HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/10/1984Wednesday, October 10, 1984
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, October 10, 1984, at 9:00 o'clock A.M.
Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B.
Lyons, Vice Chairman; William C. Wodtke, Jr., Margaret C.
Bowman, and Richard N. Bird. Also present were Michael J.
Wright, County Administrator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to
the Board of County Commissioners; L.S. "Tommy" Thomas,
Intergovernmental Director; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy
Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Pastor Ed Lovelace, Minister of Youth First Church of
God, gave the invocation and Chairman Scurlock led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
There were no additions to today's Agenda.
Attorney Brandenburg requested the deletion from
today's Agenda of Item 18C - Request authorization to pay
costforphotographs of defendant exhibits.
Administrator Wright requested that Item 12 -
Discussion regarding cost to set up Sheriff's Marine Patrol
- be postponed until next week's meeting of October 17th.
Chairman Scurlock asked that Item 15 - South County
Fire District Hydrant Maintenance Fee - be moved up on the
Agenda and discussed immediately after the South County Fire
District meeting scheduled for 9:05 A.M.
OCT 10 1984 BOOK 58 FI r,
-0 558
Fr -
OCT 101984
_I
BOOR 58 r� ,F55.9
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board
unanimously.deleted and postponed the above
items as requested.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Scurlock asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of
September 10, 1984. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board
unanimously approved the Minutes of the
Special Meeting of September 10, 1984, as
written.
Chairman Scurlock asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
September 12, 1984.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out the word "not" should not
be a part of the 12th line of the second full paragraph on
Page 44. The sentence should read, "Although he did feel
that the Board made a commitment to Congressman Nelson ..."
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board
unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular
Meeting of September 12, 1984, as corrected.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Bird requested that Item E be removed from
the Consent Agenda for discussion.
0a
J A. Report
Received and placed on file in the office of the Clerk:
General Development Utilities, Inc., Statement of
Earnings (8) Months Ended August 31, 1984
V B. Final Plat Approval - Grove Park Manor Subdivision
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/1/84:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 1, 1984
of the Board of County FILE:
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR
GROVE PARK MANOR SUBDIVI-
Robert M. Keat ng,- ICp OBJECT: SIGN
Planning & Development Director
THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried
Chief, Current Development Section
FROM: Stan Boling �t �� REFERENCES: Grove Prk.
Staff Planner ` DIS:STAN
It is requested that the following information be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on October 10, 1984.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Grove Park Manor is a 10 lot, ±6.1 acre subdivision, located on
the south side of 22nd Street, west of 47th Avenue. The site
is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential (6.2 dwelling
units/acre), and has a LD -1, Low -Density Residential (3 dwell-
ing units/acre), land use designation. The project's proposed
density is 1.6 dwelling units/acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The applicant is in conformance with all applicable County
ordinances, including the County's Subdivision Ordinance 75-3.
The use of individual wells and septic tanks has been approved
by the Environmental Health Department. A Stormwater Manage-
ment Permit has been issued by the County Engineer. All
on-site construction and improvements have been completed and
also have been approved. All staff recommendations concerning
the subject property have also been addressed by the applicant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval to Grove Park Manor Subdivision.
3
OCT 10 1984 BOOK 8 FA,GE 560
J
IF" -OCT 10 1984
BOOK 58 FA,GE 561 1
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
granted final plat approval for Grove Park Manor
Subdivision.
/ C. Release of Easement - Roseland Gardens Subdivision -
Manfred G. Meidel
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/26/84:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 26, 198FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: RELEASE OF EASEMENT
REQUEST BY MANFRED G.
tszj�.a.UBJECT: MEIDEL - SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Robert M. Keati g, PI�rCP LOTS 15, & 16, BLOCK 2,
Planning & Development Director ROSELAND GARDENS SUBDIVI-
SION
rhief,
OUGH: Larry W. Burkhart
Code Enforcement Department
FRt Dav s REFERENCES: M. Meidel
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 October 10, 1984.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Manfred G. Meidel, owner of
the subject property, for release of the common side lot 5 foot
easement of Lots 15 and 16, Block 2, Roseland Gardens Subdivi-
sion, these easements being the Northwest 5 feet of Lot 15,
Block 2, and the Southeast 5 feet of Lot 16, Block 2 Roseland
Gardens Subdivision, found in Plat Book 8, Page 25. These lots
are 80 feet in width and 125 feet in depth.
It is Mr. Meidel Is intention to consolidate the two lots and
construct a single family residence on the site.
The current zoning classification is R-1, Single Family Res-
idential. The land use designation is LD -2, Low Density
Residential, up to six units per acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power &
Light Company, Jones Intercable, and the Utility and
Right -of -Way Departments. Based upon their review, there were
no objections to release of the easement. The zoning staff
analysis, which included a site visit, showed that drainage
would be adequately handled by the existing front and rear
swales.
4
It is the zoning staff's opinion that to release the common
side Lot 5 foot utility and drainage easement, being the
Northwest 5 feet of Lot 15, Block 2, and the Southeast 5 feet
of Lot 16, Block 2, Roseland Gardens Subdivision, would have no
adverse effect.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a resolu-
tion, the release of the common side lot 5 foot utility and
drainage easement, being the Northwest 5 feet of Lot 15, Block
2, and the Southeast 5 feet of Lot 16, Block 2, Roseland
Gardens Subdivision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
By Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 84-93, approving release of
the common side lot 5 ft. easement of Lots 15 and
16, Block 2, Roseland Gardens Subdivision, as
requested by Manfred G. Meidel.
5
OCT 10 1984 BOOK 5� F,A:,E 56f
r4
OCT 10 199
RESOLUTION NO. 8 4 - 9 3
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, have been requested to release the comanon side lot 5
foot easement of lots 15 and 16, Block 2, Roseland Gardens Subdivision,
according to the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book 8, page 25, of the
Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of
Roseland Gardens Subdivision for public utility purposes, and
WHEREAS, the request for such release of easements have been
submitted in proper form;
NOW, TMUMORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
CONbaSSIONERS OF IRIDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot line
easements in Roseland Gardens Subdivision shall be released, abandoned and
vacated as follows:
The ca=n side lot 5 foot easement of lots 15 and 16, Block 2,
Roseland Gardens 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 8, Page 25.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board
of County Coninissioners 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 10th day of nctoher , 1984.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF Indian RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA
BY: / G
Don Scurlock, Jr., Cha
ATIEST:"
P-reda W#ght:, ClerU.
ML,roved as orm
anti legal Cie
Ga
IiI � /a'•. ...
M
_I
D. Request for State to resurvey the Coastal Construction
V , r,( p
Control Line O'to°f f'^
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/1/84:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 1, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
REQUEST FOR STATE TO RE-
SURVEY THE COASTAL CON -
SUBJECT: STRUCTION CONTROL LINE
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICPWREFERENCES: Cont. Line
Planning & Development Director DIS:RMK
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of October 10, 1984.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and Management Plan
requires that local governments within the study area and
various state agencies undertake certain implementing -activ-
ities. While Indian River County has taken action on most of
the implementation activities, there are still several areas in
which the County must take action.
One specific policy in the Hutchinson Island Plan states that
"The Counties shall request the State to review and reestablish
the coastal construction control line not less than once every
five years or following major storm events". The purpose of
this policy is to ensure that the location of the CCCL will be
changed, when warranted, to reflect the constantly changing
coastline of a dynamic barrier island system.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The staff has prepared a draft letter from the Chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners to the State Department of
Natural Resources requesting that the CCCL be resurveyed as
soon as possible and then, after that, at least once every
three years or following major storm events. Taking such
action will result in further compliance by the County with the
requirements of the Hutchinson Island Plan. In addition, such
action and the resulting survey will ensure that the CCCL is
periodically re-established to reflect changing conditions.
On September 26, 1984, the Beach Preservation Committee con-
sidered this issue. At that time, the Committee unanimously
recommended that the County Commission initiate the request,
and the Committee further specified that the CCCL surveys
should be conducted on a three year basis, and not every five
years as required by the Hutchinson Island Plan.
For those reasons, the staff feels that the Commission should
request that the state undertake a new survey of the CCCL.
7
OCT 10 19W4 BOOK 5 (9 FA,U 564
OCT 101984 BOOK
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize the Chairman to sign the attached letter requesting
that the State Department of Natural Resources resurvey the
existing CCCL in Indian River County as soon as possible and
then resurvey the line on a periodic basis, but not less than
_once every three years or after major storm events.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized the request for the State to resurvey
the Coastal Construction Control Line and
authorized the Chairman's signature on the
following letter to the Department of Natural
Resources.
September 21, 1984.,
Mr. Elton Gissendanner
Executive Director
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
M. S. Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Dear Mr. Gissendanner:
As you know, the Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and
Management Plan requires that the counties within the study
area request the State to review and reestablish the coastal
construction control line not less than once every five years
or following major storm events. At this time, I formally
request that the Department of Natural Resources undertake such
review and reestablishment action for Indian River County's
portion of the barrier island as soon as possible. Furthermore,
I would request that similar action be undertaken on a periodic
basis, but not less than once every three years.
Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated. If
any questions arise or if any further information is required
in order for your department to act upon this request, please
contact Bob Keating, Indian River County Planning and Development
Director, at (305) 567-8000.
Sincerely,
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Don C. Scurlock, J
Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Est
F. Community Services Block Grant Housing Rehabilitation
JProgram - Modification of Agreement to Contract bo_ �
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/2/84:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: October 2, 1984 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
Through: Michael Wright
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Comrnmity Services Block Grant
Housing Rehabilitation Program
Modification of Agreement to
Contract # 84 BG 58-10-40-01-066
FROM: EdwardJ, an REFERENCES:
Executive ector
IRC Housing Authority
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Countv Commission.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The State of Florida's Department of Community Affairs had funded the
1984 Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program and our pro -rated share
was $6,295. The Indian River County Housing Authority is the non-profit
subgrantee for the Indian River County Board of Commissioners and the pro-
gram under this grant provides rehabilitation consulting services which
activates rehabilitation funding from governmental sources.' This program
began April 1, 1984 through September 30, 1984.
The Farmers Home Administration Section 504 program provides housing
rehabilitation loans and grants to low-income and elderly persons who lack
the money to make their homes safe and sanitary.
This 1984 program is targeted in the School District of Wabasso and
15 low-income and elderly owners will have their homes brought up to safe
and sanitary standards.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
This is our second funding under legislation passed by Congress which
consolidated various social programs into the block grant categories.
Personnel problems within the Farmers Home Administration on the local
level have delayed the review processing and funding of our rehab cases
for 90 days. The FmHA has assured us that the situation has been corrected
and the program will be brought to a successful conclusion within the
extension.period.
RECOMMENDATION:
We respectfully request the County
Chairman to execute the Modification of
Florida's Community Affairs Department.
Commission to authorize its
Agreement with the State of
This program will bring about the improvements in safety and sanitation
for 15 homeowners with an average cost of $2,800 per unit. The $6,195 Grant
plus $1,832 of cash and in-kind contributions by the Housing Authority will
be supplemented with $40,000 in loans and grants from the Farmers Home
Administration.
This program extension requires no additional County funds.
9
OCT 10 1984 BOOK $ F�,,F 566
OCT 10 1984 BOOK 58 F,�,J.567
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved the Modification of Agreement to
Contract #84 BG 58-10-40-01-066, and
authorized the Chairman's signature.
CONTRACT NO. 84BG-58-10-40-01-066
MODIFICATION NO. 01
DATE September 28, 1984
MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
AND
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
GRANTEE
The agreement for the period April 1, 1984
to
September 30, 1984 between the Department of Community Affairs and the
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS _ bearing the above contract number is
modified by mutual agreement of the parties as follows:
Clause 3 a of the Community Services Block Grant Agreement is
hereby amended as follows: The ending date of September 30, 1984
is extended to December 31, 1984.
Clause 15 a of the Community Services Block Grant Agreement is
hereby amended to read: "A Modification Narrative for October 1,
1984 through December 31, 1984 is attached hereto and incorporated
by this reference as Attachment A".
All other provisions of the contract not in conflict remain in full force
and effect.
Effective this 30th day of September, 1984.
FOR THE GRANTEE FOR THE DEPARTMENT
BY: �� G BY:
,'-Author.ized ignature Authorized Signature
Chairman.`� odrd of County Commissioners
T;.tle Title
ATTESTED BY:' ATTESTED BY:
10
E. IRC Bid #221 - (2) New 1985 Refuse Container Trucks
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/26/84:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Sept. 26, 1984 FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC BID #221 - (2) NEW 1985
County Administrator REFUSE CONTAINER TRUCKS
FROM: (tea -4-e 7C REFERENCES:
Carolyw'Goodrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received, September 21, 1984 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC BID #221 -
(2) New 1985 Refuse Container Trucks for the Refuse Department.
25 Bid Proposals were sent out, 17 Bid Proposals were received.
2. Alternatives and Analysis
All bids came in over the $55,000.00 budgeted for each truck. After review
of all bids it has been determined the lower bids did not meet specifications
as written.
'13. Recommendation
Staff recommends that bids for IRC #221 be rejected and to rebid the trucks
after revising the bid specs.
Commissioner Bird hoped that there would be some
communication between Purchasing and the persons who will be
running this equipment as the County has a tendency to use
heavy equipment over a long time and, therefore, a piece of
equipment that costs significantly more initially may be the
best choice overall.
Administrator Wright advised that he had looked into
this matter and recommended that it be rebid.
Intergovernmental Relations Director Tommy Thomas
explained that after receiving so many high bids, the
opinion was that we should change our specifications. What
happened is that we relied too much on prior specifications
11
OCT 10 1984 By 58 F°,'F
OCT 10 1994 BOOK 58 569
and things have changed since then. Director Thomas hoped
that the new specs will enable us to get quite a few new
bids and emphasized that all the bids received were over
what was appropriated.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
rejected the bids for IRC #221 and instructed
the Purchasing Dept. to rebid the trucks after
revising the bid specifications.
PROCLAMATION - 25TH BIRTHDAY OF INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY
COLLEGE
Chairman Scurlock read aloud the following proclamation
and presented it to Dr. Ray Lunceford, Mueller Center
director.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that the college's
outstanding sports achievements and awards were not included
in the proclamation and expressed the Board's
congratulations to the college for their successful athletic
programs.
12
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, Indian River Junior College was treated
by an Act of the Florida Legislature in 1959 and opened
in 1960; Indian River Junior College and Lincolg Junior
College were accredited by the State in 1965, and the
two colleges were merged in 1966; Indian River Junior
College became INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE in 1970;
and
WHEREAS, enrollment of INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY
COLLEGE has grown from 169 students and a faculty of 10•
members in 1960 to an estimated 6,500 students and a
faculty of 125 members in 1984; and the school's
physical facilities in St. Lucie County have multiplied
and have been expanded into Indian River, Martin and
Okeechobee Counties with greatly increased curriculums
for its students; and
WHEREAS, many INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE
students have attained academic excellence, scoring
among the highest grade point averages at State
colleges and universities and have distinguished
themselves in many career fields and community
services, making the residents of this four -county area
extremely proud of the outstanding reputation INDIAN
RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE enjoys in the educational
advancement of students; and
WHEREAS, INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE declared
that there will be a year-long celebration in
observation of the TWENTY-FIFTH BIRTHDAY OF INDIAN
RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE, and began their Silver
Anniversary events- with a kickoff ceremony honoring
thirty-seven of its founders on Sunday, September 9,
1984;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
that the year, September 1984 through August 1985, be
designated as:
"INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE'S 25TH ANNIVERSARY YEAR"
and urge our citizenry to participate in Indian River
Community College's Silver Anniversary Festivities and
show appreciation for the many accomplishments of INDIAN
RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE.
ATTEST:
Freda Wright, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: �... C
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
13
OCT 10199
BOOK 58 PA;E 570
OCT 10 1984
-'NORTH AND SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICTS
The Board of County Commissioners recessed at 9:14
o'clock A.M. in order.that the District Board of the North
County Fire District might convene. Those Minutes are being
prepared separately.
The Board reconvened at 9:15 o'clock A.M. and
immediately recessed in order that the District Board of the
South County Fire District might convene. Those Minutes are
being prepared separately.
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 9:20
o'clock A.M. with the same members present.
v/HYDRANT MAINTENANCE FEE - SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/3/84:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: October 3, 1984 FILE:
The Board of County Commissioners
4
THRU: Terrance G. Pinto SUBJECT: SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICTS
Utility Service Director HYDRANT MAINTENANCE FEE
FROM: JosephfBaird REFERENCES:
Assistant Utility Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Indian River County Utility Department installs, replaces, and maintain
all fire hydrants on the County System. Under an agreement dated -
August 10, 1980, between the City of Vero Beach, Indian River County;
and the South County Fire District, the Fire District has to pay a
$75.00 maintenance fee annually for each fire hydrant owned by the
respective parties. On May 4, 1984, Indian River County Board of
County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 84-18 setting the Utility's -_-
policies, rates, and charges. In Ordinance 84-18, the fire hydrant
maintenance fee increased from $75.00 to $150.00.
Presently, we bill the South County Fire District a hydrant maintenance
fee at the end of the fiscal year. Indian River County has presented
the Fire District with a bill equal to $150.00 per fire hydrant.
Mr. Nason on behalf of the South County Fire District has taken excep-
tion to being billed $150.00 per hydrant. The Utility Department is
requesting Indian River County Board of County Commissioners make a
determination as to the amount to be charged to the South County Fire
District for fire hydrant maintenance in the 1983/84 fiscal year.
14
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSES:
1. Charge the Fire District a fire hydrant maintenance fee of $75.00
for the entire 1983/84 fiscal year. This would compute to $17,400
based on the 232 fire hydrants the County presently maintains.
2. The Fire District would be charged $75.00 per hydrant through
May and from June on be charged $150.00 per hydrant. This would comput
to $23,142 for the 1983/84 fiscal year.
3. Charge the Fire District the full $150.00 per hydrant for the
entire 1983/84 fiscal year. This would compute $34,800 based on the
232 fire hydrants the County presently maintains.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners select one of the
above alternatives.
Administrator Wright presented the alternatives in the
above memo.
Financial Administrator Tom Nason noted that the South
County Fire Advisory Committee had not made a recommendation
on this matter.
Administrator Wright recommended that the fees be
pro -rated from the effective date of the ordinance, which is
approximately two weeks after adoption by the Board, and Mr.
Nason agreed that alternative #2 is the fairest option.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved Alternative #2, as recommended by
the County Administrator.
V PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE 32.7 Irk
GJ m �
4",
O k ACRES FROM COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO MULTIPLE -FAMILY DISTRICT
cb�
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:
15 BooK 58 Fn1jF572
OCT 10 1984
OCT 10 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 z
in the matter of
in the �C/ourt, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of o7D l a
44) a, /1"6/
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
(SEAL)
A.
D. 19
BOOK 58 FADE 1 •
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing initiated by Indian River
County to consider the adoption of a County or-
dinance rezoning land from 0-1, Commercial
District, to R-213, Multiple -Family District. The
subject property is located South of 87th Street,
East of Low's Park Subdivision and North of 85th
Street (Wabasso Road/C.R. 510).
The subject property is described as:
The South 660' of the BE % of Section
29, Township 31S, Range 39E, lying
Easterly of the eastern boundary of
Low's Park Subdivision, Unit I, per plat
thereof recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 27,
Public Records of St. Lucie County, Flor7,.
Ida. Said land now lying and being in In
than River County, Florida
A public hearing at which parties in interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be ;
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1849 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, Oct-
ober 10, 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 pur-
poses, he/she may need to ensure that a verba-
tim record of the proceedings is made, which In-
cludes testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal Is based.
Indian River County
i. Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Don C. Scurlock Jr.
Chairman
Sept 20, Oct. 2, 1984.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/24/84:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 24, 1984 FILE:
Of the Board of
County Commissioners
COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:' TO REZONE 32.7 ACRES FROM
�t� , C-1, COMMERCIAL DISTRICT,
SUBJECT: TO R -2D, MULTIPLE -FAMILY
Robert M. Keati g, A. P DISTRICT
Planning & Development Director
F, S
FROM: Richard Shearer, Chief, Long- A
RangePlanniAEFERENCES: CHIEFICP t. ZC-073
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of October 10, 1984.
16
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The County is initiating a request to rezone 32.7 acres located
on the north side of Wabasso Road (County Road 510) and west of
Rings Highway from C-1, Commercial District, to R -2D,
Multiple -Family District (up to 6 units/acre).
On June 6, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners rezoned 42.5
acres, located west of the subject property, from C-1 to R-1,
Single -Family District (up to 6.2 units/acre). At that time,
the Board excepted the subject property from that rezoning, at
the request of the owner, with the understanding that the
property would be considered instead for rezoning to an
appropriate multiple -family district.
On August 23, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -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 and the land north of it, is undeveloped.
West of the subject property are single-family residences in an
R-1, Single -Family District. South of the subject property are
single-family residences and duplexes in R-1, R-2, and C-1
zoning districts. East of the subject property is a vacant
commercial building, vacant land, and a house in a C-1
district. Further east is a flea market, a vacant industrial
building, and residences in an M-1, Restricted Industrial
District.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and
all the property north, east, and west of it as LD -2,
Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The land south
of the subject property, across Wabasso Road, is designated as
LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). In
addition, there is a 150 acre commercial/industrial node
located at the intersection of Wabasso Road and U.S.l. Much of
the land east of the subject property will be included in the
node. Rezoning the subject property to R -2D would provide a
buffer between the commercial and industrial uses to the east
and the single-family residences to the west.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to Wabasso Road
(classified as an arterial street on the County's Thoroughfare
Plan). The maximum development of the subject property under
the proposed R -2D zoning would generate approximately 1,177
average annual daily trips.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a floodprone area.
17
BOOK 58 P'GF 5 d 4
J
�
OCT 10 1994 BocK 58 pmC.575 1
TTi-i 1 4 a-4 --
County water and wastewater facilities are not available for
the subject property.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning,
presented staff's recommendation to rezone the 32.7 acres
located on the north side of Wabasso Road and west of Kings
Highway from Commercial District to Multiple -Family
District.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked
if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were
none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 84-69, rezoning 32.7 acres
from Commercial District to Multiple -Family
District.
18
ORDINANCE NO. 84-69
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 South 660' of the SE 4 of Section 29, Township 31S,
Range 39E, lying Easterly of the eastern boundary of
Low's Park Subdivision, Unit I, per plat thereof recorded
in Plat Book 1, Page 27, Public Records of St. Lucie
County, Florida. Said land now lying and being in Indian
River County, Florida.
Be changed from C-1, Commercial 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 10tlday of Dctober
1984.
BOARD OF COUNTY'COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: J�
DON C. S RLOCK, J
Chairman
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of
Florida this 17 day of Oct. , 1984.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 19 day of Oct. , 1984, at 11-L.M./P.M. and
filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY.
.7BRANDENBUR�ounty Attorney
OCT 101994 BOOK 58 �fF 576
OCT 10 1904 Boa 58 F'':;E 577
PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO REZONE 107.1
ACRES FROM PLANNED BUSINESS DISTRICT TO MULTI -FAMILY
DISTRICT ,j?-(, cg o'" fI ;
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:
VER® BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of I /«iI %/1��/✓��
in the
lished in said newspaper in the issues
Court, was pub-
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 3 day of &"' A.D. 19
(Buss ss nager)
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian Rivr ounty, Florida)
20
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
Notice. of hearing initiated by Indian River
County to consider•the adoption of a County or-
dinance rezoning land from B-1, Planned Busi-
ness District to R-21),' Multiple -Family District.
The subject property is located North and South
of State Road 60 (20th Street), West of Ranch
Road (82nd Ave./C.R. 609) and East of 88th
Avenue.
The subject property is described as:
Lots 1-10 and 15-24 inclusive, Block P;
Lots 5-22 Inclusive, Block O;
Lots 1-10 and 15-24 inclusive, Block K;'
Lots 5-22 inclusive, Block J;
Lots 1-10 and 15-24 inclusive, Block G;
Lots 1-26 inclusive, Block H
Lots 1-10 inclusive, Block B;
Lots 1-13 Inclusive, Block A, Paradise
Park, Unit No. 2, according to the plat
thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 77,
Indian River`County Records; said land
lying and being in Indian River County,
Florida. -.
11 TOGETHER WITH;,
'lots 15-24 Inclusive, Block B.
Lots 14-26 Inclusive, Block A;
Lots 1-10 and 15-24 inclusive, Block G;
Lots 1.26 inclusive, Block H;
Lots 1-10 and 15-24 inclusive, Block K;
Lots 1-26 inclusive: Black J; Paradise
Park, Unit No. 1, according to the plat
thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 72;
Indian River County Records, said land
lying and being In Indian River County,
Florida.
TOGETHER WITH:
The East 20 acres of the West 30 acres
I of Tract 7: the. West 30 acres of Tract 10;
the South 4 acres of the West 10 acres of
Tract 10; and the West 15 acres of Tract
9;_all lying In Section.A Townsh"ig33S
-Range 38E; according to the plat of
lands of Indian River Farms Company as
recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 25, as re-
corded by the Clerk of St. Lucie County,
Florida. Said land nowly in and beingni
Indian River County, Florida.
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 Commission-
ers of Indian River County, Florida, in the County
Commission Chambers of the County Atlminis-
tration Building, located at 1640 25th Street,
Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday. October 10,
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 pur-
poses, he/she may need to ensure that a verba-
Um record of the proceedings is made, which in-
cludes testimony and evidence upon. which the
appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: s -Don C. Scurlock Jr.
Chairman
Sept. 20, Oct:3, 1984.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/28/84:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE:September 28, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: TO REZONE 107.1 ACRES
FROM B-1, PLANNED BUSI-
SUBJECT: NESS DISTRICT, TO R -2D,
MULTI -FAMILY DISTRICT
Robert M. Keatin , AZCP
Planning & Development Director
FROM: Kev
REFERENCES:
Richard Shearer, AICP ZC-083
Chief, Long -Range Planning CHIEF
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of October 10, 1984.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The County is initiating a request to rezone 107.1 acres
located on both sides of State Road 60, east of 88th Avenue,
and west of 82nd Avenue, from B-1, Planned Business District,
to R -2D, Multiple -Family District (up to 6 units/acre).
This request is part of the administrative rezoning process to
establish zoning districts consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. The subject property contains part of Paradise Park
Subdivision. Individuals who own lots in Paradise Park have
been unable to build residences because of the present B-1
zoning.
On August 23, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
3 -to -1 to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be =resented. The analysis will include a
description of the c=rrent 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 qualm.
Existing Land Use P -_tern
The subject property consists of single-family residences,
mobile homes, and undeveloped land. Approximately half of the
subject property is glatted. The remaining part is unplatted
and generally in pa= --els of five -to -ten acres in size. North
of the subject prope-ty is another part of Paradise Park
Subdivision which c=tains single-family residences and vacant
lots zoned R-1, Sin. 'e -Family District (up to 6.2 units/acre).
East of the subject =roperty is a mobile home park on the north
side of S.R.60 (zoned B-1) and undeveloped land on the south
side of S.R.60 (zonei,A, Agricultural District). South of the
subject property is Tillage Green mobile home park in an R-1MP,
Mobile Home Park Di-rict. West of the subject property are
two houses, a gift _-op, a beauty shop, a strip shopping
center, the Days Iw Motel and undeveloped land zoned B-1 and
C-11 Commercial Di_=_ict.
21
®Ci 101904 BOOK 8 u -N 578
Future Land Use Pattern
BOOK 58 Fr ,F 57'.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and
the land north, south, and east of it as MD -1, Medium -Density
Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre). The Comprehensive Plan
also designates a 300 acre commercial/industrial node at the
intersection of I-95 and S.R.60. The land west of the subject
property can be included in the node. However, the subject
property is east of the commercial uses concentrated around the
I-95 and S.R.60 intersection and should be rezoned consistent
with the MD -1 land use designation.
The B-1 zoning district requires front yard setbacks of 75 feet
and side and rear yard setbacks of 15 feet each. When these
setbacks are applied to the 50' x 100' lots in Paradise Park,
it leaves a buildable area of 10' x 20' or 200 square feet.
The small buildable area of these lots, combined with the fact
that most of these lots do not have frontage on Highway 60,
makes the lots unsuitable for commercial development allowed
under the B-1 zoning.
The R -2D zoning district is consistent with the MD -1 land use
designation and would allow property owners to develop their
land for single or multiple -family housing. Currently, there
are a number of parcels of land in the State Road 60 corridor
which are zoned R -2D. The R -2D district seems to be the most
appropriate zoning district for this area.
Transportation System
Some of the subject property has direct access to S.R.60
(classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan).
The remaining parts of the subject property have access to
local roads which feed into S.R.60. The maximum development of
the subject property under R -2D zoning would generate 5,250
average annual daily trips (AADT). Under the current B-1
zoning, the maximum development of the subject property could
attract up to 40,494 AADT. This amount of traffic is
approximately double the capacity of State Road 60 and is more
than four times the current 9,500 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 presently served by County water
nor wastewater facilities. However, the County has immediate
plans to extend water lines along the State Road 60 corridor to
I-95. In addition, the County plans to provide wastewater
facilities for the State Road 60 corridor in the near future.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
22
Chairman Scurlock made the following letter a part of
the record:
Lattergram
Date: 1
To:
Froi
Subject: 21
age
CC:
�
. .1 A �; e v �- -;, � �dl.. :
23
OCT 10 1984 aooK 58 F-AGUF580
< y
W. I
:.
CC:
�
. .1 A �; e v �- -;, � �dl.. :
23
OCT 10 1984 aooK 58 F-AGUF580
< y
W. I
FF" -OCT
101984
BOOK 58 f''k E M-1—
Planner
-6
Planner Richard Shearer noted that eight lots should
not have been included in the first advertisement for the
rezoning hearing and this was corrected in the second
advertisement. He pointed out the location of the eight
lots on a map of the area.
Commissioner Wodtke thought that in the past we had
established that commercial zoning extended to 82nd Avenue
from I-95, and asked how large the node is at 82nd Avenue.
Mr. Shearer reported that staff feels a neighborhood
node has been established at the intersection of 82nd Avenue
and SR -60 as there are a few commercial uses that are
grandfathered in and a few commercial uses have been granted
since then. He advised that if we go further east we would
have to increase the size of the node, which is presently
6-8 acres.
Commissioner Wodtke brought up the area between 82nd
and 90th Avenue on the south side of the road.
Mr. Shearer felt there would be a 1/4-1/2 mile stretch
on the south side of SR -60 in that area which would be
devoted to multiple family use. He did not think there ever
would be sufficient demand to warrant commercial.
Commissioner Bird asked where the Holiday Inn was in
relation to the subject property and also the entrance to
Village Green, and Mr. Shearer pointed those out on the map.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked
if anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Michael Garavaglia, attorney representing Dominic
Lettiere who owns land on the south side of SR -60, stated
his client's opposition to the rezoning. He took exception
to three reasons given by staff in their recommendation of
the rezoning:
1) That individuals who own lots in Paradise Park cannot
build because of the setback requirement in the present B-1
24
zoning. He pointed out that no one from Paradise Park is
present today to speak for or against the rezoning.
2) That the subject property is east of the commercial
concentrated around the I-95 & SR -60 intersection and,
therefore, should be rezoned consistent with the MD -1 land
use designation.
3) That there are a number of parcels of land along the
SR -60 corridor which are zoned R -2D, and it seems to be a
more appropriate zoning for this area. He did not see any
reasons set forth by staff as to why it is the most
appropriate.
Attorney Garavaglia pointed out several commercial uses
in the area: a Zippy Mart, a truck stop, a rundown family
inn, and a truck brokerage operation. He did not see any
practical reason for this property to be rezoned to R -2D,
because it is squeezed between commercial on the west and on
the east and asked that the Board deny this request.
Chauncey Hatch, owner of approximately five acres of
land on the south side of SR -60, also spoke in opposition to
the rezoning to R -2D. He pointed out that the property has
been zoned B-1 for years and has been used for B-1 for the
last 3-4 years. He leases out property to a truck broker
who resides on the premises with his family. It was Mr.
Hatch's opinion that it is very unfair to rezone the subject
property.
Dave Shippers, who leases the property from Mr. Hatch,
was concerned that he might not be able to stay in business
if the property were rezoned.
Gregory Gore, attorney representing Ann Fitzpatrick,
who is the owner of the land immediately abutting lots
1,2,3,5 and 21-26 inclusive in Paradise Park, expressed
opposition to the rezoning. He felt the rezoning did not
make sense as this property adjoins commercial property, and
that a commercial or industrial node would be a more
25
OCT 101904 Bw 8 582
OCT 10
1984
BooK 58 Pr: GE
5.83 .
favorable use.
He believed that rezoning this property
would be comparable to the confiscation of one's property
and urged the Board to deny the request for rezoning.
Commissioner Bird recalled that when the Comp Plan was
adopted, the feeling was that we did not want the westerly
entrance into Vero Beach to be one big commercial strip. He
noticed that several large multi -family developments have
been built along that stretch since then.
Attorney Gore pointed out that most of the property in
question is composed of small parcels which are unsuitable
for multi -family developments.
Dominic Lettiere, trustee for a piece of property in
the area, stated he was opposed to the rezoning for the
reasons mentioned here this morning. He stated that he also
wished to retain the tranquility, serenity and beauty of
Vero Beach, but felt it is unreasonable to expect R -2D to
develop in this area in view of the commercial/industrial
node at SR -60 and I-95.
Clara Lybrand, local resident, explained that she and
her late husband purchased a 5 -acre tract located on the
south side of SR -60 and also some property on the west side
of the property in question. She wished to request
exemption from the rezoning of their 5 -acre tract and if the
Board does not see fit to do that, then asked that they
exempt the north 735 feet and allow it to remain B-1. She
understood there would be a one-year delay to have the
rezoning changed back to commercial. She recalled that she
and her late husband and the Thomases bought this property
just because it fronted on SR -60, and they had the good
foresight to realize that commercial would develop in that
area and it would be a good investment.
Rivers Anderson, owner of property in the area, was not
familiar with the 75 ft. setback in this area.
26
Mr. Shearer stated that Mr. Anderson's property is not
part of the property that is being proposed for rezoning; he
confirmed that B-1 does require a front yard setback of 75
ft. along any highway right-of-way line.
Mr. Anderson stated that he is also in the real estate
business and could understand why strip commercial zoning
was discouraged , but never would he envision this area from
82nd Ave. to I-95 as anything other than commercial. He
further noted that the multiple family zoning does not allow
for duplexes unless they are built on more than one or two
lots', and most of the ownerships in Paradise Park are in one
or two lots except in the first block off SR -60. Therefore,
the owners in Paradise Park are not really being helped by
this rezoning. Mr. Anderson hoped that the Board would
consider restricting the proposed rezoning on the north side
of SR -60 to property north of the first block in Paradise
Park and let the present zoning remain on the south side of
SR -60.
Aubrey Sapp, owner of four lots on the north side of
SR -60, pointed out that back when he purchased his property,
people could build a house on commercial property. His
property included a house and had 100 ft. frontage on SR -60.
When they 4-laned SR -60, they took off 6" of his 110' lot,
which left him with less than the amount the County required
for a 2 -bedroom house, but he was allowed to continue living
there. He since has moved to Georgia, but complained that
there is no way to rent the house without converting it into
an office of some sort, and he has been unable to sell it.
He recalled that when it was rezoned from C-1 to B-1, the
County agreed they would work with him if he could get some
sort of small business in there. Now, he would really
appreciate it if the Board would continue to work with him
by retaining the B-1 zoning.
27
0 CT 16 1984 BOOKS F}{:c
OCT 10 7984
Boa 58 FAPF:585
Andy Davison, 4105 Shoreland Drive, proposed that in
order to solve some of these problems that instead of
rezoning this land, it could be used for a golf course.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Lyons was in accordance with trying to
keep SR -60 from being strip zoned from one end to the other.
After listening to the issues this morning, however, he did
not feel that he has the whole picture of how the area is
zoned between Kings Highway and I-95.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed it is a complicated
situation and that additional dialogue is needed.
Commissioner Bird thought he was ready to concede
commercial from I-95 east to 82nd Ave. to a limited depth on
the south side of SR -60 and perhaps on a portion of the
north side, but here again, we are voting against staff's
recommendation for rezoning.
Chairman Scurlock thought that the buck really stops
here and it seemed to him that these public hearings bring
out the truth.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that if the Board denies
this rezoning request, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan would
have to be amended to be consistent with the zoning and that
brings it to the January lst amendment schedule.
Commissioner Bird thought that we could draw the line
at 82nd Avenue because there are only a few pieces that are
zoned commercial east of 82nd to Kings Highway.
Director Keating stated he would have a map made of the
zoning for the entire section of SR -60 from I-95 to Kings
Highway.
After further discussion, Attorney Brandenburg
suggested that this public hearing be carried over to next
28
week's meeting of the Board of County Commissioners in order
for staff to prepare maps showing present uses from I-95 to
Kings Highway.
Chairman Scurlock explained to those people in
attendance that the Board does not wish to cause them any
inconvenience in having them come back, but it is agreed
that further information is needed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
continued the Public Hearing on this rezoning
request until the next regularly scheduled
meeting, .(October 17, .19B4) at 10:00 A.M.
and instructed staff to do the necessary legwork
and prepare exhibits so the Board can picture this
area more clearly.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING
o
FRUIT AND VEGETABLE JUICE EXTRACTION VJ •�,>T_,��'-�'`��`��
The hour of 9:45 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 in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a MAZ
in the matter of c gj
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the Issues of
&) a 1,9,gv
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 subscpged tyfore day of A.D. 19
(SEAL)
(BujfnesA/l4anager)
29
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
')'JO CONSIDER ADOPTION
OF COUNTY ORDINANCE • t
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Indian
River County Board of County Commissioners,
shall hold a public hearing at which parties in in-
terest and citizens shall have an opportunity to
be heard on October 10, 1984, in the County
Commission Chambers located in the County
Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida, at 9:45 a.m. or as soon thereafter
as may be heard, to consider adoption of an or-
dinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF ; t
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN - --_
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING _
THE ZONING CODE, ORDINANCE 71-3
AS AMENDED, KNOWN AS APPENDIX A
— ZONING — OF THE CODE OF LAWS'
AND ORDINANCES -OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY; PERTAINING TO FRUIT AND
VEGETABLE JUICE EXTRACTION AND
PROCESSING OF FRUIT AND VEGETA-
BLES; CREATING DEFINITIONS; ES-
TABLISHING FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
JUICE EXTRACTION AS A SPECIAL EX-
CEPTION USE IN THE HEAVY COM-
MERCIAL, LIGHT MANUFACTURING,
AND RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL DIS-
TRICTS; ESTABLISHING FRUIT AND
VEGETABLE PROCESSING AS A SPE-
CIAL EXCEPTION USE IN THE RE-
STRICTED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT;
REDESIGNATING THE LETTERING AND
NUMBERING OF PARAGRAPHS AND
SUB -PARAGRAPHS OF THE LIGHT .�
MANUFACTURING DISTRICT; CODI- I
FICATION; SEVERABILITY; REPEAL OF
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; AND EF-
FECTIVE 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-i
poses, he/she may need to ensure that a verba -i
tim record of the proceedings is made, which in-
cludes testimony and evidence upon which thei
appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Don C. Scurlock Jr. j
Chairman
Sept. 20, Oct. 2, 1984.
BOOK 158 F'{GE 596
OCT 10 1904
I
BOOK 58 FACE 587
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/14/84:
TO: The Honorable Members
of -the Board of
County Commissioners
DATE: September 14, 1984 FILE:
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
AMENDMENT TO ZONING
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE CONCERNING
Robert M. Keatin , CP FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
Planning & Development Director JUICE EXTRACTION
FROM:hard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Z Amend.
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 October 10, 1984.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The County staff has had many discussions during the last year
with the Planning and Zoning Commission and Code Enforcement
Board concerning the definition of fruit and vegetable process-
ing and the proper zoning districts in which it should be
allowed. During these discussions, it was determined that the
County should differentiate between fruit and vegetable juice
processing and fruit and vegetable juice extraction.' It was
found that most businesses are simply squeezing fruit to
extract juice and are not performing large-scale processing to
completely transform fruit from one form to another.
Additional discussion considered whether or not this juice
extraction could be located in zoning districts other than the
M-1, Restricted Industrial District.
On September 13, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this amendment.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
Based on the discussions regarding processing and juice ex-
traction held during the last few months, the Planning Depart-
ment has prepared a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed amendment provides definitions for fruit and
vegetable processing and fruit and vegetable juice extraction.
The amendment also designates fruit and vegetable juice ex-
traction as a special exception use in the C-2, Heavy Commer-
cial District, the LM -1, Light Manufacturing District, and the
M-1, Restricted Industrial District.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
30
Planning & Development Director Robert Keating
explained that even after three workshops, staff could not
determine when exactly extraction was an accessory use, how
much juice can be squeezed, how large the equipment should
be, or whether juice had to be sold from the site only. He
pointed out that these commercial use issues must be
resolved before the new zoning code can be completed. This
amendment, however, will not affect those establishments
that have juice extractions as an accessory use. This just
relates to principal uses of either extraction or
processing.
Commissioner Wodtke asked who is going to determine
what a "large scale" industrial activity constitutes, as
defined under Fruit & Vegetable Processing on Page 1 of the
proposed ordinance, and Director Keating suggested that
"large scale" be deleted from that definition.
Director Keating stated that it is staff's feelings,
and those of the Planning & Zoning Commission, that a
separate use of juice extraction does not fit in the general
commercial district, but could fit into other zoning
districts besides industrial, such as heavy manufacturing or
agricultural.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Meeting and asked
if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were
none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 84-70, amending Zoning Ordinance
71-3 concerning fruit and vegetable juice
extraction, with the change as noted by Director
Keating.
31
CT 10 1984 BOOK 58 FA,E 588
-OCT 10 1994
BOOK 58 F'. cE5'89
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 84-70
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE,
ORDINANCE 71-3 AS AMENDED, KNOWN AS APPENDIX A--ZONING--
OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
PERTAINING TO FRUIT AND VEGETABLE JUICE EXTRACTION AND
PROCESSING OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLES; CREATING DEFINITIONS;
ESTABLISHING FRUIT AND VEGETABLE JUICE EXTRACTION AS A
SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE IN THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL, LIGHT
MANUFACTURING, AND RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS;
ESTABLISHING FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROCESSING AS A SPECIAL
EXCEPTION USE IN THE RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT;
REDESIGNATING THE LETTERING AND NUMBERING OF PARAGRAPHS
AND SUB -PARAGRAPHS OF THE LIGHT MANUFACTURING DISTRICT;
CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS; AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
SECTION 1
Section 2 of Ordinance 71-3, as amended is hereby amended
to read as follows:
SECTION 2 DEFINITIONS
FRUIT & VEGETABLE JUICE EXTRACTION: An activity that entails
squeezing fruit or vegetables with the specific end product
being fruit or vegetable juice
FRUIT & VEGETABLE PROCESSING: An industrial activity resulting
in fruit or vegetables being changed from one form to another.
Processing will generally include subprocesses such as the
addition of other• substances and will result in specific
products such as juice concentrate, pectin, and other by-
products.
32
SECTION 2
PARAGRAPH (a) of Section 20.1 of ordinance 71-3, as
amended is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 20.1 C-2 HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
(11) Fruit and vegetable juice extraction and fruit and
vegetable packing houses. (not including processing
plants) .
Section 21 of ordinance 71-3, as amended is hereby amended
to read as follows:
*CODING: Words in struek-tkreegh-type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
SECTION 21 LM -1 LIGHT MANUFACTURING DISTRICT
(c) Special Exceptions. The following uses may be
permitted by the County Planning and Zoning Commission after
site plan approval according to Section 23 and -any other
applicable provisions of the Code of Laws and Ordinances:
(1) Fruit and vegetable juice extraction.
-(-c-} (d) Building height limit. No building or structure
shall exceed forty (40) feet in height. (Ord. No. 74-27,
1-15-75)
-(&d (e) Standards. Since the size and nature of the
uses permitted may vary widely, no minimum size lot or floor
area shall be required. Instead, vard setback
shall be used to attain an industrial park -like atmosphere
keeping in mind future expansion needs. (Ord. No. 74-27,
1-15-75)
-E-)- (f) Lot coverage. No principal building or
structure and its accessory structure, except for parking lots,
shall occupy more than forty (40) percent of the lot. (Ord.
No. 74-27, 1-15-75)
4 )- (9) Front yard. Every lot shall have a front yard
or street yard of not less than twenty-five (25) feet in depth.
(Ord. No. 74-27, 1-15-75)
33
OCT 10 1984 BOOK 58 DU 590
OCT 10 1994 BOOK 59 PAGE 5,91
-4)- (h) Rear yard. Every lot shall have a rear yard of
not less than twenty (20) feet in depth. (Ord. No. 74-27,
1-15-75)
-(-h}- (i) Side yards. A side yard shall be provided on
each side of every lot of not less than ten (10) feet in width.
(Ord. No. 74-27, 1-15-75)
-(-may- (j) Parking regulations. Off-street parking spaces
shall be provided in accordance with the requirements for
specific uses as set forth in Section 24 of this ordinance.
(Ord. No. 74-27, 1-15-75)
*CODING: Words in stuck -:-#.ape- are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
SECTION 4
Paragraphs (A) and (B) of Section 22 of Ordinance 71-3, as
amended are hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 22 M-1 RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
4A} (a) Uses Permitted. In this district a building or
premises may be used only for the following purposes:
I
(2) Maintenance, repair, reconditioning, cleaning,
transportation, utilities, printing, cooking, fart
-Ve94&tRb-le pa-G"n,(5 and..or_ pr-eeess,ing-, packaging
and processing, testing, light manufacturing and/or
assembling and operations.
34
M M M
4-B+ (b) Special Exceptions. The following use may be
permitted by the County Planning and Zoning Commission after
site plan approval according to Section 23 and any other
applicable provisions of the Code of Laws and Ordinances:
(5)
Fruit
and
vegetable
juice extraction.
(6)
Fruit
and
vegetable
processing.
SECTION 5
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the
Board of County -Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida
which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of
the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of
Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such
conflict.
*CODING: Words in strJ=Jc th - type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
SECTION 6
INCORPORATION IN CODE
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated
into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the
sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to
accomplish such intentions.
35
OCT 10 1984 Boor, 58 PAGE 592
OCT 10 1,984 8001. 58 PAGE 593
QL 0MTnW 7
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or
word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be'unconstitu-
tional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the
remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have
been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such
unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
CVrTTnV A
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective
upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of. State 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 Uthday of_Qt.,W.J984.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By:
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR..
Chairman
Acknowledgment of the Department of State of the State of
Florida this 24th day of October , 1984.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 26th day of October , 1984, at 11:00
A.M./P.M. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
36
ey
PUBLIC HEARING - VERO HIGHLANDS STREET LIGHTING MSTU
The hour of 10:00 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 ? to
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida p r'
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA �l2��� O 6 �L
: ax.... �.
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
FiiBLIC NOTICE
OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE
says that he Is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
The Board of County Commissioners of Im
cOnn Ronda. COndua w
I Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, beingH�
y
,will
.
q attttheatCoounty
Com mission ,. ambier0.a
Admi
.��
,/��
tration Building, 1840 nm Street Vero Bar
Florida. to consider the adoption of the c
a
nance entroeck
/ �yJ O
���
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY
in the matter of .6 /e<rt!n r'�
�R C�NT1 FtloaEDRAS CREIATING
'THE VERO HIGHLANDS MUNICIPAL
-
SERVICE TAXING UNIT; PROVIDING
FOR THE CREATION OF THE TAXING
,UNIT'. PURPOSE; DETERMINATION OF
COSTOP STREET LIGHTING SERVICE
in the I Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the Issues of �Utl
��yY
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 Cour-
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 subscribAd befojq maif/) .2,11 day o,$o D. 79 p
tB�ass Manager
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, In ' n River County, Florida)
POSES; INCORPORATION IN CODE;
SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
If any pereorr decides to appeal any deck
made on the above matter, he/she will nee
record of the proceedings and for stich I
poses• he/she may need to ensure that a vei
hm retard of the proceedings H made. wl
record Includes the t�dmorty in evidence
which the appeal is based. . .
Indian River County
Board of County Commisslonem
Don C. Scurlock Jr.
Chairman
SepL 22.1964.
Assistant County Attorney Chris Paull informed the Board
that this ordinance is very similar to the street lighting
ordinances for Gifford and Rockledge. It establishes a Municipal
Service Taxing Unit, which authorizes the assessment of taxes for
the fiscal year beginning November, 19.85-86. Prior to that time,
General Development Corp. has offered to give the County $5,000
in seed money to allow the lighting district to purchase and
install lights through Florida Power & Light. The $5,000 seed
money will be repayable solely without interest from district
funds over a two year period beginning in January, 1986 and the
second half due in January, 1987. The ordinance does provide for
the district to borrow funds through legally authorized means to
finance any capital improvements that are necessary. Attorney
Paull believed it would allow the County to, in effect; borrow
the seed money from General Development. He recommended that a
note be executed by the Board evidencing the terms of the pay
back, which can be worked out after the ordinance is approved.
37
OCT 10190 BOOK �� frrr 0
OCT 10 1994 BOOK 58
Attorney Paull noted two changes in the ordinance:
On page 3, Section 4, second line, "levy of a tax upon each
tract, parcel, or unit, whether owned in conjunction with
land or not,'......." Lines 7 and 8 of the same paragraph
should read, "...upon each acre of land assessed and the
minimum tax for any given tract, parcel or unit shall be not
less than the one acre rate."
Public Works Director Jim Davis stated that Florida
Power & Light prepared a budget and scope of work which
consists of the placement of 395 lights at an annual budget
of approximately $43,500. The initial approach will be to
identify certain areas where lights should be installed
immediately, and then FP&L will begin to phase in 10-12
lights at a time.
Commissioner Lyons inquired as to the spacing of the
lights and Director Davis explained it is designed similar
to the other lighting districts where there is usually one
light in a quarter mile stretch and one light at each
intersection -- roughly 1-2 lights on a block. There will
be no back lot lights -- all lights will be out front. The
district serves all the units in Vero Highlands from U.S. 1
to the western boundary of the development. It does not
include Vero Shores.
Director Davis advised that he had a map showing the
placement of lights if anyone wished to look at it, and that
he would be glad to have copies delivered to key locations
in Vero Highlands.
Commissioner Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and
asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
George Kulczycki, Vice President of General Development
Corporation, asked when they needed to submit the $5000 seed
money and Director Davis felt the sooner the better as it
was his understanding that FP&L is ready to install 8-10
lights almost immediately.
M
M M M
Earl F. Bacon, owner of property in Vero Highlands
since 1959, noted thata taxing district has come up several
times and asked if it was possible for them to be taxed for
additional purposes other than street lighting.
Attorney Brandenburg advised that this MSTU was for the
specific purpose of providing street lighting. The
ordinance would have to be amended in order to add other
item and that would require another public hearing before
this commission.
Mr. Bacon recalled that seven years ago, he took a pool
of the 200 residents in Section I of Vero Highlands, and
there was overwhelming opposition to a street lighting
taxing district.
Chairman Scurlock read aloud the results of polls
conducted in the spring of 1983 and 1984:
JUNE 16, 1983
750 Ballots mailed (POA lots only)
408 yes (less 550 GDC lots)
79 no
MAY 11, 1984
1233 Ballots mailed (POA lots and non POA lots)
385 yes (less 550 GDC lots)
151 no
TOTAL LOTS IN VERO BEACH HIGHLANDS 1800
Althea Smulbach, 509 21st Road, S.W., remembered that
when Mr. Bacon came around with his poll, he spoke against
the taxing district. She recalled that when her husband had
a heart attack, the EMS unit could not find their home in
the dark and a neighbor had to go out and flag them down.
She thought that everyone wanted their streets lit.
39
OCT 10 1984 BOOK 58 FArx.596
OCT CT 10 1984
BOOK 58 P1r,F 5,97
Evelyn Leslie, 701 24th Place SW, pointed out that
children leave at 6:40 A.M. to catch their school buses and
it is very dangerous because it is still dark at that time
of the morning. She noted that a large group is in
attendance today in support of the lighting district.
Chairman Scurlock asked those in attendance who were
for the street lighting MSTU to stand. Approximately 25
people stood up.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 84-71, establishing a
Municipal Service Taxing Unit for street
lighting in Vero Highlands, with the changes
noted by Attorney Paull; authorized
OMB Director Barton to accept the $5,000 seed
money from General Development Corporation; and
instructed staff to prepare a statement of
repayment terms to be brought back to the Board
for approval.
Mr. Kulczycki agreed to post a map of the street light
placements in the front office of GDC and also at the,
recreation building.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
authorized the Chairman to sign all necessary
documents in connection with this matter.
M
K
PROMISSORY NOTE AND AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida enacted Ordinance 84-71, establishinq the
Vero Highlands Municipal Service Taxing Unit for street lighting
purposes; and
WHEREAS, said ordinance authorizes the County to raise
capital for expenditure within the MSTU through borrowing secured
by notes repayable solely from taxes and assessments duly
collected by the Municipal Service Taxing Unit, as provided by
law; and -
WHEREAS, as consideration for the execution of this
instrument, General Development Corporation, the developer of
Vero Highlands, has paid the sum of FIVE THOUSAND AND N0/100 to
the Board of County Commissioners to the account of, and to be
used exclusively for the provision of street lights within, the
Vero Highlands Municipal Service Taxing Unit, all in anticipation
of the assessment and collection of revenues therefrom beginning
in fiscal year 1985-86.
NOW THEREFORE, FOR VALUE RECEIVED, to wit, the sum of
FIVE THOUSAND AND N0/100 DOLLARS, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County promises to pay to General Development Corporation, the
total sum of FIVE THOUSAND AND N0/100 DOLLARS, in two install-
ments of TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND N0/100 DOLLARS each, the
first being due and payable on or before January 15, 1986, and
the second being due and payable on or before January 15, 1987.
Said amounts are repayable solely from the revenues
lawfully assessed and collected for such purposes by the Vero
Highlands Municipal Services Taxing Unit, as provided by law.
The debt secured by this note shall not accrue interest at any
time, and Promisor may prepay this note in full or in part at any
time without penalty. General Development Corporation shall not
assign, transfer, or negotiate this note to a third party without
the express written consent of the Board of County Commission-
ers.
WHEREUPON, the Board of County Commissioners has caused
this Note to be executed by its Chairman and attested by the
Clerk to the Board, this 10th. day of October , 1984.
VERO HIGHLAND MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING
UNIT
By: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By • Ji.. C
DON C. SCURL60 X, JR. , airman
ATTEST:
r
By
FREDA WRIGHT, Cler-k� of Circuit Court
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
BY:-
•coU TY ATTORNEY 40a BOOK
OCT 10 �
OCT 10 1984 BOOK 58 P,,,,F 599
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 84-71
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CREATING THE VERO
HIGHLANDS MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT; PROVIDING FOR
THE CREATION OF THE TAXING UNIT; PURPOSE; DETERMINATION
OF COST OF STREET LIGHTING SERVICE OR OTHER APPROVED
SERVICE; LEVY OF TAXES, ADOPTION OF BUDGET; EXEMPTION
FROM TAXATION OR ASSESSMENTS; DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS
FROM THE DISTRICT FOR STREET LIGHTING OR OTHER PURPOSES;
INCORPORATION IN CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the residents of the Vero Highlands Subdivision,
together with the Developer, General Development Corporation, have
requested that the County establish a mechanism for providing
street lighting service at crucial locations throughout the subdi-
vision; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that creation of a municipal
service taxing unit to raise funds through the equitable assess-
ment of property owners throughout the subdivision is the best
available means of accomplishing the desired goal; and
WHEREAS, provision of street lighting to the area will
further the safety, health, and well-being of all those residing
and owning property within the boundaries of the district.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
OVOMTnM 1
CREATION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT
There is hereby established in Indian River County the
Vero Highlands Area Municipal Service Taxing Unit under the
authority of, and with all those powers conferred by, the
Constitution of the State of Florida and Florida Statutes
§125.01(q), (r). The real property included within the boundaries
of this Municipal Service Taxing Unit and subject to all
provisions hereof is described as follows:
All that certain property lying within the following
subdivision plats on file in the Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida at the Plat Book and Page Numbers indicated
below:
1. Vero Beach Highlands Subdivision Unit Number 1, Plat
Book 5, Page 29
41
� � r
2. Vero Beach Highlands Subdivision Unit Number 2, Plat
Book 5, Pages 77 and 78, and Plat Book 6, Page 70
3. Vero Beach Highlands Subdivision Unit Number 3, Plat
Book 8, Pages 37, 41, and 41A
4. Vero Beach Highlands Subdivision, Unit Number 4,
Plat Book 8, Page 38
5. Vero Beach Highlands Subdivision Unit Numer 5, Plat
Book 8, Pages 56 through 56E; all said land lying
and being within Indian River County, Florida.
PURPOSE
A. This Municipal Service Taxing Unit is created for
the purpose of providing street lighting at all reasonable,
efficient, and proper locations, within the boundaries of the
unit, including the cost of engineering, construction, main-
tenance, easement acquisition, and any necessary supporting
service or function related.thereto, all as may be determined by
the Board of County Commissioners, and for the provision of such
further services as may be lawfully authorized and determined by
the Board from time to time.-
B.
ime:
B. This Municipal Service Taxing Unit may fund all or
any of the aforementioned services or improvements through either
current year funding, tax anticipation or multi-year notes or
bonds, provided any debt instrument or obligation made must be
repayable solely from the revenues collected by the Municipal
Service Taxing Unit pursuant to the authority and means provided
by this ordinance.
SECTION 3
DETERMINATION OF COST OF SERVICE
The Board of County Commissioners shall determine each
year the estimated cost of providing street lighting and such
other services as the County Commission may provide, including
capital and equipment improvements, rentals and acquisitions, and
operating and maintenance costs and expenses, for the insuing
County fiscal year for that area which is or shall be receiving
street lighting or other benefits provided by this unit within the
42
OCT 10 1984 BOOK 59 Pt:GE 600
F""- �4
OCT 1019
BOOK 58 Pr, c 601
boundaries of the unit.
SECTION 4
LEVY OF TAXES, ADOPTION OF BUDGET
The Board of County Commissioners hereby authorizes the
levy of a tax upon each tract, parcel, or unit, whether owned in
conjunction with land or not, otherwise subject to taxation,
within that area which is or shall be receiving'street lighting
services or benefits within the Municipal Service Taxing Unit
created hereby, with such exceptions as are set forth in Section 5
below. The tax shall be equal and uniform in amount upon each
acre of land assessed and the minimum tax for any given tract,
parcel or unit shall be not less than the one acre rate. The tax
shall be levied and a budget prepared and adopted by the Board at
the same time and in the same manner as the Board prepares and
adopts its County annual budget and levies taxes as provided by
law. Said taxes shall be assessed, levied, collected, remitted to
and accounted for at the time and manner as for the assessment,
levy, collection, remittance and accounting of taxes by the Board
as provided by law. The budget shall contain all or such portion
of the estimated cost of providing street lighting and other
services within the boundaries of the unit; as determined under
the provisions of Section 3 hereof, as the Board shall determine
to be necessary to provide such services.
SECTION 5
EXEMPTIONS FROM ASSESSMENT
The following lands are exempted from the provisions of
this Article for the purposes of assessments for street lighting
benefits:
A. Those parts of any platted and recorded subdivision
which lie within the corporate limits of any municipality existing
or hereafter created.
B. All lands within the district owned by any church or
church denomination that are held and used for the holding of
church services.
C. All lands owned and occupied by buildings owned and
operated by the Indian River County School District for the pur-
poses of operating a school for the education of the citizens
43
of Indian River County.
SECTION 6
DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS FROM LEVY OF TAXES
Those funds obtained from the levy of a tax on all the
taxable real property within the boundary of said unit shall be
maintained in a separate account and used solely for the purpose
of providing street lighting and such other benefits as determined
by the Board of County Commissioners within the boundaries of said
unit only.
SECTION 7
INCORPORATION IN CODE
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated
into the Code of Laws and 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 purpose.
SECTION 8
SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, part thereof,
paragraph, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason
held to be unconstitutional, 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 9
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective
upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official
acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the Depart-
ment of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 10th day of
October , 1984.
44
OCT 10 1984 BOPK U99 F',,r 602
OCT 10 1984
BOOK 58 P,�Cr 6,9,9
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By——
c
Don C. Scu1 ck, Jr.
Chairman
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 17th day of October , 1984.
Regarding Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of
State received on this 19th day of October , 1984,at
_11:00 �A:M./P.M. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFP3CIENCY.
By, WA44�W
MCoirdty Attorney
ATTEST
By: �/` d4lck.: /h -car
Freda Wright, C1 k of
Circuit Court
6z� Q�v Sd ,C� . •
Commissioner Bowman left the meeting at 11:50 o'clock
A.M. in order to keep an appointment.
DISCUSSION RE PROPOSED CHANGES TO REZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION FEE SCHEDULE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/26/84:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: September 26, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: PROPOSED CHANGES TO
REZONING AND COMPREHEN-
�,, SUBJ ECT: SIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Robert M. Kea ng, ICP APPLICATION FEE SCHEDULE
Planning & Development Director
?IS
RichaFROM: ChiefrdLongSRangerPlanniAT-FERENCES: DISPRICHM. heare,AICCom. p Fee
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of October 10, 1984.
45
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On June 6, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners instructed
the Planning Department to review the fee schedule for rezoning
and Comprehensive Plan amendment applications. At that time,
the Board indicated that it might be appropriate to charge a
reduced rate for properties being considered for Comprehensive
Plan amendment and rezoning simultaneously.
In addition, the County's Zoning Ordinance requires that
location maps be included with public hearing notices for
rezoning requests heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The cost of providing these maps, with public hearing notices,
averages $110 per application and is not adequately covered by
the current rezoning fees.
On September 13, 1984, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -1 to recommend this for consideration.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The County's present fee schedule for rezoning and Comprehen-
sive Plan amendment applications is as follows:
Rezonings:
Less than 5 acres
5 -to -10.0 acres
More than 100 acres
Comprehensive Plan Amendments:
Less than 5 acres
5 -to -40 acres
41 -to -100 acres
More than 100 acres
$225
$500
$650 + $50 for each
additional 25 acres
$200
$400
$500
$750
Currently, the fees for rezonings generally cover advertising
costs and the costs of postage for notifying surrounding
property owners by certified mail. However, the fees do not
pay for staff time spent analyzing the requests and in some
cases are not adequate to pay for the advertising costs. Also,
it does not seem reasonable to charge the same fee for a 5 acre
parcel as a 100 acre parcel. The rezoning fee schedule should
be broken down like the Comprehensive Plan amendment fee
schedule.
Providing a reduced fee for individuals applying for a Compre-
hensive Plan amendment and rezoning simultaneously would
encourage applicants to apply for both in January rather than
applying for the Comprehensive Plan amendment and later apply-
ing for a rezoning. Because all of the staff work can be done
at one time, including writing one recommendation instead of
two, it would seem equitable to provide a reduced rate.
However, because most of the rezoning fees are used for ad-
vertising and postage, the reduced rate should be slight.
Based on the above analysis, the following proposed fee sched-
ule was prepared:
46
OCT 10 1984 BOOK 58 FA -IX 694
r OCT 10 1984
Size of Parcel
Less than 5 acres
5 -to -40 acres
41 -to -100 acres
More than 100 acres
RECOMMENDATION:
BOOK 58 PAGE605
Rezoning
Comp. Plan
Comp. Plan Amend.
Fee
Amend. Fee
& Rezoning Fee
$300
$200
$400
$500
$400
$700
$650
$500
$1000
$750 + $50
$750 + $50
$1250 + $50
for each
for each
for each
additional
additional
additional
25 acres
25 acres
25 acres
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
recommendation, staff recommends approval.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bird that the Board
approve the new fee schedule, as recommended
by staff.
Commissioner Wodtke asked why a rezoning application
costs $100 more than a Comp Plan amendment, and Mr. Shearer
explained that a map of the site is advertised in the
newspaper before the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
and this generally costs $80 more than running an advertise-
ment with only the legal description. An additional cost is
incurred by posting a sign on the property.
Director Keating explained that their advertising costs
increased because previously they were not running a map in
the newspaper until County Attorney pointed out that it is
mandatory to do so.
Administrator Wright pointed out that we are grossly
under budgeted for that advertising.
Chairman Scurlock felt that a map showing proposed
zonings or land use designations is much more effective in
reaching the public than just a notice with the legal
description, and he thought the extra cost was worthwhile.
47
Mr. Shearer suggested that the new fees go into effect
on January 1, 1985, to coincide with the Comp Plan amendment
process schedule, and that staff be instructed to go ahead
and notify the public of the increased fees.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION, with the
inclusion of the January 1, 1985 effective date.
The Motion passed by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner
Bowman being absent.
ACCEPTANCE OF UTILITY EASEMENTS ON 33RD AVENUE & 15TH
STREET - TERILIL TERRACE
Attorney"Brandenburg explained that this matter had
been before the Board earlier with respect to public
streets. The matter appears to have been resolved by a
cul-de-sac being constructed and the entrance being off of
16th Street to the little subdivision. It is now necessary
for the County to accept the utilities assessments, which in
effect, makes the utility easements the responsibility of
the City of Vero Beach to tie that new little subdivision
into the City system. He recommended approval.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board by a 4-0 vote,
Commissioner Bowman being absent, adopted
Resolution 84-94, accepting certain utility
easements on 33rd Avenue and 15th Street located
in the Terilil Terrace Subdivision in the City of
Vero Beach.
M
BOOK 8 f�„E 6,�
OCT 101994
BOOK PAGE 6,07
RESOLUTION NO. 84- 94
9/25/84 (27) C.A.
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COU14TY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
FLORIDA ACCEPTING AS PUBLIC CERTAIN
UTILITY EASEMENTS ON 33RD AVENUE AND
15th Street LOCATED IN TERILIL TERRACE
SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF VERO BEACH.
WHEREAS, by plat filed for record on June 26, 1978, and recorded on page 94
of Plat Book 9, in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River
County, the subdivider platted certain streets and easements in a subdivision
within the city limits of the City of Vero Beach with "full knowledge that the same
are not dedicated to the public until there is a formal acceptance of these streets
and/or easements, or any part thereof, by the county (e.s.).", and
WHEREAS, the City of Vero Beach desires that the utility easements on 33rd
Avenue and 15th Street in the subdivision be, public under the control of the
municipality,
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, that:
1) The utility easements shown on the plat of Terilil Terrace Subdivision,
including a utility easement over the northerly 60 -foot right-of-way dedicated for
future road purposes, are accepted by the county as public easements. This
resolution does not accept the streets shown on the plat as public.
2) By this acceptance it is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners
that the utility easements as shown on the plat will be considered municipal
easements, and that the county shall have no obligation for maintenance and no
other liability whatsoever concerning these utility easements.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner R; ,-,I ,
seconded by Commissioner Lyons , and adopted on thelOthday of0ctober,
1984, by the following vote:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Ave
Vice Chairman Patrick B. Lyons
Ave
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr.
Ave
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Absent
ATTEST1:!,!,, BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
RIVER, COUNTY FLORIDA
reda 1'dright, Don C. Scurl ck, Jr. Ll
Clerk of thBbardr" 1�• Cr �.e , Chairman
, i _ _>
G ndenburg
C my Attorney
DISCUSSION RE VETERANS SERVICE OFFICE REQUESTED BY THE
r/MEMBERSHIP OF THE AMERICAN LEGION
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 9/21/84:
American Legion
Post 189
Sebastian, FL 32958
The Board of County Commissioners
Administration Bldg.
1840 25th St.
Vero Beach, FL 32960
September 21, 1984
Sir:
We are sure that you are aware that the Veteran County Service Office is short one man.
I, the undersigned, along with several other individuals, have talked with one of the Assistant
County Service Officers, Mr. Henry H. Toussaint. We also have observed him at work in Sebas-
tian. At that time there were nine people in this office. Mr. Toussaint stated that he had to cut his
time in Sebastian in half, from two full days per week to four hours on Tuesday and Thursday
afternoons each week. He also had to stop going to Fellsmere. This cuts the North part of the
County from three full days to an average of one day per week.
We are sure that the ladies and gentlemen of the Board of County Commissioners would hire a
replacement to fill this vacancy if they had seen those handicapped veterans waiting in line, some
in wheelchairs, others in this non air conditioned building taking nitroglycerin tablets. (We do
realize that it will take some time to get the offices air conditioned in Sebastian and Fellsmere.)
We also know that many of those handicapped veterans are not able to travel to the Vero Beach
office. We would like to urge the County Commission to correct this as soon as possible. We would
also like to let the Commissioners know that the Assistant County Service Officer we spoke with
did not know why we were asking questions of him. None of your employees were asked in any
way for assistance in this matter. The goal of our organization is to assist Veterans at any and all
times. <
We would appreciate a timely response to this matter as any individual hired would have to be
trained, and during his training the Veteran County Service Office will be getting further behind
in the workload.
Sincerely,
Yours in Service for God and Country,
i
g
GeV o' /Slz
. Rairden
For the Membership
American Legion,
Charles L. Futch,
Post 189,
Sebastian, FL 32958
49
APE
OCT 10BOOK S FAA
1994
OCT 10 1904 BOOK 58 FAGS
George Rairden, representing the membership of the
American Legion, objected to the reduction in service in the
north county. He explained that after the resignation of
Jerry Cook, the Veterans Office is down to a two-man staff,
which is not sufficient to handle the case load. There are
a tremendous number of veterans living in Indian River
County and more moving in every year, and he believed
another officer was needed immediately, because the sooner
he is hired, the sooner he can be trained. Any delay will
cause a bigger and bigger backlog of cases. Mr. Rairden
figured that the salary of an additional officer to serve in
the north county area would work out to a maximum of 9� per
week per veteran.
Administrator Wright explained that when there is a
vacancy in a position of this type, he takes a little time
to analyze whether we need a replacement. At no time has he
advocated not filling this position, but it has been vacant
only 3-4 weeks, and it is possible we may want to fill it
with another type of employee. Once that determination is
made, a recommendation will be made to the Board. The
Administrator felt that they could start providing some
services to the north county area almost immediately, and
emphasized he is not advocating any reduction in services;
this is a temporary situation.
Mr. Rairden wished that Administrator Wright would
visit the veterans service office in Sebastian or Fellsmere
and take note of the many veterans, some in wheelchairs,
waiting in crowded conditions in a building without air
conditioning.
The Commissioners were in complete agreement that they
wanted to see adequate service restored in the north county
as rapidly as possible.
Administrator Wright stated he would have OMB Director
Barton evaluate the position this week, but pointed out that
50
� � s
if Mr. Rairden had come to him directly, something could
have been done about this situation more quickly.
ESTABLISHMENT OF SECOND ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT ROAD
PAVING CREW
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/10/84:
Michael Wright,
TO: DATE: September 10, 19 8 4FI LE:
•
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Establishment of a Second Road
and Bridge Department Road
Paving Crew
FROM:James W. Davis, P.E. ,�� REFERENCES:
Public Works Director
Staff has been requested to determine the feasibility of
establishing a second road paving crew to assist in the paving
of the 21 petition paving projects for which valid petitions
have been received (see attached list).
The existing road paving crew has completed 38 road paving
projects since it's conception in 1982. Of these projects,21
local roads were paved under the petition paving program at an
average cost of $6.39 per front foot (see attached list).No costs
have been added for equipment charges. The total front footage
paved has been 50,409. If $1.00 per front foot were charged
for equipment costs, about $50,000 per year could be generated
for equipment. It is anticipated that 50,000 front feet could
be paved per year since the second crew would concentrate on
Petition Paving only and not be obligated to pave other roads.
If both crews worked solely on petition paving, approximately
$100,.000 per year could be generated for equipment purchases.
This equipment charge assessed would create a revenue for Petition
Paving Equipment.
Labor is being charged to each project and would be a direct
charge, 750 of which is paid by assessment and 25% by the County.
The Road and Bridge Department has prepared an analysis of
personnel and equipment needs for 2 -five person road paving crews
(see attached). The costs for added personnel is $85,594.60 per
year. Capital equipment costs total $214,594.60, however, the
critical need at this time to establish the second crew is a
self propelled roller estimated to cost $30,000. The Road and
Bridge Department could rent a Vibrating Steel Wheel Roller when
needed and could use a truck now on inventory. The use of this
existing -equipment would minimally r@duce the maintenance
capability now established. The minimal financial impact would
be:
Personnel $85,594.60
Equipment $30,000.00
$115,594.60
51
OCT 10 1984 BOOK 58 F -A E.610 I
OCT 10 1984 Booz 58 F,, , ill
RECOMMENDATION
Establishment of a second road paving crew would provide
a minimum impact on Road and Bridge operating costs if a $1.00
per front foot assessment were applied for equipment purchase.
Existing equipment could be used on an interim basis, except
for the purchase of a self-propelled roller. Initial seed money
for labor would be required until revenues are received, which
could pay back the seed fund.
The Public Works Director recommends that the second paving
crew be established, and that the benefit received from paving
the dedicated County roads would reduce maintenance costs and
increase the market value of homes fronting the streets, thereby
increasing assessed value.
Furthermore, a Collector Road Paving Assessment Program could
be developed to fund work to this second crew. ,
Director Davis believed we were almost to the point
where we could eliminate one grader route in the south
county.
Administrator Wright noted that the only pitfall in
putting on another crew is the possibility of a layoff if we
ever reach the point where the demand for paving decreases
significantly; he felt that was very unlikely, however.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board by a vote
of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman being absent,
approved staff's recommendation to establish
a second road paving crew.
Chairman Scurlock requested staff to bring back some
options in regard to either purchase or lease/purchase of
additional heavy-duty paving equipment.
ASSESSMENT ROLL, 38TH AVENUE -10TH STREET TO 12TH STREET
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/10/84:
52
s
-rO' The Honorable members of DATE: September 28, 1984 FILE: 10-10-84
the Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright,
County Administrator SUBJECT: Final Assessment Roll
38th Avenue -10th to 12th Streets
FROM:James W. Davis, P. REFERENCES:
Public Works Directo
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION
The paving of 38th Avenue is complete. The final cost
and preliminary estimate for the work was:
Final Cost/FF Prelim. Cost/FF Final Cost Prelim. Estimate
38th Ave. $7.9121 $8.21 $24,656.00 $26,100.00
All construction costs are under the original estimates.
The Final Assessment RollS have been prepared and are ready to
be delivered to the Clerk to the Board. Assessments are to be
paid within 90 days or in two equal installments, the first to
be made twelve months from the due date and the second to be
made twenty-four months from the due date at the rate of interest
established by the Board of County Commissioners. The due date
is 90.days after the final determination of the special assessment.
The interest rate shall be 1% over the Prime Rate at the time
of adoption of the Final Assessment Roll.
ALTERNATIVES AND'ANALYSIS
Since the final assessment to the benefited owners will
be less than computed on the preliminary assessment rolls, the
only alternative presented is to approve the final assessment
roll.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Final Assessment Rolls for the
paving of 38th Avenue be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners and that they be transmitted to the Office of the
Clerk to the Board for collection.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Project No. 8323 Computations and Final Assessment Roll
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board
approved the Final Assessment Roll for 38th
Avenue - 10th Street to 12th Streets, at 13.75%
interest.
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
53
OCTr 1984
BOOK 58 f',"f
I
OCT 10
1984
BOOK
58 ",,
61
REQUEST FOR TRANSFER OF GAS TAX FUNDS -
4TH STREET
PAVING
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/28/84:
T
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: September 28, 1984 FILE: 10-10-84
the Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright,
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Request for Additional Gas Tax
Funds - 4th Street Paving from
Old Dixie Highway to U.S. 1
FROM:James W. Davis, P.E. REFERENCES:
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION
The road and drainage improvements to 4th Street east of
Old Dixie Highway are complete. The original Project Budget
based on the Engineering Departments estimate was $49,000. The
Engineering estimate did not include Railroad work. The final
project cost is $59,877 and is broken down as follows:
FEC Railroad
Soil Cement Base
Pan American Engr.
Limerock Base
Asphalt
Sod
Sand Cement Bags for Headwalls
Drainage Pipe
Miscellaneous Materials,
Forms for curb, etc.
$ 16,586.98
10,390.00
6,216.00
15,902.60
2,003.00
1,125.00
3,778.50
Concrete,
3,874.92
59,877.00
The project cost less Railroad work is $43,290.02, therefore
the actual construction cost was $5,710.00 less than the Engineering
Department estimate.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
To compensate for the $10,877 project budget deficit
resulting from the Railroad crossing improvement, staff
recommends allocating $10,877 from the Secondary Gas Tax fund
to Fund 308 - 4th Street Construction Account. This transfer
will not affect the Road Improvement Program Project Schedule,
since savings will be realized from other projects now in progress
or recently completed.
Director Davis recalled that about a year and a half
ago we had a situation whereby the FEC was ready to improve
the 4th Place railroad crossing and staff recommended that
the work not be conducted. Due to a clause in the original
54
L 1
1981OCT 10
1952 agreement with the railroad, the FEC did agree to
switch the signals to 4th Street and open a new crossing if
the 4th Place crossing was abandoned. The County's cost at
that time to pave 4th Street did not include any costs to
the railroad. Therefore, the reason we are over budget now
is the work was done at 4th Street instead of 4th Place.
The additional construction was somewhat less than the
$45,000 estimate. To reconcile the total project they are
requesting the Board to allocate an additional $10,877 from
the Secondary Gas Tax Fund to the 4th Street construction
account. This includes all the crossing work that would
have been paid out of another account in the past.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that the
Board authorize the transfer of $10,877 from the
Secondary Gas Tax Fund to fund #308 for the 4th
Street construction account.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wodtke asked if we had
approved an estimate from the railroad on the 4th Street
crossing and Director Davis explained that we received an
estimate for the 4th Place work which was very close to the
4th Street work, but we did not actually receive an estimate
for 4th Street.
Administrator Wright asked Director Davis to prepare a
report for the Board showing the estimates and actual costs
for the past year.
Commissioner Bird asked if we had received any
indication from the railroad that they plan to rebuild any
existing crossings in the County in this next year, and
Director Davis replied that prior to budget time, he wrote
several letters asking for that information, but did not
receive any response. He did receive a letter over a year
55
BOOK 8 FA;c 614
OCT 10
1984
BOOK
58 pn,
61
ago saying they planned to do
six crossings, but
actually
did only three. He felt the little information that was
furnished by the railroad was inaccurate.
Director Davis reported that they would be starting the
Lindsey Road work in January and will contact the FEC about
the road crossing at that time.
The Commissioners felt the concrete grade crossing at
16th Street turned out remarkably well.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The
Motion was voted on and carried unanimously.
/`AMBERSAND COUNTY PARK DUNE REVEGETATION'
The Board reviewed the following memo,<4at& 9/28/84:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: September 28, 1984 FILE: 10-10-84
the Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright,
County Administrator SUBJECT:
Ambersand County Park
Dune Revegetation
FROM: *' REFERENCES:
Vibert L. Griffith, Jr., P.E.,
County Engineer
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Bids for subject Dune Revegetation were advertized on
September 10 and 17, 1984 and opened on September 24, 1984.
This project is being performed under the Beach Erosion
Control Program and is being done in conjunction with reconstruction
of the dune by the Road and Bridge Department and the construction
of a Dune Walkover that is being constructed under a separate
contract.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Two bids were received for this project. One bid was by
Haeger's Native Plant Nursery in the amount of $7687 and the
other by Davidson's Inc. in the amount of $4653.
The total estimated quantities in the bid proposal were
1008 units. Both bidders submitted bids with the estimated
quantities changed. Haeger's changed the estimated quantities
from 1008 to 1005 and Davidson's changed the quantities from
1008 to 624.
56
An analysis of comparable prices was performed to determine
which company..submitted the lowest bid (see attached) and it
was established that Haeger's Native Plant Nursery was lowest.
County Attorney Gary Brandenburg was asked for direction
in determining which bidder should be recommended to the Board
of County Commissioners for award of the bid. He advised that
the award should go to Haeger's Native Plant Nursery since they
had more closely complied with the bid requirements by bidding
on 1005 items and there were 1008 items in the bid proposal.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the recommendation by Mr. Brandenburg and on the
comparable prices analysis, it is recommended that the bid be
awarded to Haeger's Native Plant Nursery in the amount of $7,686.
It is further recommended that the Public Construction Bond be
waived since this project calls for one final payment for the
entire project. This would reduce the price of the project by
$698 for a total cost of $6988.
V. L. Griffith, County Engineer, presented staff's
recommendation that the bid be awarded to Haeger's Native
Plant Nursery and that the Public Construction Bond be
waived.
Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that both bidders
changed the quantities and species of plants designated in
the County's bid proposal, and, in effect, both of these
bids can be refused.
Thomas Lund of Davison's Inc. explained the
difficulties they encountered while preparing their bid. He
pointed out that the drawing furnished by the County showed
more items than were listed in the bid proposal. In
addition, 10 different nurseries in the state advised them
that many of the plants specified were just not available.
He felt their proposal provided adequate dune revegetation,
and believed that some of the plants that were specified
were not necessary for this particular project.
Mr. Lund noted that when Mike's Landscaping did the
landscaping at the Tracking Station Park, a lot of plants
were lost during the freeze at Christmas time. When the
County did not pay for the replanting, Mike's Landscaping
had to absorb that cost.
OCT 10 1984
Mr. Lund felt that Davison's could
57
BOOK F'1 . 1
J
OCT 10
1994
BOOK
58 F,,�.c�L 61
absorb those kind of losses,
and that is another
reason
their unit cost was higher than that of Haeger's. He felt
this bid could have been handled much better if a pre-bid
conference had been held.
Andy Davison, owner of the firm, pointed out that the
property to be landscaped lies between two structures and
felt that their bid of $4600 was quite sufficient to do a
good job for the County. He also pointed out that after Mr.
Lund spent three days preparing their bid, they found out
that they could ignore the drawing furnished by the County
and go with their own drawing, which he did not think was
fair.
Chairman Scurlock thought Mr. Lund made an excellent
point and agreed that pre-bid conferences are very
worthwhile because a significant amount of information can
be obtained to aid in the preparation of a bid.
Mr. Davidson stated that they were told this morning
that the reason their bid was not accepted was because the
sea oats were set too far back from the beach. He.disagreed
and was very unhappy about losing this bid, because he felt
they could do a good job for the County and the taxpayers.
Director Davis stated that in landscaping contracts,
they have to concern themselves with acts of nature and acts
of God, and Attorney Brandenburg advised that those perils
are covered in these contract documents. He asked Director
Davis if the same contract documents were used here that
were for the landscaping contract at the Tracking Station
Park, and Director Davis explained that a shorter version
was used.
Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that the damage which
occurred at the Tracking Station Park happened prior to the
time the County accepted the contractor's work.
Commissioner Lyons suggested that both bids be rejected
on the basis that neither firm met the specifications of the
bid proposal.
58
Administrator Wright asked the Board to keep in mind
that the grant deadline for completing the work at Ambersand
is December 1st.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, that the
Board accept staff's recommendation and
award the bid to the bidder that apparently
I
came closest to meeting specifications, Haeger's
Native Plant Nursery, and waive the $698 public
construction bond; in order to meet the deadline
for sharing in State funding.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if there was any way we could
hold the bid open to allow Mr. Davison to negotiate, but
Administrator Wright hoped the Commission would not do that
because it would set a precedent whereby the County would be
swamped with requests from bidders to renegotiate.
Commissioner Lyons thought that if a bidder has a
question about the specifications, the answers are certainly
available, and he did not understand why people do not ask
questions.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The
Motion passed with a 4-0 vote, Commissioner
Bowman having left the meeting to keep an
appointment.
DISCUSSION RE PURCHASE OF EXISTING TELEPHONE SYSTEM
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/10/84:
59
OCT 10 1984 800K 5 8 F$,��
r�
__
D GT 10 1994
TO:
FROM:
The Honorable Members of DATE. September 10,
the Board of County Commissioners
Bcor 58 F9UT 61
1984 FILE:
THRU:
Michael Wright SUBJECT:Purchase of Existing
County Administrator Telephone System
H. T. "Sonny" De
General Services i ector
REFERENCES:
Lynn Williams
Building and Grounds Superintendent
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The staff of the General Services Division recently contacted AT&T
Information Systems for pricing and inventory information
concerning the possible purchase of our existing telephone system.
The need to consolidate existing leases or execute a purchase
option has become increasingly more apparent with the deregulation
of the telephone industry.
The existing telephone equipment serving the Administration
Complex and a large portion of the Courthouse and Annex is
provided by AT&T through several long term leases and monthly
rental charges. Monthly charges for equipment only are presently
in the neighborhood of $4,200 or $50,400 annually, which includes
a recent rate increase of $103.63 monthly.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The major components of the existing system (main computer,
software, switchboard), are all covered by lease agreements
ranging in remaining term from 19 to 42 months. All minor
components (telephone sets, key telephone, jacks), are covered by
monthly rental with AT&T and are subject to rate increases at any
time. Southern Bell provides central office service trunks which
are billed independently of equipment charges. The initial
discussion with AT&T revealed that executing a purchase option
could save the County an average of $16,700 annually over the next
five years. The first year would be a $22,860.04 savings alone.
MAINTENANCE
Presently all payments made to AT&T -IS are either rental or lease
payments and include maintenance and repair. Purchase of the
existing equipment will include maintenance and repair (Warranty)
for 90 days, with a monthly recurring charge for this service,
based on equipment in place, following the warranty period.
The projection for monthly maintenance following the warranty
period, for all in-place equipment is $842.75. However staff
feels there are several types of equipment which do not require
frequent maintenance or repair and could be excluded from a
maintenance agreement. This equipment (i.e.: single line
telephone sets, line status indicators) could either be repaired
in-house, repaired by private enterprise, or discarded depending
on the severity of the defect and the original cost of the
equipment. Exclusion of this type equipment could reduce monthly
maintenance by $230.50.
.M
_I
Monthly Maintenance
Total All Equipment
Staff Excluded Equipment
Projected Monthly Maint.
PURCHASE OPTIONS
$842.75
-230.50
$612.25
Outlined on Exhibit A are the Total Cost Projections for each of
the actual purchase options; outright, five year and six year
financing plans. Cost projections are based on 10.6% financing
available from AT&T and monthly maintenance projections for in
place equipment.
Exhibit B includes Total Cost for continuing lease -rental for a
five year period. Included in these projections are reductions
for the termination of lease terms and increases for monthly
maintenance. This shows a total cost of $223,618 for five years
as opposed to $146,577.00 for a five year purchase option.
FIRST YEAR SAVINGS $22,860.04
TOTAL SAVING - 5 YEARS $83,503.14
Substantial savings are obvious over the five year projections
shown above. However, the sixth year difference is the most
impressive - $9,466.08 against $46,946.46.
Staff feels our present system (main switch) will meet our needs
without major expansion for several years to come. We will
realize the equity within the system, at the end of five years,
even if growth dictated replacement of the system.
Purchase of the system will change slightly the way we add
telephones and trunks. Funds will be set aside each year for
projected growth, as all equipment will be purchased, not leased
or rented, from the purchase date on. Staff projects $5,000 will
be needed for expansion and refinement of the system in fiscal 84-
85.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the AT&T proposal for purchase and
requests authorization to prepare the necessary contract
documents.
IN PLACE PURCHASE
Main Switch Equipment
Key Tel Equipment
Straight Tel Equipment
$50,038.49
16,772.08
Purchase total $76,611.53
61
OCT 10 190
BoaFI,GE620
OCT 10 1984
BOOK 58 FgCF��
Sonny Dean, Director of General Services, presented
staff's analysis and recommendation that the Board approve
the purchase of the existing telephone system from AT&T.
Commissioner Bird asked if there was reasonable
assurance that the present system and equipment would be
adequate for five more years of service and Director Dean
assured him that was taken into consideration in the
analysis.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the switchboard could be
expanded to accommodate two operators, and Director Dean
explained that extra equipment, such as additional trunks or
a larger board, could be purchased from Southern Bell.
There was some discussion about people receiving busy
signals when they call in and also the difficulty in getting
an outside line at certain times of the day, and noted that
perhaps more trunks are needed right now.
Commissioner Lyons felt we should purchase the existing
equipment, but Commissioner Wodtke suggested that we get
some prices from other firms, as his major concern was that
the present system might not be adequate five years down the
road. He recalled that when the County moved into this
building, it was felt that we bought the ultimate in phone
systems, but it wasn't very long before major changes were
needed. He wondered if we are confident that a year from
now we would not need a more sophisticated system.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that the
Board request staff to come back to the Board
in 30 days after getting figures from 2-3 other
firms and doing a cost analysis.
Lynn Williams, Building & Grounds Superintendent,
explained that the price AT&T quoted on this equipment
62
includes a portion of the County's monthly lease payment
which goes towards the purchase price. In essence, we are
buying the in-place equipment with a certain amount of
credit or equity that has been built up over the last 2-3
years. If we change to another system, we would be faced
with lines and terminals which might have to be torn out and
replaced. He noted that Indian River Memorial Hospital
changed to another phone system and later went back to
Southern Bell because they were having trouble with
equipment and with service. Mr. Williams advised that we
have additional capacity for another 150 stations and could
double the trunks we now have, so it is not likely that we
would outgrow the system. He also pointed out that trying
to write bid specifications for another phone system would
be very, very difficult.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he still would like -to
see some additional figures for comparison.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The
Motion passed by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner
Bowman having left the meeting.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY SEBASTIAN AND ORCHID RE COUNTY -WIDE
FAIR SHARE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE
Attorney Brandenburg stated this item was on today's
Agenda for information only and to acknowledge receipt of
the resolutions adopted by the City of Sebastian and the
City of Orchid.
63
OCT 10 1984 BOOK 58 pe;r
I
OCT 10 19 4BOOK 58 FKE6
y�v
RESOLUTION NO. 84- .L�1'
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ORCHID �2l EiUi6Z�2�'
SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTYP
FLORIDA, IN PREPARING AND ADOPTING A COUNTY -WIDE
FAIR SHARE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE.
WHEREAS, the tremendous rate of growth along the
Treasure Coast in South Florida mandates that local governments
devise ways .to assure that.. the cost of new growth is distributed
fairly amongst the new Florida residents and those individuals who
have been Florida residents for many years; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County has hired a consulting team to study the Indian River
County thoroughfare plan, make recommendations as to the County's
future transportation needs, establish the cost of necessary
improvements to the transportation system required by future
growth, estimate the revenue that will be available to the County
for transportation purposes and to determine a fair means of
distributing the shortfall amongst the present and future
residents of Indian River County, and
WHEREAS, the funds collected from any impact fee imposed
should be used on transportation projects that bear a rational
nexus between the impact of the project upon which the fee is
assessed and the improvements that are to be made with the funds
collected.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
ORCHID , FLORIDA, THAT=
1. The City of ORCHID supports and urges
the County to undertake the study and prepare for consideration a
fair -share transportation impact fee, and
2. The City of . ORCT;In now indicates its
intent to participate with the County in the County -wide
imposition of a fair and reasonable fair -share, transportation
impact fee. The City will cooperate in the development and
implementation of such an impact fee and will work with the County
to develop a fee that can be imposed uniformly throughout the
countv includinq areas within city limits.
64
The foregoing resolution was offered by Lee Jobns+-on
who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by.TeannPtt-e M. Lier
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
The motion carried unanimously.
The MAYOR
thereupon
declared
the resolution duly
passed and adopted this
1.3tb day of
July
, 1984.
By vh.c.JL°
_ Anne Denby Micbaeff Mayor
Attest:
Acting City C er
Peter E. Lier, Vice Mayor
RESOLUTION NO. R-84-30
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN FLORIDA %
SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, IN PREPARING AND ADOPTING A COUNTY -WIDE
FAIR SHARE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE.
WHEREAS, the tremendous rate of growth along the
Treasure Coast in South Florida mandates that local governments
devise ways to assure that the cost of new growth is distributed
fairly amongst the new Florida residents and those individuals who
have been Florida residents for many years; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County has hired a consulting team to study the Indian River
County thoroughfare plan, make recommendations as to the County's
future transportation needs, establish the cost of necessary
improvements to the transportation system required by future
growth, estimate the revenue that will be available to the County
for transportation purposes and to determine a fair means of
distributing the shortfall amongst the present and future
residents of Indian River County, and
WHEREAS, the funds collected from any impact fee imposed
should be used on transportation projects that bear a rational
nexus between the impact of the project upon which the fee is
assessed and the improvements that are to be made with the funds
collected.
65
OCT 141994 BOOK 8 F ,E 624.
I
� OCT 10 1984
BOOK 98 FA.F.612,1
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
SEBASTIAN , FLORIDA, THAT j
1. The City of SEBASTIAN supports and urges
the County to undertake the study and prepare for consideration a
fair -share transportation impact fee, and
2. The Citv of SEBASTIAN now indicates its
intent to participate with the County in the County -wide
imposition of a fair and reasonable fair -share, transportation
impact fee. The City will cooperate in the development and
implementation of such an impact fee and will work with the County
to develop a fee that can be imposed uniformly throughout the
county including areas within city limits.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Councilman Kenneth Roth,
who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Councilm�ia Richard Szelu
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
AYES: VICE MAYOR DOROTHY MCKINLEY COUNCILWOMAN LINDA KEEN�N
COUNCILMAN RICHARD SZELUGA MAYOR JIM GALLAGHER
COUNCILMAN KENNETH ROTH NAYS: NONE
The MAYOR thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this' 12th day of September , 1984.
City of Sebastian, Florida
�). By
Att �. Jim Gallagher, May
` Deborah'?;rages, City Cler
(Acknowledgment)
ACCEPTANCE OF QUITCLAIM DEED FROM INDIAN RIVER SHORES FOR
�,
GIFFORD PARK PROPERTY
ThP Rnard reviewed the following memo dated 9/25/84:
TO:Don C. Scurlock, Jr., DATE: September 25, 1984 FILE:
Commission Chairman
Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman
Richard N. Bird, Commissioner
William C. Wodtke, Jr., Commissioner
Margaret C. Bowman, Commissioner
SUBJECT: Two -Acre Parcel/
Gifford Community
Center (Agenda 10/10)
FROM:
REFERENCES:
Please be advised that the Town of Indian River Shores has
executed the attached quitclaim deed, granting to Indian River
County a two -acre parcel of land located in Gifford Park for
the purpose of the construction of a Gifford Community Center.
Indian River Shores has been extremely cooperative in this
repsect at the urging and request of Commissioner Bird. The
deed provides that in the event the property is not used for a
community center within a three-year period or in the event
that the property thereafter ceases to be used as a community
center, then it automatically reverts to the Town of Indian
River Shores.
I would suggest that the County Commission formally thank the
Town Council of Indian River Shores for their cooperation in
this respect.
Sincerely,
Gary M. Brandenburg,
County Attorney
Commissioner Bird reviewed the background of this
matter and wished to thank Indian River Shores for donating
this property for the Gifford Community Center.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman having
left the meeting, requested a letter of thanks be
written to the Town of Indian River Shores for
donating this property.
(QUIT -CLAIM DEED ON FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE)
67 BOOK 58 m1u. 9
OCT 101984
OCT 10 1984 BOOK 58 N� CE 627
STATUS REPORT - FLORIDA COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS INC. -
DOUGLAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/1/84 and
letter dated 10/2/84:
TO: Don C".1 Scurlock, fir`. ; DATE: October I, 1984" FILE:
Commissairman
io
Patrick yons, Vice Chairman
Richard N. Bird, Commissioner
William C. Wodtke, Jr., Commissioner
Margaret C. Bowman, Commissioner
SUBJECT: Douglas Elementary
School --Florida
Community Health
Centers, Inc.
FROM: REFERENCES:
The Board of County Commissioners on August 3, 1983, addl, fed
Resolution No. 83-56, authorizing the execution of a quitclaim
deed to Florida Community Health Centers, Inc. (a copy of
which is attached), conveying the Douglas Elementary School
site to the nonprofit corporation. The deed contained both
reversionary clauses and reservation -of -use clauses. Of
interest is a clause that reads as follows:
This property shall automatically revert to the ownership
of the first party if: ... 2 . The party of the second
part (Florida Community Health Centers, Inc. a nonprofit
corporation) (c) fails to complete renovations and begin
providing medical or supportive services to residents of
Indian River County within nine months of the date of
this deed.
The nine-month period expired on May 3, 1984. On April 25,
1984, Mr. Diaz, former Executive Director, requested a four-
month extension. The Commission, at that time, granted a
six-month extension, which will expire on November 3, 1984.
In the interim, the Center has changed leadership with the
addition of the new Executive Director, Mr. Ed Brown. He has
indicated that the $50,000 originally allocated for the
commencement of the project was lost when the funds were not
used at the time originally anticipated. He has now been
assured that there is a "possibility" of new funding in
December if he puts together a new, more extensive plan for
utilization of the site. He further indicated a willingness
and desire to pursue the funding.
In anticipation of possibly taking the property back, I have
requested our insurance company to do an appraisal of the
building in order to develop a quote for . insuring the
premises.
Respectfully submitted,
Ge Brandenburg,
C ;nty Attorney
olewiston Community
Health Center
302 Second Street
Clewiston, Florida 33440
(813) 983-7813
Indiantown Community
Health Center
950 First Street
Indiantown, Florida 33456
(305) 597-3597
Edna Pearce Lockett
Medical Center
305 N.W. Fifth Street
Okeechobee, Florida 33472
(813)763-7481
Ft. Pierce Community
Health Center
609 N. Seventh Street
Ft. Pierce. Florida 33450
(305)461-1402
Felismere Community
Health Center
22 S. orange street
Felismere. Florida 32948
(305)571-1331
Wabasso Community
Health Center
8455 Sixty-fourth Avenue
Wabasso, Florida 32970
Glades Childbirth
Center
1201 S. Main Street
Belle Glade, Florida 33430
(305)998.6415
FLORIDA COMMUNITY F ICERSR.N:
HEALTH CENTERS, INC. President
Ernesto Urbina
2749 EXCHANGE COURT, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33409
Vice President
TELEPHONE: (305) 684-0600 George White, D.D.S.
Secretary
Elizabeth Weadock
October 2, 1984 Treasurer
Gary Brandenburg, Esq.
County Attorney
Indian River County Administrative
Offices
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Mr. Brandenburg:
In our conversation yesterday you indicated that the rever-
sionary clause in the Quit Claim Deed we hold for the Douglas
Elementary School in Wabasso, Florida will go into effect on
November 3, 1984. This of course is due to our inactivity in
renovating said property.
I am having some difficulty in securing the necessary funds
to complete the project, but have been assured that funding can
be made available if a more viable plan is submitted to the
Atlanta Regional Office of Department of Health and Human Services.
I am now in the process of developing just such a plan.
I need more time, Mr. Brandenburg! Therefore, I am requesting
that you intervene in my behalf with the Indian River County Com-
mission to grant me a four (4) month extension of the reversionary
theufunds Ineeded feel cto develop the Community onfident given adequate pHealth gCenter time Iinasecure
Wabasso
as previously planned.
Thank you for considering my plight, I remain,
Sincerely,
�lC
. W. Brown
Interim Executive Director
Equal Opportunity Council of Indian River
West Wabasso Progressive Civic League
Intergovernmental Relations Director Tommy Thomas
reported that staff inspected the premises and were
extremely pleased with the condition of the buildings with
the exception of the wooden building which is just
antiquated. The grounds are under the stipulation of the
OCT 10 1984 BOOK 58 PY,GE U ?S
OCT 10 1984
-7
ons
BOOK 58 Pk 6?9
Health Department. Director Thomas advised that if we agree
to the 4 -month extension, we need to have insurance on the
property.
Donna Plat, volunteer of the PTA Headstart Program,
explained that her grandson just started in the program, and
urged the Board to grant an extension so that the much
needed program can continue.
Commissioner Wodtke was disappointed that Florida
Community Health Centers has not lived up to their
commitment and understood that those dollars which were
going to be spent in renovating the Wabasso School are going
to be spent in the Ft. Pierce area.
Leonard Edwards, Headstart Director, reported that Mr.
Brown had explained that the initial funding was lost
because they failed to meet budgetary requirements. An
assessment of the area must be done and Mr. Brown expects
that to be completed by the end of the extension.
Meanwhile, he has contacted the Coca-Cola people in Ft.
Pierce to get some funds for migrant worker centers, and
hopefully they will be able to obtain some funds for the
Wabasso Center.
Mr. Edwards asked the Board to grant the extension with
the hope that funds will be forthcoming in the near future.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board by a vote
of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman having left the
meeting, granted a 4 -month extension of the
reversionary clause, as recommended by the County
Attorney, with the understanding that a progress
program will be presented to the Board within 60
days.
70
M
FORMATION OF TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE RE HAZARDOUS
WASTE
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 9/24/84:
JFp� a r0CM Lur
�
.pi •. ZS �, t qtr `4f 1
Kohi, i 7
li
11 YA%Aw
C
September 24, 1984
The Honorable Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman
Indian River County Board of Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Subject: Hazardous Waste
Dear Chairman Scurlock:
-G
f��ST^i3;lTtny LIST
i;.;. r;rr:;—ii"i:ers
Acrri:;i 3_.,+Lr —
ti y orks
CCI -;T7 ;iJy Ley,—L_
U` !iiiej
Fi r. an ce
Other
At its September 24th meeting, the Council approved the creation of a
Regional Liaison Committee (RLC) and a Regional Steering Committee (RSC).
The Council also is urging each county to establish a Technical Coordina-
tion Committee (TCC). The creation of such committees is to promote local
and public information programs for citizens and generators of hazardous
waste.
The Regional. Steering Committee will be made up of only those individuals
in county agencies and departments who directly carry out certain work
tasks as defined in the Council/County Hazardous Waste Agreement. However,
we need each county to nominate 5 individuals to the Regional Liaison
Committee. This group will be responsible for increasing the awareness and
knowledge of hazardous waste to the local citizens of their respective
counties. In nominating your representatives, please select one of each of
the following categories:
1. Citizen organization
2. Environment
3. Business
4. Agriculture
5. Government
(e.g., League of Women Voters)
I would appreciate if you would have your nominations ready to submit to
Council at its October 19th meeting.
Also, the Council strongly endorses that each county also establish a local
Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC). Since the Legislature has directed
that each county be involved in the management of hazardous waste, now and
in the future, the creation of the TCC can provide the county with a manage-
ment mechanism. The purposes of the Committee should be:
1. Promote coordination among all agencies/departments involved
in handlina hazardous wastes.
71
(CT 10 1984
BOOK 58 F LF. 630
J
FF -
OCT 10 1994
The Honorable Don C. Scurlock, Chairman
Indian River County Board of Commissioners
September 24, 1984
Page Two
BOOK 58 pmu631
2. Raise the awareness and knowledge among county staffs of the
significant use of hazardous materials in their governmental
operations.
3. Develop siting criteria for hazardous waste storage/transfer
stations.
Since each county has its own unique governmental structure -those serving
on the TCC may differ from county to county. However, the following
agencies/departments typically have certain responsibilities with regard to
hazardous waste management and, therefore, should be considered. Some
suggested groups or individuals include:
1. Fire department
2. Land fill supervisor
3. County planner
4. Solid waste authority
5. Environmental health officer
6. County attorney
7. Code enforcement officer
8. Municipal representatives
Your attention to this matter is gratefully appreciated and we look forward
to receiving your nomination to the Regional Liaison. Committee in the near
future. Should you have any questions on this matter I would request you
contact Sam Shannon at the Council offices at your earliest convenience.
Yours truly,
Honey D4can
Chairman
`MI
l
i
72
_I
M
Administrator Wright advised that recommendations for
these appointments are presently being considered and would
be brought to the Board as soon as possible.
DISCUSSION RE FLORIDA CHALLENGE PROGRAM
The Board reviewed the following letter dated
September, 1984:
c� 1.1 sr�r STATE OF FLORIDA
'ff= IIf �II�1E Y1TX
THE GMI'1'DL
'`o' "� •` TA uuASSEE 32301.M7
BOB GRAjiA a
GOVERNOR
Greetingsi
September 1984
P
You are cordially invited to take part, along with other Florida leaders, in
the 1984 Flo• -{da Challenge Program entitled, "Florida Focus: Growing Uv and
Growing Old." The human needs and possibilities of these two large segments
of Florida's population, the young and the elderly, are of•major concern to us
now. We challenge you to study this problem carefully, to discuss it fully,
to reach a broad-based consensus on sound and creative approaches for the
future, and to share your ideas with us. We are committed to listen to your
ideas and to respond with action when we can.
73
OCT 101984
BOOK 58 FA, . .632j;
I
r �
OCT 10 1984
BOOK^�8 Pt,GE 6t 33
By participating in the Florida Challenge you will be following a dynamic
group process designed and supported by the Florida Endowment for the
Humanities. You will read some key material, identify and debate the major
options, and reach an informed consensus with about 100 other people in your
region about recommendations for implementation. Thee recotmendations of
various regional groups will be studied by a representative statewide
assembly, and final recommendations will be forwarded to us. Previous
programs have contributed to significant action in the areas of single -member
legislative districts, alternatives to incarceration, and a statewide growth
management policy.
Policy is sometimes developed in a context of urgency and advocacy that doe§
not allow for thorough consideration. Too often leaders see the need for
action but do not sense understanding and support among the public. This
program seeks' to provid-.an alternative --careful study in a nonpartisan forum
U act! dci�ularly %;raditions of open-mindedness and obj'eccivicy. iaact! .n
process requires you to commit two days (four days if you are selected to
represent your region at the statewide conference). Details of the program
and of this year's topic are enclosed. We assure you that this experience
will be of great value both for you personally and for the State of Florida.
Please read the enclosed materials and return the registration form as soon as
possible.
Sincer ,
Bob Graham Curtis Peterson ee Moffitt
Governor President of the Senate Spe er ff the H e
Commissioner Lyons advised that he has been asked to
attend this program as a representative of the senior
citizens and asked for travel authorization.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board by a vote
of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman having left the
meeting, approved out -of -County travel for
Commissioner Lyons to attend the Florida Challenge
Conference in Orlando on October 30-31, 1984.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 9/20/84:
74
`car -/0 L
Jim Gallagher
Mayor
Other
POST OFFICE BOX 127 ❑ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 Deborah C. Krages
TELEPHONE (305) 589-5330 City Clerk
September 20, 1984
Mr. Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman
Transportation Planning Committee
Indian River County Commissioners
1840 - 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Mr. Lyons:
I am pleased to'advise that the City Council during their Regular
Council Meeting, September 19, 1984, appointed Councilman Kenneth
Roth as a member of the Transportation Planning Committee.
I have advised Councilman Roth of the next meeting date, time and
location.
Should you have any questions or need any additional information
please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
c.
Deborah C. Krages
City Clerk
D
CC: Mayor Gallagher
Councilman Roth
ON MOTION by Commissioner,Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board by a vote
of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman having left the
meeting, approved the appointment of Sebastian
Councilman Kenneth Roth to the Transportation
Planning Committee.
The several bills and accounts against the County
having been audited were examined and found to be correct
were approved and warrants issued in settlement of same as
follows: Treasury Fund Nos. 12739 - 13086 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
75
BOOK 8 FAGf.6P
OCT 10 1904
BOOK 58- F" 6,35
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 1:10 o'clock
P.M.
Attest:
Clerk
all
Chairman