HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/1984Wednesday, November 14, 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,
November 14, 1984, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret
C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Absent was Patrick B.
Lyons, Vice Chairman, who was having surgery. Also present were
Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Gary Brandenburg,
Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey K. Barton,
OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Bowman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Chairman Scurlock reported that C&J Ambulance Company have a
response to the issues raised by the hospital last week re their
Certificate of Convenience, and he would like to have this added
as Item 4A under Emergency Items; he also wished to add a
Proclamation requested by the School Board in regard to the
School Library Media Programs.
Commissioner Bird wished to add an item in regard to a need
to pay the funds due for the boat ramp renovation in Sebastian,
which amount will be reimbursed by the DNR.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, Commissioner Lyons being absent, the Board
unanimously (4-0) added the above items to today's agenda.
C & J AMBULANCE SERVICE - CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE &
ATG0VCCTMV
Chairman Scurlock noted that the following letter has been
received from C & J Ambulance Service and is self-explanatory:
N 0 V 14 1994 BOOK
I
Fl -
N 0 V 14 1994 BOOK 8 pear s"A
C & J AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC.
P. O. Box 3421
FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA 33454
November 12, 1984
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Sirs:
We are in receipt of the letter from Mr. Brandenburg dated Nov-
ember 9, 1984 and from Indian River Memorial Hospital dated Nov-
ember 6, 1984 regarding the refusal by C & J Ambulance Service to
do transfers from January 3, 1984 through this date.
Perhaps we should begin by saying that we were "not available" to
do most of these transfers and it would appear from the wording in
the letter from Mr. O'Grady that we just "refused" to take these
transfers. Certainly, a private ambulance service that receives
no subsidies of any kind, would not blatantly refuse transfers
which are our livelihood, however, if we are unavailable, it means
just that. We have many transfers that are scheduled in advance
and it is possible that we are not available at the time the hos-
pital requests a transfer. It would be illogical to refuse ambu-
lance transfers when we are in business to provide ambulance trans-
portation.
Our Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity in Indian Riv-
er County was originally issued on September 21, 1977 and has been
renewed annually since then. The certificate specifically states
that C & J Ambulance Service will provide quality "non -emergency"
ambulance service, comply with all the requirements of Emergency
Medical Services and will meet the requirements of State Legisla-
tion. The fact is we are a licensed Basic Life Support Service,
however, our certificate states that we will provide only "non-
emergency" ambulance service for your county. This.type of ser-
vice would include Hospital to residence, Hospital to Nursing
Homes, Hospital or Residence to International Airports or Resi"
dence to Doctor's Offices and return. These types of transfers
are often set up weeks in advance so it is not uncommon for us to
have appointments scheduled at the time the hospital calls for us
to do a transfer.
When an "emergency transfer" to Orlando, Gainesville or any re-
gional medical center occurs we may very well be unavailable due
to the above mentioned causes. It would be unreasonable not to
schedule or cancel appointments that have been made in advance in
order to have an ambulance waiting for an out of town transfer.
Another factor in these transfers is the nature of the illness of
the patient. We feel that Indian River Memorial will attest to
the fact that the vast majority of out of town transfers are pa-
tients that are in Intensive Care Units or Progressive Care Units
being transferred to a regional medical center or hospital able
to treat cardiac insufficencies or cardiac dysrrhythmias. These
patients generally go to the receiving hospital for cardiac cath-
eterizations and are ordered by the discharging physician to be
transported by ambulance with advanced life support capabilities.
These capabilities which are required are far greater than the
skills of our Emergency Medical Technicians, thus the discharging
hospital sends a nurse to accompany the patient with cardiac mon-
itors and quite often cardiac medications. These transfers are by
no means considered "non -emergencies" as the patient may require
advanced life support measures at any time during the trip. Again
we go back to our certificate and its guidelines which state that
we are to provide "non -emergency" ambulance service.
2
Enclosed is a copy of a letter we received dated July 31, 1984
from the Indian River Memorial Hospital, Department of Social
Services in which the director of that department voiced concern
over the problems they were having in obtaining ambulance trans-
portation for their patients. The letter states that within the
past months C &.J was unable to provide transportation for 42 out
of 61 cases, whichwere inappropriately termed"non-emergencies".
We found no mention of the hundreds of patients that we have done
transfers on and no mention of the excellent care our patients
and their families receive. At the time we received the letter
we spoke with Mary Kaplan, Director of Social Services and explain-
ed the fact that we are a private service that does non -emergency
transfers and that the vast majority of her cases were indeed,
true "emergencies". We also mentioned that it would be too cost-
ly for us to consider becoming an advanced life support service as
the equipment and drugs were very costly and that the disadvantage
would be having an ambulance sit and wait for a transfer to occur.
Many counties subsidize services to do this but without assistance
it is generally too costly for a small private service.
Commonly, through no fault of Social Services the receiving hospi-
tal may say that they have no available beds and they will call the
discharging hospital on quite short notice when a bed becomes avail-
able for the patient. On numerous occassions when these beds become
available the receiving hospital will require the patient to be at
their facility -within a very short period of time. Many times we
would be able to take the patient in the early afternoon as soon
as we finish calls we have scheduled for the morning, however, the
hospital will say that the patient has to leave immediately, which
is not always possible for us to do. As you can see it is not that
C & J is refusing transfers it is just that we are here to provide
your residents with local non -emergency transportation as the Com-
mission has determined our function to be.
We feel that if we are issued a certificate such as ours -that we
have aresponsibility to provide the services requested by the
Commission. If we are expected to provide "emergency" ambulance
services in the county it should be so stated in the certificate.
We have served Indian River County for 7 years and it is not that
we have diminished our services bu rather an increase in the num-
ber of out of town transfers that are emergencies and of course an
increase in the population in=the county. We find it unusual that
the "refusals" are for the out of town transfers, yet the Indian
River County Volunteer Ambulance Squad (I.R.C.V.A.S.) has been do-
ing all of the neonatal team transferes that come in to the local
airport. These teams are comprised of neonatal specialists and
in essence are not Ambulance Emergencies. If we had been out of
town on all of the 61 transfers Ms. Kaplan talked about in her
letter, would the Volunteers be taking all of the "non -emergency"
transfers such as the local Doctor Office and Nursing home calls?
The question here being is our function to be changed from its
previous description and are complaints being directed to the
right party. It seems that the problems are many and that they do
not lie as the sole responsibility of one single non -emergency
service. It seems rather illogical to have the "non -emergency"
service doing the emrgency calls and the "emergency" service doing
the non -emergency calls.
It is understandable that Indian River Memorial has a growing con-
cern regarding this issue. Mr. O'Grady blames C & J.'s inability
to accept referrals as directly affecting the patients' dischrage
being delayed. He also suggests that it may cause additional ex-
pense to the patient and inconvenience to the family. It is un-
reasonable for C & J to take the blame for a shortage of Ambulances
whether they be emergency or non -emergency vehicles. Secondly, Mr.
O'Grady states that I.R.C.V.A.S. performed the transfers and that
it is beyond the stated goals of the Volunteers to provide "emerg-
ency" transportation services. Obviously, if I.R.C.V.A.S. holds
the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity as the Emerg-
3
BOOR 58 F 1.
r U40
""NOV 14 1984
Dv 841
ency service in Indian River County it could not be beyond the
stated goals for them to provide emergency service. Mr. O'Grady
also states that the level of service to the residents appears
marginal. That is quite a serious accusation and suggests that the
Commission attempt to obtain some assurance from C & J that an ap-
propriate level of service will be made available. In response
we found it also unuasual that the hospital failed to document
the countless transfers we have made for them and the residents of
the county for the last 7 years. We have enclosed our records of
transfers the hospital made no mention of and also our explanation
of each of their dated "refusals".
It appears that the real issue is that the county is growing and
as it does the need for more emergency and non -emergency services
increases steadily. As a private service with the type of cert-
ificate we hold are we to be responsible for every transfer?
Finally, in closing we would like to continue serving Indian Riv-
er county in 1985 however, the State of Florida, Department of
Emergency Medical Services will not accept our application after
November 22, 1984 for the upcoming year without a certificate from
each county that we serve. Our local Health Department gives us
an inspection which should be taking place in the next three days,
and after the inspection is finished we must provide them with
copies of our 1985 certificates which the Health Dept. then mails
to the state with all of our paperwork. The state requires that all
of these papers reach their office in Tallahassee no later that 60
days prior to the expiration of our license which will expire on
January 23, 1985. If we are unable to have these papers in by Nov-
ember 22, 1984 we will be forced to stop serving Indian River county
when our current certificate expires on December 15, 1984.
This is certainly going to be a problem not only for the hospital
and the residents of Indian River county but it will be a very
heavy load for the I.R.C.V.A.S. as there will be no '! non- emergency"
ambulance service in the county. Lorac (Wheelchair Van Service)
will not be of any assistance as they have no medical personnel on
their units thus leaving all ambulance transportation to I.R.C.V.A.S.
It is unfortunate that these problems have arisen but we ask that
the Commission review our letter and explanations carefully, and
we feel it is only fair that you realize the enormous services
that we have provided consistently in the past and consequently
with out the Certificate in a very short time we will not be able
to service Indian River County as we have done for the last 7 years.
Sincer y,
Deborah A. Crouse
Manager
V
Deborah Crouse, Manager of C & J Ambulance Company, came
before the Board to reemphasize the points made in her letter,
especially stressing that many of the so-called "non -emergency"
transfers cannot be accurately described as non -emergency. She
agreed that it a difficult situation and there is a legitimate
concern, but there has been a drastic number of increases in
transfers out of town.
Commissioner Wodtke and Commissioner Bird inquired about any
plans the ambulance company might have for expansion, and
Chairman Scurlock felt this would involve a basic economic
decision on their part as to whether to expand or to encourage
some other service to come in.
Ms. Crouse reported that they do expect to add another
ambulance, but not until after the end of the year. They have
three ambulances for four counties, and all their units are
stationed in Fort Pierce. Ms. Crouse informed the Board that
Martin County has three non -emergency services, and there are
plenty of cases for everyone. She stated that she would like to
have a unit up here, but there are many days when they are not
needed and it would cost $120 a day to keep one up here. Ms.
Crouse continued to stress that C&J is not authorized to handle
emergency service, and if they did go out of town on the 59 or 60
emergencies, she wished to know if the volunteer ambulance squad
would then cover all the non -emergency transfers. She was upset
to see it stated that they "refused" transfers.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired about their rates, and Ms.
Crouse stated that they have a base rate of $70.00 in the City
and $75.00 in the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 84-97 renewing the Certifi-
cate of Public Convenience and Necessity for
C & J Ambulance Non -Emergency Transfer Service.
5BOOK P!. E 8412aN 0 V 14 1994
NOV 14 1984
BOOK 58 PAf'FF 843
RESOLUTION NO. 84- 97
NON -EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
WHEREAS, the C & J AMBULANCE TRANSFER SERVICE provides
quality non -emergency ambulance service to the citizens of Indian
River County; and
WHEREAS, it has been demonstrated that there is a need for
this ambulance service to operate in the County and provide
essential services to the citizens of this County on a
non-exclusive basis; and
WHEREAS, the above ambulance service has indicated that it
will comply with all the requirements of the Emergency Medical
Services Act of 1973, as amended;
NOW, THEREFORE, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA hereby issues a CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY to C & J AMBULANCE TRANSFER SERVICE
from December 15, 1984 to December 15, 1985 and that in issuing
this Certificate it is understood that the above named ambulance
service will meet the requirements of State Legislation and
provide non -emergency ambulance service for Indian River County.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
DON C. SCURL CK, JR., Ch an
ATTEST:.
FREDA WRIGHT, Cl
Adopted: Novemberl4, 1984
6
PROCLAMATION - SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA WEEK
Chairman Scurlock read aloud the following Proclamation and
presented it to William Marine:
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, the quest for knowledge by school children in
Indian River County is stimulated and developed through the use of
educational resources and services provided by School Library
Media Programs; and
WHEREAS, School Library Media Programs provide
accessibility to a wide variety of necessary educational materials
such as books, films, records, tapes, instructional television and
computer software ,as ' well as the equipment needed for their
utilization; and
WHEREAS, School Library Media Programs provide
learning activities designed to enhance reading motivation and to
establish the information skills necessary for lifelong learning;
and
WHEREAS, the full potential of School Library Media
Programs is dependent upon trained professional library media
specialists whose varied skills assist teachers and students in
effectively using this wide range of learning resources; and
WHEREAS, it is fitting that special recognition be
given to School Library Media Programs and the role of school
library media specialists in education throughout Indian River
County; and
WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of Florida has
designated by Proclamation, the week of November 11th as
"Florida School Library Media Week" in Florida.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY that the
week of November 11th through 17th, 1984 be hereby designated as
"SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA WEEK"
In Indian River County and encourages all citizens to become aware
of the contributions made by School Library Media Programs in our
schools.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FL RIDA
BY G
DO SSCUR OCK,}J ., Chairman
Attest:4
FREDA WRIGHT, ;,Clerk
7
NOV 14 1984 BOOK S F,^F814
NOV 14 1984 ®ooK 845
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 17,
1984. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved the Minutes of the Regular
Meeting of October 17, 1984, as written.
CLERK TO THE BOARD
A. Approval of Duplicate Tax Sale Certificate
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved the issuance of Duplicate Tax
Sale Certificate No. 571 in the amount of
$169.03 to Jerome F. DeGross.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Wodtke requested that Item B be removed from
the Consent Agenda for discussion.
A. Approval of Appointment of Deputy Sheriffs
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved the appointment of Deputy
Sheriffs Darrell D. Mullinax and James R.
Johnson by Sheriff Dobeck.
C. Budget Amendment - Confiscated Property
The Board reviewed the following staff memo:
0
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: November 7, 1984 FILE:
SUBJECT: Confiscated Property
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, REFERENCES:
OMB Director
The following budget amendment is to correctly allocate the funds per the request of
the Sheriff at the October 17, 1984 meeting, relating to Marine and Beach Patrol,
(This is to start funding for coverage of beaches, river, etc.)
- Account - Title
,-.'Account No:
Expense -Budget Office 112400-521-99.93
Other Mach & Equip .112-600-521-66.49
Reserve for Contingencies 112-600-581-99.91
.Increase' Decrease
37,779
32,995
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved the above budget amendment re
Marine and Beach Patrol as requested by the
Sheriff.
D. Budget Amendment - FP&L Contract Fund
70,774
The
Board
reviewed the
following staff memo:
TO: Board of
County
Commissioners
DATE: November 2, 1984 FILE:
SUBJECT: FP&L Contract Funds
FROM: Jeffrey -K. Barton, REFERENCES:
OMB Director
Due to the difference in the fiscal year of FP&L and the County, the balance of
FP&L contract funds, needs to be brought forward to this fiscal year:
Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease
Cah Fwd. - Oct. 1 001-000-389,40.00 3,408
Other current chrgs/oblig 001-208-525-34.99 3,408
9
NOV 14 19 WK 5 vAG . 846
�4
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved the above budget amendment
bringing forward the balance of FP&L contract
funds to the current fiscal year.
E. Budget Amendment - Mental Health Center
The Board reviewed the following staff memo:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: November 5, 1984 FILE:
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton,
' OMB Director
SUBJECT: Mental Health Center
REFERENCES:
Due to the change in the Mental Health structural organization, the County match for
July through September was not invoiced and the funds were carried forward at the end
of the fiscal year.
The following budget amendment is to re -appropriate the funds for disbursement to
the Mental Health Center per the attached request:
Account Title
Account No. Increase Decrease
Cash Fwd. -Sept 30 001-000-389-40.00 8,526
Mental Health 001-106-563-88.16 8,526
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved the above budget amendment
re -appropriating funds for the Mental Health
Center.
F. Budget Amendment - Pistol Permit Fund
The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director, as follows:
10
� � a
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: November 5, 1984 FILE:
SUBJECT: Pistol Permit Fund
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, REFERENCES:
OMB Director
The following budget amendment is to establish a budget for the Pistol Permit Fund:
Account Title Account No. Increase
Pistol Permits 104-000-329-30.00 700
Legal Ads 104-114-521-34.91 200
Sheriff 104-.114-521-99.14 500
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved the above budget amendment
establishing a budget for the Pistol Permit
Fund.
Decrease
G. Letter from School Board
The following letter of appreciation was received from the
School Board:
11
rN 0 V 14 1994
Bony
Telephone (305) 567-7165 SUNCOM No. 465 - 1011
SCHCCL ®ISTUICT CL IMIDIAS VIVIEV CCUSYY
1990 25th Street - Vero Beach, Florida 32960
JAMES A. BURNS, Superintendent
November 2, 1984
Mr. Doug Scurlock, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL. 32960
�-� 849
SCHOOL BOARD
RICHARD A. BOLINGER
Chairman
RUTH R. BARNES
Vice -Chairman
JUDSON P. BARKER, JR.
JOE N. IDLETTE,JR.
DOROTHY A.TALBERT
bIMMUTON LILT
Commissioners
Administrator
Attorney r/
Personnel
Public Works
Community Dev.
Utilities
Finance ,
Other 'p t
*- Dear Doug:
r
On behalf of the young people in this county as well as all
citizens who use the roads, I would like to thank the County
Commission for installation of the traffic signal at the inter-
section of 43rd Avenue and South Gifford Road. The other School
Board members, the Superintendent, and I feel that your action is
in the best interest of all county residents and will enhance
their safety.
I would appreciate your reading this letter at your next regular
meeting.
S;School
cerely,
son P. Barker, Jr.
Board Member.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(4-0) formally acknowledged receipt of the
above letter from the School Board.
H. Resignation of Urban Forester Paul Palmiotto
The Board reviewed the following letter of resignation
received from Urban Forester Palmiotto:
12
41
ef"NN"
` O O F
STATE OF FLORIDA 00 v FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE E CONSUMER SERVICES
DOYLE CONNER, COMMISSIONER * DIVISION OF FORESTRY / COLLINS BUILDING / TALLAHASSEE 32301
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Commissioners,
November 5, 1984
DIST1 IBUTiON LIST
U.'nuit'ssioners IV,
Administrator f'
Attorney
�-erfsunneI
Puhl;.; Wcrks
Cornrnurtity Dev. - -
Utilit:es
Finance
Other
It is with my deepest regrets that as of November 16, 1984,
I will be resigning my position as Urban Forester for Vero Beach and
Indian River County.
I will be taking a position with the Division of Forestry's Forest
Education Bureau in Tallahassee.
I have thoroughly enjoyed working with the County. I believe the
work we have done has made a difference as to how we view the value
and importance of trees in our lives.
I want to thank you all for your support of Urban Forestry in our
County and hope you will continue your strong efforts in years to come.
Thank you again.
Si rely yours,
.4�(�yy.t'�
Paul V. Palmiotto
Urban Forester
Vero Beach/Indian River County
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(4-0) accepted Mr. Palmiotto's resignation with
regret.
Commissioner Bird commented that in this case he felt we
have an exceptional young man who has done an outstanding job
probably above and beyond what was called and he would hope that
the Board could do something special in way of a commendation for
his work.
13
N 0 V 14 1984
BOOK FBu 850
Chairman Scurlock suggested a Resolution.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(4-0) adopted Resolution 84-98 expressing
the County's appreciation of Urban Forester
Paul Palmiotto's services to the County.
RESOLUTION 84-98 WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES
WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED.
B. Budget Amendment - Salary and Merit Increases for FY 84-85
The Board reviewed the following budget amendment as
recommended by the OMB Director:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: November 1, 1984 FILE:
SUBJECT:Salary & Merit Increase for
FY 84-85
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, REFERENCES:
OMB Director
The following budget amendment is to allocate the funds for salary and merit increases
for FY 84-85.
Account Title Account dao. Increase Decrease
B.C.C.:
Regular Salaries 001-101-511-11.12 3,356
Social Security 001-101-511-12.11 236
Retirement 001-101-511-12.12 411
Work. Comp. 001-101-511-12.14 17
Attorney:
Regular Salaries 001-102-514-11.12 7,918
Social Security 001-102-514-12.11 557
Retirement 001-102-514-12.12 969
Work. Comp. 001-102-514-12.14 40
Administrator:
Regular Salaries 001-201-512-11.12 6,771
Social Security 001-201-512-12.11 477
Retirement 001-201-512=12.12 829
.—York. Comp. 001-201-512-12.14 34
14
'Account Title
-Account No.
Increase Decrease
personnel:
Regular Salaries
001-203-513-11.12
1,816.
Social Security
001-203-513-12.11
128
Retirement
001-203-513=12.12
222
Work. Comp.
001-203-513-12.14
9
Emergency Management:
Regular Salaries
001-208-525-11.12
2,635
Social Security
001-208-525-12.11
185
Retirement
001-208-525-12.12
322
Work. Comp.
001-208-525-12.14
14
Refuse Disposal:
Regular Salaries
001-209-534-11.12
4,181
Social Security
001-209-534-12.11
294
Retirement
001-209-534-12.12
512
Work. Comp.
001-209-534-12.14
564
Parks:
Regular Salaries
001-210-572-11.12
9,679
Social Security
001-210-572-12.11
681
Retirement
001-210-572-12.12
1,185
Work. Comp.
001-210-572-12.14
319
Welfare:
Regular Salaries
001-211-564-11.12
1,965
Social Security,
001-211-564-12.11
139
Retirement
001-211-564-12.12
241
Work. Comp.
001--211-564-12.14
10
Ag, Extension
Regular Salaries
001-212-53711.12
2,586
Social Security
001-212-537-12.11
67
Retirement
001-212-537-12.12
317
Work. Comp.
001-212-537-12.14
13
Youth Guidance
Regular Salaries
001-213-523-11.12
2,399
Scoial Security
001-213-523-12.11
169
Retirement
001-213-523-12.12
294
Work. Comp..
001-213-523-12.14
12
Purchasing:
Regular Salaries
001-216-519-11.12
3,454
Social Security
001-216-519-12.11
243
Retirement
001-216-519-12.12
423
Work. Comp.
001416-519-12.14
59
Bldg. Operations:
Regular Salaries
001220-519-11.12
9,546
Social Security
001220-5.19-12.11
672
Retirement
001-220-519-12.12
1,168
Work. Comp.
001-220••-519-12.14
706
Budget:
Regular Salaries
001-229-513-11.12
5,666
Social Security
001-229-513-12.11
399
Retirement
001-229-513-12.12
694
Work. Comp.
001-229-513-12.14
28
Animal Control
Regular Salaries
001-250-562-11.12
1,112
Social Security
001-250-562-12.11
78
Retirement
001-250-562-12.12
137
Work. Comp.
001-250-562-12.14
79
General Services:
Regular Salaries
001-251-519-11.12
2,424
Social Security
001-251-519-12.11
171
Retirement
001-251-519-12.12
297
Work. Comp.
001-251-519.12.14
12
Supervisor of Election:
Regular Salaries
001-700-519-11.12
3,245
Social Security
001-700-519-12.11
228
Retirement
001-700-519-12.12
397
Work. Comp.
001-700-519-12.14
16
Reserve for Contingencies
001-199-513-99.91
83,827
15
NOV 141984 BOOK Far X59
N O V 14 1984 BOX 8� a C F 85 1
Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease
N. County Rec:
Regular Salaries
004-108-572-11.12
407
Social Security
004-108-572-12-11
29
Retirement
004-108-571-12.12
50
Work. Comp.
004-108-572-12.14
14
Comm. Development:
Regular Salaries
004-204-515,11.12
3,324
.Social Security
004-204-515-12.11
234
Retirement
004-204-515-12.12
407
Work. Comp.
004-204-515-12.14
17
County Planning:
111-199-513-99.91
87,535
Regular Salaries
004-205-515=11.12
9,644
Social Security
004-205-515-12.11
679
Retirement
004-205-515-12.12
1,181
Work. -Comp.
004-205-515-12.14
367
Code Enforcement:
,.Regular Salaries
004-207-524-12.11
3,766
Social Security
004-207-524-12.11
265
Retirement
004-207-524-12.12
461
Work. Comp.
1004-207-524-12.14
245
Franchise Administration:
--Regular-.Salaries
004-234-537-11.12
2,444
-Social Security
004-234-537-12.11
172
Retirement
004-234-537-12.12
299
Work. Comp.
004-234-537-12.14
12
`-Public Works:
_
-Regular-Salaries
004-243-519-11.12
5,942
.Social Security
004-243-51912.11
418
:'Retirement
004-243-519-12.12
727
Work. Comp.
004-243-519-12.14
30
County Engineering:
Regular Salaries
004-244-541-11.12
10,788
Social Security
004-244-541-12.11
759
Retirement
004444-541-12.12
1,320
Work. Comp,
004-244-541-12.14
820
Reserve -for Contingencies
004-199-513-99.91
44,821
Road & Bridge
Regular Salaries
111-214-541-11.12
61,649
Social Security
111-214-541-12.1.1
4,33.9
Retirement
111-214-541-12.12
7,546
Work. Comp.
111-214-541-12.14
6,288
Traffic Engineering:
Regular Salaries
111-245-541-11.12
6,065
Social Security
111-245-541-12.11
427
Retirement
111-245-541-12.12
742
Work. Comp.
111-245-541-12.14
479
Reserve for Contingencies
111-199-513-99.91
87,535
16
TO: Board of County. Commissioners DATE: November 1, 1984 FILE:
SUBJECT: Salary & Merit Increases for
FY 84-85
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, REFERENCES:
OMB Director
The following budget amendment is to allocate the funds for salary and merit increases
for FY 84-85.
Account Title - Account No. Increase Decrease
Landfill:
Regular Salaries
411-217-534-11.12
10,433
Social Security
Social Security
411-217-534-12.11
734
471-219-536-12.12
Retirement
411-217-534-12.12
1,277
126
Work. Comp..
411-217-534-12.14
720
Utilities -General
Cash Fwd. -Sept 30
411-217-534-99.92
Regular Salaries
13,164
Bldg. Department:
Social Security
471-235-536-12.11
905
Regular Salaries
441433-524-11.12
15,284
Work. Comp.
Social Security
441-233-524-12.11
1,076
471235-536-99.92
Retirement
441-233-524-12.12
1,871
Work. Comp.
441-233-524-12.14
779
Cash Fwd. -Sept 30
441-233-581.99.92
19,010
Fleet Management:
Regular Salaries
501-242-591-11.12
15,465
Social Security
501-242-591-12.11
1,088
Retirement
501-242-591-12.12
.1,893
Work. Comp.
501-242-591-12.14
711
Cash Fwd. -Sept 30
501-242.591-99.92
19.,157
Utilities -North County:
Regular Salaries
471-218-536-11.12
895
Social Security
471-218-536-12.11
63
Retirement
471-218-536-12.12
110
Work. Comp.
471-218-536-12.14
55
Cash Fwd -Sept 30
471-218,536-99.92
1,123
Utilities -South County:
Regular Salaries
471-219-536-11.12
2,069
Social Security
471-219-536-12.11
146
Retirement
471-219-536-12.12
253
Work. Comp.
471-219-536-12.14
126
Cash Fwd. -Sept 30
471-219-53649.92'
2,594
Utilities -Vista
Regular Salaries
471-228-536-11.12
1,581
Social Security
471-228-536-12.11
112
Retirement
471-228-536-12.12
194
Work. Comp.
471-228-536-12.14
97
Cash Fwd. -Sept 30
471-228-536-99.92
1,984
Utilities -General
Regular Salaries
471-235-536-1.1.12
12,854
Social Security
471-235-536-12.11
905
Retirement
471-235-536-12.12
1,570
Work. Comp.
471-235-536,12.14
578
Cash Fwd. -Sept 30
471235-536-99.92
15,907
17
NOV 14 1984 BOOK 9 854
80ox 58 8,5
Commissioner Wodtke asked if these are all in the guidelines
of what the Board approved, and Administrator Wright stated that
he knew the ones for which he is responsible are, but he did not
know about any others.
Commissioner Wodtke noticed that the money came out of the
reserve for contingencies, and the Administrator stated that was
really kind of a misnomer - we actually had it set aside in a
special account. To date we have not drawn anything down out of
contingencies, nor will we. The contingency amount that the
Board budgeted will be the same.
Commissioner Wodtke then inquired about the cash forward
figure in the enterprise accounts.
Finance Director Fry explained that the enterprise funds
have to be budgeted on a different process than the other
governmental funds, and you don't use your cash forward from a
previous years as a revenue item coming in. So, when the Board
budgeted the enterprise funds and adopted the budget, it was
basically their total revenues and then what their total expenses
were, and whatever the difference was went into the cash forward
9/30. There are no contingencies in the Enterprise Accounts.
Commissioner Wodtke asked how much of a problem it would be
throughout the year whenever we decrease the reserve for
contingency to show the balance.
Administrator Wright felt generally we do show that, but we
are not actually drawing down on contingency in this case.
Finance Director Fry stated that all you are really doing in
the enterprise funds is saying you are going to use more than the
anticipated profits were originally budgeted for.
Commissioner Wodtke continued to question the cash carry
forward, and Finance Director Fry further explained that although
on the enterprise funds you don't budget cash forward from one
year as a revenue to the next year, it is shown as it is the
requirement of state statutes that the Board adopt a budget that
is in balance.
18
M M M
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved the above budget amendment
allocating funds for salary and merit increases
for FY 84-85 as recommended by the OMB Director.
PURCHASE OF EXISTING TELEPHONE SYSTEM
General Services Director "Sonny" Dean, reviewed the
following memo:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 1, 1984 FILE:
the. Board of County
Commissioners
Purchase of existing
SUBJECT: Telephone System
H. T. "Son Dean
FROM: General Sery ces REFERENCES:
Director
On October 10, 1984 at the regular meeting of the Indian River
Board of County Commissioners, this writer made a presentation for
Board's approval for subject action.
After the presentation and discussion, the Board instructed this
writer to investigate the possibility of purchase of another
telephone system that would -replace the existing equipment for
purpose of cost savings.
I contacted the Division of Communications for the State of Florida
to solicit their assistance. I was informed by Mr. Ted Hubble,
DivCom, that if we were able to cancel our existing contract with
AT&T then he was confident a system could be found at a savings to
the County. However, he requested that we review our contract and
let him know if cancellation was possible before he proceeded. He
doubted, very seriously, the possibility of cancellation.
I contacted our legal department and was informed by Mr. Chris
Paull that we entered into an agreement with AT&T for sixty months
(5 years) and if cancellation was requested, the balance of the
contract would have to be satisfied before cancellation was
received. The present telephone system has been in place
approximately 2 1/2 years which means there is another 2 1/2 years
left on our contract. In dollars and cents this means
approximately $126,000 without allowance for any increase of
monthly charges which would have to be paid before another system
could be bought.
Based on these facts, staff recommends that we retain our present
telephone system and enter into an agreement with AT&T to purchase
it as originally proposed on October 10, 1984.
19
NOV 14 1984 �tshC 856
6h.-- ___
I
N 0 V 14 1984
Goof 58 pnr S57
Commissioner Bowman wished to know if we can't lease rather
than purchase, and Mr. Dean explained that if we continue to
lease, we will spend another $126,000 and still won't have any
equity. We can purchase the system for approximately $76,000,
and if we requested cancellation of our contract, the balance of
the contract would have to be satisfied.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if we own the system and want to
buy another one, what will this system be worth to someone else?
Administrator Wright noted that the system we have is
working; it is not as if we have to throw it away.
Commissioner Bowman expressed concern that the system will
become obsolete.
The Administrator pointed out that all you do on a telephone
is talk on it, and we do have considerable capability for
expansion of lines; in fact, we are not even up to halfway yet.
General Services Director Dean reaffirmed that staff has
recommended that we enter into a five year agreement to purchase
the existing telephone system for $76,611.53. The lease
payments, including the maintenance agreement, would be $2271.16
monthly for the first year. Right now we are paying $4200
monthly just to lease. Basically, purchasing will cut the
monthly payments in half, but they will be spread out a bit
longer.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(4-0) accepted the staff recommendation to retain
our present telephone system and enter into an
agreement with AT&T to purchase it as originally
proposed on October 10, 1984.
DISCUSSION REGARDING FEC TRAIN WHISTLES
Chairman Scurlock reported that the following letter has
been received from Florida East Coast Railway Co.:
20
FEC
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY
Mr. Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Mr. Scurlock:
P. O. DRAWER 1048, ONE MALAGA STREET, ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA 32084
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
October 26, 1984
File: 79.12.19
D1STMUTTON LAST
Commissioners
Administrator
Attorney
Personnel
Pubic Works ✓
Community Dev.
Utilities
Finance
Cther
Your letter of September 28, 1984, addressed "To Whom It May Concern",
Florida East Coast Railway, Jacksonville, Florida, has been referred
to me.
Your letter deals primarily with the sounding of train whistle signals
during the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. at railroad crossings
which are equipped with automatic control devices. You request that
FEC Railway "..voluntarily reduce or restrict the number of horn sound-
ings at intersections with automatic traffic control devices between
10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M."
Under Florida Law, except to the extent provided by the Florida Legis-
lature in its recent enactment of Amendment to Section 351.03, Florida
Statutes, requires that a railroad train approaching a public at -grade
crossing emit an audible signal. Railroad Operating Rules, approved by
the Federal Railroad Administration, prescribe the crossing whistle sig-
nal as two (2) long blasts, one (1) short blast and one (1) final long
blast of the whistle as each train approaches and passes over a railroad
crossing.
The FRA requires that a locomotive whistle meet a decibel rating of at
least 96 decibels.
When a crossing accident occurs, one of the first determinations to be
made by investigating authorities is whether or not a whistle signal was
sounded by the train approaching the crossing. In fact, you are pro-
bably aware of a recent unfortunate collision between one of the Florida
East Coast Railway Company's trains and a school bus at a crossing just
south of Fort Pierce. There were two fatalities as a result of this
accident and the accident was promptly investigated by the Federal Rail-
road Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board and the
Florida Department of Transportation. One of the primary issues to be
resolved by these investigators was whether or not the train had sounded
appropriate whistle signals approaching the crossing. I understand that
witnesses were unanimous in their statements that the whistle signals had
been sounded properly. The next issue.was whether or not the locomotive
whistle met the required decibel rating. Test was made and it was found
that it did meet this requirement.
I relate this only to point out to you the reason why Florida East Coast
Railway cannot agree to voluntarily reduce the use of train whistles
and horns.
I might add that FEC is dedicated to enhancing safety at crossings and
while it will comply with any Ordinance passed, which is in conformity
with the Florida Statutes, it must sound prescribed whistle signals ex-
cept to that extent.
21
BOOK
N O V 14 1984
N 0 V 14 1984
BOOK 5 oGf.
Your letter also deals with the blocking of railroad crossings in Gifford.
Gifford has four (4) public crossings, namely, 49th Street; 45th Street;
43rd Street and South Gifford Road. These crossings.are located between
MP -224+2199' and MP -225+2418'. The Railway's passing track is located
between MP -223+4752' and MP -226+4224'. In other words, each of the four
crossings in Gifford is located within the confines of our passing track.
These are the tracks on which trains must be held awaiting arrival of
trains on single track and while I am issuing instructions to our Opera-
ting personnel to do everything possible to keep at least one of the
crossings open, I am certain that there may be an occasional instance in
which all the crossings are blocked because of the length of the trains
involved and need to hold trains at -this location until the opposing train
passes.
As previously stated, we will do everything possible to minimize the block-
ing of crossings in the Gifford area.
Yours very truly,
R. W. Wyc
President
The Chairman noted that the FEC does not wish to assume any
further liability and they must comply with the law of the land.
He believed in the Board's previous discussion, it was felt that
at best it would be very difficult to enforce any ordinance
relating to the blowing of train whistles.
Commissioner Bowman felt that certainly if the railroad is
not willing to assume additional liability, the County is not
either.
Commissioner Bird agreed that his main concern was placing
the County in a position of greater liability.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that any time a matter of this
nature is undertaken, you automatically assume the duty of doing
it in a proper way, and should any of the signs fall down that
the County would be required to post, we would have a certain
liability. The day to day operation of making sure all the signs
are posted and remain posted would cause some additional
liability.
Chairman Scurlock stressed the problem of enforcement and
stated that in checking with other counties, he could not find
where this actually has been enforced.
Commissioner Bowman expressed concern about the length of
some of the freight trains possibly blocking all crossings in
WIJ
M
Gifford, and the Chairman noted that FEC has indicated that they
will do everything possible to minimize the possibility of this
occurring.
In further discussion, it was generally agreed that no
action would be requested at this time.
REQUEST FOR VACATION OF PORTION OF PLAT OF COLONIAL HEIGHTS
SUBDIVISION
The hour of 9:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily r- ;swo,7ce=PUBucHEARtn
Notice of hearing to: consider vasal
tion of the plat of Colonial Heights 9
Vero Beach, Indian itiver County, Florida .Flat Book 10, page 97 Public Recordi
River County, Florida. zj
the subject properly Is descNt>�
Lots 1,2'3, and a portion of Lot4
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA iliare perticuiarry described as
mencing at the Southwest comer'
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath p ,Lot 4, thence run N.,:28019'84"E.
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal a daily newspaper ublished w the West -line of said l,°t a; 122.E
Y 9 YP I� thence, run fast along the North
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being �t said. Lot 4, 30.00 tear thence
34oW21 W 188.28'feet tc a poll
on a circular curve, also being the
a :. ther
17 Nohrthwesterry direction of 6th al ng
i8f a circular curve concave to the
( Mavihll o �enn'ak angle"'of '�C
in the matter of L i s rus�of;S•� feet aid awn arG
in theCourt, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of 4U4 .22 10�A/
4 (ovT
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspapgr 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. mo�ii//
Sworn to and subscribed be re me is day of .19
Bu , ss Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, IndIJWRiver County, Florida)
(SEAL)
lie wholly In Imran_ ijiyer Looumy, rrunua:
The Board, Of 'ConrHy; Commissioners
conduct "a public hearing regarding -thp
vacation request The .public hearing,' at w
parties. in interest and citizens shall have ar
portunity to be heard. -will be heldby said B
of County Commissioners An the County C
mission Chambers of: the County A Iminisln
Building, .located at ' 1840 25th Street, '
;Beach, Florida, on Wednesday..November
1984 at 9:36A -M.
If any person decides to"adpeal any dec
made on the above.inatter, he will need a re
of the proceedings, and for such purposer
may need to Insure that a verbatim record c
proceedings is made, which includes testii
and evidence upon which the appeal is base
Indian River'County,
Board of County Commissioners
By -s-Don C Scurlock, Jr
Chairman a
Oct. 27, Nov., 8;1984,aL,_;,'
Planner Stan Boling reviewed staff memo and recommendation,
as follows:
23
NOV 14 1984
BOOK. 5 3A
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 6, 1984 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
-A)
FROM:
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
Robert M. Keati g, CP
Planning & Developr6dnt Director
THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried
Chief, Current Development Section
PLAT VACATION REQUEST FOR
A PORTION OF COLONIAL
HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION
Stan Boling/� REFERENCES: Colonial Hts .
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 November 14, 1984.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The applicant is requesting that the Board of County Commis-
sioners vacate a portion of the plat of Colonial Heights
Subdivision. The portion of the plat for which the request has
been made consists of Lots 1, 2, 3, and a portion of Lot 4 of
Colonial Heights Subdivision.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
According to Chapter 177.101 of the Florida Statutes, the Board
of County Commissioners must ascertain three facts before it
approves a plat vacation request. These facts are:
1) that the applicant holds fee simple title to the land
for which the request is being made,
2) that the vacation, if approved by the Board of County
Commissioners, will not affect the ownership or right
of convenient access of residents within the subdivi-
sion,
3) that all back taxes on the subject property have been
paid.
The applicants have submitted deeds to the Planning Department
showing that they hold fee simple title to the land in
question. No lots within the subdivision will have their means
of access affected by a partial plat vacation. Also,
documentation has been submitted by the Indian River County Tax
Collector's office certifying that all taxes on the property
have been paid.
Thus, all state requirements concerning plat vacation have been
met.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
resolution vacating that portion of the plat of Colonial
Heights Subdivision described as Lots 1, 2, 3, and a portion of
Lot 4.
24
Planner Boling informed the Board that those requesting the
vacation of these lots are Visa Building Corporation, the
developer of the proposed project on this site which owns most of
these parcels, and three other persons who own small lots within
this land - Roberta F. Tefft, Vincent L. Paulson, and John and
Theresa Maguire. Mr. Boling explained that this plat vacation
needs to be done prior to a final plat approval for a 12 lot
subdivision which is in process and should be coming before the
Board in the next few weeks.
Mr. Boling then briefly reviewed the history of why this
matter is before the Board and how it got to this point. He
informed the Board that last February this property that is to be
vacated received site plan approval for a 12 unit multi -family
building, which was proposed to be a rental townhouse type
building; building permits were pulled; construction was
underway; and then toward the end of July, it came to the
attention of a staff member that these units were being sold and
land was being conveyed with them. Planning staff, therefore,
wrote a letter to Visa Corporation telling them that they needed
to plat if they were going to convey land. They began to process
platting this land, and on September 21st they got preliminary
plat approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to know how they can build on
property before they have it platted.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that they originally proposed
this as a multiple family rental unit. When you build a rental
unit, you are not selling off any of the property and there are
no lot lines; therefore, at the time they made that assertion to
the County, they met all County codes. Where they ran into
problems with the County requirements was when they set up a
homeowners' association and some other documents for the purpose
of conveying title to each one of the units, at which time the
County ordinance requires them to plat. When they came in to
plat, a new set of regulations came into effect with respect to
25
N O V 14 1984 Box 58 pnE 8v
I
N O V 14 1994 ao t:3 �F8-
the Health Department, which, if they had been applicable
originally, would not have allowed the project.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if you can give septic tank permit
approval for 24 bathrooms in a development like that.
Michael Galanis of Environmental Health explained that he
has a limitation of 5,000 gpd for the overall project, and that
is what he is supposed to look at - the overall project. Twenty-
four bedrooms (24 x 150) would fall within that limitation. Mr.
Galanis believed the original 1/2 acre subdivision was owned by
Frank Zorc, but in this particular case, the developers chose to
submit to him 5,000 gallon blocks under separate ownership. His
legal staff in Tallahassee informed him that if they take this
route - under separate ownership - even though they have one sign
out front and even though he may think of it as one development,
there is nothing that the law provides at this point for him to
stop this development going on septic tanks. When the County
staff came to him and said these people want to replat, he said
that for him the intent has been met already and how they
subdivide it afterwards is not his concern. Mr. Galanis stated
that the Board must understand that his law is structured around
the concept that he is never going to be looking at these kind of
things; all he is supposed to look at is 1/4 acre, 1/2 acre, etc.
He never sees the large acreage type development because they are
all going on treatment plants, and they go to the DER.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if this same practice and same
design is continued in this subdivision, will the developer still
be able to get a permit for septic tanks from Environmental
Health, and Mr. Galanis stated that they will if it is under
separate ownership. If it is one owner and if it is all one
large development, they must see the DER.
Considerable discussion ensued regarding the fact that this
is an after -the -fact situation, and Attorney Brandenburg agreed
that it is an -after -the -fact effort to comply with the County
Subdivision Ordinance; staff is doing what they are supposed to
W
do under this ordinance, and that is catch the people who are
illegally subdividing and requiring them to comply with our law.
The Chairman noted that it seems as if the whole thing has
been a Berry wandered situation, and Commissioner WQdtke
concurred that it has been aimed at getting us into a situation
where we can't say no.
Mr. Galanis agreed that there definitely has been a very
smart attempt to circumvent the intent of the law.
Chairman Scurlock asked if we have notified Mr. Zorc as he
felt before the Board reaches any decision, those who will be
directly affected should be present to discuss this eye to eye.
It was noted that Mr. Zorc is not the representative, Visa
Building Corporation is, and Planning Director Keating reported
that their attorney, Mr. Bogosian, was supposed to be here today.
Mr. Galanis felt if the Board is going to suggest that these
people cannot have septic tanks, they need to understand that his
legal representation in Tallahassee has informed him that this is
a fairly common maneuver used in Florida to circumvent the
existing regulations, which require that any one project under
single ownership exceeding 5,000 gpd. shall go on a sewage
treatment plant. This has been presented as multiple owners.
Chairman Scurlock inquired about the nearest sewer
availability, and the Administrator stated that it is not even
close; it would be the Mall.
Attorney Brandenburg noted that as a practical matter,
whether these are rental units or whether someone owns the unit
and lives in it, you will have the same amount of sewage going
into the same septic tanks. What we are faced with is that the
state law happens to provide them with a loophole, and the
attempt here is to make them comply with the county ordinance.
The Planning Department is trying to get the message out to
everyone that if they are going to develop land, they have to
comply with the Planning requirements, and if we catch them
afterwards, they are going to have to go through the trouble and
27
NOV 14 1984 Bou 864
N 0 V 14 1984 ��ra�Y
expense of going through the process, vacating any other plats,
and doing a formal plat for what it is.
Commissioner Wodtke stressed his concern that with the rest
of the subdivision zoned the same way, we could end up with 60 or
80 septic tanks, and Mr. Galanis confirmed that according to
current state law, under separate ownership and a separate
development, this could happen.
Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that the county has
informed this developer that he must plat in advance any more
divisions in that subdivision. If he plats this in advance,. the
likelihood of being able to obtain a septic tank permit from the
state is nil.
Discussion ensued about ownership, and Commissioner Wodtke
asked if it is not true that these four lots are all under the
same owner as the listing on the back taxes show Frank Zorc as
Trustee; it was believed that Mr. Zorc has now sold all this off.
Commissioner Wodtke asked how Mr. Zorc could sell it if it
isn't subdivided, and Planning Director Keating stated that
actually it is a 1/2 acre lot subdivision.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that there are buildings
that go right across the lot line; in fact the buildings actually
don't even line up with the lot lines.
Director Keating explained that the developer came in for
the first three lots and part of the fourth lot all together as
one parcel; a site plan was approved for that parcel; and at that
time the owner said he would not sell the units - they would be
rental units. Subsequently it was found out that he was selling
each unit and conveying land with each. It also has been learned
recently that, even after we informed the applicant that he is
violating the law by selling any more of these units without plat
approval, he has sold at least one more lot.
Discussion ensued regarding the feeling that there should be
some way to fine someone who just disregards a county ordinance.
28
M -
Attorney Brandenburg asked if we are going to take Building
Code enforcement action, and Mr. Keating noted that would take
months, and final plat approval is scheduled in a few weeks if
this plat vacation goes through.
In further discussion, Attorney Brandenburg suggested that
the Health Department in this type of situation in the future,
since they are basing the septic tank permit on there being one
ownership on one large lot, possibly should require an affidavit
and agreement by the person applying for the septic tank that
that lot will not be split in the future.
Mr. Galanis felt that might be a good idea and asked if the
Attorney would help him work out something like that.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that what really irritates him is
that they deliberately made individual applications for each
building under a different name because they never would have
gotten the septic tank permits otherwise, and here we are after
the fact when six units are built and others are under
construction, and it appears the only way to rectify this is to
make it legal. He wondered if by taking this action we are
saying anybody who comes into the rest of this subdivision, on
Lot 6, for instance, can build right up to the line, and then lot
7 can come in and get a permit and attach right up to the lot
line and so on down the line.
Attorney Brandenburg agreed that it is a disaster the way
this has been set up. He noted that Mr. Mitchell who is
developing this project is now present.
Mr. Mitchell commented that he had expected his attorney,
Richard Bogosian to be present, but he apparently is not. He
stated that it was never contemplated at any time that this was
built for rental and it has been a practice to sell these units
right from the start.
Commissioner Wodtke asked Mr. Mitchell how he will sell the
unit that goes right across the lot line, and Mr. Mitchell stated
that an association was set up by Attorney Bogosian to do so.
29
N 0 V 14 1984 BOOK o u ���
N O V 14 1984BOOK
Commissioner Bird believed the original presentation was
that staff thought these were to be rental units.
Planner Boling confirmed that the original presentation by
their engineer of record, Ed Schmucker, said they were to be
rental units; that was the way it was reviewed, as a 12 unit
rental development; and that is how they got the septic tanks.
If they had said they were going to convey land, they would have
had to have a concurrent site plan and subdivision request.
Attorney Brandenburg clarified that they would have been
able to get approval from the county, but not from the Health
Department if they had done this properly in the beginning,
Commissioner Wodtke noted that basically if we deny this, it
can continue to operate as a rental and they cannot convey the
land.
Attorney Brandenburg reported that he has been given to
understand that some land already is being conveyed which is a
violation of the county ordinance and subject to jail time as
well as a $500 fine. The developer has been advised that this
procedure cannot be used with respect to any of the other lots.
Commissioner Bird asked Mr. Mitchell if he wanted the matter
tabled until he can have his legal representative present, as he
believed there are some serious charges involved here.
Mr. Mitchell stated he would appreciate that. He noted that
he hired Total Development to do his engineering, and if they put
in an application for rental purposes, he is not aware of this.
Planning Director Keating informed the Board that he does
have a letter on file from Mr. Schmucker of Total Development in
response to all the comments in staff's discrepancy letter, in
which letter Mr. Schmucker states that the owner advised Total
Development that it is his intention to utilize these as rental
units.
Mr. Mitchell continued to claim that renting was never
talked about to him to his knowledge.
30
� � r
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
(4-0) adjourned the public hearing and announced
that it would be continued to the meeting of
November 28, 1984, at 10:00 A.M.
Attorney Brandenburg advised Mr. Mitchell that the
Commission is considering bringing action against his corporation
if any more lots are sold and is considering taking action
regarding those which he has already sold.
SEBASTIAN BOAT DOCK
Commissioner Bird noted that in cooperation with the City of
Sebastian, we agreed to make some extensive repairs and
renovations to the boat ramp up there and use the Boating
Improvement Funds. The dock has been completed and the bills are
overdue to be paid - about $18,000. We need to authorize payment
of these bills, and as soon as they are paid will submit them to
the Department of Natural Resources, by whom we have been assured
we will be reimbursed immediately.
Commissioner Bowman inquired what we paid before for this
dock, and it was noted that there was an overrun.
Intergovernmental Relations Director Thomas noted that the
Board authorized the application for the $2,800 overrun. He
reported that he has checked with Finance Director Fry as to the
account out of which we can advance these funds, and what they
want to do is charge this to #001-108-572-88.52, the recreation
account, and then when it comes back, they will make another
journal entry and reimburse it.
31
NOV 14 1984 BOOK pnn
N 0 V 14 1994
BOOK 5S .Fr;F86
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved the following budget amendment
as discussed above.
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: November 28, 1984 FILE:
SUBJECT: Sebastian Boat Ramp
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, REFERENCES:
OMB Director
The following budget amendment is to correctly allocate the revenues and expenses
for the Sebastian Boat Dock:
-<ACcount'Title `. Account No. Increase Decrease
Boating Facilities 001-000-334-72.00 20,800.
Sebastian 001,108-572-88.52 20,800
PRESENTATION BY FRIZZELL ARCHITECTS - FINAL PLANS FOR NEW JAIL
Administrator Wright reported that this plan was approved by
the Jail Committee when a presentation was made to them.
George Bail, President of Frizzell Architects, informed the
Board that since the last meeting there have been no significant
changes in the design or staffing; they basically have been just
refining the details. Mr. Bail continued that they were asked to
include a solar water heating system and have included it as an
added alternate. He noted that Commissioner Bowman had expressed
concern about insulation; they now are using a vermiculite fill
insulation in the block, which is completely non-combustible.
Another item raised was in regard to taking advantage of the
savings in sales tax, and Mr. Bail stated that this is quite
commonly done where you have construction management and they
negotiate with each individual sub contractor and arrange for
32
M M
purchasing materials directly. He felt it is a little more
complicated in this case, however.
Chairman Scurlock noted they are splitting the bid so that
on the security type equipment we can take advantage of the sales
tax saving.
Attorney Brandenburg believed the County will be able to
take advantage of the 6% sales tax discount with respect to the
security items provided the County assumes some risk of loss
prior to installation and makes sure we are covered with insur-
ance. With respect to other large quantities of items, it is
possible we could specify them up front and bid them out
separately, but the architect would have to comment on whether
that is feasible or not. He continued that the other alternative
is to add some general language to bid specs so after the bid is
let, we could work with the general contractor to have the County
buy directly large quantities of materials that he has already
arranged through his subcontractors and priced out through them,
and this would be the route he would suggest.
Commissioner Bird felt the contractor's bid would include
the sales tax, and if we work this out with him, he asked if it
then would come back to us in the form of some kind of credit.
Attorney Brandenburg noted that after the contract is let,
we would indicate to the general contractor that we would like to
use this option reserved in the bid specs with certain items, and
then we could negotiate change orders with him on those items
where the entire amount of the cost of that item, plus the sales
tax, would be deleted from his contract price on that item. The
contractor would want a certain number of dollars for handling,
storage, etc.
Chairman Scurlock raised a question as to whether it was
intended to eliminate pre -qualification of bidders because of the
time element.
Mr. Bail confirmed it was, but emphasized they have to be
bondable, and we are requiring they list subs.
33
NOV 14 1994 $ e� 8 &c8 70
I
860K
Chairman Scurlock noted that there is supposed to be a
full time project representative agreed upon by both the
architect and the county and he wished to know when that is going
to happen.
Mr. Bail felt that it is important to work on this immedi-
ately, and the Administrator stated that staff can start on this
as soon as the Board approves the plans.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the architect will submit several
names and we will advertise and then have a selection process.
Mr. Bail believed that some advertising in this area will be
necessary. He stated that he will prepare a statement of the
necessary qualifications. He noted that basically the architect
makes periodic inspections, but he isn't there at all times.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that this individual will be
working directly under the architect's supervision and be an
employee of their firm. He asked if the Architect would have any
objections if the county were to advertise and then to pick who
they feel ought to hold this position and send this to Frizzell
for approval.
Mr. Bail had no objections to that procedure; he noted that
actually the cost for employing this person will be just what it
costs them; there will be no markup.
Attorney Brandenburg further clarified that the idea was to
make sure this person worked for the architect and wasunder
their supervision - not an employee of the county. This was set
up so that we didn't get into the finger pointing we did with the
County Administration Building where we had our employee versus
the contractor versus the architect.
Chairman Scurlock believed we will have a completely
different situation with new construction as opposed to the
renovation carried out at the Administration Building and the
Courthouse.
Commissioner Wodtke continued to express concern about
getting into litigation and the fact that this representative
34
M M
M
M
will be hired by and working for the architect. He wished to
know who will represent the county and do our documentation.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that will be this
gentleman's job - to document on a day to day basis under the
architect's supervision. We will be looking solely to the
architect for the supervision on that job site through this
individual. There will be only two people on the job site - the
architect and his employees and the contractor and his employees.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired what kind of reports this
person will be making, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that at
the time we make the change in the contract, we can lay out
exactly what we want this individual to do, i.e., each day make a
notation of the group that is on site - how many people - what
sub -contractors, etc. We are also requiring that prior to
starting the job, the general contractor provide us with a
complete schedule using the critical path method, which we will
have on site to gauge his performance as he goes along.
The Chairman requested that Mr. Bail explain how we are
splitting the bid.
Mr. Bail reported that they first are taking bids on the
jail detention equipment, which represents about 1/4 of the
project. This is to give the Board better control over the
selection of the detention contractor so it doesn't become a
shopping proposition later on by the bidders. These bids will be
received approximately ten or more days prior to receipt of the
general contractor bids. If the Board then decides to award the
contract to a particular detention contractor, the general con-
tractors will be instructed to use that bid in preparing their
bids.
Commissioner Bird hoped we will go into this with the
thought that we will take a very hard line with any change
orders. He did believe this situation would not be as difficult
with a new building, however.
35
NOV 14 1984
J
�NOV 14 1984 wx 8 .
Administrator Wright affirmed that is why staff has spent
countless hours with the architect trying to cover everything
possible.
Mr. Bail continued that they have one problem to work out
concerning scheduling. To award these contracts, the plans first
have to be approved by the Department of Corrections. He hoped
to work it out so the whole process can be done in 30 days, but
he did not feel they will get the comments back from the D.O.C.
in two weeks time.
Administrator Wright commented that they had planned on a
December bid, but may have to go into January. It was noted that
if the Board approves the final plans today, they will go
immediately to D.O.C.
Chairman Scurlock inquired when we have to be under
construction as related to the sales tax, and Attorney
Brandenburg stated that it is not necessary to be under
construction at any particular time, but only to indicate by
January 1st what contracts have been entered into for building of
the facility.
Discussion ensued as to how we pay for the facility from the
sales tax monies, and the Administrator reported that we will
receive monthly installments from the state. We are looking at
an 18 month time frame and are anticipating the money will be
slightly ahead of the payments. Once we see exactly how much we
are dealing with and estimate what we have to pay out, we can
figure more exactly; we may have to do some interim financing.
Further discussion ensued regarding the fact that it is the
responsibility of the Department of Revenue to educate the
merchants re the new sales tax collection.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that many businesses will have to
make computerized change -overs, and he would hope the D.O.R. gets
its instructions out before Christmas so the merchants can be
prepared to deal with this correctly and not run the risk of
having to pay penalties.
He also wished to know if the merchant
36
M M r
gets a percentage for collecting this tax the same as they do on
the other 5�. The Administrator agreed to check into this.
Chairman Scurlock noted that actually we will be con-
structing this facility over two years, and the Administrator
believed that the biggest concern is running into heavy expenses
up front.
Chairman Scurlock wished to know at what point it is
anticipated staff will be able to project a shortfall and plan
for making up the deficit, and the Administrator noted that it
would be after we get the bids and actually see what a few months
collections amount to. The contractor will be requested to draw
up an estimate of a project draw schedule.
Commissioner Bird asked what it is that we are responsible
for as far as site work is concerned. He understood the Road &
Bridge Department is working on the site now.
Administrator Wright stated that we are responsible for
bringing it up to rough grade 5' out, and Mr. Bail confirmed the
County would be responsible for just about everything 5' outside
the building line with the exception of fencing which is being
provided under the general contractor.
Discussion ensued about entrances to the jail site, and
Administrator Wright stated that we are looking at an entrance
off South Gifford Road and also one off 43rd Avenue eventually,
and it would be at least 300' away from the intersection. All
this was taken into consideration in the design.
Chairman Scurlock asked if there were any additional
questions; -he did not feel a need to go through the document page
by page.
Administrator Wright reported that the exterior is a pigment
impregnated block and we will have a choice of colors.
Commissioner Bowman inquired about the "R" factor in block,
and Mr. Bail answered that it is a combination of block and
insulation, and we have to meet state energy codes. The
individual precolored blocks are 8.x 16 and grooved vertically.
37
OV 14 1984 1 F` 7
NOV 14 1984 BOOK; 875
Discussion ensued re the maintenance required, and Mr. Bail
noted that you don't paint the block; eventually it may require
another silicone treatment.
Chairman Scurlock inquired as to the cost differential be-
tween impregnating the block with color and actually painting it.
Mr. Bail did not know offhand; stucco very likely would be
cheaper, but it is more of a maintenance problem. This could be
considered as an alternate, but he felt the way it is designed is
the most economical from the life cycle point of view.
The Board inquired what specific authorization the architect
needed at this point, and Mr. Bail stated that basically the
Board has to approve the final plans and authorize the architect
to submit them to the state and to receive bids.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
(4-0) approved the final plans of the Jail;
authorized the Architect to submit them to
the D.O.C. for approval; and authorized them
to go to bid in December or January.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
authorized staff to advertise for a represen-
tative to be mutually agreed on by the architect
and the owner.
Commissioner Wodtke had one final question as to whether the
architect still felt confident the staffing levels will remain as
predicted with the modifications made.
Mr. Bail stated that they have no reason to change the
staffing levels, and he does not anticipate the state making any
changes at this point since they have seen the plan before.
flK
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the D.O.C. will approve the
staffing level at the same time they approve the plans, and Mr.
Bail assured him it would, and that if there were to be any
significant change, they would come back to the Board on this.
Attorney Brandenburg suggested that the Board authorize the
architect and Administrator to decide on a schedule of advertise-
ments for the bids so they do not have to live with our normal
advertisements that we use for purchasing small items. He noted
that we have an ordinance specifying requirements for bidding;
however, when you bid a large project, you may want to give an
individual a longer or shorter period of time to respond and you
may want to advertise many more times in trade journals, etc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
(4-0) authorized the Architect and Administrator
to decide on a schedule of advertisements for
bids as recommended by the County Attorney.
The several bills and accounts against the County having
been audited were examined and found to be correct were approved
and warrants issued in settlement of same as follows: Treasury
Fund Nos. 13476 - 13707 inclusive. Such bills and accounts being
on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the
warrants so issued from the respective bonds being listed in the
Supplemental Minute Book as provided by the rules of the
Legislative Auditor, reference to such record and list so
recorded being made a part of these Minutes.
There being no further business, on Motion made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:47 o'clock A.M.
Attest:
Clerk
NOV 14 1984
39
/ c
Chairman