject property in the node. This was west of any other industrial or commercial zoning in the area and west of the line originally prepared to delineate an outer limit boundary. Rezoning to M-1 is not consistent with the Land Use Plan. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted unani- mously to deny this request, and staff still recommends denial. Chairman Scurlock noted that at the previous Commission meeting where we were considering 58 acres on the other side of the airstrip, staff was directed to go back and recon- sider the size of the node. Mr. Shearer confirmed that the Commission will consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan next week regarding this node. Staff has consistently felt the line of approxi- mately 100th Avenue should be the outer limit for this node, and, therefore, would not anticipate the subject property to be part of the node even when enlarged. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Attorney Michael O'Haire appeared in behalf of himself and his brother, Tom. He informed the Board that they have owned this property since 1982; they purchased it after the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and the node established at Route 60; and it is their stand that to deny the rezoning is inconsistent with the Land Use Plan and constitutes spot zoning. Chairman Scurlock inquired if Mr. O'Haire had any objections to being heard by a four man board, and Mr. O'Haire stated that he would have preferred all members to be present, but would proceed as he believed there are others in the audience who wish to be heard. M Mr. O'Haire reviewed in detail the zoning surrounding their property, noting that there is industrial immediately to the east, commercial to the northeast, manufacturing to the southeast, and agricultural to the south. With their present zoning, they could put agriculturally related industial uses on their property, i.e., a juice plant or packing house, but their property is only 15 acres and there is no land commercially viable as an agricultural enterprise in the vicinity. In addition,- Rampmaster is within 1500' of their property and the runway to Hibiscus Airport within 12001; in fact, the leg of the pattern the -spray planes take extends diagonally across their property. Mr. O'Haire pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan calls for "smooth transition" and also states that the shape of a node may deviate in any direction about an intersection. He emphasized that they have no transition whatsoever from industrial, and the nodal concept did not have fixed boundaries when they bought this property, which they purchased because of its proximity to the airport and other commercial uses. He further noted that as residential, it would never work, not only because of the industrial uses in the area, but because of the violent opposition of the airport owners who deliberately moved their operation out here to get away from a residential area. Mr. O'Haire believed that in this node it was always felt that east of I-95 was commercial, west'was industrial, and north residential because it has been platted. He would like to be included in the industrial and felt if they are not, it would be spot zoning. He made the further point that there is nothing in the Land Use Plan about absorption of land for the purpose of "in -fill" and saving it for people whether they asked for it or not. Mr. O'Haire informed the Board that what they want is modified 41 SEP 5 1954 BOOK 8 1.) r. 14 7 S E P 5 1954 BOOK 5+8 4 0j48 commercial for storage and they would be agreeable to a lesser zoning than industrial. Commissioner Bird commented that apparently the main reason the Planning & Zoning Commission voted to deny the requested rezoning was because they did not feel there was sufficient acreage left in the node for it, but he believed it was indicated that this could be reconsidered when the node was expanded. Mr. Shearer did not feel they had said that when there was additional acreage they would look favorably on this, and Planning Director Keating believed that generally there has been an acceptance of the outer limit boundaries staff has recommended; he felt this particular node has drawn a lot of criticism for being stretched. Chairman Scurlock stated that where he has a real problem is with focusing in on the intersection as the hub of the industrial. What he actually sees as the hub of the more intense activity is the airstrip; then as you go towards town, you see hotels and commercial, and gradually phase down to medium density residential, etc. Mr. Shearer believed that is a good analysis. He agreed most of the industrial uses are adjacent to the airport, and felt we may want to look at whether the node right at I-95 is such a good idea. Commissioner Lyons felt that the intersection is still the hub. We do have different uses in different quadrants, but it does start around that intersection. Chairman Scurlock anticipated that we are going to have this problem on every one of these nodes and will have to distinguish between commercial and industrial. Planning Director Keating believed this node will be a lot different than others in the county as far as transition is concerned. It was set out in the middle of an agricul- 42 M M - tural area, and he believed we will have agricultural uses abutting industrial uses; however, he did not feel that agricultural uses are necessarily incompatible with industrial. Chairman Scurlock pointed out that anyone familiar with citrus realizes that the land doesn't remain suitable for citrus forever. He believed the key to attracting light clean industry is having large acreage available and hated to make a decision today when -he was not sure what is going to be recommended for the node. Commissioner Lyons noted that there are a group of area residents here to present their views. We are about to see a single family development swallowed up, and we must face that situation. Tony Edwards, resident of 18th Street, immediately adjoining the subject property, informed the Board that all of the owners but one of the subdivision mentioned by 'Commissioner Lyons are here today. They do not want to be swallowed up; they want to retain their life style and protect their children and pets. He noted that 100th Avenue is a dirt road; they are nine miles from a grocery store, and the planes are noisy, but this is the price they are willing to pay for the solitude. Mr. Edwards emphasized that their main problem is with the access to the subject property, and he informed the Board that there is a 281. "spike" strip which runs from SR 60 to the end of the property to be rezoned, which he believed was put there to prevent this from happening and allow them to continue to use 100th Avenue without having semis going up and down it. Chairman Scurlock noted that it appears they would not have too much objection to the proposed rezoning if there were another way to get into the O'Haire property, . Mr. Edwards confirmed that their objection would-be the traffic coming into their neighborhood, and they also would 43 SEP 5 1954 BOOK 58 FW., 149 BOOK 58 FA�F150 not want heavy industry. He agreed Mr. O'Haire has a right to use his property but they would like to have a buffer and another access. Administrator Wright felt there is a 60' right of way between the Morrisey Property (M.A.Ford Co.) and Rampmaster, and Mr. Shearer agreed there is space there for a road. Mr. O'Haire confirmed that they can develop the property by another access and not use 100th Avenue. Commissioner Lyons felt the residents should be aware that at sometime in the future they may very well end up being surrounded by commercial uses. He pointed out that one option they have would be to ask to have their property included in the node and then sell it. Pressure for indus- trial property undoubtedly will increase as the County grows, and it is a question of how long they can be pro- tected. Mr. Edwards confirmed that they do realize this can happen in the future. Commissioner Bird asked Mr. O'Haire if he could live with LM -1 rather than a more intense use, and Mr. O'Haire stated that he had no interest in heavier uses. Commissioner Bird asked the Attorney if we can amend this rezoning request to LM -1 since it is a less intense use, and Attorney Paull confirmed that the Commission could do so but stated that if it is intended to act on this favorably, the Board will have to make a definite finding either that it is in the node or that it is one of those type of properties which for some special circumstance or condition ought to be rezoned commercial or industrial and that it is not in the node. Timothy Nowak, resident of the area, echoed Mr. Edwards' sentiments and spoke of his enjoyment of the area. He did agree that the subdivision will be surrounded at sometime in the future, but pointed out that the grove next 44 PV to them is spending a lot of money and obviously planning to stay there for the long term. If they can keep the 28' buffer strip referred to by Mr. Edwards to protect their children, and if 18th Street could be cut in for access to the subject property, he felt they all would be happy. Administrator Wright reported that the Right -of -Way Department informs him that there is no platted right-of-way that would be where 18th Street would come out. There is a 30' drainage easement, which is -a Drainage District right- of-way. The person who sold the property to M.A.Ford did retain 60' which he intended for a road; however, this is not platted; it is privately owned 100th Avenue is a platted public right-of-way. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons to extend the node to include the O'Haire property, but Attorney Paull pointed out that extending the node would actually entail reallocating the acreage in the node and would require special conditions. The same result could be achieved by applying the policy in the Land Use Plan for certain parcels which do not conform to the policy for nodal inclusion but can be demonstrated to be suitable for commercial or indus- trial development. He stated that the Board then would have to agree there is no acreage available and identify what is peculiar to this property that would allow it to be identified for commercial zoning. Commissioner Lyons withdrew his Motion. 45 BOOK 151 S E P 5 1984 BOOK 5 ; A III' F. 15? MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that, under the policy in the Land Use Plan referred to above, which is applicable because of the special conditions and the proximity of the subject property to commercial/ industrial uses in the node as outlined in today's discussion, that Ordinance 84-58 be adopted rezoning the O'Haire property to LM -1. Commissioner Bird stated that the reason he seconded the Motion was that he felt the property is somewhat unique in that it is sandwiched between an existing agricultural use and an industrial use, both of which are long term uses. He expressed the hope that Mr. O'Haire would give the residents in the area every consideration. Commissioner Bowman commented that she would have preferred to deny the request until the size of the node is established. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. (4-0) 46 ORDINANCE NO. 84-58 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: The East 28.47. feet of Tract 10, and Tract 15, less the West 26.5 acres, except the North 30 feet thereof, in Section 4, Township 33 South, Range 38 East, according to the last general plat of lands of the Indian River Farms Company, as recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida,_in Plat Book 2, Page 25; said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from A, Agriculture, to LM -1, Light Man- ufacturing 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 5th day of Sevtemher 1984. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: '� C DON C. SCUR OCK, JR. Cvrman 47 S E P 5 1954 BOOK 5 8 F 153 I r SEP 5 1984 BOOK 58 PnUF 154 DISCUSSION RE VERO HIGHLANDS STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT OMB Director Barton reviewed the history of the situation, noting that on October 5, 1983, the Commission instructed staff to move forward towards creating an MSTU for Vero Highlands. Since that date a multitude of things have happened; this got put on hold; and staff did not move ahead to establish the district by the January 1, 1984 deadline in order for it to be able to levy a tax this year. Since that time, the state statute has been changed to a July deadline. There have been discussions with the residents and the developer; General Development did conduct a survey; and there still is the indication that a majority of the people wish to have a street lighting district. OMB Director Barton continued that he has tried to come up with a possible way of raising some seed money to put in a minimal amount of street lighting until the district would have the capability of taxing in the year 1985 because there are some problems in the area with emergency services at night because of the lack of street lights. Commissioner Lyons reported that he had been involved in this situation. At the time, there were strong feelings both pro and con, and he would not vote for any funding until he was convinced that the majority of the people in the district could be served and were in favor. He ques- tioned how it could be stated that all the people are in favor of this as he did not believe the mailing done by General Development went to all the people, but only to those in the new Property Owners Association. OMB Director Barton noted that it could be required that another survey be mailed out under our auspices; however, more than half of the lots are still owned by General Development, and it should be determined whether they are entitled to a vote for each lot since every lot would receive an assessment. 48 Commissioner Bowman wished to know how many lots are involved and what this would cost GDC in a year. OMB Director Barton reported that Florida Power & Light worked out the boundaries. The cost is about $43,000 a year and that is just to pay power bills. George Kulzycki, manager of operations for GDC, explained that in their first mailing they did not include what is referred to as the "old section" which contains approximately 200 lots. That area was canvassed by hand approximately 3 years ago, but Mr. Kulzycki felt the person who did the canvassing and collected the votes was strongly opposed and influenced people accordingly. Excluding the "old section," they had a 4-1 indication in favor of the MSTU and that was excluding General Development's property. GDC indicated that they would go whichever way the majority wanted to go. They now have done another mailing, which Mr. Kulzycki believed is approximately 10-1 in favor of the street lighting district. He pointed out that the Board's Motion last year was to instruct staff to proceed with creating the MSTU for 1984. He informed the Board that when GDC had to tell the property owners that this apparently had been dropped along the way with the result that a year had been lost, it did not go over too well. Commissioner Bird asked what the cost per individual lot would be estimated if all lots were included, and Mr. Kulzycki believed it was close to $20 a year per lot. OMB Director Barton again brought up the possibility of moving forward if seed money could be raised. He informed the Board that FP&L is recommending 395 lights for the District, but he is trying to work out a way where this could be phased and just 50-100 lights could be put in this year to provide minimal coverage; possibly this could be completely funded by a contribution or loan by GDC or the county or the residents or a combination of all three. 49 SEP 5 984 BOOK 58 rmn_15 SEP 5 1984 BOOK 58 F'ACUE 156 Commissioner Bird felt if the most recent survey is accurate and it is running 10-1 in favor, we do have an indication of the people's feelings. Mr. Kulzycki reported that they sent out 1800 question- naires and got 1200 returns. There are 1833 lots, with 600 still in GDC's name. He emphasized that they would like to get the lights started in October if possible. GDC will pay for their lights, but they do not want to make a contribu- tion to start this. He felt possibly the County could borrow money to get this started as he felt they dropped the ball whereby taxes can't be levied this year. Discussion ensued, and the Board indicated that they would be uncomfortable about advancing money until the District was pretty well in place. Attorney Paull explained about the public hearings required and noted that in order to levy in 1985, the MSTU would have to be in place by July of the year rather than January. Mr. Kulzycki asked why the ordinance was never drafted or the public hearings scheduled as the Board had directed. Administrator Wright agreed that staff dropped the ball, but Commissioner Lyons felt it actually was because until now we did not feel we had a real showing of the majority feeling. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED BY Commissioner Bird, to direct staff to prepare an ordinance setting up an MSTU for a Vero Highlands Street Lighting District and to set up the re- quired public hearings. Chairman Scurlock felt if the district is created and then the people want to do something voluntarily about 50 � � i � a r contributing, that would be fine; he did not see any requirement for the county to contribute. OMB Director Barton asked whether, at the time this is brought back for a public hearing, the Board would be willing to discuss the possibility of setting up some preliminary steps to raise monies once the district is created, and it was indicated this could be discussed. Commissioner Bird felt now that it appears an overwhelming majority want this, the Commission and staff will expedite it and put it in place as quickly as we legally can. Attorney Paull wished to be sure about the boundaries of the district and whether the old part of the Highlands will be included also. It was felt they would have to be included. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously.(4-0) hRDINANCE AMENDING ZONING CODE RE POLITICAL SIGNS The hour of 10:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 51 S E P 5 1994 BOOK 5 ;F 15 7 L__`_ S.E P 5 1984 BOOK 58 5 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper In the issues of � T Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore + been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed bef re me his � day of �A.D.19 JZ ` us s Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, India Iver County, Florida) (SEAL) PUBLIC NOTICE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will conduct a Public Hearing on September 5, 1994, at 10:30 a.m. in the Commission Chambers at the County Admin- istration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, to consider the adoption of the Ordi- nance entitled:. AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE APPEN-DIX A, ZONING SECTION 25(o). CREAT- ING DEFINITION OF POLITICAL SIGNS, CREATING LIMITS . FOR TIMING OF PLACEMENT AND REMOVAL OF TEM- PORARY POLITICAL SIGNS; REQUIR- ING BONDS AND PERMITS FOR PLACE- MENT OF TEMPORARY POLITICAL SIGNS; RESTRICTING THE SIZE OF TEMPORARY POLITICAL SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: PROVIDING FOR PENAL- TIES;'INCORPORATION IN CODE; SEV- ERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. 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 verba- tim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes -the testimony in evidence on which the appeal is based... . Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Don C. Scurlock Jr. Chairman Aug. 16,1984.. - Assistant County Attorney Jim Wilson explained that the proposed ordinance re political signs, placement and removal - of same, etc., is similar to the City's ordinance with certain improvements. He noted that there are some blanks in (2) Timing of placement. Since the candidates have to qualify approximately 50 days prior to election and since there is approximately 60 days between the Primary and General Election, Attorney Wilson felt it would be appro- priate to allow placement no more than 60 days prior to the first primary even for those who are unopposed as he felt it is very important to be fair to everyone. Attorney Wilson then discussed the requirement for a bond and reported that the City requires the placement of a 52 $100 bond for removal of signs, but the County has considerably more area. Chairman Scurlock felt it would cost about $500, and noted that the candidate can make a loan to his campaign and then pay it back after the campaign. Considerable discussion ensued re the costs involved in putting out a County truck to remove the signs and whether the bond should be $500 or $250. The Chairman and Adminis- trator favored a $500 bond as -the Administrator felt the County really does not want to have to get involved in the work of removing the signs. Commissioners Bird and Lyons, however, expressed concern that the higher bond might be a hardship for some and inhibit them from running for office. Commissioner Bird suggested that we try a $250 bond; if it turns out to be insufficient, we can always raise it. Attorney Paull noted that if we go with the lower bond, it can be stipulated the candidates are liable for any costs of removal above those covered by the bond, and we could include the ability to go to the Code Enforcement Board. The Board generally agreed on a $250 bond with that stipulation. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Ray Scent, interested citizen, sympathized with people participating in small races - Mosquito Control, etc., and felt this bond requirement would penalize them. He noted that the County already has a cleaning crew picking up trash, and felt they could pick up the signs along with their regular work Commissioner Bird pointed out that the crews would not know whose signs to pick up after the primaries, and Admin- istrator Wright noted that most of the people who do the right-of-way picking up are criminals on work release programs. 53 BOOK 58 f'��r 5 L- SEP 5 1984 SEP 5 1984 Booz 58 P,{1, 460 Attorney Wilson reported that the Legislature already has addressed this issue and established certain minimum re- quirements for removal and replacement of political signs and has permitted cities and counties to pass more restrictive requirements if desired. The Supervisor of Elections will advise candidates of these new standards, which are in statute 106.1425. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bird felt possibly we should include some type of an appeal provision in the ordinance where someone who is running in a race for a position that doesn't pay anything or has some hardship could appeal for a waiver of the bond requirement. Attorney Wilson agreed that could be done, but noted that the bond would only be required if you intend to place signs; the bond probably would only cost $25.00 and the signs would cost far more than that. In further discussion, it was agreed that we do not want to limit participation in political races and that there should be a provision for a waiver if it can be demonstrated it would be a hardship. Attorney Paull suggested that the wording which refers to a candidate for an elective office of the City of Vero Beach, Indian River County, or any other Florida county, should also state any municipality or taxing district, etc. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 84-59 with the changes agreed upon. 54 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 84- 59 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE APPENDIX A, ZONING, CREATING SECTION 25(0)(10); CREATING DEFINITION OF POLITICAL SIGNS; CREATING LIMITS FOR TIMING OF PLACEMENT AND REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY POLITICAL SIGNS; REQUIRING BONDS AND PERMITS FOR PLACE- MENT OF TEMPORARY POLITICAL SIGNS; RESTRICTING THE SIZE OF TEMPORARY POLITICAL SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES; INCORPORATION IN CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has determined that candidates for political office, their agents, and advocates of particular political issues often place temporary signs throughout the county prior to elections; and WHEREAS, these signs are recognized as a permissible means of educating the public as to candidates and issues involved in elections; and WHEREAS, these temporary signs serve no purpose subse- quent to the date of the particular primary or general election; and WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of each candidate or advocate of political issues to remove such temporary political signs after the relevant election; and WHEREAS, failure to remove such temporary political _ g signs creates an unnecessary visual blight, which could result in expenditures of County funds through the use of County personnel to remove such temporary political signs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION 1 Section 25(0)(10) to Ordinance 71-3, as amended, known as Appendix A -Zoning- of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida is hereby created to read as follows: REGULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY POLITICAL SIGNS (1) Definitions. The following term shall have the meaning set forth for the purpose of interpreting this ordinance. (a) Temporary political signs shall be defined as 55 EP 51984 BOOK 5 J SEP 5 1984 BOOK 58 FAGS 62 any non -permanent sign relevant to the candidacy of any person who is qualified under the laws of Florida as a candidate for an elec- tive office of Indian River County, any municipality, school district, special taxing district, or other publicly elected office within Indian River County or any other Florida County, State of Florida, or United States, or signs advocating an issue that will appear on any primary, general or special election ballot in the County. All relevant provisions of this Section, in addition to the requirements of §25(0)(6), shall be satisfied prior to the placement'of any temporary political signs within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County. (2) Timing of placement. Temporary political signs may be erected no more than 60 days prior to the election in which the candidate's name or the issue will appear. Any unopposed candidate in the first primary who will face opposition in the following General Election may erect temporary political signs 60 days prior to the first primary, notwithstanding the fact that the candidate's name will not appear on the first primary ballot. (3) Timing of removal. Any temporary political sign shall be removed from the premises by the candidate, his agent, or the occupant within five days after the election in which the candidate is eliminated or elgcted, whichever occurs first, or after the resolution of the respective issues by referendum. (4) Removal bond required. Prior to the placement of a temporary political sign, or signs, a bond of $250.00 or $250.00 in cash shall be posted with the Planning and Development Division. The security may be forfeited in whole or in part to the County for any of the following reasons: (a) Failure to remove all signs within the applicable five day period for removal; (b) The placement of signs upon any tree, utility pole, or similar object; (c) The placement of any sign without permission of the owner of the property upon which the sign is placed; (d) Authorizing placement or allowing to remain 56 M M _ -I more than two days after notice to the political candidate of any political sign otherwise in viola- tion of this Chapter. The illegal placement of any political sign advertising a particular candidate shall be prima facie evidence that the candidate placed or authorized the placement of said sign. (5) Any candidate may apply for hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to show cause why they are unable to post a bond as required in this Section. Upon a showing of good cause, the Board of County Commissioners may waive the bond requirements. However, any candidate who obtains a waiver of the bond requirement shall not be relieved of the removal requirements herein and shall be responsible to the County for the cost of the County's removing any signs placed in violation of this Section. (6) Temporary political signs are permitted in all zoning districts subject to the rules set forth below. (7) Temporary political signs in residential districts. Temporary political signs in residential districts, as defined within the Indian River County Zoning Code, Appendix A, §5-17, are allowed subject to the following provisions: (a) One sign apt exceeding twelve square feet per lot or parcel of land. (b) Sign shall not be illuminated and shall be free standing. (c) Sign shall be located wholly on the private property and shall be placed at least five feet from all rights-of-way and 15 feet from all prop- erty lines, and shall not exceed five feet in height. (8) Temporary political signs in agricultural, com- mercial, manufacturing and industrial districts. Temporary political signs in agricultural, commerical, manufacturing and industrial districts, as defined within the Indian River County Code, Appendix A, §4, and §8-22, are allowed subject to the following provisions: 57 SEP 5 1994 Boos ���.c S E P Ql 1984 BOQK ':e7 _J Cr� J� (a) One sign per candidate or issue is allowed and not more than two signs per premises are allowed. These shall not exceed 16 square feet. These signs shall be separated by a minimum distance of 15 feet. (b) Signs shall not be illuminated. (c) Signs shall be located wholly on the private property and shall be placed at least five feet from any rights-of-way and 15 feet from all prop- erty lines and shall not exceed ten feet in height. (9) Placement of political signs other than temporary political signs shall be governed by the provisions of this Section [25(o)]. (10) The signs identified in this ordinance shall require the issuance of a permit by the County Administrator, or designee. Upon issuance of a permit, the permittee shall agree to reimburse the County for any and all expenses of removal incurred by the County over and above any applicable bond or cash deposit coverage. L_1M/TM1r^%T -% T% MMT 71 Ir TT IM f% Any violation of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be subject to punishment by a fine not to exceed $500, or by imprisonment in the County Jail not to exceed 60 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. n1M^ V^" 13 INCORPORATION IN CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA This Ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code of Ordinances of Indian River County 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 purposes. M M M r s SECTION 4 SEVERABILITY If any section, or if any sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconsti- tutional, inoperative, or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass the Ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid, or inoperative part. SECTION 5 EFFECTIVE DATES The provisions of this Ordinance contained within Section 1 (1) and (3) and Sections 2, 3 and 4 -shall become effective upon receipt from the Secretary of State of the State of Florida of official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. The remaining provisions of this ordinance shall become effective January 1, 1985. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 5th day of September , 1984. v BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIANIVER COUNTY FLORID By C Don C. Scurl ck, Jr., Chairman of iORDINANCE - ONE CENT SALES TAX FOR JAIL The hour of 10:45 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 59 SEP 51984 BOOK 5 8 SEP 5 1984 VERO REACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a i�Go(i1./iry in the matter of��� in the . Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of G l 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. e Sworn to and subscribed forPTI th , day efoG��� A D. 19 _ (SEAL) (_&ft(&Kfness Manager) v _ (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) BOOK 58 Fr�.vr PUBLIC NOTICE The Board of County Commissions of Indian liver County, Florida, will conduct a Public isaring on September 5, 1884, at 10:45 A.M. in he Commission Chambers at the County Admin- j stration.Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, f lorida 32860, to consider the adoption of an or- t finance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZ- ING THE LEVY FOR THE PERIOD OF BY 1, 1985, THROUGH DECEM- R 311,, 1985, AN ADDITIONAL ONE PERCENT TAX ON ALL TRANSACTIONS OCCURRING IN THE COUNTY WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE STATE TAX IM- POSED ON THE SALE, USE RENTALS, ADMISSIONS. AND OTHER TRANSAC- TIONS, AS PROVIDED IN THIS ORDI- NANCE, EXCEPT AT THE SALES AMOUNT ABOVE $1,000 ON ANY ONE TRANSACTION SHALL NOT BE SUB- JECT TO THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS SECTION; PROVIDING FOR IMPOSI- TION OF TAX; TRANSACTIONS SUB-.. JECT To THE TAX AUTHORIZED IN THIS ORDINANCE; U,^ -7F PROCEEDS; .. REFERENDUM REOL 'D; FORM OF BALLOT; ADMINISTRATION OF TAX; ESTABLISHMENT OF BRACKETS AP- PLICABLE TOALL TRANSACTIONS; ADDITIONAL TAX; NOTIFICATION OF DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; STATE LAW SUPERSEDES; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. 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 verba- tim record of the proceedings Is made, which record includes the testimony in evidence on which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Don C. Scurlock Jr. Chairman Aug. 10, 1904. -- Administrator Wright stated that this is a continuation of a discussion several months ago. It has been to the Finance Committee and they recommended approval. Chairman Scurlock commented that it is his belief this vehicle will not generate enough funds to fund the jail totally. Mr. Norton of the Chamber of Commerce gave figures on existing sales that indicate there could be a shortfall, and the figures he used did not eliminate gas sales and sales over $1,000. OMB Director Barton agreed that sales over $1,000 represent a big unknown and gasoline sales are exempt. W Commissioner Lyons noted that one of the things people seem to be very apprehensive about is that any tax such as this will be a continuing tax. He suggested that the word- ing in Section 5 FORM OF BALLOT be changed to read - Do you favor imposing the tax for not more than one year? - as he wished to be sure people understand this thoroughly. Discussion continued in regard to identifying the facility to be financed more explicitly, i.e., local justice facility, jail and associated -or related facilities, etc. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Dudley Clyatt, representing 1,631 members of the Farm Bureau, informed the Board that they made a unanimous deci- sion to support the proposed 1G sales tax. Mr. Clyatt felt if 1� is not enough, it should be made higher, but he was informed that state law limits this tax to 1� for one year. Ray Scent brought up the fact that there are many people who rent out their homes or rooms and do not collect 5% sales tax. If you rent for six months or more, you are exempt, but if it is only for a few months or weeks, the tax should be collected. This is an untapped source, and he felt some action should be taken to ensure that people renting these properties should pay the 1� sales tax also. Commissioner Bird felt possibly we should publicize the fact that such people are violating the law and that they are subject to severe penalties. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 84-60 as amended. M SEP 5 19 4 aooK'8 Fa,c 167 SEP 5 1994 Bm- 58 Fa,,.168 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 84-60 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1985, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1985, OF AN ADDITIONAL ONE PERCENT TAX ON ALL TRANSACTIONS OCCURRING IN THE COUNTY WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE STATE TAX IMPOSED ON THE SALES, USE, RENTALS, ADMISSIONS AND OTHER TRANSACTIONS, AS PROVIDED IN THIS ORDINANCE, EXCEPT'AT THE SALES AMOUNT ABOVE $1,000 ON ANY ONE TRANSACTION SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS SECTION; PROVIDING FOR IMPOSITION OF TAX; TRANSACTIONS SUBJECT TO THE TAX AUTHORIZED IN THIS ORDINANCE; USE OF PROCEEDS; REFERENDUM REQUIRED; FORM OF BALLOT; ADMINISTRATION OF TAX; ESTABLISHMENT OF BRACKETS APPLICABLE TO ALL TRANSACTIONS; ADDITIONAL TAX; NOTIFICATION OF DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; STATE LAW SUPERSEDES; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida adopted Chapter 83-355, Florida Statutes, during the 1983 Session, providing for the discretionary imposition by each county of an additional one cent sales tax for one year only to fund local criminal justice facilities, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County now desires to exercise the discretion granted by the Legislature in adoption of this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT; SECTION 1 IMPOSITION OF TAX There is- hereby levied for the period beginning January 1, 1985 through December 31, 1985, an additional one percent tax on all transactions occurring in the County which are subject to the State tax imposed on sales, use, rentals, admissions and other transactions as hereafter provided in this Ordinance, except that the sales amount above $1,000 on any one transaction shall not be subject to the tax imposed by this Ordinance. SECTION 2 TRANSACTIONS SUBJECT TO THE TAX AUTHORIZED IN THIS ORDINANCE For the purpose of this Ordinance, a transaction subject to the tax authorized in this Ordinance shall be deemed to have occurred in Indian River County when: 62 1. The dealer is located in Indian River County and delivery occurs in Indian River County; 2. The event, for which an admission is charged, is located in Indian River County; 3. The consumer of utility, communication or wired television services is located in Indian River County; 4. The user of tangible personal property imported into Indian River County for use, consumption, distribution or storage to be used or consumed in Indian River County is located in Indian River County; provided, however, that it shall be presumed that tangible personal property used outside Indian River County for six months or longer before being imported into Indian River County was not purchased for use in Indian River County. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply in respect to the use or consumption of tangible personal property for use or consumption, upon which a like tax equal to or greater than the amount imposed by this Section has been lawfully imposed and paid outside Indian River County; 5. The real property which is leased or rented is located in Indian River County; or 6. The delivery of tangible personal property is to a location in Indian River County; however, the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply in respect to the use or consumption of tangible personal property upon which a like tax equal to or greater than the amount imposed by this Section has been lawfully imposed and paid outside Indian River County; 7. For the purpose of this Section, all taxable transactions occurring during the period for which any tax levied pursuant to this Section is in effect shall be subject to said tax, except utility, communications, or wired television services which are billed on a regular, monthly cycle. In the case of utility, communications or wired television services billed for a cycle ending on or after the effective date of any tax levied pursuant to this Section, the entire amount of the bill for utility, communications or wired television services shall be subject to the tax authorized in this Section. In the case of 63 SEP 5 1984 Boor. U-1lik -I �i9 SEP 5 1994 utility, communications or wired television services, billed for a cycle ending after the last day the tax authorized in this Ordinance is in effect, the entire amount of the bill for utility or wired television services shall not be subject to the tax authorized in this Ordinance. Charges for communications services which are subject to the State tax imposed pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, which are billed to a location in Indian River County shall be subject to the tax authorized by this Ordinance. 8. In the case of written contracts which are signed prior to the effective date of any tax authorized by this Ordinance for the construction of improvements to real property or for remodeling of existing structures, the contractor responsible for the performance of said contact shall pay any additional tax levied pursuant to this Ordinance. However, said contractor may apply for one refund of any such additional tax paid on materials necessary for the completion of such contract. Any application for refund shall be made no later than December 31, 1984. The application for this refund shall be in the manner approved by the Department of Revenue by rule. A complete application shall include proof of the written contract and of payment of the additional tax paid pursuant to an ordinance authorized by Florida Statutes §212.058. The application shall contain a sworn statement, signed by the • applicant or its representative, attesting to the validity of the .application. Any person who fraudulently obtains or attempts to obtain a refund pursuant to this paragraph shall, in addition to being liable for repayment of any refund fraudulently obtained plus a mandatory penalty of 100 percent of the refund, be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in S. 775.082, S. 775.083, or S. 775.084. 64 M M _ SECTION 3 USE OF PROCEEDS The proceeds of the tax authorized in this Section and any interest accrued thereto, shall be expended within Indian River County, or in the case of a negotiated, joint county agreement, within another county, to acquire, construct, extend, enlarge, remodel, repair or improve one or more publicly -owned, separate or combined, criminal justice facilities, or for the construction or alteration of any adjacent roads necessary to provide adequate access thereto. Neither the proceeds nor any interest accrued thereto shall be used for operational expenses- of any facility described herein. SECTION 4 REFERENDUM REQUIRED The levy of the tax imposed by this Ordinance shall only be implemented if approved by a majority vote of those qualified electors of Indian River County, voting in a referendum to be held in conjunction with the -1984 general election. Such referendum shall be advertised pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statutes, Section 100.342. SECTION 5 FORM OF BALLOT A statement conforming to the requirements of Florida Statutes, Section 101.161, detailing the facilities that are to be financed,' as authorized by this Ordinance and setting out the period during which the tax authorized in this Ordinance is to be levied., shall be placed on the ballot by Indian River County. Immediately following said statement on the ballot, the County shall place the following question; Do you favor financing criminal justice facilities with a one -cent sales tax for twelve months only? .... YES - for financing criminal justice facilities ....NO - against financing criminal justice facilities. 65 SEP 5 1984 BOOK 58 f'A,E171 SEP 51984 7 SECTION 6 ADMINISTRATION OF TAX The Department of Revenue shall administer, collect, and enforce the tax authorized under this Ordinance pursuant to the same procedures used in the administration, collection and enforcement of the tax otherwise imposed under the provisions of Chapter 212. The provisions of Florida Statutes Chapter 212 • regarding interest and penalties on delinquent taxes shall apply to the tax authorized by this Ordinance. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the "proceeds" of the tax authorized in this Ordinance shall be construed to mean all funds collected and received by the Department of Revenue pursuant to this Ordinance, including any interest and penalties on delinquent taxes. N-otwithstanding the provisions of F. S. 212.20, the proceeds of the additional, discretionary one -percent tax levied under this Ordinance, less the cost of administration, shall be transferred to a "Criminal Justice Facilities Tax Trust Fund," which fund is hereby created in the State Treasury for distribution as herein provided to the county in which the tax was collected. However, the amount deducted for the cost of administration shall not exceed a total of $1.5 million for all counties levying the tax authorized in this Ordinance. The amount deducted for the costs of administration shall be used only for those- costs which are solely and directly attributable to the tax authorized in this Ordinance. Prior to January 1, 1985, each county governing authority levying the tax authorized by this Ordinance shall certify to the Department of Revenue that it has entered into a contract for the purposes enumerated in subsection (3), and shall include therewith a schedule of disbursements required to satisfy such contract. The Department of Revenue shall disburse such funds in accordance with such schedule but not more frequently than monthly. Any funds on deposit in the trust fund created pursuant to this Section shall be invested pursuant to general law. M M M M M SECTION 7 ESTABLISHMENT OF BRACKETS APPLICABLE TO ALL TAXABLE TRANSACTIONS The following brackets shall be applicable to all taxable transactions which would have otherwise been five percent taxable transactions: 1. On single sales of less than ten cents, no tax shall be added. 2. On single sales in amounts from ten cents to 16 cents, both inclusive, one cent shall be added for taxes. 3. On sales in amounts from 17 cents to 33 cents, 'both inclusive, two cents shall be added for taxes. 4. On sales in amounts from 34 cents to 50 cents, both inclusive, three cents shall be added for taxes. 5. On sales in amounts from 51 cents to 66 cents, both inclusive, four cents shall be added for taxes. 6. On sales in amounts from 67 cents to 83 cents, both inclusive, five cents shall be added for taxes. 7. On sales in amounts from 84 cents to $1, both inclusive, six cents shall be added for taxes.. 8. On sales in amounts more than $1, six percent shall be charged upon each dollar of price, plus the above bracket charges upon any fractional part of a dollar. SECTION 8 ADDITIONAL TAX Any tax levied pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statutes, Section 125.0104, shall be in addition to the tax levied pursuant to this Ordinance. SECTION 9 NOTIFICATION OF DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Indian River County shall notify the Department of Revenue within ten -days of the approval of the .Ordinance levying said tax in the referendum required pursuant to Section 4 of this Ordinance and the time period during which the tax will be levied. 67 SEP 5 1984 BooK 58 enF 1 l J S E P 5 1954 rox 58 �' u174 SECTION 10 STATE LAW SUPERSEDES The provisions of this Ordinance shall be superseded by any changes adopted by the Legislature of the State of Florida to Chapter 83-355, Laws of Florida. SECTION 11 SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, it is the legislative intent that the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Section which can be given in effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the provisions of this Section are declared severable. SECTION 12 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this Ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Secretary of State of the State of Florida of official acknowledgment that this Ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this Sth day of September 1984. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By_ Don C. Scurlock, ., Chairman Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida, this 17th day of September , 1984. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State, received on this 21st day of September , 1984, at 11 A.M. /P.M. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPR&!PAL AS TO FORM AND ,A'flFFIC41NM : .: �fROPOSED ORDINANCE - TEMPORARY UTILITY PERMITS The hour of 11:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VER® BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vera 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 r �vrrici in the matter of in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of �a PUBLIC NOTICE The Board .of County.. Commission River "County, Florida,will con -du Hearing on September S, 1984, t 1 the Commission Chambers at the Cc istration Building, 1840 25th Street, Florida 32980, to consider the adopt din_anceentitled: i;. AN ORDINANCE" AMENDING MANCE NO. 72 -8, -SECTION 5, 1 <'-TUTING SECTIa 245 OF TH a sOF LAWS AND ORDINANCES ""IAN RIVER COUNTY; PROVIDI THE ISSUANCE OF -i4:-- AF Beach, ITY PERMITS NOT EXCEEDING 18 MONTHS IN ' DURATION; SEVERAOIL-- ".'AND EFFECTIVE DATE N any person decides to appeal ani -decision made on the above, matter, he/she will need a record of the.prooeedings-and fot-such 'pur- poses, he/she may need to ensure, that a verba- tim record of the proceedings Is made, which record Includes the testimony„ in evidence orl which the appeal isbased41 Indian River County Board of County Commissioners `. Don C.Scurlock Jr. Chairman Aug. 13, 19134. 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 o A 984 advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Cj Sworn to and subscri b ore m his day of A.D. 19 00 RECEIVED T_ 8001 L0 � COUNTY; / IVY~ • COMMISSION ERS (Business Manager) StS/ . him (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) Administrator Wright explained that the proposed ordinance is in response to a problem we have along SR 60, and in it we are trying to find some kind of mechanism to allow someone who is anticipating the arrival of County utilities not to have to go through the whole franchise process. This would not allow them to build something that does not meet health standards, however, and they would have to provide certain securities, etc. We S E P 5 1984 Boa 58 FnE 175 r S E P 1004 1 Boor 58 F'r Gr 176. Chairman Scurlock agreed that the intent of the ordinance is good but felt the administrative procedures must be developed very specifically so that we can be sure, in the event the County system does not happen, that we have an effective safe way of handling the waste. He expressed interest in the procedure recommended, but felt the proposed ordinance is too vague. Administrator Wright brought up the example of where a condo development is going in and we do not want them to have to put in a plant of their own and possibly only run it six months or a year until the County gets there. He noted that they then would have this large investment that serves no real purpose. The Chairman agreed we do not want to require someone to spend money unnecessarily, but we do not want to get into a situation where we end up with problems. Commissioner Lyons agreed we need to be more specific. He noted that if any temporary utilities are going to charge rates for anything they do, then he doesn't want to see rates that are going to be such that when we do take over, there will be "shellshock." Chairman Scurlock believed that if we have all the policies in black and white, we will have a lot less pressure. In this case we are anticipating a county plant, but there is the possibility someone might ask for the temporary permit based on some other alternative to a package plant. Administrator Wright felt the requirement of "receiving permanent service from the county within 18 months" is the key. Commissioner Lyons pointed out that there is no appeal provision. He also liked the idea, but felt it is too broad and that it should be tabled until it can be spelled out more completely. 70 M Attorney Paull noted that this hearing has been advertised and must be opened to the floor after which it can be continued to a time certain. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Ray Scent made the point that a developer has to comply with state law before you can give him a county permit; so, what he is doing is lawful. He felt what the ordinance actually does is give the county an ability to start taxing at an earlier date. Mr. Scent suggested the time specified in the ordinance should be 18 months from the time the first building is erected and not keep extending it. He actually saw no particular problem with the proposed ordinance. Administrator Wright confirmed that all it does is exempt someone from having to get a franchise, they still have to meet all applicable law. The Chairman and Commissioner Lyons continued to emphasize that more specifics are needed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) continued the public hearing until September 19, 1984, at 11:00 A.M. ,PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE PROHIBITING TRAIN HORNS AT CERTAIN HOURS The hour of 11:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 71 SEP 5 1984 a00K F-Acfl: 177 SEP 5 1984 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a �✓` C.C.S L T in the matter of -.47"w"', _z"YA ,w in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of 4, Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County,, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed efore 3t "7 day of A.D. 19 A j A (Business Manager) (SEAL) (c;lefk up III 2 C7bQt`C11'Vn-dian River County, Florida) BOOK 58 F.,Gc 178 PUBLIC NOTICE ' The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will conduct a Public Hearing on September 5, 1984, at 11:30 a.m. in the Commission Chambers at the County Admin- istration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, to consider the adoption of the Ordi- nance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROHIBIT-' ING THE SOUNDING OF RAILROAD::r:' TRAIN HORNS AND. WHISTLES BE•`' TWEEN TEN O'CLOCK P.M. AND SIX 0' - CLOCK A.M.; PROVIDING FOR PENAL- TIES; INCORPORATION IN CODE; AND_ _. SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE..'?'- - 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 verba- tim record of the proceedings'is made, which record includes the testimony in evidence on which the appeal is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners_' Don C. Scurlock Jr. Chairman Aug. 16, 1984. Assistant County Attorney Jim Wilson reported that the Legislature has provided the authority for the Board to effect such a ban and the statute went into effect in July. He continued that he has added a section allowing horns and whistles to be sounded in emergency situations and provided penalties, etc. This ban would only be in effect on guarded crossings. Commissioner Bird asked if this would be applicable only in the unincorporated area of the county, and Attorney Wilson felt it would be applicable in all areas unless a municipality should choose to exclude itself. Commissioner Lyons noted that the City of Sebastian has asked to be excluded. 72 _I Chairman Scurlock believed we should talk only about the unincorporated area and let the municipalities do what they wish in this regard. He believed the City of Vero Beach is indicating they do not want to take any action. Attorney Wilson felt the City did not have any position except that of suggesting that the horns should be blown until bar closing hours. Discussion continued as to how the ordinance would affect the municipalities, and Attorney Paull clarified that the County can adopt an ordinance that will be effective countywide if the municipality does not have an ordinance that is inconsistent with it. Chairman Scurlock noted that most of the train crossings are within the cities. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Joe Majewski, 2655 Tropical Avenue, informed the Board that he was a member of the Safety and Noise Abatement Committee of Vero Beach before that committee was disbanded. The proposed banning of the train horns was addressed several times, and he felt anyone has to be naive not to realize that when someone has it in their mind to go across the railroad tracks, they will go regardless of whistles, bells, gates, etc. As to whether the municipalities should be included, Mr. Majewski noted that this affects people on a countywide basis, and he believed that practically all the crossings are guarded. Fred Collison, Tropical Avenue, stated that he also was on the Noise Abatement Committee; primarily they were interested in noise from airplanes but they received many complaints about trains. He continued that they were instrumental in getting a noise ordinance passed for the City, but could never do anything about the airplanes or 73 SEP 5195 L-� Bou 58 FACE 179 SEP 5 1984 Boor 58 L -,-F ISO train whistles. Mr. Collison also felt this should be a countywide ordinance and urged that the Board adopt it. John Graham, 59 Woodland Drive, agreed with Messrs. Collison and Majewski. He stated that he felt it is a moral issue as well as a safety issue. There are thousands who suffer from these train whistles and have to go to work after losing hours of sleep. Nancy Offutt informed the Board that she had lived for some time in Winter Beach near Cemetery Road, and their home was close to the railroad. She felt that train whistles are for safety purposes and not meant to be melodious; although she personally found them nostalgic. Mrs. Offutt noted that while she lived in this location, she knew of at least four occasions when the crossing bars were out of operation. She further pointed out the hours during which it is proposed that the whistles be banned are those that provide the least visibility. Mrs. Offutt did not feel that train accidents are the way to get drunk drivers off the road, and she also did not feel that airplane noises can be compared to train whistles. Chairman Scurlock asked if there is any way the engineer knows if the crossing bars fail to operate. Mr. Graham said that he had an article wherein the train engineer stated he could always see the crossing and determine whether it was operative, unless, of course, it was on a curve. In rebuttal, he hoped the Board would not fail to pass an ordinance simply because of "nostalgia." Mr. Graham felt strongly that anyone who comes to a crossing and sees the lights, the gates, hears the bells, etc., and crosses is just foolhardy and can never be protected. Dan Richards, resident of Vero Shores, stated that he was representing the people of Vero Shores. He informed the Board that he presented a petition in support of banning the whistles at a preliminary hearing and now has a further 74 petition signed by people living in Commissioner Bowman's district. Mr. Richards submitted a petition with 17 signatures, which is on file in the Office of the Clerk. He continued that he lives probably a full mile from the nearest crossing and has trains wake him up every single night. He can hear them blow from Oslo 3h miles away, and he did not see why they have to blow the whistles that loud and long during the night. Ray Scent came before the Board stating that prior to the last hearing he had presented Chairman Scurlock with a petition in opposition to banning train whistles at any crossing at any time and that he now has 190 more signa- tures. Mr. Scent submitted the new petition to the Board and same is in file in the Office of the Clerk. He believed WTTB had brought out that the majority of people in the county are in favor of retaining the whistles. Mr. Scent then read from the petition the statement and letter as follows: WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DO HEREBY STATE THAT WE CONCUR IN PRINCIPLE WITH THE ARTICLE REPRODUCED HEREON AND RECOMMEND THAT LOCAL OFFICIALS.: AND AUTHORITIES TAKE NO ACTION THAT WOULD RESTRICT THE SOUNDING OF WARNING BLASTS AT RAILWAY CROSSINGS: AND'FURTHER, THAT IF SAID OFFICIALS AND AUTHORITIES DO CREATE ANY RESTRICTION OR PROHIBITION.,THAT THEY, AND THEY ALONE , BE HELD PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LIABILITY AND THAT :NO TAXPAYER FUNDS BE USED OR ALLOCATED FOR THEIR INSURANCE=� _ OR LEGAL DEFENSE. SEP 5 1984 75 BOOK 58 PAGE ISS 7 a tte'r'. Edit6r. ` ambulances make too much noise to an' intersection and 30 trains:a.*,. Better Noise as they pass by the sacred grounds day would generate a tonal interfer-1 of the Village Green ... and soon to ence of five minutes .. , certainly` Than Accidents be Vista Plantation. Everyone that shoat period of inconvenience '•'ditor, Press -Journal: �. knows that the airport should be of a 24-hour day is worth the avert-' re- This 18 In reference bills to the re- moved 20 miles west of town and it goes without saying that railroads Ing of a tragedy. The trains were here first. the ant letter concerning r stopping rains, horns (and other noise • should be abolished. planes were here first, U.S. 1 • and . Having been raised, and schooled. It is my opinion that any elected SR' 60 were here first and I do not:,:, In our wonderful little city by the representative or official who votes recall a mandatory draft of unwili- ;'. sea, and at times having lived closer to eliminate the train whistling at Ing citizens forced Into bondage and;: ; to the airport and railroad tracks intersections should be compelled brought into our fair city and coon;-� than the people making complaints, to pay into a fund to compensate ty. I have no alternative but to join in survivors when the crossing lights ; . Very sincerely, . the chorus with our friends from and bells fail to operate and a trag- Lifelong resident ' r.. `south of the border as they chant, edy ensues because the train can no And happy citizen., , "Yankee Go Home." longer signal its approach. Raymond Scent Let's move State Road 60 (the old The train whistle blasts consumes 1605 71st Court ; SR 30) because the . trucks, less than 1¢ seconds per approach Vero Beach .r., — elt...i&o a.- ,. f', .. • )..• .. .. . . . ... .r... .. r J SEP 5 1984 75 BOOK 58 PAGE ISS I SEP 5 1984 Mr. Scent emphasized the railroad is private property and belongs to the FEC. He agreed there are a lot of railroad crossings, but pointed out that the City of Sebastian already has sent the Commission a letter stating that they do not wish to be included in the proposed ban. Mr. Scent noted that he himself lived very close to the tracks for years; these whistles are a warning to the public, and he implored the Board to consider the safety of human lives. Since the only argument of the people opposing the whistles is that they can't sleep, he suggested they either use ear plugs or move. Mr. Graham felt the idea that the FEC owns the trains and the county can't regulate them doesn't make any sense. If we had a factory pouring out pollutants, he believed we could take steps to regulate them to protect the people. Mr. Graham contended that the public is fully protected by the guarded crossings. Commissioner Bird expressed concern about the person who comes up to a crossing where the gates are malfunction- ing. Mr. Graham noted that traffic signals can go out, and Chairman Scurlock agreed and pointed out that we have a tremendous liability. Mr. Graham did not believe the County would have liability for the crossing signals. Attorney Paull stated that the County would not have any liability for adopting the ordinance with respect to any individual railroad crossing. We have an individual agree- ment with the railroad for each crossing; the railroad owns the crossing property and is responsible for maintaining the signals in good order. Under most of those agreements, the County is required to regulate traffic if it is aware that there is a malfunction of the signal: If the railroad knows and does nothing about it, they have the liability. 76 Commissioner Bird noted that apparently Attorney Paull was saying that we would not be increasing our liability, and Attorney Paull stated that the county would have the same exposure we have today. Fred Cicala was appalled that there could be over 100 signatures on a petition against the proposed ordinance and wondered where those people live. He was very much in favor of the ordinance and wished to know if it required a certain number of signatures to get it passed. Chairman Scurlock informed Mr. Cicala that the Board has received petitions both for and against the proposed ordinance and neither is required. Don Shifflet of 42nd Avenue stated that he signed one of the petitions submitted by Mr. Scent opposing the proposed ordinance. Mr. Shifflet noted that for 25 years he lived by a railroad and also near an air force base. He believed there are necessary noises in our life which are for a real purpose and that we have to become accustomed to them. If we are going to address noise, Mr. Shifflet felt we must also consider things such as noisy mufflers, loud radios, etc., before we limit train whistles. He felt strongly that if just one life can be saved, it is worth it to blow the whistles at any and every crossing at all hours. Lewis Brine of 3045 10th Parkway stated that the train whistles are very annoying, and he did not see why it is necessary for some of the engineers to toot as many as four times at one crossing. If this blowing is necessary, he felt it should be possible to have some consistency in the way it is done. Mr. Brine further emphasized that it is possible to get past the crossing barriers and asked why we can't have double arm barriers and completely block the crossing. Administrator Wright reported that when we rebuilt 16th Street and went to a double lane crossing, we did go to a 77 S E P 5 1984 ao® 5 8 FA ,F 183 Fr - SEP Bou Crl rrh Ul. double arm barrier, and it cost $120,000 for the double crossing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner'Bowman for purposes of discussion, to adopt .an Ordinance with the understanding that the ordinance covers the whole county and that any municipality not wishing to be included would specifically have to ask to be excluded. Commissioner Bird commented that apparently he is lucky as he doesn't have the sensitivity to the noise that these people appear to, and he grew up in Fort Pierce near the railroad tracks. Commissioner Bowman stated that she lives within 1500' of the tracks and the train whistles never bother her; in fact, she rather enjoys them. She suggested that those who are bothered drink less coffee before they go to bed so they don't lie awake waiting for the next whistle. Commissioner Bird believed the majority of the complaints seem to come from the Vista Royale area, but he did not feel we can single out particular crossings. Discussion continued re city limits, jurisdictions, enforcement, etc., and Attorney Wilson stated that we must be consistent within our jurisdiction and cannot specify just certain crossings within that jurisdiction. The same would be true for the municipalities. Commissioner Bird asked if any governmental authority has approached the railroad in regard to limiting their 78 _I horn blowing, and Attorney Wilson was not aware of any that had. Chairman Scurlock questioned how the ordinance could be enforced, as he could not see who would decide whether an emergency situation had existed or whether there was an "unwarranted toot." He did not see why we couldn't approach the railroad company and ask for their cooperation in limiting the horn blowing at crossings during the hours suggested in the ordinance. Commissioner Bird suggested that this is especially needed in the south county area near Vista -Royale, but the audience disagreed loudly and insisted it is a problem from one end of the county to the other. COMMISSIONER LYONS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. Commissioners Bird, Bowman, and Chairman Scurlock voted in opposition, and the Motion to adopt the ordinance failed 1 to 3 The Chairman called for a short recess. The Board re- convened with the same members present and continued to discuss the problem of train whistles and the idea of advising the railroad of the strong feelings that exist in the community and asking for their cooperation in abating the noise. Commissioner Bird felt they should be informed we are contacting them in the spirit of cooperation rather than taking the step of enacting an ordinance. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) directed the Attorney's office to write the FEC as discussed above. 79 SEP 5 I9 i BOOK 58 Fa f 1,85 SEP 5 1984 BOOK 58 pnf 18 %ENDORSE PREVIOUS ACTION RE COMMUNITY SERVICES TRUST FUND The Board reviewed memo from the Director of Intergov- ernmental Relations and letter from the Department of Community Affairs, as follows: STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS DIVISION OF LOCAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT �` ver qtr O BOB GRAI IAM o Govemor ". • * . Mr. Ed Fry, Finance Director Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 1840 25 Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Frey: J01- IN M. DeGROVE Secretary The Community Services Trust Fund allocation for Indian River County has been oversubscribed. The maximum share available for the County is $6,423.00. The qualified applicants listed below have applied for a total of $9,423.00. A meeting to resolve this oversubscription will be held at the following time and place: September 11, 1984 at 4:00 PM Vero Beach Administrative Building 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida Applicants are: The City of Sebastian and the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners. Each applicant should send one voting representative to this meeting who is empowered to make budgeting decisions and changes. The above 'information was provided -to you by telephone on August 22, 1984. This letter confirms that conversation. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Danna Vaught at (904) 488-7541. SC/lb CS5:6.dv Sincer ly, usan M. Cook. Ph. D. Community Assistance Administrator BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE '571 EXECUTIVE'ENTER CIRCLE, EAST • TALLAHASSEE, FTORII)A 32301 0041 488 .7950 DIR 1 TO: DATE: FILE: Board of County Commissioners August 28, 1984 THRU: Michael Wright Administrator SUBJECT: FROM: L.S. "Tommy" Thomas REFERENCES: Intergovernmental Director of Relations On July 25, 1984 you endorsed an application for the Community Services Trust Fund grant in the amount of $6,423 to be_ divided equally between the Indian River County Council on Aging, Inc. and the Association for Retarded Citizens of Indian River County, Inc. Since that time the City of Sebastian has applied for $3,000 of this grant for a Handicap Awareness Program for the residents of Sebastian. I would like to call to your attention that the funding for the two organizations which you endorsed are county -wide and include the- residents of the City of Sebastian as well as the other municipalities in the county. It appears that the funding requested by the City of Sebastian will be used only for the benefit of the citizens of Sebastian. This grant has been equally divided between the two organizations you have endorsed for several years and staff recommends that you continue your support of these two organizations., Administrator Wright explained that historically the County has applied for and obtained this grant on behalf of the Council of Aging and the Sheltered Workshop. This year since there are three applying, it will go to arbitration. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to endorse the Board's previous action and empower the Administrator to work this out with the state on the basis that these funds were allocated as countywide funds and the third request is intended for one section of the county only. Chairman Scurlock noted that if we have the municipali- ties competing for these funds, they could end up being 81 pp SEP 5 9 BOOK 58 PAGE 107 SEP 5 1984 BOOK 5 split into amounts so small that no one would be able to accomplish anything. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0) /HIRE APPRAISERS FOR RAILROAD R/W ALONG SR 512 The Administrator reviewed the following memo: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: August 29, 1984 the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES: County Administrator FILE: Several months ago the Board of County Commissioners instructed staff to proceed with appraisals of the rail- road property parallel to State Road'512 in Sebastian. The staff, with assistance from owner Roland Miller, negotiated an appraisal price with Peter Armfield of Armfield-Houck Appraisal & Research, Inc. to perform an appraisal at a..cost not to exceed $5,500: *Mr. Armfield agreed to do the appraisal on a time and effort basis which could result in the price being less than the maxi- `- mum amount. It is recommended the staff be authorized to proceed with the appraisal at a cost not to exceed $5,500.: MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to authorize staff to proceed with the appraisal of the railroad property parallel to SR 512 in Sebastian at a cost not to exceed $5,500. Commissioner Bowman wished to know if this is a reason- able figure, and Administrator Wright explained that the 82 appraiser would be dealing with three different parcels of a good many acres, different zonings, railroad right-of-way agreements, etc., and it is a very complicated situation. He and Mr. Barton both agreed it was a reasonable figure. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0) DISCUSS STUDY TO DETERMINE CAPACITY OF CITY'S TREATMENT PLANT Chairman Scurlock commented that in view of the recent action of the City Council in regard to utility rates, he felt it might be better for the County to move ahead and get in the utility business from a variety of aspects. For one thing, we do not want to have to rely on the City, and he also believed we will see an increasing situation where pressure will be placed on unincorporated areas to be annexed in order to receive water and sewer service. He did not want our citizens forced into this position. Administrator Wright commented that we are looking at building something up north and something out west and that leaves the southern corridor, roughly east of Old Dixie and 20th Avenue down to General Development. The Administrator believed there is excess capacity in the Vero Beach plant and that we are entitled to it as it was built on a regional basis. Before we can finish our Master Plan, we must know what we can do with South County, i.e., whether we can get into the City plant or build another plant. If we could get into the City plant and reach some kind of agreement with the City, he felt that would be cheaper, but he did not know that it would be possible since the City had a study done by Lloyd & Associates, which said there is no capacity. He felt if we had our own study done as to capacity, we might have a stronger argument re getting into that plant. WK �oo� PNcF S E P 5 1984 �, SER. .5 1984 BOOK 190 Commissioner Bird pointed out that the City has the plant, but the Administrator felt that they are operating a federally funded plant. Chairman Scurlock noted that the study done by Lloyd & Associates anticipated the entire City of Vero Beach being sewered. He agreed that we can argue whether that is a correct premise, but believed we would be going through a bloody war for a possible answer at some point in time, and he was almost of the opinion that the possibility of cooperation does not exist. Also there is the annexation issue. He did, however, agree with the Administrator that we have a right to the plant which is federally funded. Administrator Wright felt we are down to the point where we must make a decision as to whether we want to lock horns and fight or build our own plant. Commissioner Lyons noted that we have a limited staff and to lock horns and fight would be both costly and time consuming. He did not believe it would be worth the fight. Administrator Wright emphasized that we need to tell the sewer consultant who is working on our Master Plan whether or not to go ahead on the assumption that we will have to build a plant. Commissioner Bird stated that he did not feel comfort- able with either begging or forcing our way into the City's plant. Com. Lyons and Administrator Wright did not feel it should be referred to as the "City's" plant and suggested it just be called the plant rather than their plant. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to in- struct the consultant that we do not expect to use the Vero Beach sewer plant as a part of our overall plan. W M M Administrator Wright felt that eventually this will cost the rate payer more money, but neither Commissioner Lyons nor the Chairman felt he could make that statement. The Administrator explained that he meant the debt costs will be greater. Commissioner Bird wished it clarified that what we are talking about would relate to not using the plant other than utilizing the amount we have been allocated. Administrator Wright felt what the Board is saying is that when we build a plant, we are going to reverse that flow; it is going to come out of the City because we are going to need it. Chairman Scurlock believed it may put us in a better bargaining position if the City of Vero Beach feels they are relieved of what they seem to think is a liability. He felt what we are saying is that we still think we have a moral right to that plant and more capacity, and we will continue to pursue it in a gentlemanly fashion. Commissioner Bird noted that it appears what we are saying is that our consultant should assume we will not go into the Vero Beach plant and should come up with Plan B, which will probably go into General Development or to a new plant. He wished to know how long the agreement re the effluent we presently are putting into the Vero Beach plant is good for. Administrator Wright stated that it is good forever. The allocation is closed, but the duration of the agreement is open ended. Chairman Scurlock asked if we have the ability to shed the load and say "thank you, we don't need the capacity." Administrator Wright agreed that we can put it someplace else and pointed out that the force main we are designing out of Ixora or Treasure Coast is reversible and M SEP 5 1984 sno pr,r 713 MP O ,�..1 � w c BOOK 58 F,�f 192 it is also big enough that we can handle a lot of waste. It is our option to stay in there or withdraw. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. RESOLUTION 84-59 - ESTABLISHING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The Board discussed changes to the proposed resolution, and Commissioner Lyons suggested that Item 4. on the first page read "A representative of other industry." Commissioner Bird suggested that we should have a representative of labor rather than another industry, and Chairman Scurlock commented that he was thinking of someone from the manufacturing industry. After further discussion, it was felt that Item 4 should specify a representative of non -construction industry such as Piper, Rampmaster, Hetra, etc. Under Section 4. Administration, Clerical/Legal, Com- missioner Lyons felt rather than stating the Committee will be given "the necessary staff" to perform its duties, it should state reasonable assistance will be provided. Commissioner Bowman pointed out that we have no one representing labor, and discussion ensued regarding the size of the committee. After further discussion, it was generally agreed to leave it at 9 and see how it works out. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Resolution 84-59 establishing the Economic Development Advisory Committee. _I RESOLUTION No. 84-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PROVIDING FOR ITS FUNCTION, DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES; MEMBERSHIP, AND TERM OF OFFICE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, has determined that agriculture, tourism, urban and industrial development are vital to the economy of Indian River County and to the welfare of the present and future residents of our community, and WHEREAS, it is now necessary and desirable to establish an advisory committee to make recommendations to improve the competitive position of this county and to enhance economic activity by attracting manufacturing, industrial _development and business in order to provide a stronger, more balanced, and stable economy and to promote opportunities for gainful employment in the county, while safeguarding, through pollution control and a strong comprehensive planning approach, the health and safety of the residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION 1. CREATION OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE. There is hereby created the Indian River County Economic Development Advisory Committee with such responsibilities and with the membership as set forth in this resolution. SECTION 2. MEMBERSHIP AND TERM OF OFFICE. The membership of the Committee shall be appointed for the term set forth below by the majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners and shall be composed of interested residents of Indian River County with background or expertise in the following areas; 1. A civic representative (one-year term), 2. A representative of the Board of Realtors (one-year term), 3. A representative of the construction industry (one-year term), 4. A representative of non -construction industry (two-year term), SEP 5 1984 -1- Boa 8 4'�'u 19 SEP 5 198eoox F ;� 1.94 5. A representative of the financial community (two-year term), 6. A representative of the Chamber of Commerce (one-year term), 7. A representative of the County Commission (two-year term), 8. A representative of agri-business (two-year term), 9. A representative of land development interests (two-year term), 10. Such ex officio, nonvoting members as shall be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, who shall serve at the pleasure of the Board. SECTION 3. RESPONSIBILITY AND FUNCTION OF COMMITTEE. 1. The function of the Committee shall be advisory in nature. All recommendations and advice from the Committee shall be transmitted directly to the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The Committee shall make recommendations on the processing, prioritization, and propriety of all applications for industrial development revenue bonds in Indian River County. 3. The Committee will endeavor to identify industries and businesses that will be beneficial to Indian River County and advise the County Commission on methods of enhancing the chance of such industries and businesses locating in the community. 4. The Committee will work with the Chamber of Commerce in broadening the economic base of the community. -5. The. Committee will consider the potential of country -wide advertising and promotional campaigns. 6. The Committee will endeavor to assist industry and business in finding locations within this county in conformance with the County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. 7. The Committee shall undertake such other tasks as shall be assigned from time to time by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County. SECTION 4. ADMINISTRATION, CLERICAL/LEGAL. The County Administrator, the County Attorney and Secretary to the Board shall provide the Committee with reasonable assistance to perform its duties. 88 7-7 I The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman and, being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Vice Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Absent Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 5th day of September , 1984. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF - INDIAN > RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By �� c Don C. Scurlock, Jr,, Chairman Attest: Freda••Wrighq Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL C/ ,�pV RESOLUTION - AWARDING $2,050,000 IMPROVEMENT BONDS 'e Attorney Paull explained that this is a Resolution that awards the Bonds relative to the 60 Water Line and authorizes the Board to take the steps necessary to complete the transaction and execute the necessary documents. He informed the Board that the blanks re "Index" and "Interest Rate Limit" should be filled in with 10.17% and 11.67% respectively. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Resolution 84-60 awarding the $2,050,000 Improvement Bonds as above. SEP 5 198 aoox ��5 J _ SEP 5 1984 BOOK RESOLUTION NO. 84-60 A RESOLUTION AWARDING $2,050,000 IMPROVEMENT - BONDS, SERIES NO. ONE, OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AT NEGOTIATED SALE TO THE PURCHASER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DA'L'E. WHEREAS, a resolution (hereinafter called "Resolution") of the Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter called "Governing Body") of Indian River County, Florida (hereinafter called "Issuer"), duly adopted on July 11, 1984, authorized the issuance of not exceeding $2,050,000 Improvement Bonds, Series No. One (hereinafter called "Bonds"), to provide for the acquisi- tion and construction of certain water distribution improvements in the unincorporated area of the Issuer; and WHEREAS, the Bonds were validated and confirmed -by final judgment of the Circuit Court., Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Indian River County, Florida, and the appeal period has expired; and WHEREAS, the complex character of the issuance of the Bonds requires lengthy and detailed structuring which could be unreasonably restricted by the lack of flexibility at public sale; and WHEREAS, special assessment bonds normally do not generate sufficient interest in the municipal bond market to justify offering them at public sale; and WHEREAS, a negotiated sale of these Bonds will result in the most favorable bond financing plan and is in the best interest of the Issuer; and WHEREAS, the 20 "Bond -Buyer" Average Yield Index (hereinafter called "Index") published immediately prior to the first day of the month during which this resolution was adopted was 10.17 and WHEREAS, 150 basis points above the Index is 11.67 0, which rate is the statutory interest rate limit (hereinafter called "Interest Rate Limit") applicable to the Bonds; and WHEREAS, Florida National Bank, Jacksonville, Florida 90 (hereinafter called "Purchaser"), has offered to purchase X2,050,000 of the Bonds at the price of par, resulting in an average net _nterest cost rate less than the Interest Rate Limit, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE 13OARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA: . SECTION 1. AWARD OF BONDS. $2,050,000 aggregate prin- cipal amount of the Bonds are hereby awarded and sold to the Purchaser at the price of par. SECTION 2. NECESSARY ACTION. The proper officers of the Issuer are hereby designated agents of the Issuer in connec- tion with the issuance of the Bonds, and are authorized and empowered, individually or collectively, to take all action and steps and to execute and deliver any and all instruments, docu- ments or contracts on behalf of the Issuer which are required by the Resolution and/or are necessary and desirable in connection with the execution and delivery of the Bonds, and which are not inconsistent with this resolution and any other action relating to the Bonds. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. Th-I.s resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Adopted: September 5, 1984 The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Bird who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lyons and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman Aye Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman Aye Richard N. Bird, Commissioner Ave William C. Wodtke, Jr., Commissioner Absent Margaret C. Bowman, Commissioner Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 5th day of September, 1984. 91 BOOK K. j,.,r 197 _I SEP 5 1954 } BOOK 58 FAGF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By G DON C. 5 BLOCK, J Chairman Attest:'Sa iW'§_"CT FREDA WRIGHT, CYjork APPROVED AO FORM AND LEGAL SU IENCY A" By (7. BRANDENBU G nty Attor IOTRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT Commissioner Lyons reviewed the following Summary: TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE Summary of Actions August 14, 1984 1. County Road 507 Realignment: The Committee recommended to include in the five-year plan, the realignment of CR507 through Fellsmere to Myrtle Street, due to anticipated future traffic. 2. Intersection Study - 20th Avenue at 8th Street: The Committee accepted staff recommendation to improve intersection -safety: a. Southern Bell to relocate telephone boxes,, b. prohibit parking along the northwest corner, and c. work to relocate vegetation out of the right-of-way on the northeast corner. 3. Intersection Study - 26th Street at 43rd Avenue: The Committee accepted staff recommendation to maintain existing two-way stop control due to insufficient traffic volumes or recent accident history to warrant either a four-way stop or signalization. 4. School Speed Reduction Beacons: The Committee selected three school sites for installation of beacons during FY 84-85. These are Citrus Elementary, Middle 6/7 and Sebastian River Middle. 5. Signalization - 41st Street at 43rd Avenue: The Committee directed staff to install the planned traffic signal as soon as possible, using FY 83-84 funds. 92 � � r Commissioner Lyons felt that the County Attorney is working on an ordinance to give us a little better control on things that limit visibility at intersections. He further noted that there has been another accident at So. Gifford Road (41st St. at 43rd Ave.) but the signal is in the works and he believed the blinking lights are very visible. He did feel there is a problem with an orange tree on the corner that limits visibility, but we are trying to do something about that. ✓APPOINTMENTS TO ALCOHOL, DRUG ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL The Board reviewed memos from Commissioner Wodtke, as follows: TO: DATE: FILE: Board of County Commissioners August 29, 1984 SUBJECT: Appointments to the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Planning Council FROM: ' lliam C. Wodtke, Jr. REFERENCES: There are five appointments to be made today by the Board to this Council. Liz checked with Ken Bray's office (H.R.S.) regarding the filing of financial disclosure forms, and was informed that he had not received a definite answer from the State Ethics Commission, but that everyone was 99% sure that financial disclosures were not necessary. Mr. Bray or a member of his staff will contact us when they get a definite answer from the State. The five appointments to be approved by the Board today are set -out as follows: One County Commissioner I will serve if the Board so wishes One Representative from the School System I have contacted Dr. Harry Hurst, Director of Exceptional Education to serve, and he has agreed W BOOK �$: k Fr - SEP 5 1984 BOOK � F„ rF 2fl� Three appointments from the resumes received The resumes should be reviewed to locate people with expertise in each of the following areas: Mental Health; Alcohol; and Drug Abuse It is important when reviewing the resumes that neither the applicant or spouse, works for or serves on a Board of an agency, that receives funding from H.R.S. TO: Board of County Commissionei�`TE: August 30, 1984 FILE: FROM: Bill Wodtke SUBJECT: Appointments to the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Planning Council REFERENCES: In reviewing the applicants, the following people appear to have been involved in the three areas of concern; alcohol, drug abuse and mental health. I have listed them in order of my preference. 1. Suzanne E. Whiddon, ARNP 2. Warren Winchester 3. Edmund W. Cannon 4. William R. Quillen My next four choices are as follows: John Y. Ma, M.D. Narda J. Riese, Ph.D Grace Pennington Surber, Ph:D Patricia W. Gibbons The Chairman opened the floor to nominations, and discussion ensued as to how each Commissioner would present their preferences. Commissioner Bird stated that he hoped we would be able to find a cross section of expertise. The Chairman stated his only concern is that on boards such as these where there is professional expertise, it sometimes occurs that they get involved in the day to day administration, which he does not feel is necessarily good. 94 Commissioner Lyons reported that he had interviewed Dr. Dirkash and he has all around experience including police surgeon and emergency room. He felt we have a big problem dealing with the emergency room treatment of these people. Commissioner Bird noted that Dr. Dirkash has only lived here about a year, but maybe that is a plus. He expressed his interest in Warren Winchester who has experience with planning and managing major facilities for treating alcohol- ism and drug abuse. Commissioner Bird also suggested Edmund Cannon. The Board considered Dr. Stephen Dirkash, Warren Winchester, Edmund Cannon, Dr. John Ma, and Suzanne Whiddon, who had been recommended by Commissioner Wodtke. Upon polling the members of the Board, it was determined that Commissioner Lyons, Commissioner Bird and Chairman Scurlock favored Dr. Dirkash and Warren Winchester, and Commissioners Lyons, Bird, Bowman and Chairman Scurlock voted for Dr. Ma. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) appointed the following to the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Planning Council: 3 appointees: Warren Winchester Stephen Dirkash, M.D. John Y. Ma, M.D. Rep. of School System: Dr. Harry Hurst County Commissioner: Com. William Wodtke Commissioner Bird expressed the wish that the three appointees could attend the next Commission meeting in order that the Board might become acquainted with them all. 95 SEP 19811BOOK 8 FA, 201 -I S E P 5 1984 BOOK 58 Frq.�E 202 /RESOLUTION RE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ANTITRUST ACT OF 1984 COR A?PD COO �'.M NTy. �Cnn_ fRS The Board reviewed the following letter from the NACO: c'r �DFCEjV£D N 440 First St. NW, Washington, DC 20001 2093-6226� p/Ugust 9, 1984 Dear County Official: e t� DISTRIBUTION LIST Commissionersy Administrator Attorney Public Works Community Dev. Utilities Finance N4 0� Other On Wednesday, August 8, 1984, the House of Representatives passed legislation which removes your personal liability for damages under federal antitrust law. The legislation, H.R. 6027, "The Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984," also prohibits the assessment of money damages against your county, and would provide the same pro- tection to many of the private contractors or special purpose districts which provide services on behalf of your county.. The House passage of this legislation is a major victory for counties. Earlier this year, a federal district court assessed a $28,5 million judgment against Lake County, and the Village of Grayslake, Illinois over their decision to turn down a developer's request for sewer hookup to a regional sewer system. Several county and village officials are personally liable for the judgment. NACo has made liability a priority issue for this Congress. We have worked long and hard to move Congress to correct the problem. Through our efforts, both Judiciary Committees in the House and Senate developed legislationto provide protection from .monetary damages. We succeeded in defeating an attempt by the powerful cable tele- vision and utility industries to pass legislation which would hold local governments, and their officials, responsible for actual damages, and would.have applied only to all future cases. If such legislation had passed, the Lake County officials would remain subject to an $8.5 million judgment. I have enclosed a-factsheet which provides more detailed information on this subject. Though the House has concluded action on its bill, our efforts now turn to the Senate. We need all of your support to seek final action on this bill. Our fact - sheet provides information on the actions you need to take. If you have any questions on this issue, please contact me, or our Intergovern- mental Affairs lobbyist, Linda Church Ciocci. Sincerely you Ma th w B. y Executive Director Commissioner Lyons clarified that the House passed a Bill which did a pretty good job of screening the County Commission from Anti Trust action. There is a Bill before the Senate now which is nowhere as favorable as the House M M M Bill. We did sometime ago send a resolution to both the Senate and House asking for consideration; since the House Bill has been passed, however, and it is the kind of Bill we want, Commissioner Lyons felt we ought to send another resolution to the Senate asking them to pass a Bill as restrictive as the House Bill. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to direct the County Attorney to prepare a Resolution as discussed above and bring same back to the Board. Chairman Scurlock expressed concern that this does not let municipalities, etc., totally off the hook. Attorney Paull explained that this just reduces the remedies available and removes the liability of elected officials; it does not eliminate all remedies. Commissioner Lyons felt the Board members should take a look at the Bill that passed and use it in the Resolution and also double check with the NACO to determine when is the best time to pass the resolution. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0). 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. 11963 - 12181 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 97 S E P 5 1954 BOOK 58 fL, a. SEP 5 1984 BOOK 5$ Fnr. ?,9 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 4:00 o'clock P.M. Attest: Clerk 98