Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/10/1985Wednesday, July 10, 1985 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, July 10, 1985, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; and Margaret C. Bowman; Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr., being temporarily delayed. Absent was Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman, who was out of state for health reasons. 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. Vice Chairman Scurlock, acting in the absence of Chairman Lyons, called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Administrator Wright reported that Mr. Law through his agent has requested that Item 12 A., his appeal of site plan denial, be removed from today's agenda. The Administrator further noted that he needed to hold a brief caucus with the Board members immediately after adjournment of today's meeting. Vice Chairman Scurlock believed that Item 13 - re Advanced Life Support - has been withdrawn by Carroll Palmer. Attorney Brandenburg requested the addition of the execution of a Quit Claim Deed to Earl Monroe re property we have under option for the Utility Department. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (3-0) removed, added and agreed to the items described above. JUL 101995 BooK_ Fe: JULA01985 EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER AWARD koK 1 PvE 4.14 Vice Chairman Scurlock felt it is a real benefit to the County to recognize the people who have done an outstanding job for us. He called forward Charles Coleman, heavy equipment operator for the Road & Bridge Department, who has been with the County since 1969, complimented him on his fine service record, and presented him with a check and a plaque. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Vice Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of .the Regular Meeting of June 5, 1985. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 5, 1985, as written. The Vice Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 12, 1985. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 12, 1985, as written. CLERK TO THE BOARD A. Pistol Permit Renewals The Board reviewed memo of the Administrator, as follows: 2 r TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: June 20, 1985 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners SUBJECT: Pistol Permit Renewals FROM: Michael Wright. REFERENCES: County Administrator The following have applied to the Clerk's office for renewal of their pistol permits: Paul E. Phillips Luciano J. Zammuto Michael L..Wodtke Thomas: R. Hargett All requirements of the ordinance have been met. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved renewal of pistol permits for the following: Paul E. Phillips Luciano J. Zammuto Michael L. Wodtke Thomas R. Hargett CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Bowman requested that Item D be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion, and Commissioner Bird requested the removal of Item L. A. Hazardous Waste Survey and Assessment Report The Board reviewed Memo of staff member Ronald Brooks, as follows: 3 J U L 101985 BOOK D1 FAGE 415 J U L 10 1995 Boa 61 FnE 416 TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF DATE: JULY 1, 1985 COUNTY COMMISSIONE THRU: TERRANCE G. PINT SUBJECT: HAZARDOUS WASTE ASSESSMENT FROM: RONALD R. BROOKS DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Section 403.7225, Florida Statutes, required that a local hazardous waste management assessment be prepared for each County. The assessment was to be performed in coordination with the Regional Planning Council and in accordance with guidelines prepared by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The assessment had to address the following as a minimum:* 1. Identification of all hazardous waste generators within the County. 2. Identification of the types and quantities of hazardous waste generated within the County. 3. Identification of the hazardous waste management practices of .generators within the County. 4. Identification of effective waste management practices for hazardous waste generators requiring off-site services, including the identification of types of facilities needed to serve the hazardous waste generators within the County. 5. Identification of abandoned dump sites in the County. 6. Identification of the operating procedures at the County Landfill. 7. Designation of areas within the County in which a hazardous waste storage facility may be located. The assessment was to be completed:"and submitted to the Regional Planning Council and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation by July 1, 1985. ANALYSIS In coordination with the Regional Planning Council and with the services of the consulting firm, ERM -South, the required hazardous waste assessment has been completed. The attached report addresses all of the items of concern and it is ready to be forwarded to the Regional Planning Council and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners review the attached report and approve it for submittal to the Regional Planning -Council and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 4 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved the Hazardous Waste Survey and Assessment Report for submittal to the Regional Planning Council and the DER. IS CH C Copy of said Report is on file in the Office of the eke-rk. B, Acceptance - Interlocal Agreements re Local Option Gas Tax with Indian River Shores and Sebastian ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (3-0) accepted the Interlocal Agree- ments with the Town of Indian River Shores and the City of Sebastian re the local option gas tax as authorized at the Regular Meeting of June 19, 1985. Said Agreements are on file in the Office of the Clerk. C. Release of Assessment Liens - Old Sugar Mill Estates (Sexton) ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being delayed, the Board unani- mously (3-0) approved Release of Assessment Liens on Lots 27, 28 and 29, Old Sugar Mill Estates, Unit III, for one ERU each of SR 60 water, and authorized the signature of the Chairman on all three Releases. Copies of said Releases on file in the Office of the Clerk. 5 BOOK Fit" 417 JUL 10 1985 JUL 10 1985 BOOK 61 PAGE 418 E. Budget_ Amendment _ Sheriff___ Communication Tower The Board reviewed the following memo of the OMB Director and letter from Sheriff Dobeck: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: June 25, 1985 FILE: SUBJECT: FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, REFERENCES: OMB Director Please approve the charging of items requested by the Sheriff to the following -account number: 112-600-521-66.49 P. O. BOX 608 PHONE 562-7911 June 26, 1985 Honorable Pat Lyons, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Pat: R.T."TIM" DOBECK - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION i,EHO BEACH, FLOBIDA 32960 Df-'�Tnk'18 TION LISA' ra!;;;z- Works Coir:,iu ity iev. -- _ utilities Finance Otber C1 4 Please consider this as an amendment to the letter to you on June 20, 1985 regarding the construction and billing for acces- sories for the communication tower. Please note in the above mentioned letter we requested that Com- munications of Vero be paid the amount of $5,698.25 for the acces. sories needed for the tower. In order to aid Communications of Vero in their fiscal year end, we went ahead and paid them that amount. Therefore, we are requesting the county to reimburse this Department. We appreciate your consideration in this matter. Since ly, VVV__ R. "Tim" Dobeck, Sheriff Indian River County 6 � r M r r � ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved charging the items requested by the Sheriff to Account No. 112- 600-521-66.49 as recommended by the OMB Director. F. Release of Portion of Escrowed Funds - Florence Acres The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Stan Boling: IN bard ��' County DATE: June 25, 1985 FILE. �.. Comm i.oners . THROUGH: Michael Wright, County Administrator SUBJECT: DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Jim Di is, Public Works Director FROM: Stan Boling REFERENCES: Staff Planner Release of a Portion of Escrowed Funds Held for Improvements in Florence Acres Subdivision RI/i/LL1W It is requested that the data herein presenter formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of July 10, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The developer of Florence Acres _Subdivision, Peter Sabonjohn, Jr., is requesting the release of the $16,500 held in escrow by the three party agreement executed by the County on January 4, 1985. This escrow agreement secures the contract (No. IRC - 82 -SD -1) to construct and provide the required drainage, paving, and grassing improvements for the subdivision. A total of $16,500 is being held by Florida National Bank in an escrow account. Pursuant to Mr. Sabonjohn's request, the County Engineering Department has inspected the constructed improve- ments, including the regrading, reseeding, and repaving of portions of the subdivision. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The Engineering Department recognizes that the developer has constructed most of the required improvements in accordance with the construction contract. The ground water table in this area is slightly higher than estimated prior to development, and the east swale is ,holding water. Grassing has begun to germinate, and the north protion of the road is in need of minor maintenance where grass is protruding through the asphalt. Pursuant to section 5 of the'escrow agreement, the Public Works Director has caused inspection of the improvements, and is 7 JUL 10 1985 ao�� FAGE 419 J U L 101985 _I BOOK 61 FAGS 420 satisfied with most of the work. However, Public Works recommends that the following funds remain in escrow until such time that the Public Works Director is satisfied in all respects with the work: Grassing $1,600 Flap valve on east drainage swale culvert 700 Swale grading 300 Road Maintenance 1,500 Total $4,100 RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached resolution authorizing the release of $12,400 from the Florence Acres Subdivision escrow account, held by Florida National Bank, to the developer, and authorizing the remaining $4,100 to remain in the escrow account. Funding to be from the Florence Acres Subdivision escrow account. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (3-0) adopted Resolution 85-72 authorizing the release of $12,400 of the escrowed funds held for improvements in Florence Acres Subdivision. 8 RESOLUTION 85- 72 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF A PORTION OF THE FUNDS HELD UNDER THE TERMS OF AN ESCROW AGREEMENT BETWEEN PETER SABONJOHN, JR., FLORIDA NATIONAL BANK, AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TO GUARANTEE THE CONSTRUCTION OF REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS IN FLORENCE ACRES SUBDIVISION. WHEREAS, Indian River County, (County) Peter .G. Sabonjohn, Jr., (Developer) and Florida National Bank (Bank) have entered into a cash deposit and escrow agreement; and WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, the Devel- oper has made a written request for disbursement of funds held to guarantee required improvements, and has submitted an engineer's certification of the completed work along with release of lien statements from all contractors and sub -contractors reguarding work performed in the subdivision; and WHEREAS, under the terms of said agreement, the Public Works Director has- caused an inspection of the required improvements, is satisfied with most of the work performed, and recommends disbursement of a certain portion of the funds held in escrow by the Bank. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that: Funds from the esi $12,400.00 be disbL oper or to any thi Bank and Developer of $4,100.00 shall under the terms of :row account in the amount of .rsed by the Bank to the Devel- rd party or parties upon which may agree. Funds in the amount remain in the escrow account the existing agreement. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Bird who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman , and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Absent Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Maggy Bowman Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Absent The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 10th day of July 1985 Attestvz , �.2 ) „�� c...�j& FREDA WRIGHT, C rk STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER JUL 10 1985 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA DON C. SCUR_L(10Ky, . Jp VICE CHAIRMAN BOOK 61 f'A r'E ���� JUL 10 1985 BOOK 1 FAG F 4� G. Resolution Designating County Landfill as Site for Storage of Hazardous Wastes ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (3-0) adopted Resolution 85-73 designating the current County Landfill as an area within which a hazardous waste storage facility may be located.. 10 77 RESOLUTION NO. 85- 73 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DESIGNATING THE CURRENT COUNTY LANDFILL SITE AS AN AREA WITHIN THE COUNTY IN WHICH A HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE FACILITY MAY BE LOCATED, PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES 5403.7225. WHEREAS, due to the permeability of the soil and high-water table in Florida, the Legislature of the State declared its intention to prohibit future hazardous waste landfills, and WHEREAS, the State has required each local government to comply with a local hazardous waste management assessment program, and WHEREAS, the program was designed to identify all hazardous waste generators within the County, indicating the types and quantities of waste produced; an identification of current hazardous waste managements practices; location of abandoned dump sites; and clarification of operating procedures at sanitary landfills within each county; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the program, each county is required to designate areas within the county in which hazardous waste storage facilities may be located, and WHEREAS, Indian River County has determined the type, quantity and location of hazardous waste generators within our County and, after public hearings, has determined that a single hazardous waste storage facility shall be sufficient to handle the needs of this County for the foreseeable future. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The current Indian River County Landfill site is hereby designated as an area where a hazardous waste storage facility may be located, and 2. Due to the size of Indian River County, its population, and limited amount of hazardous waste generated within the County limits, the County believes that one site is sufficient to handle the County's anticipated future needs. The foregoing resolutior. ' was offered by Commissioner Bird who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman and, being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Absent Vice Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Ave Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Absent Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Ave The Chairman thereupon declared Resolution No. 85- 73duly passed and adopted this 10th day of July 1985. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By DON C. SC RL , R. VICE-CHAIRMAN 11 JUL 10 1985 BOOK 61 F E 493 BOOK 6-1 PAGE'?4 H. Extension of Florida Marine Patrol Antenna Lease The Board reviewed memo of General Services Director Dean, as follows: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: July 1, 1985 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners Thru: Michael Wright Florida Marine Patrol County Administrator SUBJECT: Antenna Lease H. T. " Dean FROM: GeneralrSe vices DivisioEtEFERENCES: On June 16, 1982 the Florida Marine Patrol entered into an agreement with Indian River County to lease tower space at Hobart Park. This has been renewed on an annual basis ever since. They have requested an extension of this lease for anofher year. I have talked with Captain Livings of the Florida Marine Patrol about moving.over to our new tower -some time this year and he was interested. Sometime within the next two months, Captain Livings will be here to discuss the'relocat-ion with me. It is recommended that the extension agreement be executed. Should the Florida Marine Patrol decide to move, we will negotiate a new lease at that time. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved extension of the lease with the Florida Marine Patrol for antenna space for one additional year from the date of June 16, 1985, and authorized the signature of the Vice Chairman to the Renewal Letter. 12 State of Florida DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DR. ELTON J. GISSENDANNER Executive Director Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32303 June 12, 1985 Mr. H. T. Dean, Jr. General Services Director Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FlQr: da,., 32960 Dear Mr. Dean: 0.9n, Genets. SeN�oe� BOB GRAHAM Governor GEORGE FIRESTONE Secretary of State JIM SMITH Attorney General GERALD A. LEWIS Comptroller BILL GUNTER Treasurer DOYLE CONNER Commissioner of Agriculture RALPH D. TURLINGTON Commissioner of Education Re: Tower space on antenna Hobart Park The Florida Marine Patrol wishes to renew the above reference agreement for an additional one (1) year on the same terms and conditions contained in the original agreement. (See attached agreement.) This original renewal letter will be for your records, and the duplicate letter attached is to be signed and returned to this office for our records. Thank you for your continued matter. If there should be office at 904/488-3878. LSL/ih Signature �•n C cooperation and support in this any questions, please contact this Sincerely, � r Captain Lou S. Livings Special Project Coordinator t ai�an xiver Uounty board oil/Cour Don C. Scurlock, Jr., ViceVChair Approved: July 10, 1985 s i.oners Approv,K-ajA form and MaKufficieaW Brandenburg I Attorney DIVISIONS / ADMINISTRATION BEACHES AND SHORES LAW ENFORCEMENT MARINE RESOURCES RECREATION AND PARKS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STATE LANDS 13 UL 10 1985 BOOK 61 FNuE JJ J U L 101985 BOOK 61 C 426 I. Release of Easement - Garden of Eden Subdv. (Green) The Board reviewed memo from Code Enforcement Officer Davis, as follows: TO: DATE: FILE: The Honorable Members June 27, 1985 of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENC RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST UBJECT: BY WILLIE M. GREEN SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 24 & 25, GARDEN OF EDEN SUBDIVI- Roert M. Keatin , AIgR SION Planning & Development Director FROM: 4ZO Betty Davis REFERENCES: Green Code Enforcement Officer DIS:REMS It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of July 10, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The County has been petitioned by Willie Mae Green, owner of the subject property, for release of the rear lot 10 foot easement of lots 24 and 25, Block D, Garden of Eden Subdivision being the northerly 10 feet -thereof together with the side lot 5 foot easement of Lots 24 and 25, Garden of Eden Subdivision. These lots are 50 feet in width and 100 feet in depth. It is Mrs. Green's intention to consolidate the lots into one large building site meeting the criteria of the C-lA zoning district, and construct an improved parking area for her existing residence and barber shop on the site. The current zoning classification is C -1A. The land use designation is MXD, Mixed Use District. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida. Power & Light Company, Florida Cablevision, and the Utility and Right-of-way Departments=. Based upon their review, there were no objections to release of the easements. The zoning staff analysis, which included a- `site visit, showed that drainage would be adequately handled on-site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption resolution, the release of the rear lot 10' easement of and 25, Garden of Eden Subdivision, being the northerly thereof together with the side lot 5 foot easement of and 25, Block D, Garden of Eden Subdivision. Recorded Book 4, Page 36, of the Public Records of Indian River Florida. 14 7-7 of a Lots 24 10 feet Lots 24 in Plat County, E7 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (3-0) adopted Resolution 85-74 approving the release of the rear lot 101 easement together with the side lot 5' easement of Lots 24 and 25, Block D, Garden of Eden Sub- division, to John and Willie Green and authorized the signature of the Vice Chairman. RESOLUTION NO. 8S-•74 WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release the rear lot 10' easement of Lots 24 and 25, Garden of Eden Subdivision, being the northerly 10 feet thereof together with the side lot 5 foot easement of Lots 24 and 25, Block D, Garden of Eden Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Official Record Book 4, Page 36, of Indian River County, Florida. WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Garden of Eden Subdivision for public utility purposes, and WHEREAS, the request for such release of easements have been submitted in proper form; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot line easements in Garden of Eden Subdivision, shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows: The rear lot 10' easement of Lots 24 and 25, Garden of Eden Subdivision, being the northerly 10 feet thereof together with the side lot 5 foot easement of Lots 24 and 25, Block D, Garden of Eden Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Official Record Book 4, Page 36, of Indian River County, Florida. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they hereby are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot line easements hereinabove referred to in form proper for recording and placing in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. ATTEST; S i Freda Wright, C&erk This 10th day of July 1985. 15 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: _�/ ..� C ZA Don C. Scurlock,: Jr. Vice Chairman ApNVA". an B G C 00 JUL 10 1985 BOOK 61 1UICE VS J. Sec. 8 Existing Housing Rental Program - Funds Requisition The Board reviewed memo of the Executive Director of the Indian River County Housing Authority: TO: Board of County DATE: 7/1/85 FILE: Commissioners SUBJECT: Section 8 Existing Housing Rental Assistance Program THRU: Michael Wright Annual Contributions FY 86 — County Administrator FROM: Edward J. R gan REFERENCES: Executive erector IRC Housing Authority. Under our Annual Contributions Contract A-3409 with the U.S. Depart- ment of Housing & Urban Development, we are required to submit HUD Form 52672 (Supporting Data for Annual Contributions Estimates) and 52673 (Esti- mate of Total Required Annual Contributions), requisitioning funds to cover our Section 8 Housing Assistance. Program for FY 86. Our Section 8 Program has had-1,656.applicants and has given rental assistance to 444 families, elderly and handicapped individuals, with 174 currently under lease agreements. I respectfully request the Board of County Commissioners' concurrence in the execution of Forms 52672 and 52673 by the Chairman. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (3-0) authorized the Vice Chairman to execute HUD Forms 52672 and 52673 as requested by the Housing Authority. 16 Estimatmotal U S. o= of Housing and Urban Development ile4uired Annual Section 8 Contributions Housing Assistance Payments Program Nota See instructions in appropriate program handbooks. OMB No. 2502-0348 (exp. 10/31 /8 1. Public Housing Agency (Hams and Address) 2 Pro)sct No. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners F1 121 9 E 1 131 2 0 0 1 1010 1840 25th St., Suite S-319'submission Vero Beach, Fla. 32960-3394 ® Original ❑ Revision No.: 4. Annual contributions Contract No. S. HUD Field Office S. HUD Regional Offfee 7. No. Dwelling Un N S. No. Units Months A-3409 I Jacksonville Atlanta 214 2568 9. Housing Program Type (Mark Ons) ❑ (a) New Construction ❑ (b) Substantial Rehablllaticn ❑ (c) Moderate Rehabilitation ❑ (d) Existing Housing Certificates ❑ (s) Housing Vouchers 10. PHA Fiscal Year Ending Date (Mark one and complete Year) ❑ (a) March 31. ❑ (b) June 30. ❑ (c) Seotembar 30. ❑ (d) December 31. 19: U. Fiatlmate'of Required PHA Estimate (Housing Vouchers Only) PHA Estimate HUD Approved (Housing Vouchers only) HUD Approred Housing Payments PHA Fee Housing Payments PHA Fee 1. Maximum Annual Contributions TOW Told (a) (b) (0) (d) (a) M 11. Maximum Annual Contributions 545 112 Commitment 12. Prorata Maximum Annual 0 Contributions Applicable to a Period in Excess of 12 Months 72,294 13. Maximum Annual Contributions 545 112 for Fiscal Year (Line 11 plus Line 12) 900 14. Project Account -Estimated or 637 898 Actual Balance at Beginning of 2,500 Requested Fiscal Year 15. Total Annual Contributions 0 Available - Estimated or Actual ! 1 ,183,010 (Line 13 plus Line 14) U. Fiatlmate'of Required PHA Estimate tHousl Vouchers Onto PHA Estimate HUD A sI Vouehera HUD Approved Mousing Payments Fee Housing Payments w Annual Contributions Total Total (a) (b) lel (d) (e) M 16. Estimated Annual Housing 624,204 Assistance Payments (Form HUD -52672, Line 15) 17. Estimated Ongoing Administrative 72,294 Fee Form HUD -52672, Line 18 18. Estimated Hard -to -House Fee (Form HUD -52672, Line 19) 900 19. Estimated Independent Public Accountant Audit Costs 2,500 Estimated Preliminary Adminis- 20. trative and General Expense 0 Form HUD -52672, Ines 27 and 36) Carryover of Preliminary Admin - 21. Istrative and General Expense not Expended in the 0 Previous FY Ending: ( 1 I ) 22. Estimated Non -Expendable Equipment Expense (Form 0 HUD -52672, Line 32) Carryover of Non -Expendable 23. Equipment Expense not Expended in the 0 Previous FY Ending: ( I I ) 24. Total Annual Contributions Required - Requested Fiscal 699,898 Year (Lines 16 through 23) 25. Deficit at End of Current Fiscal Year - Estimated or 0 Actual 26. Total Annual Contributions Required (Line 24 plus Line 25) 699,898 Estimated Project Account 27. Balance at End of Requested Fiscal Year (Line 15 minus 483 112 Line 26) Provision for Project Account - 28. Requested Fiscal Year Increase (decrease)(Line 27 minus (154,786) Line 14) JUL 10 1985 BOOK 61 FAU-E 4?9 J U L 10 1985 III. Annual Contributions Approved ROOK 61 PAGE 4:30 Total Annual Contributions ` 4. No. at Dwelling units Bedroom sin Number ofMontnty arm A Assistance Payments Required e4 of Dwelling Dwetllrq RenllPayment Pay units Untts standard Famll 2568 29. Approved - Requested Fiscal Oro (a) (b) (e) Annual Housing S. 0 BR z 200 Assistance Payments 7. Year (Line 26 plus increase, if 8. 699 898 9. 3 BR 33 1 37s any, on Line 28) 10. 4 BR 5 11. Source of Total Contributions ... 13. -14. 30. Approved - Requested Fiscal 15. Total ► Part 11 Calculation of Estimated -• Year. Unit Months HUD Published 2 -BR 545 Market Rend (a) Requested Fiscal Year (a) x (b) ,112 16. 2568 368 - Maximum Annual Contributions 17. 1s. Commitment (Line 13 or Line Part III Calculation of Estimated Hard -to- Estimated Number of House Fee (Existing Housing Families 29, whichever is smaller (a) Vouchers Only) 19. (b) Project Account (Line 29 20 Part IV Calculation of Estimated Preliminary Expense minus Line 30(a)) Administrative Expenses 20. Administrative Salaries 21. Employee Benefit Contributions 22. Legal Expense 154,786 23. Travel Expense Signature. Name and Title of PHA Approving Official (and date) Signature. Name and Title of Approving HUD Field Office Official (and data) Don C. Scurlock, Jr., 25. Vice Chairman 20. Accounting and Auditing Fees -Supporting Data for U.S. Dapenment of Housing �\ Annual Contributions and Urban Development Section 8 i r Estimates Housing Assistance Payments Program Notes See Instructions in appropriate program handbooks. OMB No. 2502-0348 (exp. 10/31/86) I. PWft Messing Agency (Nam. and Ad&"Q 2. Prol.t t No. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th St., Suite S-319 LS.bmi.sion Vero Beach, Fla. 32960-3394 0 Original ❑ Revision No. 0 Part 1 Estimate of Annual Housing 4. No. at Dwelling units Bedroom sin Number ofMontnty arm A Assistance Payments Required e4 of Dwelling Dwetllrq RenllPayment Pay units Untts standard Famll 2568 fount Oro (a) (b) (e) Annual Housing S. 0 BR z 200 Assistance Payments 7. 1 BR 63 27 8. 2 BR 91 1 345 9. 3 BR 33 1 37s (g) 10. 4 BR 5 11. 12. ... 13. -14. 15. Total ► Part 11 Calculation of Estimated Unit Months HUD Published 2 -BR - Ongoing Administrative FeeFair Market Rend (a) x (b) sz 16. 2568 368 17. 1s. Total ► Part III Calculation of Estimated Hard -to- Estimated Number of House Fee (Existing Housing Families Certificates and Housing (a) Vouchers Only) 19. 20 Part IV Calculation of Estimated Preliminary Expense Administrative Expenses 20. Administrative Salaries 21. Employee Benefit Contributions 22. Legal Expense 23. Travel Expense 24. Sundry 25. Office Rent 20. Accounting and Auditing Fees 27. Total Administrative Expenses 18 am : 624,204 6t of Allowable Administrative (a) x (b) XP (. wq = (.) Fee Per Family X (W 45 i PHA Estimates 72,294 Total Hard•to•House Fee (c) 900 HUD 4. No. at Dwelling units S. No. of Unit Months 214 2568 fount IlAomhly unit Months Annual Housing able by fbuslnp Under Assistance Payments r Toward Asslstannu I lease a ROM Payments (d) (a M (g) am : 624,204 6t of Allowable Administrative (a) x (b) XP (. wq = (.) Fee Per Family X (W 45 i PHA Estimates 72,294 Total Hard•to•House Fee (c) 900 HUD Non -Expendable 28. Office Equipment Equipment Expenses Y9. Office Furnishings 30. Automotive 31. Other 32. Total Non -Expendable Equipment Expenses General Expenses 33. Maintenance and Operation Mon -Expend. EgWp. only) 34. Insurance 35. Sundry 36. Total General Expense Total Preliminary Expenses Previous Editions Are Obsolete 37. Sum of Lines 27, 32, and 36 SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET HARD TO HOUSE FAMILIES HUD -52672 (2-85) HB 7420.7 At the present time there are 25 families on our 3 bedroom waiting list, 14 of which consist of 3 or more minors. We anticipate issuing Certificates to all of these families during FY 86. The 14 families with 3 or more minors will be looking for housing with our assistance. We have 26 leases in our 3 bedroom category and have reason to believe that only two families could possible relocate during FY 86 with continued assistance. We have four families on our 4 bedroom waiting list, ..all consisting of 3 or more minors: We anticipate issuing Certificates to all of these families during FY 86. These families will also be looking for -housing with our assistance. We have 3 leases in our 4 bedroom category but do not expect any relocations. Summary: 3BR families with 3 or more minors. 4BR families with 3 or more minors. 20 x 45 = 900.00 16 4 20 19 JUL 101985 BOOK 61 F -,-UE 431 r J U L 10 1985 BOOK 61 FnE 43 K. Dredge &_Fill Permit Application - George Foote The Board reviewed the memo of the Environmental Planner, as follows: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 2, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R./ARMY CORPS & D.N.R. PERMIT SUBJECT: APPLICATIONS Robert M. Kea-t&ng&9AICP Planning & Development Director FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: G. Foote Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on July 10, 1985. D.E.R. DREDGE & FILL PERMIT APPLICATION FILE NO. 31-105-293-4 APPLICANT: George Foote WATERWAY & LOCATION: Indian River, Section 29, Township 32S, _ - Range 40E, 199 Cache Cay Drive, City of Vero Beach. WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant proposes to construct a 46' x 4' single pier adjacent to Lot 60 of Cache Cay Subdivision. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting agencies based upon the following: - The conservation & Coastal Zone Management Element of the Indian River Comprehensive Plan; - Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives & Policies for the Treasure Coast Rion; and The Hutchinson Island'ReSource Planning & Management Plan. This project is located within the City of Vero Beach and is not of -countywide significance. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners authorize staff to forward a letter of no objection regarding this project. 1 20 E� I ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (3-0) authorized staff to forward a letter of no objection re the above project. D. BID # 243 - 1/2 Ton Pickup Truck for Code Enforcement The Board reviewed the following recommendation of the Purchasing Manager: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: June 20, 1985 FILE: THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC BID #243 -One (1) New County Administrator 1985 Full Size 1/2 Ton -4 -Wheel Drive Pickup -Truck FROM: �.� �e��G REFERENCES: Carolyn G drich, Manager Purchasing Department 1. Description and Conditions Bids were received Tuesday, June 18, 1985 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #243 - One (1) New 1985 Ful.1 Size 1/2 Ton 4 -Wheel Drive Pickup Truck for Code Enforcement. 11 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the 4 Bid Proposals received, l was a "No Bid". _ 2. Alternatives and Analysis There is $10,000.00 budgeted for the purchase.of a vehicle for Code Enforcement. The Florida State Contract for vehicles.has expired. The manufacturers are not accepting any more orders for 1985 models and have not started production of 1986 models yet. The bids received from Velde Ford, Vero Beach and Southside Ford, Jacksonville were for 1986 models ;and would not be received until after October 1. The bid from Janie Dean Chevrolet was for (2) 1985 model trucks that are in stock. Both have additional equipment not in the specifications, i.e., radio and tinted glass. All bids were over the $10,000.00 budgeted for a vehicle. 3. Recommendation , Staff recommends all bids be rejected and a vehicle be purchased in FY85/86 when the new Florida State Contract would-be available and we would have more bids. 21 JUL 101985 BOOK 61 ff a 43 JUL 10 1985 BOOK 0 61 FADE 434 Commissioner Bowman questioned what Code Enforcement carries around that requires a pickup truck, and Planning Director Keating explained that they do carry around signs and other equipment; they go over back roads; they inspect mining sites, etc. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (3-0) rejected all bids as recommended by staff. Vice Chairman Scurlock stated his feeling was that we tend to buy bigger vehicles with more equipment than is needed. He believed we can have interdepartmental borrowing of vehicles when the need for this type vehicle arises, and he could not imagine our two Code Enforcement officers, Betty Davis and Joyce Hunt, taking a four-wheel drive into the back areas of the county. Director Keating, the Administrator, and the OMB Director, all assured him that our lady officers do just that, and in addition to dealing with code violations, they also do inspections for C.O.'s, mining sites, etc. The Vice Chairman still was not convinced of the need for four-wheel drive. Commissioner Bowman noted that if we do buy a pickup, it would need a cap, and Administrator Wright stated we would just add that since it is only a $200-300 item. He pointed out that you can buy the pickup truck cheaper than you can buy an automobile, and we are talking about a basic type pickup, not anything fancy. The Administrator continued that if the Board has objections to a 4 -wheel drive, staff will go with a 2 -wheel drive. Commissioners Bird and Bowman agreed that they could live with the present specifications. 22 L. Contract w/Solin & Assoc. for preparation of County Sign_Ord. The Board reviewed analysis and recommendation of Planning Director Keating: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 24, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER SUBJECT: INTO A CONTRACT FOR PREPARATION OF A COUNTY SIGN ORDINANCE FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP'- REFERENCES: Planning & Development Director It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commission- ers at their regular meeting of July 10, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Last year, the Board of County Commissioners authorized the staff to retain Solin & Associates to revise the County's zoning code. Since that time, the consultant has prepared drafts of the residential zoning districts section, the PRD section, the regulations for specific land uses section, the definitions section, the administrative and decisionmaking bodies section, the general provisions section, the site plan review and approval procedures section, and the nonresiden- tial section of the new zoning code. All of these have been reviewed by the staff and workshopped with the public. Other than the nonresidential districts section, each of. the above referenced parts of the zoning code has been formally adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. One part of the zoning code which has not yet been revised is the sign ordinance section. Although the sign ordinance was included among the elements proposed by the consultant, it was not among the sections for which the County contracted. For that reason, the staff is now requesting that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed contractual agreement with Solin & Associates. As noted on the attached proposal letter, the cost of this work would total $6,900.. Currently, the Planning Department has an unencumbered balance of $14,500 in its Other Contrac- tual Services budget account, funds which have been earmarked for consultant services for zoning code preparation. There- fore, the Planning Department has adequate funds in its current budget to accommodate the project's cost. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS Like the preparation of other sections of the zoning code, there are two principal alternatives for preparing a new sign ordinance. One would be preparation by a consultant, while 23 JUL 101985 BOOK. -L D':GE 4 JUL 101985 BOOK 61 m-uE 436 the other would involve development of the ordinance by the in-house planning staff. Regardless of which alternative is selected, the staff would be responsible for conducting workshop meetings and making revisions to the proposed ordinance as well as taking the draft ordinance through the public hearing process before the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion and the Board of County Commissioners. The primary advantages of having a consultant prepare the draft ordinance relate to experience. Because a consultant has developed sign ordinances for various other juris- dictions, he would have more experience, be more aware of typical issues, and have a better understanding of possible solutions of sign matters than the in-house staff. Using in-house staff would require substantial time for research and analysis, time that a consultant, already familiar with sign ordinances, would not need to spend. Since Solin & Associates has already prepared the other sections of the new zoning code and has adequately completed this work, the staff feels that Solin & Associates should prepare the County's new sign ordinance. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the staff to enter into a contractual agreement with Solin & Associates for preparation of the County's sign _ ordinance. - Vice Chairman Scurlock noted that a sign ordinance is probably one of the most difficult to draft. It is a complicated and sensitive issue, and he wanted some reassurance that those sensitivities are going to be looked at closely by the consult- ants. He realized that Mr. Solin did handle this for the City of Vero Beach and, therefore, should be cognizant of the problems involved. Director Keating assured the Vice Chairman that the consultant will be very aware of what the County wants. He pointed out that the staff workshops all these ordinances extensively to assure that when the ordinance comes to the Board, it will be consistent with what the various organizations want. Vice Chairman Scurlock noted that religious symbols are not to be considered signs, and this was agreed. Commissioner Bowman pointed out that there is nothing under General Provisions dealing with moving signs, and she felt these should be considered, as well as the tinsel trail, streamers and pennants seen on South U.S.1, which she did not feel are appropriate to our community. The Administrator and other Board members agreed. W ON MOTION BY Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) authorized staff to enter into a contract with Solin and Associates, Inc. for preparation of a County sign ordinance; the scope of services to include moving signs and tinsel trails. LESTER L SOLIN, JR. AICP PRINCIPAL June 19, 1985 Y I.- • SOLIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS 1201 1 9th PLACE, SUITE 10 1 VERO BEACH. FL 32960 Mr. Robert Keating, AICP Director of Planning and Development 1825 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Keating: AREA CODE 305 567.3334 Pursuant to your request, Solin and Associates, Inc. (SAI) is submitting this letter agreement proposing assistance in drafting revisions to the County's existing Zoning Ordinance. Intent of Services SAI proposes to draft revisions to the existing Sign Ordinance of Indian River County pursuant to the schedule of tasks, time frame and lump sum agreement specified herein. Scope of Services. The scope of services shall include the drafting -of a Sign Ordinance pursuant to the schedule tasks outlined below. Estimated Task Description Time 1.0 Review existing Sign Ordinance and meet with County staff to discuss the format of the Ordinance, identify specific problems and issues, and draft agreed upon format. 16.0 2.0 Prepare draft of Sign Ordinance. 2.1 Purpose and intent. 2,0 2.2 Definitions. 16.0 2.3 Applicability, prohibitions and exceptions. 4.0 2.4 Regulatory procedures. 16.0 -- Licensing provisions -- Bonding and insurance requirements -- Permitting procedures 25 JUL 10 1985 BooK 61 FnF 4111 ti 0 AREA CODE 305 567.3334 Pursuant to your request, Solin and Associates, Inc. (SAI) is submitting this letter agreement proposing assistance in drafting revisions to the County's existing Zoning Ordinance. Intent of Services SAI proposes to draft revisions to the existing Sign Ordinance of Indian River County pursuant to the schedule of tasks, time frame and lump sum agreement specified herein. Scope of Services. The scope of services shall include the drafting -of a Sign Ordinance pursuant to the schedule tasks outlined below. Estimated Task Description Time 1.0 Review existing Sign Ordinance and meet with County staff to discuss the format of the Ordinance, identify specific problems and issues, and draft agreed upon format. 16.0 2.0 Prepare draft of Sign Ordinance. 2.1 Purpose and intent. 2,0 2.2 Definitions. 16.0 2.3 Applicability, prohibitions and exceptions. 4.0 2.4 Regulatory procedures. 16.0 -- Licensing provisions -- Bonding and insurance requirements -- Permitting procedures 25 JUL 10 1985 BooK 61 FnF 4111 JUL 10 1985 BOOK 61 gni 438 2.5 General Provisions 16.0 &VI ,vs , `\ -- ons rubLIon s ndards -- Maintenance requirements -- Regulations for public safety -- Control of illuminated signs -- Procedures for measurements -- General appearance 2,6 Temporary sign regulations. 12.0 -- Political signs -- Special event signs -- Construction signs -- Window signs 2.7 Schedule of regulations for permanent 40.0 signs requiring permits -- Identification signs for major residential development -- Public and semi-public institutional signs -- Commercial and industrial signs -- Billboards -- Modifications to the Schedule of Regulations 2.8 Nonconforming signs. 12.0 2.9 Enforcement procedures. 4.0 TOTAL ESTIMATED TIME: 138.0 Time Frame and Limits of Service SAI shall provide a first draft of the Sign Ordinance within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this agreement. A second draft shall be provided incor- porating staff comments. The County shall be responsible for staffing all workshops, meetings and public hearings and for incorporating any additional changes in the ordinance beyond the second draft. The diskette housing the ordinance will be furnished to the County upon completion of the second draft. Finally, SAI shall not be responsible for field work or testing of the schedule of regulations. Lump Sum Fee and Billing Procedures The Schedule of Tasks defined above shall be carried out for a professional service fee not to exceed six thousand nine hundred ($6,900) dollars. This cap applies to professional fees only and does not include direct reimbursable expenses. SAI shall bill the County concurrent with submission of nance or portions thereof. The billing shall reflect sional man hours and the percentage of tasks completed The billing shall also include all direct reimbursable basis. Direct reimbursables shall include, but not be Alae, photocopying costs and cost of diskette. Sincer y Lester L. Solin, ., AICP Principal LLS:cjk Agreed to by;/ Co Date: 7 // - 26 _ drafts of the Sign Ordi- the magnitude of profes- to date of the billing. expenses on a line item limited to, ' uranaenburg Attorney,, 01 SHERIFF'S OFFICE SPACE - NORTH COUNTY General Services Director Dean reviewed his report, as follows: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: June 25, 1985 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners Thru: Michael Wright County Administrator FROM: H. T. "Sonny".10 Director General Services SUBJECT: Sheriff's Office Space in North County REFERENCES: ivis ion Staff was requested to look for subject area and make a recommendation to the Board. The following space is available: 1. WASHINGTON PLAZA - ED SCHLITT REALTORS There is approximately 1,125 square feet of area that will require approximately $2,500 worth of renovations. This is on the ground level which will facilitate persons of a handicapped nature to conduct their business there. Enough parking is available in front and rear to accommodate the needs. Being _ located adjacent to U.S.1 will provide the visibility the Sheriff requested. This space can be leased for $5.00 per square foot for one year. The terms of a new agreement would be negotiable. 2. SEBASTIAN EXECUTIVE BUILDING - STRNAD DEVELOPERS, INC. There are four suites of office area in this new building with virtually no renovations required. It is all located on the second floor, but an elevator is available. It is located north of the City on U. S.1. There.is enough parking area provided. The price is $7.00 per square foot. 3. PARADISE PLAZA - MID -FLORIDA REAL ESTATE, INC. This area is located on S. R. 512 and has three (3) spaces of 800, 1600, and 2400 square feet respectively. The 800 square, feet and 1600 square feet areas can be leased for $5.00 per square foot. It is unknown exactly how much renovation is necessary to accommodate our needs. The Realtor has also indicated an interest in selling this piece of property. 4. OLD POST OFFICE BUILDING - H.T.H. PROPERTIES. INC. This piece of property is available for sale. It consists of 2146 square feet, and will require extensive renovations. There is enough parking in the front and rear to accommodate the needs. The asking price for this property is $170,000. However, there is a lease held by the U. S. Postal Department for -the next nine years that we would be required to negotiate. 27 JUL 101995 BOOK PAGE 439 AL 10 1995 BOOK 61 MUM 5. OLD CRABHOUSE PROPERTY - THREE RIVERS REALTY This is approximately three acres with an old building on it. Part of the property is on the Indian River with the largest portion across Indian River Drive. The asking price is $300,000. A building would have to be erected to meet our immediate needs. 6. STEVE PHILIPSON OFFICE BUILDING - STEVE PHILIPSON This is a new Commercial building located on U.S. 1 next to the Father and Son business. The upstairs portion is available for lease at a price of approximately $6.50 per square foot. The amount of renovations required to serve our needs would be little. Mr. Philipson has also offered to build the County an office complex adjoining the present building to accommodate our needs on a long-term lease basis. Since we have no idea of what the County building needs will be in the North County area in the future, it is recommended that we enter into a one-year lease agreement with Ed Schlitt Realtors for the Washington Plaza office area to accommodate the_ Sheriff's immediate needs. Director Dean informed the Board that response has been received from three Constitutional officers as to space they might need; Property Appraiser Nolte only needs space at certain times of the year, and the other two who responded did not feel they needed any at this time. Vice Chairman Scurlock inquired when this space would be occupied and whether we can make the lease concurrent with the budget year. Director Dean reported that the Sheriff will be ready to occupy the space as soon as we can get it ready, possibly 30 days or so, and he felt we could have the lease run for 15 months to make it concurrent with the budget year. Commissioner Bowman noted that the $2,500 estimated for renovation, plus the one year's lease would amount to about $8,000. She inquired about the square footage in #2, the Sebastian Executive Building, noting that since it does not require any renovation, the same footage would be cheaper. Director Dean stated that the Sheriff asked originally for about 1,200 sq, ft., but he could get by with 1,125. He pointed out that if you base your figure on a one year cost, the Strnad Executive Building would be cheaper, but if you go over the one year, it would not be. 28 Administrator Wright believed we are going to try to get an option for another year, and, therefore, in the long run the Schlitt offer would be much cheaper. Commissioner Bowman felt the parking area in Washington Plaza is inadequate and inquired about the old post office. Director Dean explained that the owners want to sell the post office, not lease it. Also,the building is large and the renovation cost would be enormous. The space we are talking about in Washington Plaza is the smallest there. The Sheriff has gone over the proposals, and this is what he wanted. There is parking in the Plaza and also some area behind the building for employee parking, and Director Dean felt it is ample. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (3-0) accepted the recommendation of the General Services staff and authorized entering into a 15 month lease on the Washington Plaza space with an option for an additional year. FELLSMERE VOL. AMBULANCE SQUAD - RADIO EQUIPMENT The Board reviewed memo of General Services Direc.tor Dean: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: June 27, 19 85 FILE: the Board of County _ Commissioners Thru: Michael Wright SUBJECT: Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance =` County Administrator Service _ Radio Equipment FROM: H. T. °Sone an REFERENCES: Director General Services Division As requested by the Commission, I have coordinated communications with the Fellsmere Volunteer AmbulAnce Service. I informed the Volunteers that any requests for communication equipment would have to go before the County Commissioners and that I would post the item on the agenda for action. 29 JUL 10 1985 BOCK 61 �,,;-Uc441 JUL 10 1985 BOOK 61 pnE 442 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS PROPOSAL ,OMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.. PHONE: (305) VE 69: 5355.- H _ 725--8882 TO:_ Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance Service Fellsmere, F1 32948 GENERAL : * ELECTRI+ AUTHORIZED SALES AND SERVICE MOBILE RADIO ATTN: Chief Foster PHONE: DATE: ' May 9, 1985 ITEM CITY. MODEL # EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 1 N5A21 2 channel 25 watt Control station 1100.00 1100.00 2 1 N5Al2 16 channel 25 watt UHF mobile radio .920.00 920.00 BALANCE ----------- -------- a2� —PRESENTED SUBTOTAL 2020.00 BALANCE DUE UPON INSTALLATION, UNLESS PREVIOUS — TITLE: Robert Wm Stork, General LESS GSA CONTRACT WRITTEN ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE. -787.80 BUYER MUST CANCEL ORDER IN WRITING AND PAY•A . — TOTAL 2 20% RE -STOCKING CHARGE. TITLE: 2A VENDO custom -programming 5 --db ain antenna base mouiit = 100.00 N/C 3 1 A.S.P.- 66.00 N C a a nd'conne to -As.:...:; . ;: ,., ,, '' 24.00 N! C 5 6 1 VENDOR 7 1 VENDOR Mobile installatio 55.00 55.00 ' Rohn --tower for comnunfCation a uioment 340.00 N/C ITEMS 2A 3 4A9,5 donated with issue of DATE: Vice Chairman Scurlock informed the Board that Chairman Lyons had expressed some concern as to how the purchase of this equipment would be handled. He had no objection to Fellsmere 30 ,►',. r•<EQV.(PMNT PRICE -1372.20 TERMS: �. _.: �, • ;_ �,.--� SALES TAX EXEMPT TOTAL PRICE 1372.20 DEPOSIT BALANCE a2� —PRESENTED BY: BALANCE DUE UPON INSTALLATION, UNLESS PREVIOUS — TITLE: Robert Wm Stork, General Manager WRITTEN ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE. IL BUYER MUST CANCEL ORDER IN WRITING AND PAY•A . — ACCEPTED BY: 20% RE -STOCKING CHARGE. TITLE: DATE: Vice Chairman Scurlock informed the Board that Chairman Lyons had expressed some concern as to how the purchase of this equipment would be handled. He had no objection to Fellsmere 30 M having the radio equipment, but he did not want to have to deal with all separate agencies. Commissioner Bird felt sure we will get a request for some assistance at budgettime from the new Fellsmere Volunteer Ambu- lance Squad, and he believed we then will have to address our philosophy and decide how many volunteer ambulance squads we are going to support. If we are going to support all that are in existence, we are going to have to come up with some equitable formula, something like the library setup, but it seems this re- quest for this radio equipment is something they need right now. e Director Dean confirmed that the Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance Squad does not have any kind of radio communication at this time. Vice Chairman Scurlock inquired about the appropriate way to fund this equipment, and the Administrator felt this would involve a policy decision on the Board's part. OMB Director Barton stated that if the County buys this equipment, we need to retain title and have it go on our property books. Director Dean confirmed that the County has title on the other radio equipment used by the ambulance squad. Administrator Wright suggested we just buy direct, and then when own the equipment, we always can reassign it. Commissioner Bird felt we should assist the Fellsmere squad and get them started. Discussion ensued at length regarding the fact that the Fellsmere Squad is separate from the Indian River County Squad, even though we tried to persuade them to be a satellite, and Com- missioner Bowman did not not feel the Board should give them a boost if they insist on being independent. She noted that the Sebastian squad would prefer to be independent too; it is a difficult situation. Vice Chairman Scurlock recommended that we go ahead with purchasing the equipment, retain title, and then work the details 31 =, JULIO 1985 BOOK 61 443 PIP'" JUL 1 1995 0 BOOK P#9*444 out at budget session as to how many ambulance squads we are going fund in the county. ON MOTION made by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (3-0) agreed to purchase the radio equipment proposed by the Fellsmere Ambulance Squad, the County to retain title and the funds .to be taken from General Fund Contingency, per the following budget amendment recommended by the OMB Director: Account Title Comm. Equipment Reserve for Cont. Account Number 001-107-526-66.45 001-199-581-99.91 Increase Decrease 1,375 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THOROUGHFARE PLAN 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: 32 1,375 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: S STATE OF FLORIDA 1 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 weekly newspaper published at Vero ,�Beach iin� Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a _ //�Ff/LGP/ In the matter of?E'u/ to the �y Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the Issues of d !!P4 - I S Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been Conti sly published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class ma,i matter at the past office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida f�r,3Cperiod 0 4, ane year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement, and alfiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any Derson, firm or corporation any discount rebate, commission or .efund for the p rpose of securing this adver. tisement for publiWtior. to the said newspaper. Sworn ro and subscribed before a this day of A.D. 4.1;t, VIAN.111TflA. iQOYNTY.• . rot Thorough}an Plaq ti i 4, �. .tYoY•;�pi , ' :I:�'j•'. �; .Cil! (Busi pager) — li � t � �NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING , ,Y ` Y ' • TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION I " OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN r Notice is hereby given that the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners, shall hold a public hearing at which parties in Interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday. July 10, 1985, at 9:15 a.m. to consider the adoption of a County Ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COON - TY, FLORIDA REVISING AND REENACTING THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. A detailed map of the proposed Thoroughfare Plan is available at the Planning Department office in the County Administration Building,. Il any person decides to a e a matter, ° • . ! will the proceedings, and for such any decision on the above matter, he/she will need a record e purposes, he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Indian River County q • . , Board of County Commissioners By--s-Patrick S. Lyons, Chairmanr Chief Planner Richard Shearer made the staff presentation: TO: The.Honorable Members DATE: June 26, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DIVISION HEAD CONCU C UTHE COUNTY'S BJECT: THOROUGHFARE PLAN R�rt M. Keatin , AI Planning & Developme Director FROM:chard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: Thoroughfare CPA Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of July 10, 1985. - 33 1� 10 1995 BOOK 1 F�lGr �! � Jv � JUL 101985 DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS I BOOK 61 PAGE 4A The Planning Department and the Public Works Division have completed an analysis of the north barrier island's trans- portation system As a result of this analysis, the staff has identified several changes which should be made to the Thorough- fare Plan which is part of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. If adopted, these changes would designate additional collector roadways and alter future right-of-way requirements for the affected roads. On February 12, 1985, the Transportation Planning Committee voted 6 -to -1 to recommend approval of these proposed amend- ments. On March 14, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission tabled action on this request pending further analysis of the proposed roads on the barrier island. - On April 11, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of these proposed amendments. On June 24, 1985, the !Planning Department received comments from 'the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council regarding these proposed amendments. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The Planning Department and Public Works Division have worked jointly to devise a system of collector roads for the north part of the barrier island. These additions to the Plan are necessary to ensure the acquisition of adequate right-of-way for roads which will provide access to property west of A -1-A that is presently land -locked (has no access to a road) or that has access only to Jungle Trail (classified as a scenic road in the Comprehensive Plan). In preparing this system of roads to serve the north island, the staff considered the alternative of establishing a system of subdivision feeder roads which would not appear on the Thoroughfare Plan map but would be established as these areas developed. However, it was determined that the County will need 80 feet of right-of-way to accommodate both the roadway and the necessary drainage facilities. Designation of these roads as secondary collectors will ensure that 80 feet is obtained, while the feeder road alternative would provide for the acquisition of only 60 feet. A second proposed amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan is the addition of First Street, between Old Dixie Highway and U.S.1, as a secondary collector road. First Street is the only rail crossing between Oslo Road and 4th Street and is carrying an increasing traffic load. In addition, parcels fronting,First Street, as well as other property in this areas are developing as heavy commercial uses, producing a significant amount of heavy truck traffic.. Redesignating First Street as a second- ary collector street would establish 80 feet as the required right-of-way. After the public hearing on March 14, the staff met with some of the property owners affected by the proposed new roads on the island. This meeting resulted in one road being removed from the proposed road system and rearranging the proposed road system south of County Road 510. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Transportation Planning Committee Commission, staff recommends approval. 34 the recommendations of and Planning and Zoning M Planner Shearer stressed the need to funnel some of the traffic to collector roads before it goes to SR A -1-A. He noted that while they want to consolidate the traffic, they also want to keep as much of it as possible off of Jungle Trail; they, therefore, are recommending part of Jungle Trail be paved, but not the part along the river which is considered scenic. A Vice Chairman Scurlock asked whether the Scenic Trails Committee is aware of this, and Planner Shearer confirmed that they are. Vice Chairman Scurlock emphasized that he would not want property cut up in this process so that it is unusable, and Planner Shearer believed one parcel is split, but it is a good sized parcel. He pointed out that the map establishes a general corridor, but not exact right-of-way. Discussion ensued regarding who builds the roads and maintains them, where the money comes from, etc., and Director Keating stated they would be County roads; we would build and maintain them; and a collector roads impact fee could be used to build them. Commissioner Bird wished to know how the impact fee would apply to those who wish to develop and are ready to go, but none of the collector road is in. The County Attorney clarified that if a developer wished to build his project in an area which did not have the necessary collector road, his project would be considered premature, and the County could advise him that he could not obtain site plan approval until the road was built whether he paid impact fees or not. The developer would have the choice of either sitting back and waiting until the County built the road or could come to the County and help pay for or pay for all of the cost of building the road. He then would be able to move ahead with his site plan approval and also would get credit against his impact fees for whatever he contributed towards building the collector road. The only question unanswered is the question of a refund to the 35 JUL 101 BOOK PACE 447 Fr­ JUL 10 1985 BOOK 61 m n 448 developer in the future as the property around his project develops so those people don't get a free ride. This is being looked at by our consultants, and one of the things they are looking at is a type of refundable advance agreement. Attorney Brandenburg agreed this arrangement could be very involved and would require careful accounting, but noted that it can beset out in the ordinance up front so the developer knows just what his rights will be. Vice Chairman Scurlock brought up the possibility of a five year limit and then no refunds.. He noted that we want developers to build where the infrastructure is available to support their project, and he did feel there must be some time limit. Commissioner Bird agreed there should be some penalty for building prematurely in an area, but then again everyone else should not get a free ride. Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that everyone else pays impact fees as well, but they do not get any credits because they did not contribute to the initial road. Vice Chairman Scurlock advised that the Transportation Planning Committee is still working on this and will come to the Commission with a recommendation which he felt sure will be heavily discussed. He noted that one of the other questions raised was whether the public sector (the County, the School District, the Hospital District, etc.) pays impact fees also. Attorney Brandenburg reported that the consultants were told to make a list of any proposed exemptions and bring this to the Commission for a decision. He personally did not feel anyone should be exempt, but felt there will be complaints from non-profit groups, church groups, the City of Vero Beach, etc. The Vice Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION made by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Lyons being absent and 36 _I Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (3-0) closed the public hearing. ON MOTION made by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily delayed, the Board unanimously (3-0) adopted Ordinance 85-58 amending the Thoroughfare Plan Map of the Transpor- tation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. ORDINANCE NO. 85 - S8 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REVISING AND REENACTING THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to amend the Thoroughfare Plan Map of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that The Thoroughfare Plan Map of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County, Florida, be amended in its entirety and reenacted as the Thoroughfare Plan Map displayed in Attachment A. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 10th day of July 1985. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER,'COUNTY BY: PON C. SCU LOCK, JR VICE CHAIRMAN' 37 BOOK 61 +'rlUC 449 JUL 10 1985 BOOK61 PnE 450 1p � ■ u _ _ " � N _ i MC. It BID - IS r 1 i wuunuilu, i ORDINANCE NO. 85- 58 (Attachment A) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1 Thoroughfare Plan •••• A �•1 !!•!•I! i !♦•!♦! ARTERIALbe •1!� O, ♦!! PRIMARY COLLECTOR [mnalamlRnmr i. �!�!• ; !: SECONDARY COLLECTOR (� s O100, rt �1 •j //■ ///�� 00 a ♦ �� ^ a 8611, ST r,� •• //////// //■ 1111 //1312/// /n/ • V C O !!! f P 771• a7 O ! ♦r _ o r IS ¢ !! 0IS,< ?3,4 • So �iL I♦ i ea+� nom! r r r r earn sT. - C.R. eel 9,. ♦� L _ ry W W r A _ r _ < < alto si <r > •p in ,r • 671h IT - i • r♦ = • •♦ r • Bala et i 0 O �..�. i'//22■■11 r So IS 00 00 ST so ♦♦ IS - 100•a1h ST _ ♦ ♦� O 1_ ! 1 -So r Do 41.1 of 1• C.R. e30 ♦ ♦ 9 r Doe _,� • son ST - h STSo • i So n i ♦ o r _ ♦ 1 [La0 0 So gals ITin IS So�t r 2e1h sT - % r r So I - r 61.1 By So i ti STATE RD. BO 20.1 ST %111/U1 /qi 2//1/U2143///12y22■ ■11111111-/.111 121 I132c S ••• file 10So! er c IS 1_ -�MW 44 CAuaeweY e.vclr• < ! lerwe•rso.l ONE +a1n sT �W •h•1L- � 1 r _ _ • ♦♦ t < < CA. 812 <r < e1h sr r !! • _ �r o :r a r : •! ST So i r 0 Sal sl• ST Sw IS = „= i :• 1 OSLO no 1 _ C R doe eu St sw r ♦• "t• ■2U///2■/■11/1/11/2///2U/I%/1■long 111111111King 11,112/ 1///1/1/U 1/11 01111511 It C' lain aT sw _ j♦ s. .. a,\< S A •!I `AaWa lr..e.�h• 'Yoh ST awNr •pla 1� 38 DISCUSSION MANGROVE ALTERNATION VIOLATION - LAWSON Chief of Environmental Planning, Art Challacombe, reviewed the following memo: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 28 1985FILE. . of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: MANGROVE ALTERATION SUBJECT: VIOLATION - LAWSONCV-5-85488 RobertM. Keati g, P Planning & Developm t Director FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: M. Lawson Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on July 10, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: On May 16, 1985, County staff observed that twenty-five red, white, and black mangroves had been cut or.killed prior to the issuance of a mangrove alteration permit. The parcel on which this occurred is Lot 208, Unit #2 of Orchid Island Subdivision and is owned by Ms. Maggie Lawson. The property is currently vacant and zoned for single-family residences. On June 25, 1985 staff met with the owner on the site. Staff observed that eighteen of the mangroves that had been cut were sprouting new growth. The owner explained to staff that she had not intended to kill the mangroves and only -desired to trim them so that she could have a view of the river upon completion of a residence. Mrs. Lawson also stated that she would be willing to engage in a replanting program as mitigation for the violation. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: Section 231-6(a), Tree-, Protection, of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian- River County, Florida prohibits the performance of any mangrove —alteration unless a permit has first been issued by the County. The ordinance further spec- ifies that a violation .of this provision shall be punishable upon conviction by a fine not to -exceed five hundred dollars - ($500) for each tree or by imprisonment in the County jail for up to sixty (60) days, or both. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant staff the authorization to pursue available remedies in County court. 39 BOOK 6.1 1451 JUL 101985 BOOK R PnE 452 Planner Challacombe informed the Board that Jim Haeger of Haeger's Native Plant Nursery has been working with the applicant, Mrs. Lawson. Mr. Haeger reported that seven red mangroves were cut back to where they may not return, two will recover; nine black mangroves and seven white mangroves will recover; and there are two buttonwood mangroves which will grow quite rapidly and fill in. Mr. Haeger informed the Board that he proposed to Mrs. Lawson that he could replant and try to rejuvenate this area for between $1500 to $2,000. Planner Challacombe believed some kind of punitive damages should be instituted. Mrs. Lawson came before the Board and expressed sorrow for the damage done. She explained that she is from Colorado and did not know there was a difference in the species, but she takes full responsibility and is willing to repair her mistakes. Vice Chairman Scurlock's only question in regard to any punitive damages related to the fact that the mangroves weren't removed; this apparently was an attempt to trim them back. Mrs. Lawson confirmed that there was a lot of frost damage, and she was told the pruning would not destroy the root system. Commissioner Bowman wished to know how Long Mrs. Lawson has been in Florida, and Mrs. Lawson stated that she visits here from time to time. Commissioner Bowman felt that Mrs. Lawson should have heard that the mangroves should not be touched. Commissioner Bird asked if Mrs. Lawson had applied for a permit what she would have been allowed to do, and Planner Challacombe advised that she would have been allowed to trim 500 of the canopy. She would have been fairly close in complying with the ordinance with what she actually did as far as the white mangroves are concerned. Red mangroves are the most sensitive to trimming and cutting back, and they definitely would have been a lot less cut than shown in the photographs submitted by staff. 40 Vice Chairman Scurlock pointed out that we do not have knowledge of what the actual frost damage amounted to. Planner Challacombe noted that in other cases, staff works with the applicant in coming up with a design system that would meet their needs and the ordinance. The Vice Chairman inquired what amount he had in mind for punitive damages, and Mr. Challacombe stated that he did not have any specific amount in mind; the fine actually is $500 per tree, but he just wanted people to become aware that the mangroves are protected. Vice Chairman Scurlock believed part of the process is better education, and Nurseryman Haeger agreed. He felt an article in the newspaper would help to inform the people. Commissioner Bird asked about the Board's latitude in regard to levying damages, and Attorney Brandenburg explained that the Commission doesn't levy fines or penalties, but if the violator is not willing to pay voluntarily into the fund that has been established whatever amount the Board may request, the Board then can take them to court and try to impose the maximum fine set for the violation. Commissioner Bird wished to know if some type of mitigation plan will be submitted and an after -the -fact permit will be issued, and this was confirmed. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, Chairman Lyons being absent and Commissioner Wodtke being temporarily delayed, to request Mrs. Lawson to contract with Mr. Haeger's firm to get an after -the -fact permit for the pruning of the mangroves accompanied by a mitigation plan and that punitive damages be set at $250 total. Commissioner Bird informed Mrs. Lawson that we have to assess some damages in order to get across to the public that there are 41 A BOOK L P'GE 45 `JL 10 1985 _ J JUL 101985 BOOK 61 F -n X54 ordinances in effect protecting mangroves, and the Board is serious about enforcing them. Commissioner Bowman noted that many of our local yard workers do not know how to prune mangroves properly. She believed people are supposed to get in touch with the Urban Forester before they do pruning such as this and recommended we write the Urban Forester and suggest he run a school to educate yardmen as to the proper care of mangroves. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (3-0) SOUTH COUNTY FIRE The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at 9:50 o'clock A.M. in order to reconvene as the District Board of Fire Commissioners of the South Indian River County Fire District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 10:05 o'clock A.M. with all members present except Chairman Lyons, Commissioner Wodtke having entered the meeting at 10:00 A.M. DER/ARMY CORPS & DNR PERMIT APPLICATIONS - (REED) Chief Environmental Planner Art Challacombe made the staff presentation and recommendation, as follows: 42 TO: The Honorable Members DATE. July 2, 1985 FILE. of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R./ARMY CORPS SUBJECT: & D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICATIONS Robert M. Keats g, A&CP Planning & Development Director. FROM: =- REFERENCES: Arthur Challacombe RV. Reed Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal_ consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of July 10, 1985. D.E.R. DREDGE & FILL PERMIT APPLICATION FILE NO. 31-105979-4 -" (After the fact) APPLICANT: Robert F. & Virgina A. Reed WATERWAY & LOCATION: Sebastian River, Section 25, Township 30S, Range 38E, Ercildoune Heights Subdivision WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant is seeking an after the fact permit for a 184 foot long concrete block retaining wall. The retaining wall was built to keep the applicant's lawn and soil from washing into the adjacent waterway. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting agencies based upon the following: The conservation & Coastal Zone Management Element of the Indian River Comprehensive Plan; Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives & Policies for the Treasure Coast Region; and The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Management Plan. - The Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County While the retaining wall has produced no significant adverse impacts to the aquatic environment, this project is presently under review for violation of Sections 6(A) and 29(b)(1); Appendix A of the Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordi- nances. These Sections of the Code state that in the RS -6 Single -Family Residential District, any construction work -must be authorized through the County permitting process. A build- ing permit for the retaining wall was not originally obtained by Mr. & Mrs. Reed. - It has been brought to the attention of staff by the Ercildoune Heights Homeowners Association that there is a concern as to the location of a portion of the wall. The property owners association claim the wall encroaches four inches into their property while the Reed's dispute this claim. In order for the D.E.R. permit to be properly issued, the boundary matter should be resolved. 43 JUL 101995 a�o� tMu X55 JUL 10 1985 RECOMMENDATION: BOOK 61 Dnur-456 It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners authorize staff to forward the following comments regarding this project to the D.E.R. 1) No significant adverse environmental impacts have resulted from this project, and its continuance is not anticipated to produce further impacts. 2) The project is currently in violation of County ordinances which maintain that a building permit is required prior to the project's construction. A I.E.R. permit is required prior to the issuance of a County building permit. 3) The D.E.R. should not issue a permit on this project until the dispute regarding the retaining wall location is resolved between the Mr. & Mrs. Reed and the Ercildoune Homeowners Association. Vice.Chairman Scurlock read into the record the following letter from -Lloyd & Associates, Inc., stating that there is no encroachment: LL13YD & ASSOCIATES. INC. ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS ROBERT F. LLOYD REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER 3530 REPORTS REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR 944 DESIGNS SUPERVISION APPRAISALS CONSULTATIONS July 20, 1985 Indian River County Mr. Art Challacombe Planning and Zoning Department 1840 25th Street Fero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Art, DARRELL E. MCIDUEEN REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER 21497 (305) 562-4112 1835 20TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 Re: Lot 21, Block 'A', Ercildoune Heights S/D Unit 2 Mr. Robert Reed This letter is to inform you and other interested parties that we have made an investigation, at the request of Mr. Marvin Carter, of the retaining wall on the above referenced lot. On a sketch of survey prepared by our office the retaining wall was erroneously shown to encroach into an easement to the homeowners association. This error appears to have been made by the draftsman's interpretation of the field notes. As I stated in our telephone conversation on the afternoon of July 9, from my inspection of the site and from data taken by our survey crew while I was there, it is very apparent that the exist NO encroachment of the retaining wall into said easement. Thank you very much for you effort and energy put forth on this project. 44 Planner Challacombe commented that while the matter appears to be resolved by the above letter, Mr. Lloyd did call and say the survey sketch, which was erroneous, and the letter did not include the footings underneath the retaining wall surface; so, there still may be some dispute on the footers. He felt the DER and the County should not issue a permit until this is entirely resolved. Commissioner Bird referred to comment #2 and the fact that the Reeds will apply for an after -the -fact building permit, but first must get DER approval. He felt we are not saying the DER should not give them a permit; we just want the DER to be aware of all the facts. He then asked if the 4" in question has to do with some encroachment on the easement. In the following discussion, it was emphasized that question actually is more of a neighborhood dispute and a civil matter rather than something for the county to be involved with. Mrs. Reed wished to know what the county rule is on the footer of a house encroaching on the adjoining property as she and Mr. Reed have proof that the Kelsos are encroaching on them, and yet the County gave the Kelsos an after -the -fact permit for their wall. She wished the Commission to understand that she and her husband were accused of an encroachment by the County. She and Mr. Reed did not agree and begged'County staff - Planner Challacombe, Betty Davis of Code Enforcement, and Building Director Rymer - to come out and inspect this situation, but they did not want to get involved and did not come out. Mrs. Reed continued that she also has a copy of a letter from Commissioner Bowman to the DER stating that they had encroached; she, therefore, believed the DER is well aware of the 4" situation. Mrs. Reed noted that she had always believed the County Commission represents everybody, and wished to know why they were not informed they had been accused of encroachment before this information was sent to the DER. 45 JUL 10 1985 BOOK ���i An _I JUL 10 1985 BOOK 61 N,GE 45-S Attorney Brandenburg suggested that the Board approve the staff recommendation with the deletion of Paragraph #3. Commissioner Bowman explained to Mrs. Reed that the 4" has nothing to do with what we are discussing today; Lloyd E Associates' letter wipes it out; and the Board is recommending that an after -the -fact permit be issued. Commissioner Bowman noted, however, that in the event the Homeowners Association ever wants to dredge the canal, she did not know what will happen to the Reed's wall, but she believed that will be a civil matter. Mrs. Reed still wished to know the County's stand in regard to a footer encroaching on someone else's property - she believed a footer can encroach on an easement. The Administrator did not agree that anything can encroach, and Commissioner Bird felt possibly it could encroach into a setback area, but it can't cross property lines. Mrs. Reed continued to complain that everyone else in the neighborhood has built walls, 9 gotten inspections, etc., and gotten after -the -fact permits without any trouble; so, why can't she. Director Keating believed what Mrs. Reed was referring to was an entirely different situation decided by the Board of Adjustment in regard to the height of a wall, which had nothing to do with a retaining wall in an area that had jurisdiction by the DER. Vice Chairman Scurlock did not know of any after -the -fact permits that have come before this Commission, and Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that this matter is on the agenda speaking to a building code violation only. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) accepted recommendations #1 and #2, staff memo dated July 2, 1985, and agreed to delete recom- mendation #3. 46 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS - 16TH PL., 46TH AVE. S 51ST AVE. Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following staff memo and recommended adoption of the final rolls: TO: THE HoNoRABLE MEMBERs of THEDATE: June 25, 1985 FILE: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH: Michael Wright County Administrator Final Assement SUBJECT: 16th Place sWest ofl6th Ave. James W. Davis, P.E. 46th Ave - 8th St to 9th Pl. Public Works Director 51st Ave - North of Walker Ave. FROM: Jeffrey A. Boone, /2; REFERENCES: Civil Engineer DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The paving of 16th Place, 46th Avenue and 51st Avenue is complete. The - final cost and preliminary estimate for the work was: - Final Cost/FF Prelim.Cost/FF Final Cost Prelim. Estimate 16th Place $6.5642 $8.94 $10,652.81 $14,797.92 46th Avenue $8.7267 $9.632 $21,841.41 $24,588.00 51st Avenue $8.4093 $9.3287 $27,937.40 $31,612.00 All construction costs are under the original estimates. The Final it 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 an interest rate of 1% over the Prime Rate established by the Board of County Commissioners. The due date is 90 days after the final determination of the special assessment. kA t D R�►:�i��►�IsCi�u� �►ra 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 rolls. R===ATION AND FUNDING It is recommended that the Final Assessment Rolls for the paving of 16th Place, 46th Avenue and 51st Avenue be approved by the Board of County Ccanni.ssioners and that they be transmitted to the office of the Clerk to the Board for collection. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, Chairman Lyons being absent, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the final assessment rolls for the following Petition Paving projects; authorized transmission of said 47 JUL 10 1985 BOOK b F.�:U'. JUL 10 1995 BOOK 61 F°„E 460 assessment rolls to the Clerk of the Board for collection; and established the interest rate at 1% over prime as of the date of approval, or 1110: #8308 - 16th Place W. of 6th Ave. $10,652.81 #8324 - 46th Ave. bet, 8th St'. & 9th PI. $21,841.41 #8326 - 51st Ave. N. of Walker Ave. $27,937.40 (Copy of said Final Assessment Rolls are on file in the Office of the Clerk.) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REFUNDING OUTSTANDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS UP TO $25,000,000 Attorney Brandenburg noted that the Board recently hired some investment banker consultants, and they have advised that the way to approach some of our capital improvements in the future is to refinance the outstanding bond issues that have a pledge of the jai alai fronton monies in order to free up those monies and in their place pledge the sales tax funds. This would give the County the ability to issue additional bonds for the projects currently planned on our capital improvements program, plus the flexibility of adding other projects in the future. The reason for the wording "up to $25,000,000" is so that when the County has a project it wishes to add to its capital improvement budget, it will not be necessary to go through another validation etc., but just issue another series of bonds with the same pledges, the same covenants, etc. This will save money re bond counsel fees as well as allowing entrance into the market at the right time. Administrator Wright confirmed that this is just intended to cut the red tape; the Board still makes the decision as to what projects they want to borrow money for. Commissioner Wodtke noted that we apparently are going to refund the 1980 and 1981 capital improvement bond series, and it doesn't affect the Landfill or the Beach Bonds. 48 M _I This was confirmed, and Attorney Brandenburg explained that this just frees up the jai alai money to be used as a secondary pledge on the golf course. Commissioner Wodtke referred to the purposes for which the 25 million dollars could be used and wished to be sure the wording is broad enough to cover any kind of need we might have; i.e., in case we wanted to build any recreational facilities or develop beach facilities. Attorney Brandenburg stated that the wording can be expanded to include recreational facilities of the county without any difficulty. Commissioner Wodtke believed we are only talking about the 1/24 sales tax and that was confirmed. He continued that on the top of Page 25 re the Construction Fund, the wording states "such expenditures or disbursements shall have been approved in writing by the County Administrator or his designee." He assumed there would be authorization from the County Commission first. Administrator Wright agreed and noted that this just enables him to pay the bills after a project is approved. Commissioner Wodtke next questioned the statement on Page 29 at the bottom which says "..if the moneys in the Reserve Account .... exceed the Maximum Debt Service Requirement on all then outstanding Bonds, such excess may be withdrawn and released to the Issuer." Attorney Brandenburg explained that the 1/2� sales tax will produce revenue substantially in excess of what will be required to pay off the bonds, particularly if the County does not issue up to the entire amount authorized. Commissioner Wodtke asked if this allows arbitrage, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that you are never allowed to arbitrage , but this allows us to make the maximum amount of interest possible under the Internal Revenue Service rules. Commissioner Wodtke then asked whether we now will be raising just enough money to refund the 80' and 81" bond series, 49 J U L 10 1985 ���� t�r.1 , J JUL 1®1985 BOOK G- Pr1GE 46 and Attorney Brandenburg explained that the Board will have to set the initial authorization of how much money they want to deal with - it could be just to refund the current outstanding bonds, but in all likelihood, the Administrator will come to the Board with a package and recommend refunding the outstanding bonds and also producing sufficient funds to pay for the Title 8 Trust Building, excess renovations costs of the Fourth Courtroom, etc. The Board will receive a list of various projects to consider and will have the -opportunity to add and delete items from that list. Commissioner Wodtke expressed the hope that even if we have authorization to spend 25 million, we do not feel it is easy money, and Attorney Brandenburg noted that the Board would see the effect on the budget. Intergovernmental Relations Director Thomas felt the greatest advantage of this is the parity aspect for future issues; this sets it up so it is definitely available. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to adopt Resolution 85-75 author- izing the refunding of presently outstanding capital improvement revenue bonds, series 1980 and 1981 and providing for issuance of not exceeding $25,000,000 refunding and improvement revenue bonds, series 1985. Discussed followed in regard to adding language including recreational facilities, but Vice Chairman Scurlock was not in favor of this addition. Administrator Wright recommended that the Board add this language because if the Board does decide to develop beachfront property, this simply would be the pledge or security for the bonds, not what you would use to pay off the bonds. How you actually pay back would be a decision the Board would make before issuing the bonds. 50 Attorney Brandenburg agreed that the additional language would only give more flexibility, and it doesn't commit the Board to anything. Commissioner Bird stated that he would like to amend the Motion to include recreational facilities under Item S. Page 7, but Commissioner Bowman did not want to add it, as she believed it is covered. Attorney Brandenburg stated that it is not covered; the proposed language would have to be added to cover it. Commissioner Bird felt we should have this flexibility. Vice Chairman Scurlock stated that he did not like to get started on that track; he felt if we are going to fund recreation in the future, it should be based on user fees. He further did not feel recreation is an essential service such as water and sewer, landfill, law enforcement, etc. Commissioner Bird believed there are degrees to essential services, and he did feel recreation is essential although not to the same degree as Road & Bridge, for example. Discussion continued in regard to including wording allowing recreational facilities, and Vice Chairman Scurlock asked if anyone really anticipated using this to fund recreation. If they do not, he felt the wording should be left out. Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that our taxpayers agreed on a referendum vote to spend five million for beach acquisition; he did believe there are development requirements attached, and this is a manner in which we can get the money to do something that might be needed in those particular areas in a relatively fast way at a good price. As far as repayment is concerned, that could be done by revenue generated from the activity. Vice Chairman Scurlock asked if this could be construed to include beach renourishment, and Attorney Brandenburg stated it could not, but noted that it could be worded "recreational facilities excluding beach renourishment." 51 BOOK F;;c �6 J J U L 10 1985 BOOK 61 MGE 46 4 The Vice Chairman agreed that if it were worded to include recreational facilities but exclude beach renourishment, he would vote for the Motion on the floor. Commissioners Bowman and Bird agreed to reword their Motion to adopt Resolution 85-75 to allow for the inclusion of recreation facilities, excluding beach renourishment. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED. _It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0) RESOLUTION NO. 85-75 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE REFUNDING OF PRESENTLY OUT- STANDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1980 AND SERIES 1981 OF THE COUNTY; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, FURNISHING AND EQUIPPING OF CERTAIN CAPITAL FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING $25,000,000 REFUNDING AND IMPROVE- MENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1985, OF THE COUNTY TO BE APPLIED TO REFUND THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST OF SUCH PRESENTLY OUTSTANDING OBLIGATIONS AND TO PAY THE COST OF THE PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF SAID BONDS FROM THE SALES TAX RECEIVED BY THE COUNTY; MAKING CERTAIN COVENANTS AND AGREE- MENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY-, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION. This Resolu- tion is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 125 and 279, Florida Statutes, County Home Rule Ordinance No.*77-19, enacted August 3, 1977 and effective August 9, 1977, as amended, and other applicable provisions of law. RESOLUTION 85-75 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK IN ITS ENTIRETY. 52 s � � APPEAL OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL - BOBBY HIERS The hour of 11:00 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 -0 1 a in the matter of in the lished in said newspaper in the issues Court, was pub - Affiant further says that the said Vero 'AeachLPress-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 corporat(dn 6y discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. /jam Swoih to and subscribed before me this day of A.D. 19 ane } (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, F o da) (SEAL) l / 1 '�:NOTICE OF PUBLIC t1EhRINQ.;, ;" 4 e ry ,. REGARDING APPEAL OF f '" '-' SITE PLAN APPROVAL On May 23, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission of Indian River County, Florida, sit, ting as the local planning agency, approved the site plan application submitted by Bobby Hiers tc construct a 7,500 square foot Warehouse on the site of United Irrigation at 1218 8th Street, Verc Beach, FL. eea ard qunty $lonrwillco conduct abil ng, regarding Y the the PlRobert. Peckeififtin of the decl. blon ahninpglaand Zoning Commission to which approve arties the in interest and n. Citizens ublic shall have Boa opportunity oCu ty Commissioners Inj be hthe County Commission Chambers of -the, County Adminis- tration Building located at 1846 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday, July 10,:1985 at 11:00 a.m. } L. } If any person decides to appeal any'decislon made on the above matter, he may need to en- sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is Indian Rh or County ; Board of County Comm loner , By: -s -Patrick B. Lyons, hairman , June 20, July 1,1985. Staff Planner Karen Craver made the following staff presentation: 53 BOOK 485 JUL 10 1985 I BOOK 61 F"..)E 466 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 1, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: • APPEAL OF BOBBY HIERS'S SUBJECT: SITE PLAN APPROVAL Robert M. Keatin , P Planning & Developm ht Division Director �) l THROUGH: Mary Jane V. Goetzfried Chief, Current Development Section FROM:Karen M. CraverREFERENCES: Staff Planner It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular business meeting on July 10, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On May 23, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a site plan application submitted by Bobby'Hiers to construct improvements on ,the site of United Irrigation at 1206 8th Street. The development plan proposed the construction of a 71500 square foot warehouse to be associated with an on-site furniture cushion manufacturing business, an allowable use in the M-1 zoning district. The subject property is approximately nine -tenths of an acre in size. As approved, the warehouse will be accessed by the existing 24 foot wide drive off the north side of 8th Street. The plan designates the southern 40 feet of the property as a "road reservation". The 40 feet is being reserved, rather than dedicated to the County as 8th Street right-of-way, due to the fact that there are existing structures within the area. The stormwater management plan, the landscape plan, and the utilities plan all meet County regulations and have been approved. The subject property is surrounded by vacant land, with the exception of t­he.single-family residences on the south side of 8th Street. On June 6, 1985, Mr. Robert E. Fleckenstein, 766 13th Avenue, Vero Beach, formally -"'appealed .the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval of Mr. Hiers's site plan application. In his appeal letter, Mr. Fleckenstein cited four principal reasons to support his position.' Mr. Fleckenstein feels that (1) the current zoning of the property is incompatible with the land use designation; (2) the property is incompatible with surrounding land uses; (3) that toxic chemicals, associated with the furniture manufacturer, pose a threat to the safety of the neighborhood; and (4) that setback and parking requirements have not been adhered to on the approved site plan. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Upon receipt of a site plan application, one --of the first factors considered by the staff is the site's present zoning and land use designation. In this case, the staff found that the subject property was zoned M-1 and had a land use designation of LD -2, low density residential. Because the property contained a lawfully conforming restricted industrial use that was established prior to adoption of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and because the Plan states that the purpose 54 of the Plan is not to create non-conformites and, therefore, any lawfully conforming use existing at the time of Plan adoption would be considered consistent with the Plan, the staff determined that the M-1 zoning of the site was valid and that the site could be expanded. Besides the zoning and land use questions, another issue identi- fied in the appeal letter involves concern over the possible use of toxic chemicals by the on-site furniture manufacturer. Mr. Hiers has stated that the existing facility manufactures only seat cushions, and that there are no chemicals involved. The 7,500 square foot warehouse will be an expansion of the existing business, and no toxic chemicals will be brought on site as a result. Buildings or structures holding or containing liquid or material having an explosive capability are allowed in the M-1 zoning district; however, a 30 foot side yard setback must be maintained when explosive materials are to be stored on a site. The approved plan depicts a 30 foot side yard setback. Another issue cited in the appeal is the front yard setback, and what Mr. Fleckenstein determines to be its replacement with a parking area. The existing United Irrigation building is located within an area that would normally have been required to be dedicated to the County as right-of-way; however, because of the location of an existing structure within this area, the land was designated only as a "road reservation", and additional structures, i.e. parking spaces, were permitted within the area. The new parking spaces are located 10 feet from the property line, the required front yard setback. The final issue raised in the appeal is the adequacy of the parking. According to the County's parking ordinance, section 24 of the zoning code, warehouses are required to provide only 1 parking space per 500 square feet of gross floor area, not one space per 200 square feet as stated by Mr. Fleckenstein in his appeal letter. The site plan depicts the 15 new spaces required by the proposed warehouse, as well as the modification of the existing parking to bring the site into conformance with current County parking regulations. It is the staff's position -.that all of the issues raised in the appeal letter were addressed by the staff in its review of the initial site plan submittal and "subsequently addressed by the applicant in submission of_..a revised site plan. The staff feels that the applicant has complied with all applicable County regulations and agreed to additional improvements to mitigate or resolve potential problems identified by the staff. ,Based upon those factors, the staff feels that the Planning and Zoning Commission made the correct decision in approving Bobby Hiers's site plan application. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Board deny the appeal of Mr. Fleckenstein and affirm the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission in approving the subject site plan. 55 JUL 10 1985 RooK 61 F,H 467 JUL 10 1995 Boa 61 Fi GE 468 Commissioner Bird wished to know whether just anyone can appeal a site plan or if they must have some special interest. Planner Craver explained that this was not defined in the old site plan ordinance, but it is in the new one; also, there is a $50 fee for someone other than the applicant to appeal since it is necessary to advertise, etc. Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that the standard in the new code requires that the individual has to be adversely affected, i.e-., either have an abutting residence that might be adversely affected or have a f.inancial interest in the outcome of the appeal. Commissioner Bird asked how Mr. Fleckenstein qualifies to appeal this site plan, and Mr. Fleckenstein stated that he owns the property directly across 8th Street. Commissioner Wodtke noted that because this property had a lawfully conforming restricted industrial use prior to its Land Use Plan designation of LD -2, the M-1 zoning is considered valid and they can expand that use on their site. He wished to know how this same situation would apply, for example, on a twenty acre industrial site in a residential neighborhood - could the owner fill up the entire twenty acres with industrial? Attorney Brandenburg reported that during the time Bruce King was Planning Director, a similar case arose wherein an individual owned forty acres but had a very small commercial use limited to one corner of his property. The analysis done by staff at that time and accepted by the Board was that the rule would apply only to that corner of the property and would not allow the owner to expand the commercial use over the entire forty acres. Commissioner Wodtke asked at what point you make a determination of how much they can expand. He felt we have to be fair, but what is the point between being fair to one property owner and being protective of the surrounding property. 56 Planning Director Keating pointed out that staff relies on the provisions in our Comprehensive Plan, and the Plan was not intended to create non -conformities; therefore, all existing uses are considered conforming uses. Staff considered this comparable to the John Lyon case where he had the commercial zoning in front of Vista Gardens. Director Keating felt the problem staff runs into is exactly what kind of expansion would be allowed or wouldn't be allowed. Commissioner Wodtke asked if you can have retail sales in an M-1 area, and this was confirmed. Attorney Brandenburg disagreed that if you have a commercial property on a corner of a 40 acre parcel which is a non- conforming use that you can expand and put a commercial shopping center on the entire 40 acres. He noted that John Lyon had a use in the dead center of his property that couldn't be split off and used in any other way if you were to allow that commercial use to continue. Robert Fleckenstein came before the Board and reviewed at length most of the details set out in the following letter: MR. ROBERT E. FLECKENSTEIN 766 - 13TH Avr..NUE vrmo BEAM, rLORiDA 32960 June 6, 1985 Mr. Bob Keating, I.R.C.Planning & Zoning Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission Chairman, I.R.C. Board of County Commissioners. Dear Gentlepersons: The purpose of this letter is to convey to you my strong objection to the May 23, 1985 P.& Z. Commission approval of a proposed 7,500 sq.ft. warehouse at 1206 8th Street. I request that you review this decision and place it before the County Commission for review and, hopefully a reversal of this decision, for the following reasons. The present usage of this property - M-1 Industrial - is totally ;inappropriate and incompatible with the -surrounding single-family development and C.L.U.P. designation of "residential" which totally surrounds this one acre site. 57 J U L 10 1985 Bm F' c 469 JUL 10 1985 BOQK 61 Fn -E 470 O The storage of numerous chemicals and plastic pipe at this site S'Aates a potential for toxic fumes and chemicals to be released. A woods -fire to the North of the subject property recently caused serious concern on the part of the Fire District Officials regarding possible release of toxic fumes if the fire had reached the subject property. Storage and use of these materisls on the subject site creates a use which whould be totally alien to a Residential Neighborhood! The front -yard - required by Zoning Ordinances 71-3 Sec.22(G) - was recently eliminated on the subject property and replaced by a parking area! Section 22(1) requires a side -yard of 30 feet when materials having an explosive capability are present. There is at present - and no doubt will be in the future - these types of materials on the subject site! Under Section 24, OFF STREET PARKING, the most similar use listed is (4) General Commercial, requiring one parking space per 200 sq. ft. of �ross building area. There are existing retail sales areas and a display of PVC furniture, with flags etc. along 8th Street. Thus, parking according to the Ordinances is inadequate! Some of the existing off-street parking is arranged on this site so that it is necessary, when exiting, to back onto the 8th Street roadway! Parking has been a serious problem with the subject property since Mr. Hiers has owned it. There are three or four of Mr Hiers' businesses operated out of.this one-acre..site. There is already an over -intensive use of this property with the present improvements. The addition of such a lareg warehouse '(7,500 s.f.) to the already existing improvements would create a more serious safety hazard on 8th Street. At the present time there are Tractor -Trailers, earth moving equipment, cars and all sorts of trucks periodically 58 - M M parked alongside the subject site on the 8th Street ROW. Mr. Orr, Co. Traffic Engineer, and Mr Walker, of the Code Enforcemtnt Board are familiar with a portion of this continuing problem. If this warehouse is allowed it will not only create a more serious safety hazard but parking provisions of Section 24 will not be met! An additional safety hazard exists regarding this property. There presently exists an approx. 90 foot communications tower on this site. This tower is in violation of the Building Codes, I believe, inasmuch as it is not set back enough to prevent injury to passers-by in the event of failure. The guy wires supporting this tower also appear to be in violation. Section 23 also requires provision for on-site percolation. There appears to be no provision for this. Mr. Hiers has been, to put it mildly, a very poor neighbor. He has allowed his employees to dump numerous tons of land clearing debris and tree trunks on the property immediately to the North of his property without the property owners permission. This property looks like a "junk yard" most of the time and I think that some of the provisions regarding junk yard fencing would be a big help. I have resided at my present address for fifteen years and have witnessed previous businesses operated from this site in a business like manner. However the most appropriate description for the present appearance of the property would be "junk yard". I request that you apply the rule of reason, as well as the Ordinances to this unique situation and disallow the proposed improvements consisting of the 7,500 sq. ft. warehouse. Lastly, I request that you review the present Zoning of M-1 Industrial and, if possible, upgrade the Zoning to something more in keeping with the established residential character of the neighborhood. Respectfully yours, Robert E. Fleckenstein 59 JUL 10 1985 BOOK 1 P ,F 471 JUL 10 1995 BooK 6 1 QA:fE472 Mr. Fleckenstein reviewed the history of the area, which at one time included Hibiscus Airport, noting that Mr. Pippin originally built the existing building and ran a well drilling business on the site, and even then in 1969, the County Commission recognized there was residential in the area and he only got his permit with the stipulation that he would maintain his building in a residential type atmosphere. Now, in 1985, this thing is a sore thumb and the proposed new building will double the problem. Mr. Fleckenstein contended that the M-1 is totally incompatible with the neighborhood, it has a negative effect on.the surrounding real estate values, and to allow it to expand is an affront to every citizen in the county, including himself. Mr. Fleckenstein continued to argue the parking situation, the setback problems, the fact that Mr. Hiers operates three or four businesses out of this one acre site, sells retail from the site, and stores hazardous materials there. Planning Director Keating addressed the points raised by Mr. Fleckenstin re improper sideyard setbacks and the parking spaces required. He pointed out that the required rearyard setback is only 10' and the sideyard requirement of 30' is only required for those buildings or structures containing material having explosive capabilities. Staff was informed by Mr. Hiers that he has no hazardous materials on the site, and unless staff is presented with proof to the contrary, they rely on the statements of the applicant. As to the parking spaces required, the proposed use is considered comparable to a contractor's trades office where retail sales are allowed as an accessory use, and this only calls for one parking space per 500 sq. ft. of floor area. Mr. Fleckenstein stressed that right now there is an overflow and inadequate parking. There are four businesses on this site, and they get all kinds of parking along 8th St. - earth moving equipment, tractor trailers, cars, etc. If the 60 present parking is inadequate, what will happen when you add a new building and eliminate some of the existing on-site parking. Mr. Hiers informed the Board that the only businesses on this property are United Irrigation and Rogers Cushions, and they do have a retail outlet in another area. Sunnyland Clearing only has a telephone in the building. Commissioner Bowman inquired about the difference in parking requirements between retail sales and wholesale sales, and Director Keating explained that wholesale is the same as manufacturing - one space per 500 sq, ft. He reiterated that Mr. Hiers does meet the requirements of the ordinance; he isn't losing any parking but, in fact, is expanding and redesigning the parking on his site, which staff feels is a better situation. Vice Chairman Scurlock agreed this is a difficult and unfortunate situation, and although it may be an incompatible use, he did not see how, under our current law, we can deny Mr. Hiers the expansion of a conforming use even though we may not like what it looks like. We must act on what the law allows us to do, and if Mr. Hiers has met all the criteria, on what basis do we deny him' Mr. Fleckenstein continued to argue overflow of parking, noise pollution, parking of heavy equipment on the.site, the appearance of a junk yard, etc. Director Keating commented that staff had no indication there was a noise problem, and in further discussion, it was pointed out that the Code Enforcement Board addresses these type problems and fines will be assessed if the situation is not cleared up. However, the only issue before the Board today is the site plan which is being appealed. Mr. Fleckenstein then noted that Mr. Hiers dumped a tre- mendous amount of land clearing material to the north of this property. Mr. Hiers stated that the Code Enforcement Board looked into that, and Director Keating confirmed that there has been action 61 JUL 10 1985 BOOK 473 JUL 10 1985 BOOK 61 474 on this and he felt it had been resolved and the material removed, but he will check into this further. Vice Chairman Scurlock again emphasized that all we can consider today is the site plan specifications and criteria; we cannot address anything else. Mr. Fleckenstein then requested that the Board consider rezoning this property to a less obnoxious zoning than M-1. The zoning is the culprit and he felt the Board by allowing this expansion is condoning it. Commissioner Bowman expressed her sympathy but felt Mr. Fleckenstein is a victim of ancient history. When the M-1 zoning was set up it was unfortunate, but it did happen and'it is not set in concrete. Mr. Fleckenstein believed the Board has the power to rezone and change something a former Commission created. Vice Chairman Scurlock agreed the Board could rezone, but Mr. Hiers already has submitted a site plan under the existing zoning, and he did get his plan approved under the existing site plan criteria that has to be met. If the Board did move ahead and rezone this, then the Vice Chairman assumed it would become a non -conforming use, but that wouldn't help because the structure would go up and all the rezoning would do is put Mr. Hiers in a position where he couldn't rebuilt or expand. He believed Mr. Hiers now will have used the entire site so he is not going to be able to make another expansion in any event and this renders the whole thing moot. The Vice Chairman urged Mr. Fleckenstein to go to the Code Violation Enforcement Board. Mr. Hiers stated that he would invite the Commissioners to look at his property. He did not know he was that bad a neighbor, and he will go back and take another look at the place and clean it up if it is such an eyesore. Commissioner Wodtke brought up the problem of putting paved parking in a dedicated area. 62 I I Director Keating noted that this is an unusual situation in the road reservation area. If there was not a building already in it, we would require the dedication of the entire 40' but because of the existing structure, we couldn't require the dedication. He further explained that we allow people who have a building which encroaches into an area that would need to be dedicated to put other improvements in that area, and it is done with the consent of the property owner that would not be included In any compensation the county gives when this needs to be acquired. Discussion followed at length about the existing building in the right-of-way and whether we would have to buy the building if we wanted to widen the roadway in the future. Attorney Brandenburg stated that if the existing building is in the right-of-way, we would have to buy it, but he believed the owner is willing to enter into a removal agreement with respect Q to any new structures placed in the reserved area. Mr. Fleckenstein did not understand if the right-of-way is reserved and at some point in the future could become county property, how the Board now could logically allow parking to be placed on it. Vice Chairman Scurlock stated as he understood it, we don't have any right-of-way reserved right now, and as part of the site plan, the applicant is agreeing to reserve the right-of-way. The Board continued to discuss the right-of-way problem, and Vice Chairman Scurlock asked if we could require dedication of everything except the actual portion where the building is. Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that it wouldn't do the county any good anyway because then we would have to come back and condemn the property the building is on and pay severance damages for the rest of the site, and Mr. Hiers wouldn't have enough space for his parking without being allowed to use the reserved property. 63 BOOK � r,] JUL 1®1985 BOOK 61 Pk,,,E 476 Commissioner Bird stated that he is appreciative of what Mr. Fleckenstein has said, but we do have to govern the county by certain rules and ordinances and he did believe the applicant has complied with all our requirements and it has been reviewed thoroughly. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) denied -the appeal of Hiers site plan approval and requested Mr. Hiers to bring the subject property into better compatibility with the residential character of the neighborhood. DER/ARMY CORPS 6 DNR PERMIT APPLICATIONS - (Cain) Chief of Environmental Planning, Art Challacombe, reviewed the following analysis.and recommendation: 64 TO: DATE: FILE: The Honorable Members June 27, 1985 of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCD.E.R., ARMY CORPS & bBJ ECT: D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICATIONS or Ro ert M. Keafilig, y1CP Planning & Development Director. - FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: DER Cain Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their- regular meeting on July 10, 1985. ARMY CORPS PERMIT APPLICATION FILE NO. 851PF-20337 - _= APPLICANT: James B. Cain Ux Et Al 955 Dahlia Lane Vero Beach, Florida 32963 WATERWAY & LOCATION: The project is located in Class II waters of the Indian River on Jungle Trail in Section 25, Township 31 f` South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida. The upland property associated with the project is located in the Town of Indian River Shores. , WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant proposes to construct a 40 slip docking facility. The proposed work involves the construction of an 808 -foot by 6 -foot pier placed parallel to and connected to the shoreline by 4 walkways. At the southern end of the pier, approximately 17_finger piers will be constructed. At the northern end of the structure, two 28 -foot piers will extend waterward each with a_"T" head of approximately 80 to 90 feet in length. No dredging or filling will be performed. No sewage pump -out or fueling._ facilities are proposed. The purpose of the 'project is to &ovide docking facilities for a private residential development. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: The river bank presently contains a fringe of mangroves with some eroded areas. The applicant will'provide erosion control structures on the exposed areas as specified in the road -_ relocation agreement with the County. The project site is located in a designated critical habitat for the West Indian (Florida) manatee. However, the Corps of Engineers has determined that the proposed work will have no effect on this species or its identified critical habitat. The Corps is currently coordinating this determination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their concurrence. Special conditions for the protection of the manatee will be added to the permit document if issued. = On April 15, 1985 the Scenic Roads & Trails Committee unani- mously agreed to offer no objection to the original D.E.R application. In the original D.E.R. application the applicant proposed the same number of docks; however, the design 65 JUL 10 19ri I F,Acr 477 JUL 10 1985 BOOK 1 FhUF 478 configuration consisted of three (3) piers extending one hundred twenty-five feet (125') waterward of the adjacent river bank. The revised design is the result of'. the Department of Natural Resources request to limit the dock extensions to twenty percent of the width of the waterway (river bank to the spoil island). The Scenic Road & Trails Committee has not reviewed the revised design. In order to accommodate the project and maintain the integrity of the Jungle Trail right-of-way, the applicant requested that the Board -of County Commissioners permit a realignment of the right-of-way to a maximum of twenty feet (20') eastward of the existing alignment. The Commission approved this request on April 17, 1985. On April 25, 1985 the Planning and Zoning Commission authorized staff to .submit a letter of no objection to the Florida Depart- ment of Environmental Regulation. ALTERNATIVE & ANALYSIS: The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting agencies based upon the following: The Conservation & Coastal Zone Management Element of .the Indian River Comprehensive Plan; Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives & Policies for the Treasure Coast Region; and The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan; Staff finds that the application does not conflict with the planning objectives contained in the above documents and offers no objection.- - Although the extent of any -impacts are not fully known at this time, there may be cumulative impacts of this and other multi- ple dockage projects proposed to be constructed along the Jungle Trail area upon the Florida manatee. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners authorize staff to forward the following comments regarding _ this project to the Army Corps of Engineers: 1) Indian River County has no objection to the proposed project; 2) The Army Corps of Engineers and other appropriate agencies should consider any potential impacts of the project upon the Florida manatee. 66 M M M Planner Challacombe felt that while the staff is recommending a "no objection" comment, they do feel cumulative projects of this nature could have an adverse impact in the future and that at sometime there should be a close look at the entire area and a management plan. Administrator Wright believed the state is going to address this, and Vice Chairman Scurlock reported that the Regional Planning Council is in the process of adopting a marina siting policy, and they are addressing this whole issue. Administrator Wright asked about the "Lagoon" Committee and Director Keating was not sure whether, as part of the Aquatic Preserve rule, the Lagoon Committee is going to be working on this. Mike Galanis of the Environmental Health Office, member of the Lagoon Committee, stated that this subject would be a part of the study and part of the overall recommendation, and they will be looking into this in Indian River County on the 24th of July. Director Keating noted that the County will have to look at it also under the new growth management legislation. The County has to prepare a Coastal Management Element to include in our Comprehensive Plan and must have a shoreline use component which identifies public access to beach and shoreline areas and addresses the need for water related facilities. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the staff recommendation and the for- warding of their comments to the Army Corps of Engineers. Ruth Stanbridge, Chairman of the Scenic Roads & Trails Committee, informed the Board that her committee did not see this at all and they have a great concern about the length of the dock along Jungle Trail and its effect on many factors, including 67 �� �'a,�G JUL 10 19005 BOOK J J U L 10 1985 BOOK 61 PAU 480 aesthetics. Since the committee did not meet, Mrs. Stanbridge stated her personal feeling that the permit as proposed would cause problems along Jungle Trail. She informed the Board that the Town of Indian River Shores last week recommended this permit be denied because they were concerned about the traffic problem on Jungle Trail with people going back and forth to their boats. Vice Chairman Scurlock noted that the Motion does not say we are in favor of the project, just that we have no objection and identify that there may be navigational uses and other considerations under their purview. Mrs. Stanbridge felt there are cultural and historical values to be considered in addition to environmental impact, and she stressed that the Corps should be made aware this has been designated a scenic and historic trail, and that it is a unique part of Indian River County. Planner Challacombe reported that he has discussed this with Mrs. Stanbridge and from the staff's viewpoint, it is difficult to address aesthetic compatibility without specific outlines and a design plan for the overall use of Jungle Trail. Director Keating pointed out that staff is much more restricted when commenting on something located within another municipality. Once an ordinance is adopted for Jungle Trail itself, staff can be more specific. He did not feel it is unusual that the Town would have a different perspective. Commissioner Bowman inquired about the traffic impact as she wondered where the people who would be using these docks live and where they park. Planner Challacombe believed the parking would be at the people's homes and they would be walking to the docks. Mrs. Stanbridge pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan says historic and scenic trails will be protected, and Vice Chairman Scurlock believed the docks will stabilize the bank. 68 I Planner Challacombe reported that particular area is well protected and thick with mangroves except for a small area which the developer has indicated he will replant. Commissioner Wodtke commented that the designation of Jungle Trail as a scenic road does not prevent development east of the road. He did agree we need to preserve the character of the road. Discussion followed in regard to an increase in boat traffic, and Commissioner Bowman believed we need to get the Corps to designate this a "NO WAKE" area. Mrs. Stanbridge continued to discuss scenic and historic considerations, and Commissioner Bowman felt the comments made should be added to our reply to the Corps. Vice Chairman Scurlock noted that the Board has already voted on the Motion. DISCUSS EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY (MUSTAPICK) Intergovernmental Coordinator Thomas reviewed the following memo, attached letter and map, and recommended we proceed with the exchange: TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: July 2, 1985 FILE: the Board of County Commissioners Thru: Michael Wright SUBJECT: Recreational Property $` County Administrator South County - FROM: Cin6terigoernmental ymas, Director RR ERENCE Relati'd S• Attached to this memorandum is a letter from Mr. Andrew J. Mustapick indicating that Mr. Mustapick would like to exchange approximately 18 acres for two smaller tracts owned_by Indian River County. The 18 acres is also adjacent to our old Oslo Landfill. The purpose of this exchange would be to acquire enough property for recreational purposes for the South County area. If the Board indicates an interest in this exchange, we will have the properties appraised. The Parks and Recreation committee recommends considering this exchange. 69 JUL 101985 BOOK `9H 481 JUL 10 1985 Car i TIS& Was TIRM MCI BOOK 61 F'':JE 482 ,IONt985 0 ' /���= d% d'w1 a,LFJieteyC- /N�iEG,Cow ©NENtLoSEO S,4�Tt.+i� s 700 Oslo Road, Vero Beach, Florida 32980 (305) 569-7700 70 C � � r Commissioner Bird did not know whether in a swap such as this an appraisal is necessary. From a layman's point of view, it appears we are getting more than we are giving, but possibly an appraisal would turn up something. He asked if Mr. Mustapick would be willing to undertake the cost of an appraisal which would indicate the property we are giving up is at least of equal value - possibly we could appraise our property and he could appraise his. Attorney Brandenburg noted we have in-house appraisers, and Mr. Mustapick indicated he would agree to the County doing all the appraisals. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) directed staff to proceed with appraisal of the properties in question and a final decision will be withheld until receipt of the appraisal. LANDFILL RATE STUDY - CONSULTING SERVICES The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows: TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF DATE: JUNE 24, 1985 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: TERRANCE G. PINT6T, FROM: RONALD R. BROOKS Y') SUBJECT: CONSULTING SERVICES COUNTY LANDFILL RATE STUDY DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS In response to a public notice for professional services to conduct a rate study for the Indian River County Landfill, bid proposals were received from the following firms: 1. William M. Bishop Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. 3. Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 71 JUL 101985 Boox 61, Fn, Z:484 4. VFL Technology Corporation. 5. Greely and Hansen. 6. Arthur Young _.A selection committee reviewed the bid proposals on May 20, 1985, and selected the following three firms for further consideration: 1. VFL Technology Corporation. 2. Greely and Hansen. 3. Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. The three firms provided a formai ':presentation to a second selection committee on June 13, 1985. That committee selected the firms for negotiation of a contract in the following order: 1. Camp Dresser & McKee Iric. - 2. VFL Technology Corporation. 3. Greely and Hansen. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board authorize Staff to negotiate a contract for a landfill rate study with the selection committee's number one selection, Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized staff to negotiate a contract for a landfill rate study with Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. DATA PROCESSING CONSULTANT Administrator Wright believed the following memo and letter are self-explanatory, and he recommended the County hire Thomas Foss: TO- The honorable Members of DATE: June 25, 1985 FILE: :the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Michael Wright County Adminis SUBJECT. Data Processing Consultant REFERENCES: Attached is a letter from Thomas C. Foss of the Tlorida Center for Public Management, that summarizes the unanimous recommendation of the Data Processing Committee. If the County Commission approves the proposal, Mr. Foss will develop a master plan for setting -.up a County -wide data processing department to be operated As -.an enterprise fund. If you have any questions, please advise. o � s c FLORIDA CENTER FOR PUBLIC MANAGEMENT y .V. The Florida State University June 20, 1985 Mr. Mike Wright County Administrator Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mike: Tallahassee, Florida 32306 (904) 644-6460 As you requested in our.meeting Monday, I'm forwarding to you this letter and the attached Letter of Agreement containing the details of the relationship between the County and the Florida Center For Public Management with regards to the development of a county wide strategic data processing plan. As the Data Processing Committee requested, the Florida Center for Public Management would --.be happy to assist the County in developing a strategic plan' -for all departments within county government. I have estimated -that the job will take no more than 12 days of effort by our staff. Effective July 1, our daily rate will be $425 per --day plus travel and expenses. Therefore, I have written a Letter of Agreement so that it specifies that staff time charges will not exceed $5,100. The work product produced by FCPM under this agreement will provide the County with a detailed set of the functional requirements for computer support needed by each Department and Constitutional Officer. Working with County staff, we will meet with each Department and develop a series of requirements lists. Those lists will in turn, be reviewed by the Data Processing Committee, and have priorities set against them. The end product to be produced by this effort will be an outline of the projected data processing needs and requirements for the next 4 to 5 years. The next step for the County will be to identify required resources, organizational structure, and approaches to implement the various components of the plan. Such an implementation plan is not part of this Letter of Agreement. As I indicated Monday, we are already working with your Supervisor of Elections to help her choose new vote tabulating equipment. In addition, we have several clients in the east -central Florida area. Indian River County with judicious scheduling, should be able to share travel costs with these clients. This should help to keep the total expense cost for this project to a minimum. The attached Letter of Agreement represents the form of contract we usually use when doing business with local government and state agencies. If you have questions, please call and we will do out best to get you what you need. I look forward to working with you, and with the rest of the County Departments. Thank you for the opportunity to help. incerely, Thomas C. Director Management Foss Systems Project 73 JL 10 1985 BOOK 6 1 P1,;F 485 JUL 10 1995 BOOK 486 Commissioner Wodtke commented that both Property Appraiser Nolte and Tax Collector Morris feel this man can do a very adequate and competent job, and he felt it is a good price. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the Letter of Agreement with the Florida Center for Public Management, funding to be from the General Fund and authorized the signature of the Vice Chairman. T. yy FLORIDA CENTER FOR PUBLIC MANAGEMENT LETTER OF AGREEMENT JUNE 26, 1985 This Setter of Agreement between Indian River County (County) and the Florida Center for Public Management (FCPM), a unit of Florida State University, defines the services to be provided by FCPM to the County. This agreement shall begin on July 1, 1985, and end September 30, 1985, unless amended by either party. FCPM will: 1. Provide the County with consulting services to develop a County—Wide Strategic Data Processing Plan. FCPM will provide the County with up to 12 days of consulting services, billable as actually used at a daily rate of $425 per day. The County will be billed quarterly, and upon completion of the project, for a total amount not to exceed $5,100 plus travel and expenses at State of Florida rates. 2. The work product to be provided to the County by FCPM will consist of a five year data processing plan, outlining the needs.and requirements of the various county departments with respect to the provision of data processing report. The'County will: 1. Pay FCPM the amount invoiced. If you are in agreement with the terms and conditions of this letter, please sign below indicating to whom the invoice should be sent, and return to Ms. Judi Davis at FCPM. Florida Center for Public Indian River County Management Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman (ol7bLg� July 10, 1985 Date Date Approv as f rm and le al i' B ar .•Brande ty Attorney The Florida State University Invoice To: Michael Wright, Administrator 1840 25th Street Vero Reach, Fla. 32960 Tallahassee, Florida 32306 74 (904) 644-6460 IMPLEMENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BILL The Board reviewed the following memo from Environmental Health Director Galanis: TO: Pat Lyons, Chairman DATE: July 1, 1985 Board of County Commissioners Indian River county Through: Mr. Gary Brandenburg, County Attorney FILE: SUBJECT:Environmental Control Bill(SB666)(attached) 2 .4$6J JUL 1985 Com' FROM: M • Galanis , M.P.H. REFERENCES: Director, Environmental Health : The 1985 legislature passed the above referenced bill sponsored _ by our local legislative delegation. The bill has since been signed into law by Governor Graham and is now ready for imple- mentation. _ We would like to request that an agenda item be established at the July 10th meeting to formally present the bill and to take steps toward implementation.- Some suggested steps would be: 1. Answer questions about the board. 2. Begin the process of appointing the hearing board along the guidelines set down in law. 3. Begin the process of adopting the appropriate state reg- ulations. 4. Consider the process necessary to select an Environmental Control Officer as described in the bill. 5. Provide any further clarification necessary toward imple- mentation as quickly as possible. Attorney Brandenburg noted that we need to get moving with the first step of setting up the process. The qualifica- tions for membership on the Environmental Control Board is laid out in the Act and indicates individuals from specific backgrounds. He believed the Commission should decide how they will go about making the appointments and then call a meeting of the hearing board and have them make recommendations to us. The Board is to be made up of a lawyer, doctor, engineer and two 75 L JUL 10 X98 Boa 61 FA,E487 JUL 10 1985 BOOK °GF48 citizens. The lawyer has to be recommended by the Bar Association and the doctor by the Medical Society. The Commission will have to recommend an engineer and the two citizens. Administrator Wright stated that he would write to the Bar and Medical Associations, and Commissioner Bird encouraged the media to let it be known we are creating this Board and need applications. Meanwhile, the Commissioners will contact anyone they feel might be interested. RELEASE OF OPTION ON MONROE PROPERTY Attorney Brandenburg advised that we need to quit claim all rights we held on the Earl Monroe property under Option Contract of October 24, 1984, which property was considered for a utility treatment plant site. ON MOTION BY Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a General Release of all right under the Option Contract described above and author- ized the signature of the Vice Chairman. 76 Know All Men By These present0s That......... INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State (I, we) of Florida, first party, for and in consideration of the sum of Tell and no/100 -------------------- --------------------- Dollars, or other valuable considerations. received from or on behalf of S. S. AND EARL MONROE, INC., a Florida corporation, second party, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, (Wherever used herein the terms "first party' and "second party" shall include singular and plural, heirs legal representa- tives, and assigns of individuals, and the successors and assigns of corporations, , wherever the context so aimits or requires.) HEREBY remise, release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge the said second party, of and from dkxwAx&w=Kocxk 3wtQQxxHckxKbPAxmwAx 0iNx=x5lxK*xixxKdoxi xi=x w =;K �Qua�sxxec�n�(xx�I�s1�x���xx>xa�a�>�eax�>�x(�iKo>�>~�¢a�eca�a�xi��x�xixi�x mx�x�;<xQax�ota�((sx�as�ea�>xxxx�xlxi>fc�xx��rxi�xxx+���c oaxi�td�:�Sx�1�a>�C�xi�c�sc�nx��>�Mxoax�►xixi�arclxae>e>zr�t�raexx�a��►�xxxx�c�c sa "EcOCXOMx*xi Aax xb omxow xomt@xmt+dmoox&.vWXX*XX=K-V]KkPCSOxM*x=c z♦n�cor�rxax�xyxa��om�a>�txfx>x�c�x6�t�xad�cxi�x�6dxxx��x�Ex�x��� any and all rights the first party has under the Option Contract dated October 24, 1984, between the first party, as Purchaser, and the second party, as Seller, on the following described property in Indian River County,'Florida: Groves #5 and #6: Tract 3, Section 13, Township 33 South, Range 38 East, Indian River Farms Subdivision; Grove #10: North 20.67 acres of Tract 4, less West 100 feet, Section 13, Township 33 South, Raige 38 East, Indian River Farms Subdivision. First Party has executed this instrument In Witness Whereof, / -*x&=XtKxxtxxxxxxx�aFxxXN9Xld this AD day of July . A. D., 19 85. Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By G -• t Do Sc rToc , A Ve t fo ° Vice Chas.rm�n andC Attest- : ••---•- . Freda Wright, Cler ST4TE OF FLORIDA��. rde burg, CO NTY OFINDIAN RIVERCou I REBY >�TLFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the State aforesaid and in the C:es u a ke acckknowledgments, personally appeared DON C. SCURLOCK, JR., and FREDA WRIGHT: Vice Chai3mim and Clerk, respectively, of BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIISSIONERS OF IND RIVER COUNTY, FIDRIDA, a political to me known to be the person g described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that theyxecuted the same. , on behalf of first party, being duly authorized. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this -11140 Zk. day of July A. D. 19 85. ih s In:irumsn_t_W,19 Prepared By: ........ r ...YamThr IIISM1111t71/ prrp11f7 lyeG41, o e, Stint.ll,c,:: -, �. N' -2, 3ARRIS MY Conmissi n expires. Jv& %/786 - 22i:;--1-.ch AVENUE * sl3bdivision of the State of Florida. VERO BEACH, FLCRIDA 32960 JUL 1 X985 BooK `i F�,�F � J U L 101985 ADDITION OF ITEM RE CATRON PROPERTY BOOK 61 c-,A,F 4,90 Administrator Wright requested the Board add an emergency item to the agenda re closing on the Catron property and re the groves on the property. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) added the emergency item re the Catron property as requested by the Administrator. Attorney Brandenburg reported that the Administrator has informed him that the permit has been received for the plant on the Catron site, and it now is necessary to inform the Catrons formally that we intend to proceed to closing and also to authorize the Attorney's office to do everything necessary to close. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized the County Attorney to proceed as above with the steps and documents necessary to close on the Catron property. Administrator Wright informed the Board that he has an agreement with a local grove service to maintain the groves on the Catron property, but he believed we now need to begin selling the fruit either through bid or a negotiated sale, and he needs direction from the Board as to how to proceed to do this. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized Commissioner Wodtke to work with the Administrator in regard to selling the fruit from the Catron property. 78 F-1 I There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:30 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk 79 JUL 10 1985 BOOK 61 P, ��� J