HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/2/1986Wednesday, April 2, 1986
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,
April 2, 1986, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman; Richard
N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also
present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; L. S.
"Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and
Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend Charles Priester, Beach Baptist Chapel, gave the
invocation, and Commissioner Wodtke led the Pledge of Alle-
giance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Administrator Wright wished to add two items - one concern -
Ing installation of the water main for the Jail and also a brief
report on the status of the golf course.
Commissioner Lyons requested that the appointment of an
additional member to the Library Advisory Board be added under
his items.
Commissioner Bird requested the addition of a memo outlining
improvements made at the Fairgrounds by the Firefighters and also
presentation of a check by Bill Tripp representing the Fire-
fighters.
Commissioner Wodtke advised that he has a report on the
meeting of the Economic Development Council, and Commissioner
Bowman wished to add approval of Administrator Wright as our
representative on the Tri -County Council insurance sub -committee.
L_ • A i
4 PAUE 0?
I
It was
agreed this should go on the Consent Agenda.
APR,
2
1986
Boor.
L_ • A i
4 PAUE 0?
I
r A P R 2 1966
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added
the above described items to today's agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
64 pn-c 02
The Chairman asked if there were any changes or additions to
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 12, 1986. There were
none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 12,
1986, as written.
PROCLAMATION - AMERICAN HOME WEEK
The Chairman read aloud Proclamation designating the week of
April 13-19, 1986 as AMERICAN HOME WEEK and directed that it be
forwarded to Chet Hogan representing the Board of Realtors.
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, Americans enjoy more political and economic
freedom than any other people on earth and this great nation is
known the world over as the land of liberty; and
WHEREAS, of all the rights we have, one of the most
precious is- the..right of each citizen to own, use or transfer
real property as he or she sees fit, so long as the rights of
others are not infringed uponp and
WHEREAS, we must guard against taking for granted the
rights that come with home ownership, and owning one's home and
preserving these rights fosters democracy because it disperses
individual decision-making that collectively affects the
well-being of our community; and
WHEREAS, this ownership requires not only that people
save for their own homes, but it also encourages activity in
other sectors of the economy, creating growth and contributing to
a higher quality of life; and
WHEREAS, REALTORS in Indian River County, az members of
the Vero Beach - Indian River County Board of REALTORS and the
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, are setting aside a week to
celebrate our constitutional freedom to own real property; and
WHEREAS, the Vero Beach - Indian River County Board of
REALTORS asks all citizens in our community to join in
reaffirming this basic freedom to own real property:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS of Indian River County, Florida that the week of
April 13 - 19, 1986 be designated as
AMERICAN HOME WEEK
in Indian River County.
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the Board urges all
residents of Indian River County to join with the Vero Beach -
Indian River County Board of REALTORS and its members in setting
aside this period to remind ourselves that we are a free people
endowed with the right to own real property, and given the
responsibility to protect that right.
ATTEST:
Freda
Freda Wright, Clerk
Adopted April 2, 1986
3
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
/
C
Don Scurlock, Jr. v airman
I
APR 2 1986 BOOK mn U3
A P R 2 1986
BOOR 64 PAln ®4
PROCLAMATION - FLORIDA SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA WEEK
The Chairman read aloud Proclamation designating the week of
April 6 - 12, 1986, as SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA WEEK and presented
the Proclamation to Bill Marine representing the school system.
Mr. Marine announced that during that week, the school
children at Citrus Elementary will attach their name and title of
their favorite book to balloons and release them.
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the quest for knowledge by school children in
Indian River County is stimulated and developed through the use
of educational resources and services provided by SCHOOL LIBRARY
MEDIA programs; and
WHEREAS, SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA programs provide
accessibility to a wide variety of necessary educational
materials such as books, films, records, tapes, instructional
television, and computer '-software, as well as the equipment
needed for their utilization; and
WHEREAS, SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA programs provide learning
activities designed to enhance reading motivation and to
establish the information skills necessary for lifelong learning;
and
WHEREAS, the full potential of SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA
programs is dependent upon trained professional library media
specialists whose varied skills assist teachers and students in
effectively using this wide range of learning resources; and
WHEREAS, it is fitting that special recognition be
given to SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA programs and the role of SCHOOL
LIBRARY MEDIA specialists in education throughout Indian River
County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS of Indian River County, does hereby
designate April 6 through 12, 1986 as
SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA WEEK
in Indian River County, and encourages all citizens to become
aware of the contributions -made by SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA programs
in our schools.
Is
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Don C. Scur ock, Jr.•,airmar.
IMPROVEMENTS AT FAIRGROUNDS BY FIREFIGHTERS
Commissioner Bird reviewed the following memo from the Vero
Beach Firefighters Association:
Vero Beach Firefighters Association
I .'r
Local ° 01 • P.O. Box 1974 • Vero Beach, Florida 32961-1974
CLC
April 1, 1986
Commissioner Dick Bird ti APR ly8b co
Indian River Count Administration Building
�
1840 25th Street Y 9 M ftl?DoUE®
Vero Beach, Florida 32960 c'cOAlMISCONNly
Dear Commissioner Bird: r���2isin, ►n G���.
Now that the county has prepared the fairground (clearing,
hauling fill, grading and seeding, etc.) for recreation use, we
would like for you and the other Commissioners to know the
contributions made by the Firefighters Association.
Besides operating expenses for the fair, which estimates
approximately $60,000 to $70,000 per event, plus countless
volunteer hours in operation and preparation by the men of the
Firefighters Association, the following capital improvements were
made by us:
1.) Electrical:
poles, circuit panels, wiring, meter boxes,
outlets, etc ........................$10,000
2.) Water Supply:
wells, pumps, pipes, fittings, hose bibs,
slabs, etc..... ....... o ...... o.-oo..$14,000
3.) Fencing
gates, corner posts, line posts,
netting, etc ...................:....$12,000
4.) Office Building:
flag poles, skirting,
landscaping .........................$ 7,000
5.) Sewer:
Not including a contribution of $1,500
from Deggeller ......................$ 3,000
TOTAL $46,000
Also we are contemplating to install a concrete slab with
necessary electrical outlets for a future permanent exhibit
building at the estimated cost of $35,000.
Sincerely yours,
Wilbour D. Tripp, Fair President
President, V. B. Firefighters Asso.
5
APR 2 1986 sou 64 ®5
r APR 21
986
Boa -64 PAGE 06
Commissioner Bird congratulated the Firefighters for their
efforts and noted that the Fairgrounds is developing into an
entity we can be proud of. He then introduced Lieut. Bill Tripp,"
President of the Vero Beach Firefighters Association.
Lieut. Tripp presented the county with a check for $3,000 as
the Firefighters contribution towards the sewer system which was
installed last year and expressed their gratitude to the County.
He then discussed the operating expenses associated with running
the fair and noted that they were way off base because of the
high cost of insurance which went up about 6000.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if there is any way the county can
assist with engineering a plan to improve the parking and traffic
situation as this grows.
Lieut. Tripp advised that they have worked with the county
on this from the beginning. This year, in comparison to years
before, the traffic and the crews worked a lot better, but he did
believe that some expansion will be required within the next
three years.
Commissioner Bird felt that possibly the paving of Hobart
Road to_Kings Highway and three laning Kings highway at the
entrance to the Fairgrounds might help this situation, and Lieut.
Tripp stated that anything the county can do to alleviate this
problem will be greatly appreciated.
Administrator Wright noted that the $3,000 contribution
reimburses the Park Fund capital improvement account for their
loan to the Fairgrounds.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the utility division is getting
paid for their services, and Intergovernmental Relations Director
Thomas informed the Board that between the contributions from
Daeggler Amusements and the Firefighters and the money taken in
over the last thirty days from other events, the Fairgrounds will
have sufficient to repay the Utility Department.
6
M
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
gave formal thanks to the Firefighters Associa-
tion for the contribution of $3,000.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Wodtke asked that Item G be removed for
discussion, and Commissioner Bird asked that Item A be removed.
A. Approval Out -of -County Travel - Solid Waste Seminar
Commissioner Bird hoped, in light of our present budget
constraints, that these convention expenses could be kept to a
minimum and that the number of personnel attending would be
limited.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved out -of -County travel for Commission
members and appropriate staff to attend GRCDA's
24th Annual International Seminar Equipment,
Services 6 Systems Show (Solid Waste Management)
to be held August 11-15, 1986, in Reno, Nevada.
B. Release of Assessment Lien SR60 Water_- Vista Plantation
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
approved Release of Assessment Lien SR60 Water
for Buildings 18 8 19, Vista Plantation, and
authorized the signature of the Chairman.
7
APR 2 1996
bou 64 FADE U7
61
lk
State Road 60 Water Project
BOOK 64 PAGE 08 7
3%ii 166(A-6)LE6(Vk)
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN
For and in consideration of the sum of $7,763.60 fo�
principal and -$18,240.00 for impact fees, plus other sums receive(
for interest and costs, from VISTA PROPERTIES OF VERO BEACH
INC., in hand this day paid, the receipt of which is hereb,
acknowledged, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, (the "County"
hereby releases the property hereinafter described from a certail
special assessment lien recorded by the County in its Officia
Records, Book 0691, Page 0077, for a special assessment in th
amount of $970.45 per equivalent residential unit reserved, plu
accrued interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum, levie
in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 83-46 of th
County, as amended, and Resolution No. 84--47 of the Board of Count
Commissioners of the County; and hereby declares such specie
assessment lien fully satisfied. The property, located in India
River County, is more fully described as follows:
Buildings 18 & 19, VISTA PLANTATION,
according to the Declaration of Condominium,
recorded in O. R. Book 699, Page 1817,
Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
Executed by the Chairman of the Board of Count
!� Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, and attested an
i
countersigned by the Clerk of such Board, all as of this 2nd da,
April, 1986.
Attested and countersigned: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER,
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY* FLORIDA
Freda Wright, CYerk By
Don C. Scu lock, Jr
Chairman
i' Approved as to form and
i legal suffic'ency:
C arles P. Vitunac,
County Attorney
I
8
C. Accept.Resignation from Board of Zoning Adjustment
The Board reviewed letter received from Michael Wodtke, as
follows:
March 20, 1986
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Commissioner Scurlock:
Since the electorate of the City of Vero Beach has afforded
me the opportunity to serve as a member of the City Council,
I must respectfully submit my resignation as a member of
the Indian River County Zoninq, Adjustment and Appeal Board.
My resignation was effective on March 12, 1986 at 10:00 a -.m.
As you know, I have served as a member of this Board for the
past thirteen years. However, I anticipate that my elected
position with the City will command my total attention
especially in view of the fact that I plan to continue my
close working relationship with County --officials.
Please communicate to other members of the Zoning, Adjustment
and Appeal Board my thanks and gratitude for their assistance
and support over the years.
Sincerely,
Michael L. Wodtke
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
accepted the resignation of Michael Wodtke
from the Board of Zoning Adjustment and expressed
their appreciation of his years of service.
D. Surplus Property, Copiers
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Goodrich:
9
BOOK 64 PAGE 09
A
BOOK 64 PAGE 10
O
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: March 24, 1986 FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: SURPLUS PROPERTY
'County Administrator
FROM: d .�� REFERENCES:
Carolyn oodrich, Manager
1. Description and Conditions
The County owns 2 copiers that are no longer being used. They have both
been offered to other County Departments. _
Date -
Make Asset # Serial # Purchased Cost
IBM 4715 1516760 11/21/79 $32,949.90
Xerox 4832 X885017079 3/12/81 $31,053.96
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The IBM Copier III was in the Administration Building Mailroom and was
replaced by an IBM Copier III, Model 60. This machine was not adequate
for the needs of the mailroom and has a history of excessive downtime.
The machine is considered obsolete and the maintenance contract is over
$200.00 per month or $2400.00 per year.
The Xerox 3450 was in Recording at the Court House and has been replaced
by a Savin which was purchased for approximately $4000.00. The cost to
repair the Xerox so it can be placed on a maintenance contract would cost
approximately $3000.00. The maintenance contract would be over $1000.00
a year and would increase annually because this model is considered obsolete.
A new -copier adequate for any County Department can be purchased from the
State Contract between $1395.00 and approximately $5200.00.
Maintenance contracts on new copiers are substantially less -approximately
$300 - $700 per year.
3. Recommendation
It is recommended that both copiers be declared as surplus property so they
can be advertised and sold to the best bidder.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
declared the copiers listed above surplus
property so they can be advertised and sold
as recommended by staff.
10
E. DER/Army-Corps/DNR Permit Application - (C. Passodelis)
The Board reviewed memo of the Chief of Environmental
Planning, as follows,:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: March 21, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners,
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R., ARMY CORPS AND
D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICA-
SUBJECT: TIONS
Robert M. Kea ng, CP
Planning & Developlirent Director
FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: Passodelis
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 April 2, 1986.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION FILE NO.
31-117321-4j
APPLICATION DESCRIPTION:
- Applicant: Mr. Christopher Passodelis _
355 Orchard Drive
Pittsburg, PA 15228
Water & Location: The project is located in the Indian River
on Lot 29, Ambersand Beach Subdivision No. 1, Section 33,
Township 30 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County,
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct a private
single 4' x 196' dock (784 square feet). No dredging or
filling will be performed.
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 Zoning Management Element of
the Indian River Comprehensive Plan
- Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region
- The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
The proposed project is located on privately owned submerged
bottom lands; thus is not within the Indian River Aquatic
Preserve and is not subject to 16Q-20, Florida Administrative
11
Bm 64
APR 2 1966 Boos 64 FACE 12
Code. Based upon the generalized plot plan, the proposed dock
may be required to obtain a variance if it encroaches upon the
side yard setbacks for the RS -1 zoning district.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners._
authorize staff to forward the following comment regarding this
project to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation:
1) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should consider the potential
cumulative impacts of dockage projects upon the Florida
Manatee.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized staff to
forward the recommended comment to the DER.
F. Surplus Property- Roseland Vol. Fire Station
The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: March 26, 1986 FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT;
County Administrator SURPLUS PROPERTY
FROM:
Carolyn; oodwich, Manager REFERENCES:
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions
The Roseland Volunteer Fire Department has the following
piece of equipment that is not being used:
1 -GE. Master II Base Station, purchased in 1984
for $2029.00 plus $262.00 installation.
2. Alternatives and Analvsis
The base station must be declared as surplus property
so it can be advertised and sold to the best bidder.
3. Recommendation
It is recommended that Asset #7289 -GE Master II Base Station
be declared as surplus property as approved by the North
County Fire Advisory Board, so it can be sold to the best
bidder.
12
F A
W'11,11,11 ..... NEW -7
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
declared Asset #7289 - GE Master II Base
Station surplus property as approved by the
North County Fire Advisory Board so it can
be sold to the best bidder.
G. Salary Adjustments.- Budget Amendment
OMB Director Baird handed out corrected copies of his backup
memo and explained what happened is that he had already gotten
the raises for the Constitutional Officers; so, it would have
been a duplication.
Administrator Wright noted this actually is a reduction
of the amount of money being transferred.
13
APR 2 1986 BOOK 64 PAGE 13
APR 2 1986 BOOK 64' PACE
B 14 -7
TO: Honorable Board of County
Commissioners
N
FROM. Josey A. Baird
OMB Director
GENERAL FUND
Account Number
001-101-511-11.11
001-101-511-11.12
001-101-511-11.14
001-101-511-11.15
001-101-511-12.11
001-101-511-12.12
001-101-511-12.13
001-101-511-12.14
Account Name
DATE: March 26, 1986 FILE:
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment
to Adjust for Annual
Raises
REFERENCES:
Executive Salaries
Regular Salaries
Overtime
Special Pay
Social Security Matching
Retirement Contribution
Insurance - Life & Health
Worker's Compensation
001-118-537-11.12 Regular Salaries
001-118-537-12.11 Social Security Matching
001-118-537-12.12 Retirement Contribution
001-118-537-12.13 Insurance - Life & Health
001-118-537-12.14 Worker's Compensation
Amount -
Increase
9,195
6,536
100
150
1,143
2,391
300
90
371
27
46
30
3
001-201-512-11.12
Regular Salaries
4,124
001-201-512-11.15
Special Pay
107
001-201-512-12.11
Social Security Matching
303
001-201-512-12.12
Retirement Contribution
518
001-201-512-12.13
Insurance - Life & Health
40
001-201-512-12.14
Worker's Compensation
23
001-203-513-11.12
Regular Salaries
1,503
001-203-513-11.15
Special Pay
48
001-203-513-12.11
Social Security Matching
111
001-203-513-12.12
Retirement Contribution
190
001-203-513-12.13
Insurance - Life & Health
20
001-203-513-12.14
Worker's Compensation
9
001-206-513-11.12
Regular Salaries
1,573
001-206-513-11.15
Special Pay
16
001-206-513-12.11
Social Security Matching
114
-001-206-513-12.12
Retirement Contribution
195
001-206-513-12.13
Insurance - Life & Health
10
001-206-513-12.14
Worker's Compensation
8
001-208-513-11.12
Regular Salaries
1,908
001-208-513-12.11,
Social Security Matching
137
001-208-513-12.12
Retirement Contribution
234
001-208-513-12.13
Insurance - Life & Health
30
001-208-513-12.14
Worker's Compensation
11
Decrease
*NOTE:
Contingency account cited in memorandum is Reserve for Salary Contingency
and is separate of the respective fund, Operating Contingency. The Board will be
provided with an update of this account prior to the meeting.
14
Page 2
Budget Amendment
GENERAL FUND Cont'd
Account Number Account Name
001-209-534-11.12
Regular Salaries
001-209-534-11.14
Overtime
001-209-534-11.15
Special Pay
001-209-534-12.11
Social Security Matching
001-209-534-12.12
Retirement Contribution
001-209-534-12.13
Insurance - Life & Health
001-209-534-12.14
Worker's Compensation
001-210-572-11.12
Regular Salaries
001-210-572-11.13
Other Salaries & Wages
001-210-572-11.14
Overtime
001-210-572-11.15
Special Pay
001-210-572-12.11
Social Security Matching
001-210-572-12.12
Retirement Contribution
001-210-572-12.13
Insurance - Life & Health
001-210-572-12.14
Worker's Compensation
001-211-564-11.12 Regular Salaries
001-211-564-12.11 Social Security Matching
001-211-564-12.12 Retirement Contribution
001-211-564-12.13 Insurance - Life & Health
001-211-564-12.14 Worker's Compensation
Amount
Increase
4,947
120
40
366
626
50
905
9,473
415
50
86
717
1,160
80
421
1,273
92
156
25
7
Decrease
001-212-537-11.12
Regular Salaries
1,718
001-212-537-11.15
Special Pay
52
001-212-537-12.11
Social Security Matching
127
001-212-537-12.12
Retirement Contribution
136
001-212-537-12.13
Insurance - Life & Health
20 _
001-212-537-12.14
Worker's Compensation
10
001-213-523-11.12
Regular Salaries
1,353
001-213-523-11.14
Overtime
8
001-213-523-12.11
Social Security Matching
98
001-213-523-12.12
Retirement Contribution
167
001-213-523-12.13
Insurance - Life & Health
40
001-213-523-12.14
Worker's Compensation
7
001-216-519-11.12
Regular Salaries
2,170
001-216-519-11.15
Special Pay
24
001-216-519-12.11
Social Security Matching
157
001-216-519-12.12
Retirement Contribution
269
001-216-519-12.13
Insurance - Life & Health
40
001-216-519-12.14
Worker's Compensation
13
001-220-519-11.12.
Regular Salaries
7,809
001-220-519-11.14
Overtime
192
001-220-519-11.15
Special Pay
86
001-220-519-12.11
Social Security Matching
579
001-220-519-12.12
Retirement Contribution
990
.001-220-519-12.13
Insurance - Life & Health
90
001-220-519-12.14
Worker's Compensation
705
001=229-513-11.12
Regular Salaries
2,663
001-229-513-11.14
Overtime
750
001-229-513-12.11
Social Security Matching
245
001-229-513-12.12
Retirement Contribution
326
001-229-513-12.13
Insurance - Life. & Health
40
001-229-513-12.14
Worker's Compensation
15
15
APR 2 1986
Boa 64 PnE 15
wr-
98
Page 3
Budget Amendment
GENERAL FUND Cont'd
Account Number
001-250-562-11.12
001-250-562-11.14
001-250-562-11.15
001-250-562-12.11
001-250-562-12.12
001-250-562-12.13
001-250-562-12.14
Account Name
Regular Salaries
Overtime
Special Pay
Social Security Matching
Retirement Contribution
Insurance - Life & Health
Worker's Compensation
001-251-519-11.12 Regular Salaries
001-251-519-12.11 Social Security Matching
001-251-519-12.12 Retirement Contribution
001-251-519-12.13. Insurance � Life & Health
001-251-519-12.14 Worker's Compensation
001-904-516-111.12
001-904-516-x12.11
001-904-516-12.12
001-904-516-12.14
001-906-523-11.12
001-906-523-11.14
001-906-523-11.15
001-906-523-12.11
001-906-523-12.12
001-906-523-12.13
001-9.06-523-12.14
Regular Salaries
Social Security
Retirement Contribution
Worker's Compensation
Regular Salaries
Overtime
Special Pay
Social Security Matching
Retirement Contribution
Insurance , Life & Health
Workers Compensation
001-908-523-.11.12 Regular Salaries
001-908-523-12..11 Social Security Matching
001-9-08-523-12.12 Retirement Contribution
001-908-523=12..13 Insurance Life & Health
001-908-52312.14 Worker's Compensation
001-199-513-99.91 Reserve for Contingency
MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND
004-108-572-11.12 Regular Salaries
004-108-572-12.11 Social Security Matching
004-108-572-12.12 Retirement Contribution
004-108-572-12.13 Insurance - Life & Health
004-108-572-12.14 Worker's Compensation
004-204-515-11.12 Regular Salaries
004-204-5.15-12.11 . Social Security Matching
004-204-515-12.12 Retirement Contribution
004-204-515-12.13. Insurance - Life & Health
004-204-515-12..14 Worker's Compensation
004-205-515-12.11
004-205-515-11.15
004-205-515-12.11-
004-205-515-12.12
004-205-515-12.13
004-205-515-12.14
Regular Salaries
Special Pay
Social Security Matching
Retirement Contribution
Insurance - Life & Health
Worker's Compensation
16
BOOK 64 PAGE 16
Increase Decrease
946
40
3
71
116
30
82
2,903
208
356
40
16
234
17
29
2
22,649
1,200
267
1,725
3,280
300
.1,960
2,400
172
396
50
48
644
46
79
30
29
1,965
141.
241
40
11
8,985
700
693
1,100
150
455
113,062
Page 4
Budget Amendment
MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND Cont'd
Account Number
Account Name
Increase
004-207-524-11.12
Regular Salaries
2,584
004-207-524-12.11
Social Security Matching
185
004-207-524-12.12
Retirement Contribution
317
004-207-524-12.13
Insurance - Life & Health
40
004-207-524-12.14
Worker's Compensation
197
004-234-537-11.12
Regular Salaries
1,550
004-234-537-12.11
Social Security Matching
111
004-234-537-12.12
Retirement Contribution
190
004-234-537-12.13
Insurance - Life & Health
40
004-234-537-12.14
Worker's Compensation
73
004-243-5.19-11.12
Regular Salaries
2,134
004-243-519-11.14
Overtime
4
004-243-519-11.15
Special Pay
80
004-243-519-12.11
Social Security Matching
159
004-243-519-12.12
Retirement Contribution
272
004-243-519-12.13
Insurance - Life & Health
40
004-243-519-12.14
Worker's Compensation
13
004-244-541-11.12
Regular Salaries
11,481
004-244-541-11.14
Overtime
10
004-244-541-11.15
Special Pay
40
004-244-541-12.11
Social Security Matching
825
004-244-541-12.12
Retirement Contribution
1,412
004-244-541-12.13
Insurance - Life & Health
200
004-244-541-12.14
Worker's Compensation
1,014
004-199-581-99.91
Reserve for Contingency
ROAD & BRIDGE FUND
111-214-541-11.12
Regular Salaries
111-214-541-11.13
Other Salaries & Wages
111-214-541-11.14
Overtime
111-214-541-11.15
Special Pay
111-214-541-12.11
Social Security Matching
111-214-541-12.12
Retirement Contribution
111-214-541-12.13
Insurance - Life & Health
111-214-541-12.14 Worker's Compensation
48,218
160
400
400
3,517
6,020
1,200
6,113
Decrease
38,280
111-245-541-11.12
Regular Salaries
5,493
.111-245-541-11.14
Overtime
40
111-245-541-11.15
Special Pay
1,200
111-245-541-12.11
Social Security Matching
482
111-245-541-12.12
Retirement Contribution
673
111-245-541-12.13
Insurance - Life & Health
711
111-245-541-12.14
Worker's Compensation
506
111-199-541-99.91
Reserve for Contingency
75,133
LANDFILL WASTE DISPOSAL FUND
411-217-534-11.12
411-217-534-11.13
411-217-534-11.14
411-217-534-11.15
411-217-534-12.11
411-217-534-12.12
411-217-534-12.13
411-217-534-12.14
411-217-534-99.92
Regular Salaries
Other Salaries & Wages
Overtime
Special Pay
Social Security Matching
Retirement Contribution
Insurance - Life & Health
Worker's Compensation
Cash Forward Sept. 30
17
10,077
160
320
80
761
1,302
1,283
1,001
14,984
BOOK 64 c 17
r APR 2 1966
Page 5
Budget Amendment
COUNTY BUILDING FUND
BOOK 64 PA -UE. IS
Account Number
Account Name
Increase Decrease
441-233-524-11.12
Regular Salaries
11,082
441-233-524-11.14
Overtime
11000
441-233-524-11.15
Special Pay
217
441-233-524-12.11
Social Security Matching
880
441-233-524-12.12
Retirement Contribution
1,383
441-233-524-12.13
Insurance - Life & Health
1,235
441-233-524-12.14
Worker's Compensation
693
441-000-322-10.00
Building Permits
16,490
COUNTY UTILITIES
471-218-536-11.12
Regular Salaries
8,327
471-218-536-11.14
Overtime
X760
471-218-536-11.15
Special Pay
150
471-218-536-12.11
Social Security Matching
661
471-218-536-12.12
Retirement Contribution
1,141
471-218-536-12.13
Insurance - Life & Health
1,045
471-218-536-12.14
Worker's Compensation
520
471-219-536-11.12
Regular Salaries
8,327
471-219-536-11.14
Overtime
500
471-219-536-11.15
Special Pay
150
471-219-536-12.11
Social Security Matching
642
471-219-536-12.12
Retirement Contribution
1,089
471-219-536-12.13
Insurance - Life & Health
965
471-219-536-12.14
Worker's Compensation
490
471-218-536-99.92
Cash Forward Sept. 30
12,604
471-219-536-99.92
Cash Forward Sept. 30
12,163
114-120-522-11.12
Regular Salaries
63,585
114-120-522-11.13
Other Salaries & Wages
200
114-120-522-11.14
Overtime
2,000
114-120-522-11.15
Special Pay
4,200
114-120-522-11.16
Other Compensation
360
114-120-522-12.11
Social Security Matching
5,030
114-120-522-12.12
Retirement Contribution
9,440
114-120-522-12.13
Insurance - Life & Health
6,101
114-120-522-12.14
Worker's Compensation
2,238
114-120-522-99.91
Reserve for Contingency
93,154
Commissioner
Wodkte asked if this is
a result of the union
settlement,
and the Administrator stated
that it is a combination
of the pay raises
given in October to non
-bargaining unit people
plus the pay
raises just settled on for the
bargaining unit
people.
Commissioner
Wodtke wished to be sure
there have been no
other raises
and no adjustments made that
we don't know anything
about, and the
Administrator stated perhaps there might be some
changes in one or two isolated cases, but
nothing on a broad
scale.
18
OMB Director Baird explained that he took 4% of the total
budget across the board to do the amendment.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to know what this leaves in
contingencies, and Director Baird advised that it leaves the
following:
General Fund $314,926
MSTU 176,098
Road & Bridge 116,594
Landfill 8,284
Utilities 72,143
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved the Budget Amendment to adjust
salaries as set out in the above Memo.
H. Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval - Green Acres Estates
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Boling, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: March 18, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners i
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY
Robert M. Kea ng, P PLAT APPROVAL FOR GREEN
Planning & Development Director ACRES ESTATES PLAT II
`THROUGH: Michael K. Miller MM
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Stan Boling /% /� REFERENCES: Green Acres
Staff Planner STAN2
It is requested that the following be given formal consideration
by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of
April 2, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Green Acres Estates, Plat II is a 27 lot ±26 acre subdivision
located on the south side of Oslo Road between 43rd Avenue and
King's Highway. The Planning and Zoning Commission granted
preliminary plat approval to the project on November 8, 1984.
Because the owner has not yet obtained a land development permit
and begun construction, the preliminary plat approval is due to
expire on May 8, 1986.
Mr. Vincent Quade, the owner, is now requesting an 18 month
extension of the preliminary plat approval.
19
Bou 6 4 PAGE 19
APR 2 1986 �a
BOOK U4 FAuE 20 -7
ALTERNATIVE AND ANALYSIS:
Mr. Quade has stated that it has taken longer than anticipated to
obtain some necessary water management district permits. Prelim-
inary plat approval extensions are allowed pursuant to section
7(d)(10) of the subdivision ordinance. The Board has historically
granted one 18 month extension of preliminary plat approval to --
applicants who request such an extension. `
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant one
18 month extension of the preliminary plat approval granted to
Green Acres estates, Plat II; said approval shall expire on
October 2, 1987.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
granted one 18 month extension preliminary
plat approval for Green Acres Estates, Plat
I. Authorization to Advertise for Professional Engineering
9erv1'ces - Inman RTver 9IvE1—.RortF-E t.
The Board reviewed memo of Public Works Director Davis:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: March 25, 1986 FILE:
Board of County Camnissioners
,f
THROUGH:
Michael Wright,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, *P.E.
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
SUBJECT:
Authorization to Advertise for
Professional Engineering
Services -Indian River
Boulevard North Extension
REFERENCES:
Recent development pressures along the North Indian River Boulevard
corridor are resulting in the need for detailed engineering design to be
performed.
During the April 16, 1985 meeting of the Transportation Planning Committee,
the northerly extension of Indian River Boulevard was unanimously approved
to provide an alternate route serving the US 1 corridor (minutes attached).
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Staff and local consultants have defined a road alignment north of Barber
Avenue. This alignment, however, depends upon the final alignment of
20
Indian River Boulevard from its present north terminus to Barber Avenue.
At this time, engineering should be reactivated for the construction of a
4 -lane divided highway.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recamnended that the attached advertisement be published and staff
begin the selection process. Once a final selection is made, staff will
request authorization to negotiate a contract for engineering services.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously autho-
rized staff to advertise and begin the selection
process for professional engineering services for
Indian River Blvd. - North Extension.
J. Acquisition 12th St. R/W - (McCullers' property)
The Board reviewed memo of Right of Way Agent Finney:
TO: The Honorable Board of DATE: March 20, 1986 FILE:
County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright,'County Admm.
James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Dir
SUBJECT: 12th Street-R/W Acquisition
B.J. McCullers Property
Located on the SE corner of 12th
Street at Old Dixie Highway
FROM: Donald -G. Finney sREFERENCES:
Right of Way Agent
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS"
Armfield-Wagner Appraisal & Research, Inc. recently appraised
two parcels owned by B.J. McCullers, et al as follows:
Parcel #160 11.5' R/W 2,300 S.F. $ 7,590.00 $3.30 S.F.
Parcel #161 11.5' R/W 3,045 S.F. $14,769.00 $4.85 S.F.
The property owner has agreed to sell the county the R/W at
the appraised value. -
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends and requests authorization to purchase the
two parcels at the appraised value.
FUNDING
Indian River Boulevard project #304-214-541-66.12
21
BOOK 64 PAGE 21
APR 2 1986 BOOK 64 FADE 202 -7
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously autho-
rized staff to purchase the two parcels listed
in the above memo at the appraised value.
/ K. Appointment to -Tri -County Council Insurance Sub -Committee
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously appointed
Administrator Michael Wright to serve on the
Insurance Sub -Committee of the Tri -County Council
of Local Governments.
APPEAL OF REZONING DENIAL - (FOPASCLO DEVELOPERS)
The hour of 9:10 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a _ L
in the matter of
in the Court,
was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscrib4 bef9fe meh d of A.D. 19
•
(B i 6746
�nr)
Q.�
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, rida)
22
F NOTICE -PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider recommending
e adoption of a County ordinance rezoning
nd from: A-1, Agricultural District to -RM -6,
ultiple-Family Rssidential District (up to • 6
iits/acre). The subject property .is currently
vned by Ennis H. and Gay M. Proctor, and Is
cated on the south side of North Winter Beach
,ad approximately 600 feet west of. the Florida
est Coast Railroad.
The; b1W propsr!j is described es'i
THE EAST 4'/2 ACRES OF THE NORTH
'h OF THE NORTH 'h OF THE NORTH -
.WEST % OF THE -NORTHWEST '/r OF..
SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 32S, RANGE
3912; AND THE EAST 4% ACRES OF THE,
'SOUTH '/2 OF THE NORTH 'bi OF THE
NORTHWEST '/4 OF THE NORTHWEST
'/4 OF SECTION 10,� TOWNSHIP 32S;
RANGE 39E. ALL LANDS LYING IN IN-
DIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CON-
TAINING 9.0 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
The Board of County Commissioners will bon -
of a public hearing regarding the appeal by
i applicant of the decision by the Planning and
ming Commission to recommend disapproval
the rezoning request: The public hearing, at
dch parties in interest and citizens shall have
opportunity to be heard, will be held by the
and of County Commissioners of Indian River
aunty, Florida, In the County Commission
cambers of the County Administration Building,
sated at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida
Wednesday, April 2, 1986 at 9:10 a.m.
Anyone who may wish to -appeal any decision
rich may be made at this meeting will need to
sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
made, which includes testimony and evidence
on which the appeal Is based. <
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s-Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
u. 12.24. 1986
Chairman Scurlock informed those present that he never
before has had to declare a conflict of interest, but he is a 25%
owner in the subject project, and he, therefore, felt it is
inappropriate for him even to remain in the room. Chairman
Scurlock thereupon turned the gavel over to Vice Chairman Lyons
and left the room.
Staff Planner Jeffrey Goulet made the staff presentation and
recommendation of approval, as follows:
TO' The Honorable Members DATE: March 12, 1986 FELE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners f
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
_ APPEAL OF
SUBJECT: FOPASCLO DEVELOPERS
Robert M. lea ing ICP REQUEST TO REZONE 9 ACRES
Planning &•Development Director FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL
DISTRICT TO RM -6,
MULTIPLE -FAMILY
�S THROUGH: Richard Shearer, AICP RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Chief, Long -Range Planning (UP TO 6 UNITS/ACRE)
FROM: �/� REFERENCES:
Jeffrey A. Goulet Jl-0."� Fopasclo Memo
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning JEFF
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 2, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Fopasclo Developers, Inc. is requesting to rezone 9 acres located
on the south side of North Winter Beach Road and approximately
600 feet west of the Florida East Coast Railroad from A,
Agricultural District, to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential
District (up to 6 units/acre).
The applicant intends to develop a multiple -family subdivision on
this property.
On February 13, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
.3 -to -0 to deny this",
his request. The commission based their decision
on the fact that they felt a rezoning to a multiple -family zoning
district was premature and that the existing 300 feet of
multiple -family zoning. was adequate to buffer the light
industrial zoning to the east from the single-family zoning to
the west. They also felt that an increase in the amount of
multiple -family zoning was not appropriate due to the
single-family residential character of the surrounding area. The
applicants have appealed this decision.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site *and sur -
23
APR 2 1986 BOOK 64 P'A 93
r..1
rounding areas,
utility systems,
mental quality.
BOOK 64 PA. cf. 24
potential impacts on the transportation and
and any significant adverse impacts on environ -
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is presently being utilized as a landscape -
nursery. Located to the north and west of the subject property
is land with existing residential uses and zoned RS -6. The land
located•to the south is vacant and zoned RS -6. The land located
to the east of the subject property and west of the railroad is
primarily vacant,. except for a computer business located on the
north side of North Winter Beach Road. A mixture of residential
and heavy commercial uses is located east of the railroad.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the
property to the north, south, and west as LD -2, Low -Density
Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The property located east of
and adjacent to the subject property is also designated LD -2;
however the MXD, Mixed Use District, is located approximately 300
feet east of the eastern boundary of the subject property.
The proposed rezoning is in conformance with the LD -2 land use
designation and is consistent with the Winter Beach Small Area
Plan and Precise Land Use Map which designates this property as
residential at a density of up to 6 units/acre.
Transportation System
The subject property has primary access to North Winter Beach
Road (classified as a primary collector on the Thoroughfare
Plan). Both U.S. #1 (classified as an Arterial) and Old Dixie
Highway (classified as a Secondary Collector) could also be
impacted due to development of this site. The maximum develop-
ment which could occur on the subject property with the proposed
RM -6 zoning would generate approximately 378 average annual daily
trips. This extra traffic would not significantly affect the
current level -of -service "A" which exists on North Winter Beach
Road, U.S. #1, and Old Dixie Highway.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensi-
tive nor is it in a flood -prone area. The subject property has
excessively well drained soils, but it is not located on the sand
ridge aquifer recharge area.
Utilities
The subject property is not presently served by County water or
sewer facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 -to -0 to deny this
rezoning request for the reasons given in the description and
conditions section of this memorandum. While the Planning
Department respects the•Planning and Zoning Commission's opinion,
the staff feels that this rezoning is consistent with the Compre-
hensive Plan and the Winter Beach Small Area Plan and Precise
Land Use Map. Staff also feels that the existing 300 feet of
multiple -family zoning is not adequate to buffer the single-
family uses from the Industrial District and that this 'rezoning
is appropriate for this area. Based on this analysis, staff
recommends approval.
24
s
M
Commissioner Bowman wished to take exception to staff's
statement that this property is not on the sand ridge. She
emphasized that the sand ridge is not determined by elevation,
but by the geology of the area which determines what grows there,
and she believed the area has typical sand ridge vegetation -
scrub pine, scrub oak, myrtle, hickory, etc.
Vice Chairman Lyons asked if this area were to be developed
as single family use, how many units there could be with RS -6
zoning.
Chief Planner Shearer stated that, based on the minimum lot
size and with water and sewer facilities, there could be about 36
units under a standard subdivision or about 54 with a PRD.
Vice Chairman Lyons wondered if public water could be made
available by a package plant and well, for instance. He just
wished to determine the alternatives.
Administrator Wright advised that there is no county system
available, but it is possible to achieve the density Planner
Shearer is talking about by putting in a small reverse osmosis
plant and a sewer plant.
Vice Chairman Lyons inquired about the sewer and water
service requirements for multiple family,
Planner Shearer believed the developer has already worked it
out with Environmental Health to get a triplex on each 1/2 acre
lot using well and septic tank.
Commissioner Bird addressed staff's statement that they did
not consider 300' of buffer adequate and wished to know i"f that
amount i" unique to this area or fairly consistent up and down
the railroad track/U.S.I corridor.
Planner Shearer stated that when staff did the zoning con-
version, the area that was zoned Industrial extended 600' west of
the tracks. The first 300' of that was changed to Light Indus-
trial based on the MXD Land Use designation, and the land between
300' to 600' was converted to RM -6 based on the LD -2 designation.
This is found fairly consistently along the railroad tracks.
25
APR 2 1986 BOOK 64 FAcE 2. 05
APP' 2 198
BOOK 64 PA,E 26
Commissioner Wodtke noted that staff made the statement that
the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Winter Beach area
plan, which he believed was participated in by the Winter Beach
community. However, it seems that there is considerable
opposition at this time, and he believed one of the concerns is
that this would begin a western sprawl of multiple family.
Planner Shearer explained that the Winter Beach Small Area
Plan designates this area as residential with a maximum density
of 6 units per acre, and it does not specify Single Family or
Multi Family; it is basically the same as the LD -2 land use
classification and both RM -6 and RS -6 are consistent with that
general category. When staff met with the Winter Beach
Progressive League, they did try to stress this would allow
single or multiple family zoning, and when staff was looking at
this property, they felt this probably would be about as far west
as any multiple family should go since farther west it is
predominantly single family in nature and on fairly large lots.
Commissioner Wodtke believed at the same Planning & Zoning
hearing where the subject property was considered, another piece
was being considered for the same zoning, and he wondered why we
are not discussing both of these at the same time.
Planner Shearer explained that they had scheduled the other
property for this meeting also but were unable to give sufficient
notice for them to be heard and the property owners also pre-
ferred to be heard separately.
Commissioner Wodtke then inquired about the ownership of
other property in the vicinity, whether the property to the south
is planned for a golf course, and whether .it is the site for
potential well fields.
Staff advised that part of the property just south and west
is owned by Mary Ruth Kincaid and the property directly south is
owned by Lost Tree Village Corporation.
Administrator Wright did not believe it is the site they had
in mind for the wellfields.
26
Vice Chairman Lyons asked if anyone present wished to be
heard.
Steve Moler of Masteller & Moler came before the Board
representing Fopasclo Developers, Inc., and stated that he would
like to reserve some time at the end of the hearing to respond to
items the residents might bring up. Mr. Moler stressed that the
developers met with staff before they started this application
and were,told their plans to submit their rezoning application
would be strongly recommended by staff. He believed staff is
very familiar with the North Winter Beach area, having done a
small area plan and map for this area, and he felt their recom-
mendation should be weighed heavily.
Mr. Moler then discussed the subject property and the
relationship of the proposed project to the existing Light
Industrial on the west side of the railroad which is followed by
300' feet of multiple family zoning. Staff has indicated that
300' buffer strip of multiple family is not sufficient, and Mr.
Moler also pointed out that 300' is very narrow for potential
development as multiple family and would make it very difficult
to come up with a very imaginative plan. He felt the location of
their project is close enough to the railroad that they would
have difficulty marketing it as single family.
Commissioner Bird inquired as to their intentions for
utility service, and Mr. Moler stated that they do not feel that
single family on 1/2 acre lots is a marketable product, and to
develop single family on smaller lots would entail the location
of a package plant on the site, most probably at the northeast
corner of the site directly on North Winter Beach Road because
that is where the gravity system would flow. He, therefore, felt
the best alternative is multi family zoning where the developer
can process an application for a subdivision of 1/2 acre lots,
which lots can be developed for on-site disposal and eliminate
the need for a package plant on the site.
27
APR 2 1986 BOOK D04 PAGE 97
BOOK 6 4 FACE ? 8
Commissioner Bird noted that, in other words, each triplex
would have its own septic tank and well, and that was confirmed.
Vice Chairman Lyons asked how many of these units the
property would support, and Mr. Moler advised there would be 13
lots, which would amount to 39 units,.and this works out to a
density of less than 4 units per acre. He did not see any way to
achieve 6 units per acre.
Attorney Sam Block came before the Board representing a
number of residents of the area. He noted that at the Planning >;
Zoning hearing they had presented a petition in opposition to the
proposed rezoning, and that night those in opposition completely
filled the room; today, however, many of those people are not
present because they have to work. Attorney Block emphasized
that a major concern is the character of the neighborhood, and
while the Master Plan and Small Area Plan talk about residential,
they do not address RM -6 as opposed to RS -6. Also, although 300'
was felt to be a proper buffer in the past, staff apparently does
not feel it is now. Attorney Block pointed out that the Planning
& Zoning Board recommended denial because they felt the 300'
buffer zone is adequate and that a change to RM -6 would be
premature for this area. Attorney Block agreed that a change to
RM -6 definitely would be premature as this area on Winter Beach
Road is not a fast expanding area, but a rural area mainly made
up of 1 to 10 acre single family parcels. If several years from
now this area is bursting and there is a need to move west
because the RS -6 is filled, he argued all the area should be
rezoned RS -6 to be consistent. Attorney Block asked that the
Board go along with the Planning & Zoning Commission recommenda-
tion.
Lynn Kirk, 4210 Winter Beach Road, informed the Board that
60-80' of his frontage would be directly affected by the proposed
rezoning, and he is very much opposed to it as he does not want
high density across the street and is concerned about the effect
it could have on water quality. This*area is on the sand ridge,
28
and it is an unspoiled area, particularly appropriate for single
family homes. Mr. Kirk emphasized that the residents feel the
present 300' buffer is adequate and do not want multiple family
extended into their single family area.
Brenda Sistler, 51st Ave., speaking on behalf of the Winter
Beach Progressive League, expressed her belief that they were
misled by staff in regard to potential higher densities in the
area as they were told this would be very unlikely any time in
the near future because of the water and sewer situation. This
gave them the impression it simply would never happen and because
of that they did approve the small area plan. The League wants
to see Winter Beach grow consistently with its past.
James Taylor, 65th St., long time county resident,
emphasized that theirs is very rural single family neighborhood
community and expressed his opposition to three-story high rises.
He found it interesting that the developers feel they can market
a triplex with only a 300' buffer, but they cannot market a house
built on 1/2 an acre.
John Hansen, North Winter Beach Road, stated that he took
the day off to attend the meeting so he could express his
opposition to rezoning to multiple family. He emphasized that he
loves this area because of the scrub oak, hickory, and the
wildlife, and he purposely moved here from Pompano three years
ago just to get away from high density. He was not opposed to a
change to RS -6.
Carmella Hudson, North Winter Beach Road, stated that they
are just`now unpacking and moving into their home. Their son
owns 51 acres near to them, and they certainly do not want
multiple housing across from them. She noted that she has poor
health, and although there is no medical center in this area, she
took a chance on moving here because she needs the peace and
quiet. She sincerely hoped it won't change.
Rebecca Hampton, 69th St., President of the Winter Beach
Progressive League, lifelong resident of the area, confirmed that
29
21986 BOOK ID4 P,Uc 9
APR 2 1966
Bou 64 PA,E ;gyp
they had been led to believe that because of the lack of sewer
and water services in the area, a development such as proposed
was exceedingly unlikely. She emphasized that she had taken time
off from work to speak in opposition and urged that the Board
leave their area as it is and deny the appeal.
Alison DeGenero, 52nd Ave., spoke in support of the Winter
Beach residents and hoped they don't get too much multiple
family.
Mr. Moler wished to respond to some of the issues brought up
by the residents and Attorney Block. He felt the Planning staff
is well aware that the Winter Beach area is going to develop at 6
units per acre and that is why Winter Beach Road is designated as
a primary collector. He also believed traffic generation from a
multi family project is less than that generated by single family
developments; he also did not feel that a house on a 1/2 acre
within 300-400' of a railroad can be marketed as well as a multi
family project. He emphasized that if they have to go with
single family, they will have to do something to increase the
density of the project up to 6 units per acre, and this would
require putting in a package plant. Mr. Moler pointed out that
regardless of whether this property is developed single family or
multiple family, the density permitted by the Land Use Plan is 6
units per acre, and it conceivably could generate the same number
of people. He felt multi family is the highest and best use of
this land and urged the Commission to vote in favor of the
appeal.
Carolyn Eggert, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commis-
sion, stated that she can understand where there might have been
a misunderstanding of the Small Area plans; however, when she
talked to the group in Winter Beach, she read "up to 6 units per
acre," to mean just that - that it could just as easily be 2 or 3
or 4 and not necessarily 6. Mrs. Eggert stated that although she
was not present at the P&Z meeting when the subject property was
considered, she would have voted with the Commission.
30
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, Chairman Scurlock being
out of the room, the Board by a 4-0 vote closed
the public hearing.
Vice Chairman Lyons did not feel the issue of single family
or multi family is as important as the fact that the residents'
concept of their neighborhood and the concept outlined by our
Master Plan are not consistent. The point is that this area can
be developed to 6 units per acre, and it, therefore, is possible
that someone owning five acres could sell and where there is one
house, possibly there could be 30. He did not believe that
anyone was trying to mislead anybody, but he did not think the
people realize what can happen. If the residents wish to protect
their area, he advised that they go through a Plan change.
Commissioner Bird inquired about the geographical boundaries
encompassing the Winter Beach Small Area Plan, and Planner
Shearer advised that the eastern boundary is the Indian River,
the northern boundary is Hobart Road (77th St.), the western
boundary is Range Line Road (74th Ave.), and the southern
boundary is the North Relief Canal; so, actually it is quite a
large area, containing about 12 square miles.
Commissioner Bird also felt that when the League signed off
on this plan, possibly they did not understand that the Small
Area Plan does call for up to 6 units per acre over a large
portion of that land. If that is not what the residents wish, he
concurred that they should request a Comprehensive Land Use
change to a low density classification or we will be back in this
same position many times. The question today, however, relates
to whether we want to allow the 6 units to be developed in a
multi family or single family characteristic. Commissioner Bird
did not agree with Mr. Moler's statement that it is not feasible
31
APR 21986 BOOK 4 Fret 31
Boa 64 PAGE :32
to develop a 300' strip in multiple family as he personally lives
in a condo development built on a piece of property 330' wide by
1320' deep, and there are 116 units on that 10 acres.
Commissioner Bowman agreed with Vice Chairman Lyons that thee'
residents are indeed living very dangerously if they do not
change the Plan. The RS -6 may have been appropriate when the
Comprehensive Plan was first adopted, but she felt we have been
remiss in not realizing there were all these acreage tracts
developed in a very nice suburban area.
Commissioner Wodtke believed staff's remark that it would be
unlikely there would be a development of 6 units per acre in the
area related to the well and septic tank requirements which have
kept changing over the years and also the fact that someone would
need a piece of land large enough to be supportive of installing
a sewer plant or water plant if they wished to achieve that
density. Commissioner Wodtke then addressed the years spent
developing the Comprehensive Plan, trying to determine where to
place single family residential, multi family, etc., and noted it
was believed logical to put heavier densities closer to town and
U.S.I so they would be nearer to the primary collectors and to
the availability of services rather than out between Kings
Highway and Ranch Road. Commissioner Wodtke could understand the
Planning & Zoning Commission making their recommendation, but he
could also understand the applicant trying to do a project they
had thought was acceptable and had community support, which
apparently it does not. Commissioner Wodtke stated he had a few
questions he wished to ask Attorney Block privately.
The Vice Chairman called for a short recess.
After reconvening the meeting with the same members present,
Chairman Scurlock remaining out of the room, the Vice Chairman
asked for a Motion.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to deny the appeal made by
32
Foplasco Developers for the reason that it seems
to be spot zoning; that we need to revisit the
whole situation; and that we will be able to legally
modify the Land Use Plan in July.
Commissioner Bird noted that we have some rather unique
areas in the county both historically and geographically. For
instance, he believed we have been very protective of Roseland,
and he felt the Winter Beach area falls in the same category with
a very rural development pattern. He, therefore, believed we
should continue to maintain the single family characteristic of
the area and he also felt a 300' buffer is adequate, at least for
the present time.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if we could go ahead and zone the
subject property RS -6 in concurrence with other property in the
area so it can be used in single family residential as the appli-
cant might prefer this to a denial which would leave it in A-1.
Attorney Vitunac emphasized that this was advertised only as
an appeal, and he, therefore, did not feel the Board is in a
posture to grant the RS -6 zoning at this time.
Discussion continued at length with Commissioner Wodtke
contending that we would not be increasing the density, and he
felt in the past we have had the prerogative to grant such a
change if the density is not higher.
Mr. Moler stated that if they cannot get single family in a
Motion to deny the multi family, they would prefer to withdraw
their application for multi family. If there is any way the
Motion can be modified to change to RS -6, they would accept that.
Attorney Vitunac reiterated that all this is today is an
appeal for a denial of RM -6 and there is nothing in the adver-
tisement re RS -6.
Attorney Block concurred that the people are here today in
regard to a specific appeal, and, from a legal standpoint, he
contended rezoning to RS -6 would be upzoning from Agricultural.
_ 33
APR 2 1986 BOOK r, 4 F,�cE 33
� APR 21986'
BOOK 64 F'}AGE 34
Commissioner Wodtke did not believe RS -6 is an escalation of
the request that was heard and he did not believe the community
is going to oppose RS -6, especially since everything around that
area is RS -6. He noted we can go through the whole process all
over again and spend more money and have people take off from
their jobs, but he felt it would be preferable if we can
accomplish this today.
Attorney Block believed this would cut an option away for
the people to come in in July and revisit the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would be hard pressed to
deny the RS -6 if that were the issue before us, and if it were
legal, he would withdraw his support of the Motion and favor a
Motion to go to RS -6.
Discussion continued re a change to RS' -6, and Attorney
Vitunac pointed out that would not only involve a change in
density numbers but also a change in type of use.
Chief Planner Shearer noted that, as far as staff is
concerned, this can be run back through as a county -initiated
rezoning if that is the way the Board wants to go.
Vice Chairman Lyons stated that he would be inclined to go
with our Attorney's interpretation even though it might be a
little more awkward, and he felt the safe step is to have the
rezoning from A-1 to RS -6 as a separate item.
Commissioner Bird advised that if the applicant would agree
to withdraw their request for multi family zoning, he then would
make a Motion to instigate a county -initiated rezoning to RS -6 to
bring this into conformance with the rest of the area.
Commissioner Bowman did not believe a density of 6 is really
consistent with what is in the area, and Commissioner Bird
understood that, but noted that if we do restudy the area, this
property would be included the same as anything else.
Attorney Vitunac believed situations such as this could be
avoided if the applicant, when applying, was advised to ask that
34
� � r
his request be reviewed under several different options. In this
case, he asked for one specific action.
After further discussion, Mr. Moler informed the Board that,
since it is apparent their request for multi family will not be
approved, he has been authorized to request that their applica-
tion be withdrawn at this time.
Vice Chairman Lyons announced that since the request for
rezoning has been withdrawn, no further Board action is required
and the Motion on the floor dies.
Mrs. Eggert requested that staff be allowed to revisit the
Winter Beach Small Area Plan as she would like to clear up any
confusion.
Vice Chairman Lyons agreed this should be clarified, and
Commissioner Wodtke suggested that we instruct staff and the
Planning & Zoning Commission to revisit the Winter Beach Small
Area Plan and come back with a recommendation. He then discussed
at length the fact that character of life will become more
dependent on our ability to have infrastructure, the fact that we
have to have some areas where we can concentrate densities, and
emphasized that if the Plan says we can allow 6 units per acre,
it must be realized this can happen as people want to utilize
their property.
The discussion on Foplasco Developers having ended, Chairman
Scurlock returned to the meeting and took the gavel back from
Vice Chairman Lyons.
DER/ARMY"CORPS/DNR PERMIT APPLICATIONS - (Tom Smith re Salvage)
Chief Environmental Planner Challacombe made the following
presentation, noting that this is very similar to the application
made by Mel Fisher of Treasure Coast Salvors several weeks ago.
35
APR 2 1996 Boa 6 4 FacE 35
� J
BOOK .64 FAGE 36
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: March 25, 1986 FELE:
Of the Board of County
Commissioners,
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R./ARMY CORPS
& D.N.R. PERMIT _
,SUBJECT: APPLICATIONS
u
Robert M. KeAt19, P
Planning & Deve opm t Director
FROM: Arthur Challacombe REFERENCES: T. Smith -
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 April 2, 1986.
D.E.R. DREDGE & FILL PERMIT APPLICATION
FILE NUMBER 56117029
APPLICANT: Tom Smith
WATERWAY & LOCATION:
Open Atlantic Ocean between Bethel Shoal and Jupiter Inlet.
WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant proposes to "prop wash" dust
sand pockets on the ocean bottom to recover historical arti-
facts. This activity will require the displacement of
approximately 200,000 cubic yards of sand and shell and involve
approximately nine acres of submerged ocean bottom.
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 Zoning Management Element
of Indian River Comprehensive Plan
Coastal Zone
Policies for
aagement
Interim Goals
n- -4.
ion
Objectives &
I
The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
Chapter 16Q-20 F.A.C.
This project proposal involves prop wash dusting from a boat
for shipwreck salvage operations.
The application proposes that a permit for the prop wash
dusting extend along the northern coastal area of Indian River
} County within the Town of Indian River Shores and the City of
Vero Beach for a period from May 1, 1986 to October 15, 1991.
The broad coverage of the application is in potential conflict
with the Coastal Element of the Comprehensive Plan which
states,
KL
s ® �
"The County shall prohibit any non-essential coastal
activity which threatens to destroy the natural coastal
features occurring between the State Coastal Construction
setback line and a point 300' seaward of the mean high
water line.
Such features include:
1. Nearshore worm reefs....."
These reefs are outcrops of coquina limestone which contain a
percentage of colonies of an organism known as Phragmata oma
lapidosa, a sabellarid worm. The reefs not only provide a very
valuable biological resource, but also a significant recrea-
tional resource. Many shoreline fishermen and scuba divers are
dependent on the reefs for their activities.
The application does not comment on the extent or impact of
turbidity from the prop wash dusting activities. Because of
its broad coverage, the application does not indicate the
location of any reefs which may be adjacent to the proposed
salvage.operation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners autho-
rize staff to forward a letter to D.E.R. objecting to the
application as it is currently proposed and that the applicant
provide the following additional information:
1) Specific locations for the proposed salvage opera-
tions;
2) Methods of operation which will minimize any adverse
environmental impacts to the inshore reefs which may
be affected by prop wash dusting in the area.
3) Potential impacts on sea turtles which frequent the
area and methods for minimizing those impacts.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to authorize staff to forward
a letter to the DER objecting to the application as
currently proposed and requesting that the applicant
provide the additional information listed above.
Chief Planner Challacombe informed the Board that there is a
representative present from Cobb Coin, who has some general
concerns he would like to address to the Commission. He will not
be discussing this specific issue but wishes to address the prob-
lems salvage operators in general have with these applications.
Chairman Scurlock noted that this matter is not on the
agenda, but stated that if the Board members had no objection, we
would listen to a brief presentation. There were no objections.
37
APR 21986 b4 37
Fr- I
APR 2 1966 BOOK
F'AGE .3-s
John Brandon of Cobb Coin came before the Board, displayed
maps, etc., and explained the thousands of pages of documentation
they are required to submit to the state, which goes into detail
re their work, the specific site delineation, the overburden,
type of bed rock, etc. He did not understand why the state is
asking the county to make a recommendation when they already have
all this voluminous data. He realized that the county can't do
anything but recommend denial, but would hope the county could
ask the state to make the information they already have available
to county staff so they can make a good logical recommendation.
Commissioner Bird noted that our main concern is damage to
the environment, and he asked if the salvage company is closely
scrutinized by the DNR, etc.
Mr. Brandon assured him that they are working with the
department of state; they have been scrutinized at all times; and
they have produced as much as 15 volumes of data for one case.
He stressed that they have done 22 years of salvage work out
here, which has been monitored continually, and you can dive over
the reefs which have been worked and those which have not been
and see that there has been no change.
Commissioner Wodtke felt if they were required to do an
environmental impact study for the state that our staff should
have an opportunity to see it as he believed that should address
every issue we want to look at.
Commissioner Lyons believed that all we are saying in the
letter is that these are the kind of things we are worried about.
He did not think we have to go into a detailed study as that is
the province of the DER; we are just telling them this is what we
worry about and be sure it is taken care of before you issue a
permit.
Director Keating noted that we are actually asking for three
specific pieces of information. The applicant is going to tell
us where he is going to conduct his operation, how he is going to
do it, and its potential impacts on sea turtles. If he can get
38
us this information briefly and concisely, we can come up with a
recommendation.
Commissioner Lyons agreed that we don't want a semi full of
information, just those answers, and Mr. Brandon felt that now
they have a better understanding of what is needed.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE 82-28
The hour of 10:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VER® BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of Z 2 - ;'?
In the ��Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of__ Z�� n le- lg (pm/
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworr) to and subscribed before me this
(SEAL)
D. 19 __�?z—
tcierK or the circuit Court, Indian River County, F
39
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Board of County Commissioners "of_Indian
River County, Florida, will conduct a Public
Hearing on Wednesday, April 2, 1986 at 10:00
a.m. in the County Commission Chambers. at
the County Administration Building, 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960, to. consider the
adoption of an ordinance entitled:
AN tnrru tmw (AMMISSIO ERS OOF THE FRD OF
INDIAN `
THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY STOHM-
WATERMANAGEMENT AND -FLOOD
PROTECTION ORDINANCE 82-28; -
PROVIDING FOR SHORT TITLE; PUR-
POSE- RULES OF CONSTRUCTION;
DEFINITIONS; PROHIBITED AREA; AC-
TIVITY; EXEMPTIONS; REVIEW CRI-
TERIA FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJ-
ECTS: REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR
PERMIT APPLICATION; REQUIRED IN-
FORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED BY
TYPE 'S" PERMIT APPLICANTS AFTER
ISSUANCE OF PERMIT; PERMIT APPLI-
CATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES;
nIMPA- APPEAL '
VENT; VESTED RIGHTS; GONr uv i
WITH OTHER ORDINANCES; SEVER-
ABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE.(Revisin.
uirements
In the 100 -Year Flood Pian athe 1 -cut -and -fill" long the In- ,.
than River and incorporating recent
changes in St. Johns River Water Man-
agement District's Stormwater, Manage-
ment Rules.)
If anyone decides to appeal any decision made
on the above matter. that person will need a
record of maya�P�to immure^thatorasvch erbedrtu
record of the proceedings is made, which recorO
includes the testimony in evidence on which th
appeal is based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DON C. sCURLOCK, JR.. CHAIRMAN
Mar. 1Q. 1986 ...- "I ..._,—.
BOOK 64 F':,E 39
APR 2 1986BOOK 64 P',E 40
Public Works Director Davis made the staff presentation:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: March 25, 1986 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Michael Wright,
County Achministrator SUBJECT:
Amendments to Ordinance 82-28
Stormwater Management and
Flood Protection Ordinance -
FROM: REFERENCES:
James W. Davis,-P.E.,
Public Works Director-
DESCRIPTION
irector
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
At the request of local developers, engineers, and the general public, the
Public Works staff has prepared revisions to the current Stonmaater
Management and Flood Protection Ordinance. Basically, the major revisions
are as follows
1) Page 9 - Additional information is requested for Stormwater Management
facilities which penetrate the groundwater table. This requirement is
to insure that the ground water quality is not adversely affected.
2) Page 14 - The "cut and fill" requirement has been relaxed within the
100 -year flood plain along the Indian River. Prior to this amendment,
a developer working in the 100 year flood plain must balance his cut
and fill. The result was that if the 100 -year elevation were six or
seven feet above sea level, no fill could be placed without compensa-
ting by an equal amount of fill being removed somewhere on the site
within the 100 year flood plain. The new amendment relaxes this
requirement by stating that this "cut and fill" balance along the
Indian River would be enforced below elevation 4.0 NGVD or within the
10 -year flood plain, whichever is greater.
Other minor revisions have been made to basically clarify the previous
ordinance. - .
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The County staff has mailed copies of the revised ordinance to local
engineers and concerned persons. Two workshops were held on Feb. 13 and
March 6 to receive comments. Revisions were made following these
workshops. Copies were. also distributed at the Sign Ordinance Workshop
held on March 11, 1986.
The revisions are compatible with the St. Johns River Plater Management
District Rules.
Staff recommends approval of the revised ordinance.
Chairman Scurlock inquired where we came up with the
original numbers, and Director Davis advised they were from a
model ordinance prepared for a seminar he attended at the
University of Florida.
40
� ® r
The Chairman asked if the Director had felt the result of
applying those numbers was too stringent, and Director Davis felt
it was along the river only above elevation 4. He noted that St.
Johns River Water Management District has a policy re balancing
"cut and fill" in the 10 year flood plain, and the proposed
relaxation would bring us more in line with their policy.
Chairman Scurlock then inquired about any impact there might
be on the Grand Harbor project and whether we now would have to
modify their Development Order.
Director Davis stated that it will affect the Grand Harbor
project to some degree, but he did not believe we would have to
modify the Order because it states that their drainage system
must meet St. John's River Water Management criteria, DER
criteria, and the county's local criteria; therefore, if they
meet our existing ordinance requirements, they should not be in
conflict with the Development Order which has been issued.
Commissioner Lyons asked if the amended ordinance is
consistent with the St. Johns River Water Management policy, and
Director Davis confirmed that it is except that we have not
identified the 10 year flood plain in our county. We chose
elevation 4 specifically because the 10 year flood plain
generally is not above that.
Discussion ensued regarding any possible effect this might
have on the Grand Harbor project, and the Administrator believed
the main effect would be that the lakes won't be as deep. It was
noted that you can't balance the "cut and fill" above the water
table, and this, therefore, has the potential of reducing the
size of the lakes.
Chairman Scurlock felt this would result in Grand Harbor
having to bring more fill into the site, but Director Davis
stated they still can excavate the fill from the site, and they
can still balance under elevation 7, if they wish.
Commissioner Bowman inquired as to the purpose of the cut
41
Boa 64 F1 r 41
APR 2 1986
' APR 21986
BOOK 64 40
and fill, and Director Davis explained that it is to maintain the
storage in a classical flood plain.
Chairman Scurlock continued to express concern about the
real impact and the cost of some of the changes we require in our
ordinances, and Commissioner Bird noted in this case we actually
would be relaxing our requirements.
Director Davis agreed this is the major change in the
ordinance and all other changes are very minor, some simply
punctuation. There are some changes on Page 9 re penetrating the
ground water table, and he explained that what we are trying to
do there is get a little more data by requiring that the people
take a look at water quality when this happens.
Commissioner Bowman and Commissioner Lyons both commented on
numerous typos and confusion. Commissioner Lyons noted that on
Page 4 of the proposed ordinance, the paragraph entitled Flood
should be Floor, and in the same line the word "unable" should be
"usable." He also noted that the paragraph heading "Impervious
Surface" should be underlined. Commissioner Bowman pointed out
where "verses" should be corrected to "versus" and "alteration"
rather than "alternation."
Chairman Scurlock suggested that we authorize the County
Attorney to work with staff and correct these minor errors.
Attorney Vitunac stressed that he has asked all departments
not to put such documents on the agenda until an attorney has
signed off on them. After they are signed by an attorney, his
department then takes responsibility for being sure the documents
are in final form.
Commissioner Lyons questioned item (9) (a) on Page 11 which
states PVC pipe shall be acceptable for installations in
privately maintained systems as he did not see why we should have
two standards.
Director Davis advised that in places such as a parking lot
where there is not much traffic, developers like to use PVC
42
M
M
because it is cheaper and readily available, but we do not want
it used in a county maintained system.
Discussion continued re the fact that allowing the use of
PVC pipe relates to the intensity of use of the area and that we
want to provide some flexibility.
Director Davis did agree if there is any thought the County
might take the system over in the future, that should be given
some consideration.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 86-24 and authorized the Chairman's
signature subject to review by the County Attorney.
43
P.W 0 WK • ri •
BOOK 'rE 43
BOOK 4 F"'ur. 44
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 86-24
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, W/W/.IMWIM
AMENDING THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY STORMTF.R
MANACDENT AND FLOOD PROTECTION ORDINANCE 82-28,
PROVIDING FOR SHORT TITLE; PURPOSE; RULES OF
CONSTRUCTION; DEFINITIONS; PROHIBITED ACTIVITY;
EXE►'>PTIONS; REVIEW CRITERIA FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS; REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR PERMIT
APPLICATIONS; REQUIRED INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED _
BY TYPE B PERMIT APPLICANTS AFTER ISSUANCE OF
PERMIT; PERMIT APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES;
ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES; APPEAL PROCEDURE; NOTICE;
ENFORCEMENT; VESTED RIGHTS; CONFLICT WITH arHER
ORDINANCES; SEVERABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This ordinance shall be known as the Indian River
County Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance.
SECTION 2. PURPOSE
The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the health,
safety, and welfare of the citizens of Indian River County;
to implement those policies 'and objectives found in the
drainage element of the County's Comprehensive Plan; to
ensure protection of land and improvements together with
natural resources through the use of responsible stormwater
management and flood protection practices; and to ensure
replenishment of the County's aquifer systems to provide a
continuing usable water supply.
SECTION 3. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
The requirements of this ordinance are intended to
complement regulations of the Florida Department of Environ-
mental Regulation including but not limited to those found
in Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 17-25, Regulation of
Stormwater Discharge, Chapter 17-3, and Chapter 17-4, and
the Stormwater Rules of the St. Johns River Water Management
District, all as adopted or as may be amended from time to
time. A FAC Chapter 17-12 Dredge and Fill Permit may be
required. Approval'of a stormwater management system under
ORDINANCE 86-24 IN ITS ENTIRETY IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD.
44
REQUEST OF HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Chairman Scurlock referred to the following letter received
from the Historical Society:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
HISTORICAL
SOCIETY
FLORIDA
P. O. Box 6535 NDN` March 21, 1986
Vero Beach, FL 32961
J
Mr. Doug Scurlock
Chairman, Indian River
County Commission
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Inventory of old documents - County Courthouse
Dear Mr. Scurlock:
The Indian River County Historical Society recently toured the
archives located in the basement of the Courthouse. Mrs. Freda Wright's
representative, Mr. Richard Woodward, is preparing to microfilm the
records of the Clerk of Court in hopes of reducing the tremendous amount
of paper that must be stored. Her office felt that our Society could
possibly use some of these records after they are released for our
historical research and for historical exhibits.
As we toured the basement, it was obvious that several areas were
in need of inventorying and re -boxing. That basement is the worst
possible place to store papers, valuable or not. Several areas not
under the responsibilities of the Clerk's Office, but the jurisdiction
of the County Commissioners are in critical need of attention. Old
records, maps, and correspondence were discovered in broken boxes and
piled on shelves. After only a moment's examination we were able to
identify some of these items as those sent from St. Lucie County (prior
1925). Members of our Society for several years have searched in both
St. Lucie and Indian River counties for these same records only to be
told by St. Lucie County that they had given them to Indian River County
and Indian River County claiming not to have them. These records were
undoubtedly stored in the basement of the Courthouse years ago and
totally forgotten. Whether they are of value to the County today would
be impossible to determine without an inventory.
We realize that County government does not have the personnel nor
the monies to properly inventory the items that have accumulated in the
basement over these many years. Therefore, our Society would like to
undertake with our volunteers this task of sorting through these rooms.
We realize that a great percentage of the items will be of no value to
the County or to us. But in order for this fact to be established,we
would be willing to do the work for you with the understanding that
after the inventory our Society would be accorded the first opportunity
to obtain these original records should the County determine them to be
of no value. Our Society can furnish the supervision, the volunteers,
the expertise in re -organizing these records and the man -power to
45
APR 2 1986 soon Fair 45
I
BOOK 64 Fact 46
clean-up this basement storage. What we would need from the County is
the authorization to accomplish this inventory and the right to preserve
historical artifacts that we feel must be preserved. We also need
actual supplies (storage boxes, tape, labels, etc.) with which to do the
re -boxing.
We feel that scheduling of work days with our volunteers can move
this inventory very quickly. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
work with you toward this common goal.
Sincerely yours,
--
Mrs. Anne Keen
President
Commissioner Bird did not see any problem with this, and
felt it is a great idea.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman to grant approval of the
request of the Historical Society per their letter
dated 3/21/86.
Administrator Wright noted that the only thing is that we do
want to stay within the state law, and Commissioner Lyons stated
that he would like to have the Motion amended to indicate that
whatever they do is with the approval of,the Clerk of the Court.
Commissioners Bird and Bowman agreed to amend their Motion
accordingly.
The Chairman noted that the Society will have to coordinate
with the Clerk in any event, and Administrator Wright believed
the Board in the past had designated someone as their Records
Custodian, which he felt was required under state law.
Rick Woodard informed the Board that he is the Records
Management Officer for the Clerk, but he is only responsible for
her records and not the Board's. He believed Darlene Weeks took
care of this for the Board at one time.
46
Millie Bunnell of the Historical Society stressed that the
Society had also requested that the Board supply them with boxes,
tape, labels, and such things, to do the boxing and storage.
Mr. Woodard noted that as custodian for the Clerk, he keeps
the basement secured because 800 of the records down there belong
to the Clerk. He wished to know what the Board would like done
with their records that are in the basement.
Commissioner Bird asked why these items can't be inven-
toried, properly boxed, taped, sealed and left in that location.
Mr. Woodard explained that it is an unsuitable storage
location with no temperature control, and the Administrator and
Commissioner Bowman confirmed that the basement is not only damp,
but wet.
Chairman Scurlock suggested storing the Board's records
where we used to store all the voting machines as there is space
there and it is dehumidified.
Administrator Wright advised we are having to do some
movement out there with some of our traffic engineering, sign
shop, etc., and he asked that he be allowed to work out something
on storage because he does not have all the facts today.
Commissioner Bowman commented that Tom Fallhaber, whom she
believed was a member of the Historical Society, is a profes-
sional archivist, and he advised her that all records should be
copied as paper disintegrates so fast. She felt it would be
better if anything worth preserving is microfilmed.
Chairman Scurlock advised that he has discussed a microfilm
program with the Board's Administrative Aide, Liz Forlani, since
we are building up voluminous records, and this is going to be
suggested to the Commission at some point, but it will be an
expensive endeavor.
Mr. Woodard informed the Board that he is in charge of the
Clerk's microfilm operation at the moment.
The Chairman noted that we have a Motion and a Second on the
floor, and Commissioner Lyons believed that the Motion approves
47
APR 2 1986 47
APR 2 1966Q
Boa 64 PAG8
E 4
the request and we added the Clerk's approval; he asked if we now
want to bring somebody else in too.
Chairman Scurlock stated no; the Administrator is going to
find space for any documents that we remove from down there.
Mr. Woodard asked if the Board wished these records
inventoried prior to that or just wanted to remove everything en
masse.
Chairman Scurlock felt everything needs to be catalogued
before it takes a hike because you will never get it back.
Mrs. Bunnell emphasized that the Society wants permission to
inventory, look over these records, and decide if some things,
such as leather bound books, etc., should be saved in toto as
they are. She noted that there is a possibility of a grant
through the Historical Society to microfilm these historical
documents.
Commissioner Lyons felt that was a very welcome bit of news.
Chairman Scurlock asked if we need to designate anybody at
this point to be the Board's custodian, and Administrator Wright
stated that since Mrs. Weeks is not in a place to do this any
more, he would not have any problem at all with Mr. Woodard as
this would help coordinate things.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that Mr. Woodard works for the
Clerk, and this would have to be checked out with her.
Mr. Woodard wished to give the Board a little background.
He explained that 800 of the basement contains records under the
jurisdiction of the Clerk of the Court, and they are all in
unsatisfactory storage conditions. He is involved in trying to
determine which records are permanent and which are not. Those
that are not, they are going to get permission from the state to
destroy, and those that are permanent will either be put on film
or the document itself preserved. Those documents that it is
decided are permanent and they are going to film, they can get
rid of after they are filmed, but there is a little hangup with
the State. The State says we can then take them to the dump and
48
be relieved of any liability, but if we give them to the Society,
we are still responsible for those documents.
Discussion ensued in regard to letting the Society pick them
up at the dump, but Mr. Woodard pointed out that when they are
taken to the dump, the Clerk is certifying that they have been
covered and obliterated.
Chairman Scurlock did not understand the purpose of that,
and Mr. Woodard stated this is the Catch 22 with the State.
The Chairman felt this can be solved, and Mr. Woodard hoped
so because he went to two seminars and also to the Attorney
General for an opinion and they won't budge from their position.
Commissioner Lyons noted that apparently there is no good
reason for it - it is just their policy, and Mr. Woodard
confirmed that is 1A exactly. The Clerk has taken the position
at this point that she is not in a position to give those records
to the Historical Society and still have the responsibility for
them, but hopefully something can be worked out.
Commissioner Wodtke suggested we put our attorney to work on
this.
Attorney Vitunac brought up the Clerk's responsibility for
sealed records, and noted that if the records are simply given en
masse to someone else, they might open up adoption papers, etc.
Chairman Scurlock assumed if it is a sealed type of thing,
you take it and dispose of it as they can be identified.
Attorney Vitunac stated that from what he understands what
is under the Clerk is the Clerk's and before these people touch
anything Mr. Woodard is going to have to say it is all right.
Mr. Woodard confirmed that is correct as far as the records
of the Clerk are concerned, but there are Board records in the
basement - Planning Department data, maps, etc.- not under the
Clerk's jurisdiction.
Chairman Scurlock stated that the Historical Society can
have all those.
49
APR 2 1986 Boor; 64 racr 49
APR- 2 1986 Bou 04 PAGE 50
Mr. Woodard emphasized that the Board would have to take
that responsibility, not the Clerk, and the Chairman agreed that
the Commission will be responsible for its records and is not
going to blame the Clerk.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Bird asked Mrs. Bunnell if the Society was
concerned with the Clerk's 800 or just the County's 20%, and she
confirmed they were only concerned with the County's 20%.
Chairman Scurlock believed Mrs. Bunnell has got what the
Society wanted and came to the Board for, and he thanked them for
their interest.
AUTHORIZATION TO RECEIVE DCA FUNDS
Director Keating reviewed the following memo:
TO: The Honorable Members
of the Board of
County Commisisioners
DATE: March 24, 1986 FILE:
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO RECEIVE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS FUNDS
Robert M. Keating, AICP tj4K'
FROM: Director REFERENCES:
Planning & Development Division
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
their regular meeting of April 2, 1986.
50
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Last year, the Florida legislature enacted the -Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act. Among other
requirements, this act mandated local governments within the
state to develop comprehensive plans meeting certain minimum
criteria and to adopt these plans by specified dates. The act
also established a new procedure for adopting and amending
local plans.
Since adoption of the act, the state Department of Community
Affairs has drafted several rules implementing various aspects
of the act. On February 14, 1986, DCA adopted a rule estab-
lishing minimum criteria for local plans. Currently undergoing
public hearing is a rule to set time limits for adoption of
plans by local governments; Indian River County must submit its
completed plan to DCA by December 1, 1987. Most importantly,
DCA's rule 9J-10 has recently become effective. This rule
establishes procedures for allocating the $2,310,000 appro-
priated by the legislature to assist local governments---i-i
preparing their -required plans.
According. to DCA, Indian. -River- County is -eligible to receive
$31,703 in state funds in 1986 for use in complying with the
requirements of the LGCPLDA. No matching funds are required to
obtain the money, and there is a possibility that additional
funds will be available in 1986 and a probability that addi-
tional funds will be available for 1987. In order to receive
the funding, the County must submit to DCA prior to April 29,
1986 a scope of services identifying the activities to be
undertaken and work products to be prepared with the money.
After review by DCA, the scope of services will be incorporated
into a contract between the County and DCA. All work performed
pursuant to the contract must be completed prior to December 1,
1986.
Since establishment of the minimum criteria for local plans,
the Planning staff has developed a proposed work program to
prepare a plan meeting those requirements. Basically, this
work program involves an extensive update of the County's
current comprehensive plan, adding more data, addressing
additional issues, and preparing several new elements. Because
the staff has regularly reviewed the current comprehensive plan
in conjunction with plan amendment requests and because the
staff has been involved with other planning efforts including
the preparation of small area plans, coastal plans, transporta-
tion plans, and others, the task of preparing a plan meeting
the new state criteria should not be as extensive for Indian
River County as for some other local governments. However,
preparation of an acceptable plan will still require a substan-
tial commitment from the County in terms of staff time and
other related costs.
The staff has estimated that the cost of preparing a local
comprehensive plan meeting the requirements of the LGCPLDA will
be approximately $121,000. While most of the activities can be
done in-house using existing staff, there may be a need to
contract some work to consultants, increase staff, or use
part-time employees.
51
APR 2 1986 Boa 64 r 14 51.
L
APR 2 86 BOCK 64
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS':
The minimum criteria required of local comprehensive plans is
specific. Therefore, the County does not have discretion as to"
the minimum amount of work needed to comply with the state's
regulations. The County, however, does have the ability to
determine what specific work activities will be incorporated
within the scope of services to be submitted to the Department
of Community Affairs to obtain the $31,703 available to the
County.
There are several alternatives available to the County in
structuring a scope of services to obtain the state funds.
earmarked for Indian River County. The alternatives basically
involve options as to what activities should be included in the
scope of services. They also involve options as to expending
the funds. These funds could be expended for consultant ser-
vices, staff salaries, other expenses to prepare part of the
required local plan.
The staff feels that certain activities must be undertaken
initially, prior to work proceeding on other plan elements.
Therefore, it is the staff's position that the attached
proposed scope of services be submitted to DCA for inclusion in
a contract between the department and the County. In this way,
the activities identified in the proposed scope of services
would be funded by state money allocated to the County.
Specifically, the staff proposes that the scope of services
include two principal activities: preparation of a County base
map at a 1" = 1000' scale and completion of a detailed existing
land use survey. Both of these are activities which' mustbe
done as part of the plan preparation process. As proposed,_ the
base map preparation work would be contracted to a consultant
(mapping firm), while the existing land use survey would be
undertaken by interns supervised by County staff. The attached
scope of services identifies the specific activities proposed,
estimates staff time and cost, and identifies work products.
As part of its contract with DCA, the County must accept
several conditions. Besides expending the funds prior to
December 1, 1986, the County must allow public access to all
material prepared using the state funds, assure that records
• are available for state review and/or audit, and include the
funds in audits prepared for FY86 and FY87. The County must
also provide the state with a progress report, financial
report, and copies of draft work products by September 1, 1986
as well as a contract close out report and copies of work
products at the time of contract expiration.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board direct the staff to apply
for funds available to Indian River County from the state
Department of Community Affairs. The staff also recommends
that the Board approve the draft scope of services and author-
ize its transmittal to DCA.
52
_ M
PROPOSED
SCOPE OF SERVICES
This scope of services consists of two major activities which
are integral components of Indian River County's comprehensive
planning -process and necessary activities to meet the require-
ments of the state Local Government Comprehensive Planning and
Land Development Act. The two activities comprising the scope
of services are: preparation of a county base map and com-
pletion of an existing land use survey. For each of these
activities, the scope of services will identify specific
actions to be taken, approximate cost, timetable, and work
products.
I. Preparation of County Base Map
Objective: To obtain a reproducible (mylar) base map
of the County which identifies major natural
and manmade features.
Relationship To LGCPLDA: The base map will serve as the
principal comprehensive plan map. For each
plan element requiring -the graphic depiction of
data and information, the base map will be the
map upon which the specific information will be
shown. This will ensure both consistency among
plan element maps in terms of size, scale, and
defined features and quality in map production.
Work Elements:
°Identification of Map Specifications
The staff will identify those maps which will be needed
for the County's comprehensive plan. Based upon this
information, the staff will determine base map specifica-
tions. These specifications will be incorporated into a
general request for proposal (RFP).
*Selection of Contractor
The staff will review the various proposals submitted in
response to the RFP. Each of the proposals will then be
ranked according to criteria to be established. This
criteria will include, but not be limited to, experience,
quality of past work, ability to perform required work,
and other factors. A contractor will then be selected, a
contract negotiated, and the contract executed.
°Map Preparation
Once the contract is executed, the contractor will initi-
ate map preparation activities. Subject to modification
by the staff prior to design of RFP, the map specifica-
tions will, at a minimum, include the following:
- Scale: 1" = 1,000'
- Coverage: Entire boundary limits of Indian River
County
Features:
County boundaries & municipal boundaries
Estuarine and freshwater wetlands
Atlantic Ocean
Indian River &
Sebastian River
Sebastian Inlet
Lake Wilmington
Intracoastal waterway
(Blue Cypress Lake)
53
APR 2 1996
BOOK
�J �G {'rguC 53
APR. 2 1996 Boa 64 Ff�cG 54
Proposed Scope of Services (cont.)
Page 2
Major Canals
North Relief
Main Relief
South Relief
Lateral A
Lateral B (Kings Highway)
Lateral C (Range Line Canal)
Lateral D
Lateral E (12th Avenue)
Lateral G
Lateral H
Lateral J
C-54
Fleming Grant line
Section numbers in corners
Airports
Florida East Coast Railroad tracks
Major and minor roads
Community names and locations
Roseland
Wabasso
Winter Beach
Wabasso Beach
Gifford
Houston Texas Gas & Oil Co. pipeline
Bridges to island
Date, north arrow and scale
The contractor will prepare a base map according to these
specifications and deliver the map to the staff.
*Review
The staff will review the contractor's product. Upon
determination that all contract specifications have been
met, the staff will accept the map and close out the
contract.
Work Product: Completed County Base Map
Estimated Cost: $10,000
Completion Date: August 31, 1986 F
II. Existing Land Use Survey
Objective: To update the County's existing land use map
and to obtain and present existing land use
data for the County in graphic and tabular
form.
Relationship To LGCPLDA: The existing land use survey
will provide information required for the
preparation of several of the required elements
of the comprehensive plan.- Not only will the
survey provide necessary background for
development of the future land use element, it
will also provide data necessary for prepara-
tion of the conservation element, traffic
circulation element, coastal zone element, as
well as most of the other elements required by
the LGCPLDA.
54
1-7
L
Proposed Scope of Services (cont.)
Page 3
Work Elements:
*Design of Study
The staff will develop a specific study design for conduct-
ing -the existing land use survey. This design will
include the specific parameters of the survey such as
methods of collecting, tabulating, and depicting the data.
It will also include a detailed methodology for conducting
the windshield survey of the County, including the survey
route, monitoring procedure, and other characteristics.
*Selection of Staff
The windshield survey of the County will be conducted by
student interns. In selecting interns, the staff will
contact various planning schools in Florida and the
Southeast to determine if student interns are available
and to accept resumes from interested students. The staff
will review the resumes accepted, interview interns as
necessary, and select two interns to work on the survey.
Once hired, the interns will be trained by existing staff
regarding survey techniques and methodology.
*Survey
Two planning interns will utilize one County vehicle and
conduct a windshield survey of the unincorporated areas of
the County as well as abutting lands in each of the
municipalities within the County and adjacent counties.
Using existing aerial maps and real property tax maps, the
interns will collect information on each specific parcel
in the County. In the field, the interns will record on
work maps (real property tax maps) the existing use and
existing structures for each parcel.
The interns will also complete a land use form for each
parcel. This form will identify parcel number, existing
land use, and existing structures. These forms will be
coded in such a manner as to allow compilation of informa-
tion and input into existing computer system. The land
use classification system to be used will be the state's
standard land use classification system.
*Monitoring
On a regular basis, a staff planner will monitor survey
results obtained by the interns. The planner will at the
end of each day review work completed by the interns and
resolve any problems and inconsistencies. In addition,
the planner will independently check survey results for a
minimum of one percent of the parcels surveyed.
°Compilation and Tabulation of Data
The staff will on a regular basis compile the field data
and input same into the property appraiser's computer
system. The data will also be tabulated according to
general categories and sub -categories. The staff will
structure these tables in such a manner that they can be
included in the land use element of the comprehensive
plan.
• °Map Preparation
Using the field data acquired during .the survey, the staff
will transfer existing land use information to a County
base map and prepare a presentation type map to be used in
the comprehensive plan. The existing land use map will be
prepared in a reproducible form depicting major land use
categories with zipatone or other graphics material.
55
800.64 P . E 55
APR 2 1966 BOOK 64 F,�GE 56 7
Proposed Scope of Services (cont.)
Page 4
Work Products
*Existing Land Use Map
*Existing Land Use Tabulations
Estimated Cost: $24,359
Staff
Hours
Rate **
Total
Interns
960
hrs
$10.80
$10,368
Planning Technician
300
hrs.
10.59
3,177
Cartographer
150
hrs.
10.89
1,634
Staff Planner
250
hrs.
15.24
3,810
Chief Planner
120
hrs.
19.96
2,395
Secretary
150
hrs.
9.83
1,475
Total
Automotive & Materials Cost: $1,500
** including
fringe &
G&A
Completion Date: November 1, 1986
III. Progress Report
The staff will prepare a progress report on the planning
program and transmit the report to the Department of
Community Affairs by September 1, 1986. This report will
identify the status of each work element included within
the scope of services. In addition to the progress
report, the staff will transmit a financial report and
copies of all draft and final work products.
IV. Closeout Report
The staff will submit a closeout report to DCA by December
1, 1986. This closeout report will consist of a financial
report and a copy of all work products.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired if these funds are mostly for
the coastal study, and Director Keating explained that coastal
management is just one of about nine elements we have to do to
bring the county in compliance with the new growth management
legislation; the money can be used for all of the elements.
Commissioner Wodtke hoped that the work Cubit Engineering is
doing will dovetail with what is needed for the coastal element
so we can eliminate any possible duplication, and Director
Keating believed that will help us greatly in a specific part of
that particular element.
Commissioner Bird asked if this will be done in-house with
56
existing staff, and Director Keating stated that the intent is to
hire several interns to do the existing land use survey and also
to farm the base map out to a consulting firm.
Commissioner Bowman asked if the grant will cover this, and
she was assured that it will.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
directed staff to apply for funds from the DCA
and approved the draft scope of services and
authorized its transmittal to the DCA.
(CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK)
REPORT ON STATUS OF GOLF COURSE _.
Administrator Wright reported that when the original bids
for building the golf course were opened in January, the low bid
was $1,440,000, but the low bidder made a mistake that equated to
$164,000 when he miscalculated the cost of the cart paths; so,
basically we had a bid for 1.6 million, which was considerably
above our budget. The Administrator continued that through some
very tenacious bargaining, we now have reached an agreement with
the contractor, which we hope to sign today, which will preserve
the integrity of the golf course as it was designed and will do
it for $1,275,000; all cart paths were deleted from the contract
and the lakes on the sand ridge were modified. That would put us
at least $25,0.00 under budget, and it is hoped we can apply that
money towards constructing cart paths.
The"Administrator advised that we hope to be able to price
and sell the bonds April 14-15 and award them at the Commission
meeting on the 16th with closing set on the money for April 28th.
We are still looking for a 30 year issue, but the good news is
that he believed we can get in the range of 71% or a little
better with an annual debt service of $243,000, which is almost
$93,000 less than what was considered the threshold of making the
golf course work. We are shooting for opening the course around
57
APR 2 1986
BOOK 64 PACE 57
APR. BOOK 64 pm 58
il
January or February of 1987 and would like to have ground
breaking next week. He stated that he will bring back
information re the architect for the clubhouse, etc., in another
week or so.
Commissioner Bird suggested that ground breaking be set for
nine o'clock next Monday morning, April 7th, and stated he would
like.to see all Commission members there, if possible, as well as
members of staff, of the golf committee, the finance committee,
etc.
WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS - S. GIFFORD ROAD FROM 28TH AVE. TO
'A u-ru nv:
Utilities Director Pinto reviewed the following memo:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: MICHAEL WRIGHT
COUNTY ADMINISTRATORJ-',,
VIA: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR, UTILITY SE VICES
DATE: MARCH 26, 1986
FROM: JEFFREY A. BOONE, ENGINEERINGP RATIONS MANAGER,
DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS - SOUT(((H/// GIFFORD ROAD FROM 28TH AVENUE
TO 38TH AVENUE
BACKGROUND
Following the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, the Utility
Division has analyzed the Fire Protection capabilities in the Gifford area.
An area of immediate concern was noted along South Gifford Road from 28th
Avenue to 38th Avenue, where the existing water mains are significantly
undersized. Replacement of the water mains along South Gifford Road, with
larger diameter lines, would greatly increase the available fire flow in
the area.
The County's new jail complex, just east of 43rd Avenue on South Gifford
Road, will experience inadequate fire flows if improvements to the existing
water distribution system are not made. Flow tests taken in the design
stage of the jail complex were artificially inflated by considering only
optimum conditions (Gifford Elevated Storage Tank full and service pumps
running), thereby indicating adequate flow and pressure would be supplied
to the jail complex. At the time the County's water system Master Plan was
incomplete and not available to verify water pressure and flow availability
at the jail complex.
ANALYSIS
Boyle Engineering Corporation, who is preparing the County's water system
Master Plan, has recently evaluated the distribution system in the Gifford
area using their computer model. They have determined that by increasing
the water distribution line to 8 inches between 28th Avenue and 38th Avenue
adequate fire flows will be available to the County's new jail complex.
Increasing the water main to a 12 inch line will not only provide adequate
fire flows to the County jail complex, but will also provide sufficient fire
flows in the South Gifford Road vicinity. However, the County's water system
Master Plan calls for the distribution line to be 16 inches in diameter along
108
South Gifford Road. The Utilities Division is therefore proposing that a 16
inch water main be installed in accordance with the Master Plan to enhance
the fire protection capabilities throughout the South Gifford Area.
In cases where the oversizing of lines is required to conform to the water
system Master Plan, the Utility Division participates by sharing the cost
of the oversized line. In this case, the Utilities Division contribution
in funding the replacement of.the subject water main would be one half of the
cost, since the proposed 16 inch line is twice as large as the 8 inch line
required to serve the County's new jail complex. Furthermore, the Utilities
Division proposes the remainder of the costs of the project be funded by the
General Services Division/Jail Project since the County's new jail complex
will directly benefit from the improvements.
The Utilities Division has received a proposal for engineering services from
Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc., in the amount of $8,650.00 and a budget
estimate for construction in the amount of $102,050.00 for the 3350 linear
feet of piping, necessary valves- and appurtenances, making the total project
cost $110,700.00. Applying the above outlined funding methodology, the
Utilities Division would be responsible for 50 percent of the total
construction cost or $55,350.00, the remaining 50 percent being the
responsibility of the General Services-Division/Jail Project. _
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the subject
water distribution improvements and approve the. above outlined funding for the
project.
Director Pinto noted that since the line is going to
facilitate the needs of the Jail specifically, we are proposing
that part of the funds are to be paid by the Jail and part paid
from utility impact fees.
Administrator Wright pointed out that this will save us from
having to install a booster pump.
Commissioner Lyons asked if there will be additional
fireplugs, and Director Pinto confirmed there will be a hydrant
every 1,000' and that is included in the cost. This will loop
into the existing system and increase the fire flow throughout
the community. He noted that staff needs approval to proceed
with the'engineers and go out to bid.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the
water distribution improvements described in the above
memo, approved the outlined funding, and approved Work
Authorization No. 5 for Consulting Services with Sippel,
Masteller, Lorenz & Hoover, Inc.
59
APR 2 1996 BOOK 64 PAGE 5.9
I
Date:
4/2/86
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOOK 6 4 FLUE 60 -7
Work Authorization No.
5
for Consulting
Services
Project No. 5
(County)
(Sippel,
Masteller, Lorenz &
Hoover, Inc.)
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Title: Consulting engineering services relative to the 16" diameter
water main extension west along South Gifford Road (41st
Street) from 28th Avenue to 38th Avenue consisting of
approximately 3350 lineal feet with valves and appurtenances.
Budget estimate for construction cost is $102,050.00.
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND LUMP SUM FEE FOR SERVICES
Reference is made to the "Agreement for Professional Services" dated
April 24, 1985 and specific Article numbers and paragraph numbers
which are listed hereinafter to describe the scope of services in-
cluded on this project:
A. Project Design Services per Article 4, paragraph 4a. and 4b.
B. General Services During Construction per Article 5, paragraph
5a. and 5b.
C. Supplementary and Special Services per Article 6, paragraph 6c.,
6d., 6e., 6f., and 6g. In addition, our services shall include
field surveys necessary for design and preparation of construc-
tion plans and assistance to the County in obtaining various per-
mits and approvals for construction (permit fees to be paid by
the County).
D. Payment for Services per Article 8, paragraph 8b., the lump sum
fee for A, B and C above is $8,650.00 Payment shall be per
paragraph 8d.
APPROVED BY: SUBMITTED BY:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
D Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
By
Date 4/17/86
Approved 4/2/86
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
Charles Vitunac
County Attorney
60
SIPPEL, MASTELLER, LORENZ & HOOVER, INC.
By
Earl H. Masteller, P.E.
Executive Vice President
Date March 17, 1986
4
DISCUSSION RE CONTRACTION OF TOWN OF ORCHID
Chairman Scurlock referred to the following correspon-
dence re the Town of Orchid:
LAW OFFICES OF
GOULD, COOKSEY, FENNELL, APPLEBY, BARKETT & O'NEILL
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
JOHN R. GOULD
BYRON T. COGKSEY
DARRELL FENNELL
FRANK M. APPLEBY
LAWRENCE A. BARKETT
EUGENE J. O'NEILL • +
MICHAEL J. HANLEY
CHRISTOPHER H. MARINE _
LJi a
/y'i • iI I
March 26, 1986;•�;.�7''
.:!:�? . ..
Mr. Charles Vitunac
County Attorney
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Charlie:
979 BEACHLAND BOULEVARD
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32963
TELEPHONE t30S) 231-1 100
-ADMITTED IN MASSACHUSETTS.
FLORIDA AND WASHINGTON. O.C.
+ FLORIDA BAR BOARD CERTIFIED
CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER
OUR FILE NO
RE: Town of Orchid, Florida
As attorney for the Town of Orchid, I enclose herewith
a true and exact copy of Ordinance No. 86-1 which was
finally adopted by the Town of Orchid on March 20, 1986.
By virtue of this Ordinance, the town boundaries of the
Town of Orchid have been contracted. The property which
is excluded from the boundaries of the Town of Orchid by
virtue of this Ordinance is described in the Ordinance.
I am also enclosing for informational purposes a
copy of the proof of publication reflecting that the
Ordinance was properly noticed as required by statute.
Sincerely yours,
Darrell Fennell
61
BOOK PAGE 61
Boa 64 Fa;c 62
CHAPTER NO. 86-1
AN ORDINANCE PROPOSING AND PROVIDING FOR THE CONTRACTION
OF THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE TOWN OF ORCHID, FLORIDA;
PROVIDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS
THE SUBJECT OF THE CONTRACTION AND WHICH IS TO BE EXCLUDED •
FROM THE TOWN OF ORCHID: AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
i
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Orchid has deter-
mined that all of the property more particularly described herein-
after conforms with,Chapter 171.051 and Chapter 171.052, Florida
Statutes 1985, and meets the criteria and requirements for- con-
i' traction and exclusion from the boundaries of the Town of- Orchid,
!
Florida, the Town Council having specifically found that the prop-,
erty included within the contraction has not been developed for
:,urban purposes; has a total resident population of less than one
(1) person for each acre of land or area; has not been subdivided
,,into lots and tracts; and otherwise conforms to the criteria for
;.contraction of municipal boundaries as set forth in Chapter
4;_171.051, Chapter 171.052, and Chapter 171.043, Florida Statutes
j;1985%
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ORCHID HEREBY ORDAINS:
.
t.
Section One
That the municipal boundaries of the Town of Orchid, Florida,!
shall be contracted by excludizig and 'eliminating from the muni-
jcipal boundaries of the Town Of Orchid, Florida, the following
I
described property and/or area:
IParcel 1:
All that part of the Town of Orchid lying .Vest of the West
right of way of the road commonly known as "Jungle Trail"
and South of the South right of way for State Road 510
(as the right of way for State Road 510 is established on
the ground and over the Indian River at Wabasso, Florida)
and East of the East boundary line of the dredged channel
of the Intercoastal (Intracoastal) Waterway.
It is the intent of the above description to encompass
all that part of the land, air, water, riverbed and area
of the Town of Orchid lying West of the West right of way
of Jungle Trail, South of the South right of way of State
Road 510 and East of the East boundary line of the dredged
channel -of the Intercoastal (Intracoastal) Waterway.
62
I
I
Parcel 2•
All of the island commonly known as Michael Island which
is a mangrove island lying in the Indian River, situated
approximately* 150 feet West of the East shore line of
the Indian River and in close proximity to the bridge
(State Road 510) spanning the Indian River at Wabasso..
Florida.
Said Michael Island may also be particularly described
as follows:
A mangrove island in the Indian River in Section
27, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian
River County, Florida, more particularly des-
cribed as follows:
From the Northeast Corner of said Section 27;
thence North 870 37' West 607.8 feet; thence
South 670.49:' 30" West, 209.57 feet; thence
South 420 40' 30" West, 307.85 feet to a point
on the centerline of the Wabasso-Wabasso Beach
road; thence South 510 30' 30" West along said
centerline and continue on the centerline of
the bridge 457.0 feet to the P t f B
oin o eginni.ng. !
From the Point of Beginning run South 23 18'
30" East, 224.5 feet; thence South 640 06' 30"
East, 284.7 feet; thence South 850 17' 30" West,
205.4 feet; thence North 540 22' 30" West 370.4
feet; thence North 570 14' 30" West 49.26 feet; f
thence North 410 42' 30" West 143.25 feet; thence 3
South 840 57' 30" East 274.80 feet; thence North
510 30' 30" East 34.00 feet to the Point of Be-
ginning.
Section Two
! That there is no prior existing
j'Town of Orchid to be apportioned or
�t
!
i
debt and/or property of the
assumed by Indian River Countyi
icor transferred to Indian River County.
{
' I
Sectioh Three
�i
The effective date for the contraction and exclusion of the
('property hereinbefore described from the boundaries of the Town
i
('of Orchid, Florida, shall be March 21, 1986 at 5:00PM,
!f
. 1
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was finally t
passed by .the Town Council on the aO77/day of 1986.
y f!
' layor
Attest
Town CAerk
63
APR 2 1986 BOOK 64 FADE 63
FF,_ -7
APR 2 1996 �ooK 64 64
The Chairman felt possibly the Town should be abolished. He
was not sure of the exact acreage involved but noted that basic-
ally the Liers and the Michaels have withdrawn their property
from the Town. We always have had a very good relationship with
Jeannette Lier and the Michaels in the past, but his main concern
now was the possibility that the Town might get into the control
of some developer without the county having any control. He
believed there is a new Town Council and expressed his concern
about having a nine person town that could impact this county.
The Chairman did not know if we would be able to take any action
at this Legislative session because these are all prefiled bills,
but he felt putting this on the agenda might smoke out some
information on how things stand.
Commissioner Wodtke suggested contacting Lee Johnson, the
new Mayor, and asking him to meet with the Commission.
Commissioner Bowman believed that it is no longer legal to
form a Town such as Orchid, and Chairman Scurlock concurred that
there is legislation pending as the Legislature has been trying
to eliminate these small municipalities that really don't have a
function in our society any more.
Attorney Vitunac pointed out that before a Bill can be filed
in Tallahassee it has to be advertised locally 30 days. He
stated that he could go ahead and draft one and advertise it, and
the Board could be thinking about it in the meantime; otherwise,
we could not make this legislative year. He noted that he has
not talked to Representative Patchett about this at all and does
not know if he would be inclined to help us.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, that the County Attorney
meet with Representative Patchett and determine if
he is receptive to introducing a Bill re the Town
of Orchid.
64
Commissioner Bird agreed we should explore that option, but
felt our first move should be to deal with the present owners of
the town and those in elected position.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he seconded the Motion with
the understanding that Attorney Vitunac first will contact
Darrell Fennell, the Attorney for the Town of Orchid.
Attorney Vitunac emphasized the critical time element and
asked if the Board wished him to proceed with a drafting Bill re
abolishing the Town of Orchid.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he was not willing to say
the Town should be abolished before we have discussion with Town
members, and several Board members concurred.
Attorney Vitunac advised that he would put this on the
agenda for next week.
Commissioner Lyons and Commissioner Wodtke agreed to add
to the Motion that this matter is to be discussed with
Representative Patchett and with appropriate people of the Town
of Orchid.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION as reworded.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
REPORT ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEETING
Commissioner Wodtke informed the Board that the Council had
an excellent meeting with representatives of the Economic
Development Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
He informed the Board that in order to meet the March 31st
deadline for applying for technical assistance funds to aid in
implementing the Overall Economic Development Plan, it was
necessary to put together a tentative proposal, which was
submitted with the following cover letter:
65
SPR 2 1996 Boa 64 PAUL 65
I
Telephone: (305) 567-8000
March 26, 1986
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Mr. Boyd Rose
Chief, Division of Planning
Southeast Region
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
3365 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Suite 750
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
BOOK 64 FA,F
rt
Suncom Telephone: 424-1011
RE: GRANT PROPOSAL FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FUNDS
Dear Mr. Rose,
Indian River County, through its Economic Development Council, is
pleased to submit the enclosed narrative statement for a proposal
for a preliminary market analysis, development of a "Commercial
and Industrial Development Guide", and a promotional brochure to
aid in the County's economic development and marketing efforts.
Pursuant to a telephone conversation between Martin Wall and Mr.
Cotton White on March 25, 1986, the County is proposing a total
project cost of $45,000, of which we understand 25% will be
provided by the County in the form of in-kind services. This
information is abbreviated due to time factors. Upon indication
that the project is acceptable to EDA, the County will prepare all
necessary documentation and complete any paperwork that EDA
requires. The Board of County Commissioners will be formally
requested to approve the application for technical assistance
funds to aid in implementing the Overall Economic Development
Plan.
The enclosed statement outlines the project background and
statement of need, the scope of the project, objectives, project
implementation, time frame, and the estimated budget for the
project.
If you require any additional information, please contact Jeff
Goulet in the Planning Department at (305) 567-8000, Ext. 239.
Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing
from you.
Sincerely,
Xwlc-�-' c.X0A .1MW
William C. Wodtke, Jr.
,Chairman, Economic Development
Council
Member, Board of County
Commissioners
lalr�tin Wall, Attorney
Member, Economic Development
Council
66
I7
Commissioner Wodtke emphasized that there was not sufficient
time to submit this to the Board for formal approval, but he
would like
to give it to
them
now
and put it on
the agenda
for
next week.
He explained
that
it
is an initial
request for
us to
form a strategic plan, do some market analysis, and get all data
available in the county and municipalities. The City of Vero
Beach has appointed Ken Macht as their representative. Commis-
sioner Wodtke noted that the 25% local match to qualify would
simply be staff time that already has been allocated to the EDC;
so, there is no cost factor on the county budget, and he would
like to have retroactive approval of his action.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
gave retroactive approval to the above to
the above letter and to its submittal to the
Economic Development Administration.
REPORT ON COUNTY LANDFILL RATE SCHEDULE
Chairman Scurlock informed the Board that the figures for
the modifications to the solid waste rate schedule agreed to at
the last public hearing have turned out to be significantly more
of a reduction than anticipated; in fact, the impact all the way
through is significantly less. He passed out these figures for
the Board's information.
Commissioner Bird asked if these rates will generate the
needed dollars, and Chairman Scurlock confirmed that the figures
were fine tuned with revenue projections based on the new
numbers, and we now have reached a balanced budget again. He
noted this will be an interim rate, and we will be looking at the
rest of the master plan and how we approach solid waste in the
future when the study comes in this summer.
67
BOOK 64 PAGE 67
F
I
APR 2 1986 Boost 64 FnUE 68
DISCUSSION RE SALE OF COUNTY CODE BOOKS
Administrative Aide Liz Forlani reviewed the following memo:
TO: Board of County DATE: April 2, 1986 FILE:
Commissioners '
FROM: Liz Forlani
Administrative Aide
to BCC
SUBJECT:
REFERENCES:
Sale of County Code
Books and Supplements
At the October 24th, 1985 meeting the Board approved
ordering an additional 100 Municipal Code Books because the
original 100 Books had been sold or used by County staff. Based
on information we received from the Code Company we estimated the
cost of the additional books to be approximately $7,200. Today
we received the invoice and the price is $7,700.
In 1974 the Board set a fixed charge to the public who
wished to purchase the Code Books at $75.00. At this time,
$75.00 does not cover the full cost to purchase the books,, nor
does it take into account the handling, distribution and billing
involved.
When a Supplement comes in, it takes one person (from the
Finance Department) approximately 20 hours to distribute the
Supplements to in-house personnel and the public. They also
handle the billing and receipt of payment from the public.
Currently, .the charge to the public for the Supplement is
the total cost of the Supplement divided by 100, but here again
there is no charge for handling, distribution or billing.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is suggested that the charge to the public to purchase
the- Code Books with up-to-date supplements be the total cost
divided by 100 which in this case is $77.00. Added to that cost
should be an administrative charge of 15% which is a standard
administrative charge used by County Departments.
It is also suggested that the charge to the public to
purchase the Supplements be arrived at by dividing the total cost
of the Supplements by the number of Supplements received, which
is now 200, and adding an administrative charge of 15%.
It is further suggested that Code Books now issued to
in-house personnel and other governmental agencies be returned to
Department Heads when an employee leaves County employment and it
be reissued when another person is hired to fill that position.
SUMMARY:
1. Sell Books and/or Supplements on a per unit cost basis
plus a 15% administrative cost; or
2. Continue as we have in the past at $75.00 per Book, and
Supplements on a per unit cost.
3. Policy procedure be established regarding return of Code
Books by County personnel on termination of employment.
68
n
Chairman Scurlock noted that basically we simply are not.
recovering what this costs us, and the recommendation is to
charge more.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
directed that the Code Books and/or Supplements
be sold on a per unit cost basis plus a 150
administrative cost.
RESOLUTION RE FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING
Commissioner Lyons referred to the following memorandum
received from the State Association of County Commissioners:
March 18, 1986
Ml�9�R�ID�K
TO: Commission Chairmen
Fes: Wayne Spivey, President
RE: Revenue Sharing
Enclosed is a resolution adopted at the Association's Legislative Conference -
in Pensacola last month in support of the reauthorization of federal revenue
sharing. The resolution is enclosed for your review and consideration.
Favorable passage of similar resolutions by individual counties would be
helpful in persuading Florida's Congressional Delegation to support this
effort.
There are currently 143 co-sponsors of resolutions to reauthorize revenue
sharing in the House, and 37 co-sponsors in the Senate. Neither the. House
Government Operations Committee nor the Senate Budget committee have yet voted
on the reauthorization of revenue sharing. However, a House Government
Operations Subcommittee recently voted 6 to 2 in support of reauthorization.
Reauthorization is a viable issue if we can convince our delegation of the
need for this flexible source of revenue.
Thank you for your assistance. Please send copies of any resolutions that
your Board passes to the Association office in Tallahassee.
STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF FLORIDA, INC.
PO. Box 549/ Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Phone: 904/224-3148
WAYNE SPIVEY, President BARBARA SHEEN TODD, Vice President TERRY WOOD, Secretary -Treasurer KURT A. SPITZER
CLAY PINELLAS JACKSONVILLEIDUVAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
69
APP 2 1986 Bou 64 P��,E 6
I
APP 2 1986
BOOK 6":�A
70
Commissioner Lyons stated that he would like to adopt a
Resolution similar to the model submitted urging the reauthoriza-
tion of revenue sharing as he felt it is terrible that local
programs have to suffer in the name of budget balancing when we
continue to increase the defense budget and foreign aid budget.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, Chairman Scurlock voting
in opposition, the Board by a 4 - 1 vote adopted
Resolution 86-14 urging the continuation of
General Revenue Sharing.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-14
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
TO THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION IN
SUPPORT OF GENERAI, REVENUE SHARING
WHEREAS, over the last five years, the federal government
has reduced domestic expenditures to state and local governments
by 25% while during the same period, overall expenditures have
increased by 25%; and
WHEREAS, the budget proposal currently before Congress
proposes another reduction to state and local revenues of $14.5
billion with a proposed defense increase of $16 plus billion; and
WHEREAS, the Administration has called for the total
elimination of the Federal Financial Assistance Act of 1972
(General Revenue Sharing), the only federal program which assures
a domestic partnership with each county in the state and country;
and
WHEREAS, all past federal domestic reductions have carried
the assurance that they were being accomplished for the sake of
deficit reduction while, in fact, the dollars were shifted to
other expenditure categories in defense and foreign aid; and
WHEREAS, at the same time that the federal government
reduced domestic spending, defense spending increased and also
federal taxes were reduced, thus further increasing the deficit;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, along with our
ORO
counterparts from around the country, are seriously concerned
about a maintenance of congressional commitment to the domestic
partnership; and
WHEREAS, the single best way to maintain that partnership is
through the single most efficient mechanism available, that is
General Revenue Sharing, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners think that
deficit reduction is the number one target of the federal
government and that reduction of spending will continue to be
necessary while revenue increases may also be necessary; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners are committed to
continue to work with Congress to ensure that those reductions
will not place undue hardship on any single sector or program and
that such reductions should be felt by all categories of federal
expenditure;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Board
urges the Florida Congressional Delegation to cease attacking the
federal deficit solely by reductions in domestic spending and to
promptly address this national issue in a spirit of fairness by
asking all portions of the federal budget across the board to
share the burden of further reductions in federal spending; and
The Board strongly urges each member of the Florida
Congressional Delegation to commit to a continued domestic
partnership by supporting the continuation of the program which
has proven to be one which accomplishes the domestic goals of
both Congress and counties, that is General Revenue Sharing;
the foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Lyons
and seconded by Commissioner Bird, and, being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Nay
Vice Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 2nd day of April, 1986. BOOK 64 FADE 71
BOARD .OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
APR 2 1986 71 By: c
L_ Don . Scurlock, Jr., airman
APPOINTMENT TO LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD
Q .641
�fSC i
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously appointed Sam
Pascal to the Library Advisory Board.
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD
The following Budget Amendment in regard to repair of the
Courthouse roof is hereby made a part of the Minutes as approved
at the Regular Meeting of February 26, 1986.
TO: Honorable Board of County
Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
Account Number
001-220-5198-034.61
001-199-581-099.91
Explanation:
DATE: February 26, 1986 FILE:
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment for
New Roof at Courthouse
--Account Name
Maintenance -Buildings
Reserve for Contingency
Replace leaking roof at courthouse.
Contingency
Roof for Courthouse
BALANCE
-Increase -Decrease
$39,000
$39,000
$117,19.7
39,000-
$ 78,197
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned at 12:15 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk Chairman
72