HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/16/1986Wednesday, April 16, 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 16, 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 William Wolfe, Living Lord Lutheran Church, gave
the invocation, and Commissioner Bowman led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Scurlock asked that Item 6.H, re the 50� surcharge
for the 911 system be deleted and presented on a future agenda.
He also asked that Item 8 re award of the Golf Course Bonds be
made a time certain item and set at 11:15 A.M.
Administrator Wright advised that a representative of the
architect is coming to discuss the golf course irrigation bids,
and he also has a proposed contract from Architect Charles Block
re the golf course clubhouse; he would like discussion of both of
these items added at the same time set for award of the bonds.
Attorney Vitunac wished to add the two Resolutions the Bond
Counsel will be bringing with him at 11:15 A.M. - one amending a
previous Bond Resolution and the other awarding the bonds.
Commissioner Lyons requested the addition under his items of
a discussion re offering a reward for return of the County quilt.
�.P 16 1996 BOOK FADE 1P37 t
APR 16 1986 BOOK 64 R-I)E J,38
Commissioner Wodtke requested the addition of discussion re
sending a county representative to Tallahassee with the medical
people when they go to discuss Liability insurance problems.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously added to the
agenda and deleted from the agenda the above de-
scribed items. a
Chairman Scurlock informed the Board that Michael Galanis of
Environmental Health is going to have a public meeting Thursday,
May 15, at 9:00 A.M. with state officials to explain the pros and
cons of fluoridation. Anyone interested is invited to attend.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of March 19,
1986. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the.Special Meeting of.March 19, 1986, as
written.
EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER AWARD
Chairman Scurlock called forward Greg Hall, County heavy
equipment operator, and presented him with a check and a certifi-
cate in recognition of the outstanding job he has been doing for
the County.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Lyons wished to have Item E removed for
discussion, and it was noted that Item H has been deleted
already.
2
A. Reports
The following were received and placed on file in the Office
of the Clerk to the Board:
Fellsmere Water Control District
Fiscal Year Audit, 1984-85
Financial Reports for FY 1984-85
Certificate of Canvassing Board - Breezy Village
Mobile Home Park Recreation District
B. Renewal Pistol Permit
The Board reviewed memo from the Administrator:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: April 4, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMIT RENEWAL
FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES:
County Administrator
The following person has applied thru.the Clerk's Office for re-
newal of a pistol permit:
Gilbert J. Swiger
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, Seconded by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
the issuance of a renewal permit to carry a con-
cealed firearm to Gilbert J. Swiger.
r"
C. New Pistol Permits
The Board reviewed memo from the Administrator:
3 BOOK 4
APR 16 1986
B00K
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: April 4, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMITS - NEW
1
FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES:
County Administrator
The following persons have applied thru the Clerk's Office for
new pistol permits:
Louis Anghilante
Sharon T. Brower
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, Seconded by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
the issuance of a permit to carry a concealed
firearm to Louis Anghilante and Sharon T. Brower.
D. Admission to A. G. Holley State Hospital
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, Seconded by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously granted
- retroactive approval of the admission of Lula
Harris to the A. G. Holley State Hospital.
E. Release of Easement - Oakridge Subdv. (Pensch & Thigpen)
The Board reviewed memo from Code Enforcement Officer
Charles Heath:
4
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: April 2, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: RELEASE OF EASEMENT
REQUEST BY ALBERT C.
SUBJECT: PENSCH AND HENRY S.
94 Al THIGPEN - SUBJECT
Robert M. Keats g, AOP PROPERTY: LOT 1, BLOCK A
Planning & Developme t Director OAKRIDGE SUBDIVISION
Charles W. Heath R/E Pensch & Thigpen
FROM: Code Enforcement officer REFERENCES: DIS:REMS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 16, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Albert C. Pensch and Henry S.
Thigpen, owners of the subject property, for the release of the
easterly one (1) foot of the westerly twenty (20) foot utility
easement of Lot 1, Block A, Oakridge Subdivision, being the
easterly one foot of the twenty foot utility and drainage
easement of Lot 1, Block A, Section 25, Township 33 South,
Range 39, as recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 94, of the Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida. It is Mr. Pensch's
and Mr. Thigpen's intention to construct a single-family
residence on the site.
The current zoning classification is RS -3, Single -Family
Residential District. The land use designation is LD -1, Low
Density Residential, up to three (3) units per acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power
and Light, Florida Cablevision Corporation, and Indian River
County Utility and Right-of-way Departments. Based upon their
review, there were no objections to the release of the portion
of the twenty foot utility and drainage easement. The zoning
staff analysis, which included a site visit, showed that
drainage would be adequately handled on site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a
resolution, the release of the easterly one (1) foot of the
westerly twenty (20) foot utility and drainage easement of Lot
1, Block A, Oakridge Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 11,
Page 94, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
Commissioner Lyons wondered if it is better to cure this
problem by giving up part of the easement or by going to the
Board of Adjustment.
Director Keating advised that they had considered that
option but because it was necessary to survey all of the users of
5
APR 16 1986 Bou 64 Pa, -)A41
r APR 1 6 1986 Boor 64, 142
[lj nr
the easement to see if they had any problem with any part of it
being constrained in some way, it was felt the easement release
route was more appropriate.
Administrator Wright felt that we have more easement than we"
really need, and Chairman Scurlock believed Commissioner Lyons
was asking if we are requiring unnecessary easement in the first
place.
Director Keating advised that we don't have a specific
requirement for the easement width. When the applicant came in
and platted, this is what he suggested, and staff approved it
based on what they thought the utility companies need. Generally
the easements are 201.
Administrator
Wright noted
that
this particular lot is at
the very end of the
subdivision,
and
he did not see where we
would ever need the 20' in this case.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
Missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
Resolution 86-17 releasing the easterly one foot
of the westerly 20' utility and drainage easement,
Lot 1, Block A, Oakridge Subdivision, as requested
by Scott Thigpen and Christopher Pensch.
6
I
RESOLUTION NO. 86-17
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
Riven County, Florida, have been requested to release the The
easterly one (1) foot of the westerly twenty (20) foot utility
and drainage easement, of Lot 1, Block A, Oakridge Subdivision
according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 11, Page
24 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on
the Plat of Oakridge Subdivision for public utility purposes;
and
WHEREAS, the request for such release of easements
have been submitted in proper form;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the
following lot line easements in'0akridge Subdivision shall be
released, abandoned and vacated.as follows:
To allow for the encroachment of a one (1) foot roui
overhang into the twenty foot utility and drainage
easement of a single-family residence.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman and Clerk of
the Board of County Commissioners be and they hereby are
authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot line
easements hereinabove referred to in form proper for recording
and placing in the Public Records'of Indian River County,
Florida.
This. 16th day of April
ATTEST:
Freda Wright, C1 k
7
, 1986.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: / C
Don C. Scurlock, J .�
Chairman
BOOK 64 F,?1-1r143
APR 16 1986
BOOK6 _fI,F.14
F. Release -of -Easement - Seminole Shores Subdv. (Sousa)
The Board reviewed memo of Code Enforcement Officer Heath:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 1, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: RELEASE OF EASEMENT
REQUEST BY DOUGLAS &
SUBJECT: CATHERINE SOUSA
SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 8
Robert M. Keati;hg, k -CP & 9 SEMINOLE SHORES SUB -
Planning & Developm nt Director DIVISION
Charles W. Heath R/E Sousa
FROM: Code Enforcement Officer REFERENCES: DIS : REMS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 16, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Douglas Sousa, and Catherine
Sousa, his wife, owners of the subject property, for the release
of the side lot utility easements of Lots 8 & 9, Seminole
Shores Subdivision, being the westerly five (5) feet of Lot 8,
and the easterly five (5) feet of Lot 9, Section 28, Township
33 South, Range 40, as recorded in Plat Book 542, Page 19, of
the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. It is the
Sousa's intention to consolidate these lots into one large
building site meeting the requirements of the RS -3 zoning
district and construct a single-family residence on the site.
The current zoning classification is RS -3, Single -Family
Residential District. The land use designation is LD -1, Low
Density Residential, up to three (3) units per acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Vero Beach
power company, Florida Cablevision Corporation, and Indian
River County Utility and Right -of -Way Departments. Based upon
their review, there were no objections to the release of the
easements. The zoning staff analysis, which included a site
visit, showed that drainage would be adequately handled
on-site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a resolution,
the release of the common five (5) foot side lot easements of
Lots 8 & 9, Seminole Shores Subdivision, being the westerly
five (5) feet of Lot 8, and the easterly five (5) feet of Lot
9, Seminole Shores Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 542,
Page 19, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
Resolution 86-18 releasing the ten foot utility
and drainage easement between Lots 8 & 9, Seminole
Shores Subdivision, as requested by Douglas Sousa.
8
RESOLUTION NO. 86-18
WIiEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, have been requested to release the
ten foot utility and drainage easement between lots 8 & 9,
Seminole Shores Subdivision, being the westerly five (5) feet
of Lot 8, and the Easterly five (5) feet of Lot 9, as recorded
in Record Book 542, Page 19, of the Public Records of Indian
River County Florida according to the Plat thereof as recorded
in Plat Book 9, Page 51 of the Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, said lot line easement's were dedicated on
the Plat of Seminole Shores Subdivision, for public utility
purposes; and
WHEREAS, the request for such release of easements
have been submitted in proper form;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARda.OF-COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that thq
following lot line easements in Seminole Shores Subdivision,
shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows:
The ten foot utility and drainage easement, said easement
being the westerly five (5) feet of Lot 8, and the
easterly five (5) feet of Lot 9, Section 28, To;�nship 33 -
South, Range 40, of the Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida, as recorded in Plat Book 542, Page 19.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman and the
Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners be -and they hereby
are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot
line easements hereinabove referred to in form proper for
recording and placing in the Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida.
This 16th day of April
1986.
9
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: C
Don C. Scurlock, J .
Chairman
Boos 64 c, ��,�.145
G. Release of SR60 Water Assessment Liens
BOOK 61 Fr) -A46
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
Release of Assessment Liens for one ERU each of
SR60 water to Karl Link d/b/a Architectural
Millwork, Inc., Pine Tree Industrial Park, and
to Robert McKnight for property in Section 2,
Township 33 South, Range 38 East.
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN
For and in consideration of the sum of $970.45 ,
RECEIVED from KARL LINK d/b/a ARCHITECTURAL MILLWORK, INC.,
in hand this day paid, the receipt of Which is hereby aciCuowledged,
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, (the ^County«) hereby releases th
property hereinafter described from a certain special assessment li n
recorded by the County in its Official Records, Book 0691, Page 007
for a special assessment in the amount of $970.45, plus accrued
interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum, levied in
accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 83-46 of the County
as amended, and Resolution No. 84-47 of the Board of County
Commissioners of the County; and hereby declares such special
assessment lien fully satisfied. The property, located in Indian
River County, is more fully described as follows:
Lot 2 of PINE TREE INDUSTRIAL PARK,
according to the plat thereof as recorded
in Plat Book 11, Page 69, of the public
records of Indian River County, Florida.
Executed by the Chairman of the Board of Counj
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, and attested a
countersigned by the Clerk of such Board, all as of this 16th d
April, 1986.
Attested and countersigned:
Freda Wright, Clerk
10
r
:y
r
Ly
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONE S
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By G
�.V_04421A-
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN
II
!�
For
and in consideration of
the sum of $970.45
RECEIVED
from
ROBERT W, MoKNIGKT in
hand this day paid, the
receipt of
which
is hereby acknowledged,
INP IAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA,
(the
"County") hereby releases
the property hereinafter
(described
from
a certain special assessment
lien recorded by the
County in
its
Official Records, Book
0691,
Page 0077, for a
special
assessment
in
the amount -of $970.45,
plus
accrued interest
at the'
rate of ten
percent (10%)
per annum, levied in accordance with
the
provisions
of Ordinance
No. 83--46 of - the County, as amended,
and
Resolution
No. 84--47 of
the Board of County Commissioners of
the
County; and hereby declares such special assessment lien fully
satisfied. The property, located in Indian River County, 'is more
fully described as follows:
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
Executed by the Chairman of the Board of C01111ty
Commissioners 'of Indian River County, Florida, and attested and
countersigned by the Clerk of such Board, all as of this 16th day
Aurll. I9su.
Attested and countersigned:
j J
Freda Wright, C1 'k
f
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDfA
By .fie. C
2/il
Don C. Sebe ock, Jr
Chairman
EKHIBIT "A"
Beginning at the Northwest corner of the East 15 acres of the West 20 acres
of Tract 9, Section 2,.1bwnship 33 South, Range 38 Fast, thence run South
on a straight line to the South right of way line of State (Highway No. 60
to the point of beginning of the land herewith conveyed, thence run Fast
along the said South right of way line of State Highway No. 60 for a
distance of 150 feet, thence run South for a distance of 580 feet, thence
run West for a distance of 150 feet, -thence run North for a distance of 580
ftN_t to the point of beginning; all according to the last general plat of
lands of the Indian River Farms Oompany as filed in the officti of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, in Plat II-iok 2, Page 25;
&-lid lands now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida.
I.F iS AND EXCEPT EXCEPT a portion of the above described lands heretofore
«mnvuwd to Doris Stack in deed dated December 17, 1953 and recorded
February 22, 1954, in Deed Book 86, Page 115, Indian River County, Florid,.
AUcD LESS AND EXCEPT a portion of the above described land heretofore
conveyed to Doris Stack in Deed dated February 19, 1959 and recorded
ntrcfl 3, 1959 in Official Record Book 62, Page 497, Indian River County,
Florida.
11
APR 16 1986' BOOK 64 fr,JC 4 (!
r APP 16 1986'I
Boor. 6.4 F',F 148
H. 911 Resolution and_Agreement_re 50Q Surcharge
This item was deleted and will be taken up on a future
agenda.
I, DER/Army_Corps/DNR Permit Application - (Friedhelm)
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner DeBlois:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 7, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: •
SUBJECT:
Art Challacombe for
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Planning & Development Director
D.E.R., ARMY CORPS AND
D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICATION
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois REFERENCES: Friedhelm
Staff Planner RMT) DIS:ROLAND
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 16, 1986.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION
NOS. 31-118297-4 & 118256-4
APPLICATION DESCRIPTIONS:
1) Application No. 31-118297-4
- Applicant: Friedhelm Rose `
c/o LLOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1835 20th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the Indian
River in Bethel Creek, adjacent to Lot 44, Cache Cay
Subdivision, Section 30, Township 32 South, Range 40 East,
Indian River County, Florida. The upland property
associated with the project is located on Cache Cay Drive,
in the City of Vero Beach.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct a
private walkway 123 feet in length, extending over a
community of mangroves to a point approximately 20 feet
beyond the outer mangrove fringe to open water. The
walkway is proposed to be 5 feet in width; a 6' x 15'
terminal platform is also to be constructed. The deck
will be elevated 5 feet above Mean High Water (MHW) and
will be constructed with a railing. The applicant also
proposes to trim underlying mangroves to an elevation of
3.5 feet below the deck. No dredging or filling is to
occur.
12
2) Application No. 31-118256-4
Applicant: City of Vero Beach
P.O. Box 1389
Vero Beach, Florida 32961
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the Indian
River in Cleve Hinton Creek, Section 19, Township 32
South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida. The
upland property associated with the project is Fred R.
Tuerk Drive Extension, in the Town of Indian River Shores.
Work & Purpose: The City of Vero Beach proposes to
construct a 180 foot crossing of a tertiary tributary of
Cleve Hinton Creek. The crossing will consist of 864
cubic yards of sand fill, having a top width of 18 feet,
an elevation of 3 feet mean sea level (MSL) and 4:1 ratio
slide slopes. The purpose of the fill is to provide
support and cover for 69 Kv buried electrical transmission
cables and a 20 inch water main.
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
Neither of the two proposed projects is to be located within the
unincorporated portion of Indian River County. Therefore, in
that any impacts associated with the projects are site-specific
and not within the County's jurisdiction, the proposed private
walkway and utility crossing have no impact of County
significance.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to forward the following comment regarding
these projects to the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation:
Indian River County has no objection to the projects, in that
any associated impacts are within the City of Vero Beach and
Indian River Shores, and therefore not within County
jurisdiction.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to forward comment to the DER as set out in
the above memo.
13
P"� 6 ���.
APS 16 196 BOOK
I
APR 16 1986
EOOK
DER/Army Corps/DNR Permit Application - (St. Johns River Water
Mi nagement-Di st`r i cT
The Board reviewed memo of the Chief Environmental Planner:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 7, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
D.E.R./ARMY CORPS
& D.N.R. PERMIT
SUBJECT: APPLICATIONS .
FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES:
Chief, Environmental Planning
SJRWMD
DIS:ARTCHA
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regularly scheduled meeting on April 16, 1986.
D.E.R. DREDGE & FILL PERMIT APPLICATION
FILE NUMBER 31-118195-4
APPLICANT: St. Johns River Water Management District
WATERWAY & LOCATION:
The proposed project is located in the St. Johns River Marsh
west of C.R. 512, 15 miles north of S.R. 60, Township 32S,
Range 37E in Indian River County.
WORK & PURPOSE:
The applicant proposes to place two culverts with riser control
along the west and south levees of the Lake Miami Ranch.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
The Conservation & Coastal Zone Management Element of the
Indian River Comprehensive Pla
Coastal Zone Management , Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region; and
The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Management Plan.
The installation of the two water control structures included
in this application would implement the restoration plan
approved by the District Governing Board for the Lake Miami
Ranch parcel. This 2,820 -acre parcel was recently purchased by
the District to be certified to the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers (USACOE) as part of the Federal flood control project
planned for the Upper St. Johns River Basin. This plan is
described in the General Design Memorandum (GDM) released in
June 1985 by the Jacksonville District, USACOE.
14
a
r
Under pre -development conditions, the property was part of the
Upper St. Johns River Marsh. Since that time, the property was
separated from the marsh by a perimeter flood control levee on
the north, west, and south sides and CR 512 on the east side.
The property will be hydraulically connected and will become
inundated at water levels similar to the surrounding marsh.
Historic monthly mean water levels in Blue Cypress Lake and the
adjacent marsh are shown in Figure D-4 in the application. No
significant impact is expected to water levels on the existing
marsh adjacent to LMR except to lower flood elevations.
The following benefits will result from the restoration plan:
1) additional flood storage capacity;
2) water conservation storage;
3) enhancement of wetland communities through restoration of
the hydrologic regime.
Indian River County has expressed a desire to place a firing
range facility on a portion of the subject property. The -_
increased water levels created by the culverts would increase
the need for additional fill and thus, increase the cost of
developing the range.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners autho-
rize staff to forward the following comments to the D.E.R.
1) The proposed project will provide both environmental
and economic benefits to Indian River County;
2) While the County has no objection to the proposed
project, the D.E.R. is advised that Indian River
County is currently requesting that the St. Johns
River Water Management District allow the County to
study and determine the feasibility of constructing a
firing range on a portion of the proposed site. As
more information becomes available, Indian River
County will transmit that information to the D.E.R.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to forward comment to the DER as set out in
the above memo.
PROCLAMAirION - VOLUNTEER WEEK
Chairman Scurlock directed that the following Proclamation
proclaiming the week of April 21-27, 1986 as VOLUNTEER WEEK be
forwarded to Betty Vogt.
15
APR 16 1966 eoaF. 64 151
A
r
,� r;ti 06
M
P R O C L A M A T I O N
Boos 64 FA JF152 7
WHEREAS, each year, many citizens of our community and
county volunteer countless hours of service in order to help
others; and
WHEREAS, these VOLUNTEERS work to build strong community
organizations, promote issues. in the public interest, and help
their fellow citizens in need; and
WHEREAS, VOLUNTEERS come from every age group from youth to
senior citizens and from all walks of life; VOLUNTEERS give -
assistance in countless ways and a multitude of avocations; and
WHEREAS, volunteering plays a vital role in any community,
with neighbors showing their concern for one another - both
friends and strangers alike; and
WHEREAS, it is important for all of us to recognize our
responsibilities and roles we need to play in our community by
following the example of VOLUNTEERS who give themselves for the
betterment of all; and
WHEREAS, those VOLUNTEERS who give so unselfishly of their
time and themselves to improve the quality of life for all
deserve special recognition:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE .BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of
April 21 through April 27•, 1986 be observed as
VOLUNTEER WEEK
in Indian River County, Florida, and the Board invites all
citizens to honor and emulate the fine individuals who help their
communities by opening up their hearts.
ATTEST:
Freda Wright, Cle k
Adopted April 16, 1986
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
C J • �`/
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., C�h firman
16
REZONING - RS-3_TO_A-1 S.WINTER BEACH RD. (PEACH/SEXTON
The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach. Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Veto Beach Press-Joumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
In the .Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues or�Cl/1/ `� lT=Z -
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. c/
Sworn to and subscribed before me RAa(� A.D. 19 _tFK
(SEAL)
Circuit Court,
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a County ordinance rezoning land from: RS -3 Sin-
gle Family Residential District, to A-1, Agricultural District The subject property Is presently owned I
by John Peach and Charles R. Sexton and is located east of lateral "A" (66th Ave) and on the south
side of South Winner Beach rtyRoad (65th Street).
The s.
THE WEST 330 ACRESS OF TRACT 12,aSECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, AC-'
CORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY, FILES:
IN THE OFFICE -OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA am
PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25; LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
A public hearing at which parties in Interest and citizens shag have an opportunity to be AsarA
will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the
Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vera;
Beach, Florida on Wednesday. April 16, 1986. at 9:15 A.M. I
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this mowing will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which includes testimonyAW evidence
upon which the appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- Don C. Scurlock, Jr.,
Chairman ,
Mar. 27, Apr. S. 1986
Chief of Long Range Planning, Richard Shearer, made the
staff presentation noting that the applicants have owned this
property for many years and staff feels Agricultural zoning is
appropriate:
17 BOOK 64 PA,GF153
APR 16 IA6
APR 16 1996
RooK 64 r,:.- 454
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 2, 1986 FELE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
(:�2 - ` PEACH/SEXTON REQUEST TO
SUBJECT: REZONE 30 ACRES FROM RS -
Robert M. Keati g, &JCP 3, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDEN-
Planning & Development Director TIAL DISTRICT, TO A-1, -
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT
FROM: PS REFERENCES:
Richard Shearer Peach/Sexton Memo
Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 16, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Joe Collins, an agent for John Peach and Charles R. Sexton, the
owners, is requesting to rezone 30 acres located south of South
Winter Beach Road and east of 66th Avenue (Lateral A) from RS -3,
Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre), to A-1,
Agricultural District (up to .2 units/acre).
The owners intend to continue to utilize this property for
agricultural uses.
On November 6, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners approved a
request to rezone 20 acres located directly north of the subject
property from RS -3 to A-1.
On February 13, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
3 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
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-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is currently being used as a tree farm.
North of the subject property, across South Winter Beach Road, is
an old citrus grove zoned A-1, and a citrus grove and two sin-
gle-family residences zoned RS -3. East and south of the subject
property are citrus groves zoned RS -3. West of the subject
property, across 66th Avenue, is a citrus grove zoned RFD, Rural
Fringe Development District (up to .4 units/acre), and A-1.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the
land north, south and east of it, as LD -1, Low -Density Residen-
tial 1 (up to 3 units/acre). The land west of the subject
property is designated as RR -1, Rural Residential 1 (up to .4
units/acre).
The proposed agricultural zoning is in conformance with the LD -1
land use designation and is consistent with the agricultural uses
that surround the subject property. The Winter Beach Plan
18
designates the subject property as residential. Staff feels that
the proposed zoning is consistent with the Winter Beach Plan.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to South Winter Beach Road
(classified as a secondary collector street on the Thoroughfare
Plan), and secondary access to 66th Avenue (classified as a
primary collector street on the Thoroughfare Plan). The proposed
down -zoning of the subject property would substantially reduce
the potential number of average annual daily trips (AADT) gen-
erated by the subject property.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensi-
tive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
Utilities
The subject property is not served by County water nor wastewater
facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 86-27 rezoning 30 acres south of South
Winter Beach Road and east of 66th Ave to A-1 as
requested by John Peach and Charles Sexton.
19
APR 16 1986
BooK 64 fe[� ,�GCF 55
Boor 64 F�cc 1fi
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 27
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP
FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. •-
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined
that this rezoning is in.conformance with the Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request; at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of.County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of _
the following described property situated in Indian River County,,
Florida, to -wit:
THE WEST 30 ACRES OF TRACT 12, SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST, ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS
OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN
PLAT BOOK 21 PAGE 25; LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Be changed from RS -3, Single -Family Residential
District, to A-1, Agricultural Distict.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 16th day
of April , 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By /
Don C. Scur ock, Jr., C airman
20
REZONING - IL & A-1 TO RM -6 (JOHNS ISLAND CLUB)
The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach
In Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
In the matter of_f95la-611
In the
fished in said newspaper in the Issues of��em • a
Court, was
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press•Joumal Is a newspaper published a
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofon
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has beef
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 o
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid not promised any person, firn
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Swornto and subscribed before me this cry ollar�/I A.D. 19
(SEAL)
��- e111-2
NONl1 ,f
.uta • � .
MXD
Rtll-t -
1es•s 1 \ L„
,it\T. -� err
01I
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a County ordinance rezoning land from: A-1, Agri-
cultural District, and IL, Light industrial District, to RM -8, Multiple -Family Residential District The
subject property is presently owned by John's Island Club, Inc.. and is located on the west side of,
the FEC Railroad. on the north side of
8Street
The subject property is described as:
Parcel "A"•
A PORTIO OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST % OF THE SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP
31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST'/.
OF THE NORTHWEST % OF SAID SECTION 28, THENCE. S 00°5734"E, ALONG THE WEST LIE
OF SAID SECTIO 8, 103.22 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED
PARCEL OF LAND. -THENCE. S 26°20'50"E, PARALLEL TO AND 600 FEET WEST OF THE WEST
RIGHT -0F -WAY LIE OF THE FLORIDA WEST COAST RAILROADS 100 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.
SAID
SECTION 8, THENCE, N 00'5734"W .ALONG THE26.07 FEETTWEST LIi NT E OF SAID ON THESECTION 28,ST LINE8892.50
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 4.8 ACRES OF LANO MORE OR
LESS.
AND to consider am, mending industrial) District -6 MuHipte-Famfiy Residention of a al District. The subject ordinance Property Is presenslarid from: It, LIS t
owned by John's Island Club, Inc., and Is located on the west side of the FEC Railroad, on the. norh
side of 87th Street
Parcel "B":
A PORTION OF LAND IN SECTIO 8 AND 29, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COM-
MENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 28, THENCE, S 89°09130"W, ALONS
THE NORTHLIE OF SAID SECTION 29, 23.50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY
LINE OF THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROADS 100 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY AND THE POWrOF
BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND. THENCE, S 26'2(YW'E. AMM
SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, 3143.19 FEET, THENCE, S 01 °19'15"E, 1202.06 FEET. THENM S
89"17'49"W. 1328.78 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST UNE OF SAID SECTION 28, THENCE1,
01°05'02"W, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION, 1344.24 FEET, THENCE, N 89°44'W"E
927.20 FEET, THENCE N 8'20'50"W, ALONG A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 300 FEET WEST OF
THE WEST OFOT RIGHT Jr
WAY, 2992.546 EHT ET TOAA POINLINETONLORIDA THE NORTH LINE OF EAST COASTASAIDOSECTION 100 29. THENCE,N
89"09.30"E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTIO 29, 332.39 FEET TO THE POINT 4F
BEGINNING.
LESS AND EXCEPT the following: A portion of land in the Northwest'/. of the Southwest 'A of Set
tion 28, Township 31 South. Range 39 East described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner
of said Northwest '/4 of the Southwest'/. said corner being the point of beginning. Thence run East-
erlyalong the South line of above mention'/. section to the Southeast corner to the Northwest'. of
the Southwest'/: thence North along the East line of said quarters 26.00 feet; thence Northwesterly
1332.56 feet to a point 69 feet north of the Southwest corner of said Northwest 1/4 of the Sou#mM
1/4; Thence South 69 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 1.45 acres more or less.
ALL above described property now lying and being In Indian River County, Florida.
A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be hem
will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County Florida, to the County
Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building. located at 1840 25th Street, tfero
Beach, Florida on Wednesday, April 16,1986, at 9:15 A.M.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made• which includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- Don C. Scurlock, Jr.,
Chairman
Staff Planner Melsom made.the following presentation,
explaining that the intent is to consolidate the property to have
a golf course:
21 BOOK 4 FA,F. 1 J7
APR 16 1986
BOOK 64 Fy,c.158
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 1, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
Robert M. Keati g, A CP
Planning & Development Director
THROUGH: Richard Shearer
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM:
JOHNS ISLAND CLUB, INC.
REQUEST TO REZONE 65.65
ACRES FROM IL, LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, AND
A-1, AGRICULTURAL DIS-
TRICT, TO RM -6, MULTIPLE—
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
REFERENCES:
Robert G. Melsom McQueen Memo
PG A Staff, Long -Range Planning ROBERT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 16, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Darrell E. McQueen, an agent for Johns Island Club, Inc., the
owner, is requesting to rezone 65.65 acres located north of
County Road 510, west of the Florida East Coast Railroad
right-of-way and south of the Southern Sebastian City Limits from
IL, Light Industrial District, and A-1, Agricultural District, to
RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre).
The applicant is requesting the rezoning to bring all of their
property into one zoning district so they can develop a golf
course on the property.
On February 27, 1986, The Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -0, with one abstention, to recommend approval of this
request.
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-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property consists of two parcels of a 242.69 acre
tract of land owned by the Johns Island Club, Inc:. East of the
subject property, across the Florida East Coast Railroad
right-of-way, are citrus groves and undeveloped land zoned CG,
General Commercial District, and RS -6, Single -Family Residential
District. South of the subject property are citrus groves and
several single-family residences zoned CL, Limited Commercial
District, and IL, Light Industrial District. West of the subject
property is undeveloped land zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family Residen-
tial District. North of the subject property is undeveloped land
in the Sebastian Highlands zoned single-family residential.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates a 300' wide strip of parcel "B"
of the subject property as part of the U.S. #1 Mixed -Use Corri-
dor. This corridor, located on the west side of U.S. #1 to a
point three hundred (300) feet west -of the FEC Railroad or Old
Dixie Highway, whichever is most westerly, extends south from the
Sebastian City Limits to the northern limits of Vero Beach. The
Comprehensive Plan states "the county shall encourage, where
22
appropriate, redevelopment in accordance with the dominant land
uses and the health safety and welfare of area residents."
The Comprehensive Plan designates parcel "A" as LD -2, Low -Density
Residential 2 (up to 6 units per acre).
The proposed RM -6 is in conformance with the MXD and LD -2 land
use designations, is consistent with the uses that surround the
property, and is consistent with the RM -6 zoning to the west.
Transportation System
The subject property will have access to County Road 510 through
the other property owned by the applicant. C.R. 510 is clas-
sified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan. The
maximum development of the subject property under the proposed
RM -6 zoning could generate up to 2908 Average Annual Daily Trips
(AADT). The projected AADT will not decrease the existing level
of service "A" for County Road 510.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensi-
tive nor is it located in a flood -prone area. However, approxi-
mately 37.62 acres of the subject property are located on the
sand ridge, an important aquifer recharge area. It is the
staff's position that the proposed golf course will have less of
an impact on the recharge area than if the property were
developed industrially as presently zoned.
Utilities
Neither County sewer nor water is available to the subject
property at the present time.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
Chairman Scurlock asked how many feet this property is from
the railroad, and Engineer Darrell McQueen advised that it abuts
the railroad right-of-way.
Chief Planner Shearer clarified that some of the property is
600' away, but a lot of it abuts the railroad. The applicant has
a large amount of property west of this already zoned multiple
family, and they are proposing to take that zoning all the way to
the railroad tracks.
Chairman Scurlock, at this point, commented on the fact that
it seems the Planning 6 Zoning Commission has only three members
present at their meetings quite frequently, and he felt possibly
it is time this Board was expanded to a seven member board as a
decision based on a 2 to 1 vote does not seem fair to the
applicant.
23
APR 16 1986 Boor 6 a:cr 15�
APR. 16 1996
Boa 64 P,,C. 160
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 86-28 rezoning 65.65 acres north of
CR 510, west of the FEC right-of-way and south
of the southern city limits of Sebastian to RM -6
as requested by Johns Island Club, Inc.
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 28
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINA14CE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP
FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined
that this rezoning is in.conformance with the Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of _
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
24
Parcel "A":
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST I OF THE NORTHWEST j OF THE
SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST
j OF THE NORTHWEST j OF SAID SECTION 28 THENCE, S
000571341-E, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 28, 103.22
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED
PARCEL OF LAND. THENCE, S 26°20150"E, PARALLEL TO AND 600
FEET WEST OF THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE FLORIDA EAST
COAST RAILROADS 100 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, 993.69 FEET; THENCE,
S 89044137" W 426.07 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF
SAID SECTION 28, THENCE, N 00057134" W, ALONG THE WEST LINE
OF SAID SECTION 28, 892.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 4.36 ACRES OF LAND MORE OR LESS.
Parcel "B":
A PORTION OF LAND IN SECTION 28 AND 29, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH
RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 28, THENCE, S 89°09130" W,
ALONG THE NORTHLINE OF SAID SECTION 29, 23.50 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROADS 100 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY
AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED
PARCEL OF LAND. THENCE, S 26°20150" E, ALONG SAID
RIGHT OF WAY LINE, 3143.19 FEET, THENCE S 01°19115" E,
1202.06 FEET', THENCE, S 89°17'49" W, 1328.78 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 28, THENCE, N
01005'02" W, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION,
1344.24 FEET, THENCE, N 89°44'37" E 927.20 FEET,
THENCE, N 26°20150" W, ALONG A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 300
FEET WEST OF THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF FLORIDA EAST
COAST RAILROADS 100 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, 2992.54 FEET TO
A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 29. THENCE,
N 89°09'30" E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 29,
332.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
LESS AND EXCEPT the following: A portion of land in the
Northwest $ of the Southwest i of Section 28, Township
31 South, Range 3.9 East described as follows: Beginning
at the Southwest corner of said Northwest i of the
Southwest $ said corner being the point of beginning.
Thence run Easterly along the South- line of above
mention section to the Southeast .corner to the
Northwest $ of the Southwest J; thence North along the
East line of said quarters 26.00 feet; thence
Northwesterly 1332.56 feet to a point 69 feet north of
the Southwest corner of said Northwest $ of the South-
west $; Thence South 69 feet to the point of beginning.
Containing 1.45 acres more or less.
ALL above described property now lying and being in
Indian River County, Florida.
Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District and IL, Light
Industrial District, to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential
District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 16th day
of April , 1986.
f �p
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOOK 64 F4;J6
By C
Don C. Scurlock, Jr. airman
!16 46
I 11 � •,
1
Boor 64 Pv; 16?
REZONING - OSLO ROAD (WELTON)
The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr, who on oath
says that he Is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -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_ . K�J�i(i14.
in the_.. _. impa�X
r._yCourt, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of2. a? G�.
• v J Ao
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this _ a� A.D. 19 4 CO
(� (Busipfe. s anageof-
r
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, FI a)
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of
a County ordinance rezoning land from: RM -8,
Multiple Family Residential District, to CH, Heavy
Commercial District. The subject property is pre•
sently owned by J. Welton and is bated on the
south side of Oslo Road (9th Street S.W.) and
approximately 650' east of 12th Avenue S.W.
The subject property is described as:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
THE WEST 10 ACRES OF THE EAST 20 ACRES
OF TRACT 4, SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 33
SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, AS THE SAME IS
DESIGNATED ON THE LAST GENERAL PLAT
OF THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY,
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, THENCE
RUN SOUTH 200 FEET; THENCE RUN EAST
160 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 100 FEET:
THENCE RUN WEST 60 FEET; THENCE RUN
NORTH 100 FEET; THENCE RUN WEST 100
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID
LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
A public hearing at which parties in Interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday, April
16. 1986. at 9:15 A.M.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed-
ings is made, which includes testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal Is basad.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s Don C. Scurlock, Jr.,
Chairmen
Mar. 27, Apr. 8. 1986
Chief Planner Richard Shearer made the staff presentation,
as follows:
26
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 2, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: WELTON REQUEST TO REZONE
.6 ACRES FROM RM -6, MULT-
SUBJECT: IPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Robert M. Xdat4ng,, CP DISTRICT, TO CH, HEAVY
Planning & Developm`nt Director COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
FROM: V,� REFERENCES:
Richard Shearer Welton Memo
Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 16, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Michael O'Haire, an agent for J. Welton, the owner, is requesting
to rezone .6 acres located on the south side of Oslo Road and
west of 11th Avenue from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential
District (up to 6 units/acre), to CH, Heavy Commercial District.
In January of 1985, the Board of County Commissioners approved a
County -initiated request to rezone the subject property and
approximately thirty acres of land around it from C-1, Commercial
District, to R-1, Single -Family District (up to 6 units/acre).
On April 11, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
residential zoning conversion ordinance which converted this
property from R-1 to RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up
to 6 units/acre).
On January 29, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners approved
the nonresidential zoning conversion ordinance. This ordinance
rezoned all of the land in this area within 600 feet of Oslo
Road. All of the residentially -zoned land and much of the
commercially -zoned land was rezoned to RM -6.
On February 13, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
3 -to -0 to continue hearing this request on February 27, 1986.
On February 27, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -1 to recommend approval of this request.
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-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is undeveloped. North of the subject
property, across Oslo Road, are auto repair businesses, auto
cleaning businesses, warehouses, and other heavy commercial uses
zoned IL, Light Industrial District; and single-family resi-
dences and vacant lots zoned CH. East, south, and west of the
subject property are single-family residences and vacant land
zoned RM -6. Further east, is Sexton Grove Service zoned CH.
Sid
27
BOOK 64 PAGE 163
APR -16 1966 Boor 64 pvur 164
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and all of
the land immediately adjacent to it as part of the Oslo Road MXD,
Mixed -Use District (up to 6 units/acre). The land 100 feet south
of the subject property is designated as LD -2, Low -Density
Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre).
The applicant originally requested rezoning to IG, General
Industrial District. However, after the staff and the appli-
cant's attorney discussed this rezoning, it was determined that
the CH district could accommodate the applicant's proposed use of
the property and the applicant agreed to amend his application.
The requested CH zoning is consistent with the development on the
north side of Oslo Road in this area. However, the land on the
south side of Oslo Road around the subject property is almost
exclusively developed for single-family residences. The Compre-
hensive Plan states that within MXD areas, "the County shall
encourage, where appropriate, redevelopment -.in accordance with
the dominant land uses and the health, safety and welfare of area
residents." The staff does not feel that the proposed zoning is
in accordance with the dominant land uses in this area.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to Oslo Road (classified
as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum
development of this property under CH zoning could generate up to
56 average annual daily trips (AADT). Oslo Road currently
functions at level -of -service A and this additional traffic would
not significantly impact this level -of -service.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensi-
tive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
Utilities
A County watermain runs along the north side of Oslo Road.
County wastewater facilities are not currently available.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -1 to recommend
approval of this request. While the Planning Department respects
their opinion, based on the above analysis, particularly the
existing land use pattern on the south side of Oslo Road, and the
staff's previous recommendations for zoning in this area, staff
recommends that this request be denied.
Commissioner Lyons did not understand sticking just a little
dot of heavy commercial in with the RM -6. He felt if we are
going to go to heavy commercial, we should not have just a little
piece here and there.
Chairman Scurlock believed this could lend itself to a
county -initiated request to square off the heavy commercial, but
28
Commissioner Wodtke noted this area used to be MXD and it will be
difficult to accommodate the existing residential and the
commercial.
Attorney Michael O'Haire came before the Board representing
the applicant. He emphasized that this area is a mess, and the
Commission is going to be forced to address these issues. He
then displayed some photographs, which showed the extremely run
down condition of the nearby residential, some of which has been
buttressed by sheets of cardboard. He then stressed the amount
of industry in the area, and the considerable traffic, much of
which consists of trucks and semis, and contended that unless the
residential property to this area is rezoned to commercial, the
people living there will never be able to get a decent price for
their property and will be condemned to substandard housing
forever. Attorney O'Haire regretted that this seems to be a spot
request for rezoning, but actually this area is a commercial
area, and he submitted that Planning & Zoning Commission's
recommendation of approval should be followed through.
Commissioner Bowman wished to know what price could be
expected for these lots if they were zoned commercial because
unless it was substantial, the people would not be able to get
out of the neighborhood.
Administrator Wright noted that residential lots a little to
the south are listed at $2,000-3,000, but he felt if you could
sell a lot zoned commercial for $20,000, it certainly would offer
some hope.
Joe"Wiggins informed the Board that he owns property right
next to the subject property, and he is very much opposed to
rezoning this one spot of land heavy commercial. He agreed that
a lot of houses were in a run down condition, but they were built
30-40 years ago, and the people are doing the best they can. He
pointed out that many living in this area are migrant workers;
they have no idea of business; and most are not educated enough
to transact a big deal on their property. Mr. Wiggins emphasized
29
APR 16 1986 Boor; 64 F41,Jr.165
APP 16 1996 BOOK 64 Fr; -J66
that he personally, just as most others in the area, did not want
to sell his property; he wanted to live in the area and have his
family live in the area; but because of the lack of roads and
access, you can't get a building permit and can't get financing.
Commissioner Lyons asked how many people Mr. Wiggins
represents, and he stated that being president of the Oslo Civic
League, he represents the whole area, but actually there are
about six people who own property right near the subject
property. He continued to emphasize the problems caused by lack
of roads.
Commissioner Bird noted that Oslo is going to be an 1-95
interchange in the future, and when that happens, Oslo Road very
likely will be four-laned, traffic will get even worse, and it
will not be the most desirable place to live. If there is some
way we could rezone so these people who live right on Oslo Road
could realize a decent price for their property and some roads
could be built off Oslo Road so they could relocate there, he
felt that would be a more desirable situation and asked if Mr.
Wiggins saw that as a future for the Oslo area.
Mr. Wiggins agreed that is feasible, but stressed they have
been working two years to get just one road paved so they can
build further back from Oslo Road.
- Commissioner Bird asked if we are committed to just one
road; this was confirmed, but Commissioner Lyons pointed out that
we just now got all the right-of-way that was needed, and until
we got that, we couldn't build the road.
Mr. Wiggins continued to contend that rezoning just the one
piece of property being considered today will cause heartache and
hardship for the people. He stated that he did realize Oslo will
be commercial one of these days, but he did feel it is premature
at this time.
Attorney O'Haire informed the Board that his client owns
American Insulation, and his place of business is right across
the street along with a great deal more commercial development;
30
so apparently it is not premature. He could not quarrel with
what Mr. Wiggins has said, but he believed that because of the
site plan constraints placed on developing commercial re
landscaping, buffering, etc., the people would be a lot better if
this were rezoned commercial.
Commissioner Bird expressed his feeling that the ultimate
solution will be to create more residential in the Oslo area and
then rezone this strip fronting Oslo all in commercial and give
everyone a chance.
Mr. Wiggins agreed it would be more feasible if something
were done for the whole area. He continued to stress that most
of the people want to stay in that area, but the problem is no
roads.
Discussion continued at length regarding the difficulty of
acquiring the needed right-of-way for 10th Court, which we have
just finally obtained; the need for more roads; the possibility
of a MSTU for roads, etc.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that the matter before us
today is a rezoning, not the problem of roads. He determined
that no one else wished to be heard.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, that the request to rezone the
subject property from RM -6 to CH be denied because
it would represent spot zoning.
Commissioner Wodtke stated he seconded the Motion for denial
because he would like to have staff review the entire area, study
the road situation, and come back with a long range plan to
31
APR 16 1986 BOOK 64 FADE 167
7 APR 16 196 � 1�
F'1
BOOK 4 ,
create additional residential areas. He did think Oslo Road
eventually will have more commercial, but not necessarily CH.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with
Chairman Scurlock voting in opposition.
Administrator Wright asked if the Board had some direction
for staff, and Commissioner Bowman emphasized we must get 10th
Court paved.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would like us to look at
acquiring additional right-of-way, and Commissioner Wodtke wished
to develop a map of ownership in the area, look into right-of-
way,and determine the potential for the area.
Chairman Scurlock was not in favor of any of this. He
emphasized that the Commission is not in the subdivision
business. That is the province of the Housing Authority.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to present the problem with the Oslo
area to the Housing Authority and ask them to come up
with a proposed solution.
Discussion ensued regarding the Housing Authority working
with the Planning Department. Commissioner Bird did not have a
problem with that but noted this also can be accomplished with
any private developer.
Commissioner Lyons concurred this really is not our job, but
the business of the Housing Authority, and Chairman Scurlock
again emphasized that he did not want to be .involved with.doing
subdivisions and relocation, especially as there are areas
similar to this all over the county.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
32
MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT - HOTEL & MOTEL ROOMS
Staff Planner Jeffrey Goulet made the following presenta-
tion:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 2, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONNCURRENCE: MINIMUM SQUARE
FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS
SUBJECT: FOR HOTEL AND MOTEL
Robert '. Kea g, CP ROOMS
Planning & Develop ent Director
(� THROUGH: Richard Shearer, AICP
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Jeffrey A. Goulet REFERENCES: TM# 86-330
JA . Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 16, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On March 19, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
Ordinance #86-23 which reestablished minimum square footage
requirements for hotels and motels in the new commercial zoning
districts which allow hotels and motels. At that time, the
Board questioned the 300 square foot minimum for hotel and
motel rooms as to whether or not this minimum was too high.
The Board directed the staff to conduct research concerning
this matter.
ALTERNATIVES & ANANLYSIS
The Planning Department surveyed nine (9) jurisdictions in the
Treasure Coast area. Many of these jurisdictions did not
address minimum dwelling space requirements or maximum
densities for hotel and motel rooms specifically. Several of
these jurisdictions base minimum dwelling space requirements
for hotels and motels on the Southern Standard Building Code or
rely on their site plan, parking, and landscaping requirements
to control density of hotels and motels.
The following table outlines the results of the research
conducted by staff including the County's current requirements.
33 BOOP( 6� PAGE 169
I
APR 16 6996
BOOK c' 170
I MINIMUM DWELLING SPACE AND MAXIMUM
DENSITY REQUIREMENTS FOR
HOTEL ANS MQTEL UNITS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Minimum 300 square feet of living area/unit
Minimum 1,200 square feet of land area/unit (translates into a
maximum density of 36.3 units/acre)
BREVARD COUNTY
AREA/DISTRICT
General Tourist
Highway Interchange
Growth Mgt. Areas
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
MIN. S
250
250
250
FT.
MAX. DENSITY
30 units/acre
50 units/acre
Based on Res. Density
No minimum unit size, must be located in Tourist Commercial
Must meet all site plan requirements
Maximum density of 36 units/acre (gross)
MARTIN COUNTY
Minimum 600 Sq. Ft. for each hotel/motel room
Maximum density of 20 units/acre
FORT PIERCE
No minimum Sq. Ft. requirements for hotel/motel rooms
No maximum density for hotel/motel rooms
Must meet all site plan requirements --
STUART
NO. OCCUPANTS
MIN SQ. FOOT
NO. BEDROOMS
MIN. OPEN SPACE
1
2
150
250
-
400 sq. ft.
3
350
1
2
450
500
4
450
3
575
5
525
4
650
6
600
5
725
34
VERO BEACH
Minimum 300 Sq. Ft. for each
Minimum 336 Sq, Ft. for each
Maximum 30 units/acre density
SEBASTIAN
hotel/motel room
efficiency unit
for hotels/motels
No minimum unit size for hotel/motel rooms except for minimum.
dwelling requirements in the building code.
No maximum density requirements
In the commercial, office residential district there is:
600 Sq. Ft, minimum for efficiencies
700 Sq. Ft. minimum for 1 bedroom units
INDIAN RIVER SHORES
No provisions for hotels or motels at all, not permitted uses in
any district.
WEST PALM BEACH
Currently use only minimum dwelling space requirements in the
building code.
Proposed density maximums are as follows:
DISTRICT DENSITY
CN 28 units/acre
CG 48 units/acre
Downtown 72 units/acre
Those jurisdictions which address minimum square footage
requirements for hotel and motel rooms require anywhere from
150 square feet for a room for 1 occupant (Stuart), to 600
square feet for a room for 2 or more occupants (Martin County).
Those jurisdictions which address maximum density for hotel and
motel rooms usually base the density on the zoning district
(Brevard County and West Palm Beach). Those jurisdictions
which do not distinguish between zoning districts have den-
sities which range from 20 units/acre (Martin County) to 30
units/acre (Vero Beach) .
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, staff feels the existing 300 square
feet of living area/unit which is now required for hotels and
motels is adequate. This figure is "middle-of-the-road" compared
to the requirements in neighboring jurisdictions.
35
APR 16 1986 Bou 64 rncr 171
APR
16
1986
ROOK
61 F,. -E172
Chairman Scurlock noted that
it appears there
are no
objections to the presentation made by staff, and he believed
they did an excellent job.
APPEAL OF ZONING DENIAL - COASTAL_ TECHNOLOGY (N.WINTER BEACH RD.)
Chairman Scurlock announced that this appeal has been
withdrawn by Coastal Technology Corporation as explained in the
following letter, and it, therefore, requires no action:
COASTAL
COASTAL TECHNOLOGY
TECHCOASTAL. STRUCTURAL CIVIL ENGINEERING AND PLANNI
CORPORATION SW 20TH PL, SUITE G. VERo
v
7600
April 9, 1986 ry APR 1986
Mr.
Robert Keating, Director o 4% OUZO
Planning and Zoning Office o, Co,%fs Nry
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY o?� s�ONfRs
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960 l��ZS�fiZ%
882.8560
r _
RE: REQUEST TO REZONE 3.91 ACRES ON NORTH WINTER BEACH ROAD
FROM RS -6, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO RM -6, MULTIPLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Dear Mr. Keating:
This is to withdraw our request for consideration by the County
Commission of the rezoning of the subject property from the
existing RS -6 to the proposed RM -6 zoning classification. Please
withdraw our rezoning request and appeal from the agenda of the
County Commission as is currently scheduled for April 16, 1986.
Please note that the Owner has elected to develop the subject
property consistent with the existing RS -6 zoning classification.
The' Owner expects that such development will be more favorably
received by the community. If you have any questions regarding
this matter, please contact me.
Sincerely,
COASTAL TECHNOLOG COR RATION
f
Michael P. Walther, P.E.
Project Engineer
The Board recessed briefly at 10:10 o'clock A.M., and
reconvened at 10:20 o'clock A.M. with the same members present,
except for Commissioner Bird who did not return until later in
the meeting.
36
� ® r
REQUEST FOR FORCED PAVING ASSESSMENT - SEBASTIAN GROVE ESTATES
Michael Miller, Chief, Current Development, made the
following presentation, noting that the applicant would be
required to pave up to about 6001, which is not reasonable.
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 31, 1986 FILE:
The Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: REQUEST BY MR. & MRS.
MCLAIN FOR APPROVAL OF
SUBJECT: A FORCED PAVING ASSESS -
Robert M. Kea ng CP MENT PETITION FOR
Planning & Development Director SEBASTIAN GROVE ESTATES
SUBDIVISION
FROM: Michael K. Miller M9M REFERENCES: McLain Agenda
Chief, Current Development MIKE
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 16, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Mr. & Mrs. McLain, owners of lot 9, Block 3 of Sebastian Grove
Estates, are requesting that the Board of County Commissioners
enact a forced paving assessment petition to bring the existing
roadways in Sebastian Grove Estates up to County standards. Randy
Mosby is acting as their agent in this request.
Sebastian Grove Estates was platted in 1958 and is located
immediately west of Old Dixie Highway and south of State Road 512.
The subdivision is located along the Sebastian City Limits, and 12
of the 63 platted lots are within the City of Sebastian. Most of
the lots are 70 feet wide and 110 feet to 134 feet deep. The
subdivision was platted with 70 foot wide right-of-way widths that
exceed the current minimum width of 60 feet.
Although Old Dixie Highway is paved to a width of approximately 12
feet (1/2 of the current required width of 22 feet) the pavement
surface is in generally good condition. The remainder of the
roadways within the subdivision consist of eithera marl surface
or severely deteriorated asphalt pavement. The asphalt that does
exist is -more similar to a paving base preparation than an actual
asphalt driving surface. The applicant contends that the entire
subdivision was paved at the time of platting and the pavement
deteriorated over time (letter attached).
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The site plan ordinance requires that paved roads serve all
proposed developments, and where a site abuts an existing street
with inadequate pavement width additional pavement may be required
(Sec. 23.3, (d) (1) ,d) . The Technical Review Committee has
consistently recommended that roadways providing access to
proposed developments be upgraded to minimum County standards.
Based on the above paving requirement, the development of the
subject property must include construction of approximately 600
feet of 22 foot wide paving, extending to either State Road 512 or
Old Dixie Highway.
37
APR. 16 1 � Boos F -w J7
FF'_
BOOK 64 FrU..174
Several alternatives are available for the accomplishment of road
paving. The first option concerns the McLains paving to the
nearest paved road at their own expense. The McLains feel that
the expense of such paving in relationship to the size of the
property (0.2 acre) would be excessive. The Public Works Division
estimates that 22 foot wide roads may be constructed for approxi-
mately twenty five dollars ($25.00) per linear foot of pavement.
This cost includes surveying, engineering and any other routine
costs associated with development of a road. A roadway to serve
the subject lot would therefore cost approximately fifteen
thousand dollars ($15,000).
The next two options concern petition paving. The first option is
a voluntary petition whereby a majority (2/3) of the property
owners along a roadway must voluntarily consent to its paving, and
the County pays 25% of the paving cost while the property owners
pay the remaining 75%. The second alternative is a forced paving
assessment, a method initiated by the Board of County Commis-
sioners without the consent of the benefitting property owners.
With a forced petition, the County undertakes the paving and then
a¢oesses the benefitting property owners. The McLains are re-
questing that a forced paving petition be authorized by the Board
of County Commissioners.
Most paving petitions are initiated by neighboring property
owners. Seldom has the Board of County Commissioners implemented
a forced assessment for paving. Within the last few months,
however, the Commission has indicated that the forced paving
petition method may be appropriate in certain areas programmed for
higher intensity development and characterized by substandard
roadways where it would be unfair for one developer to upgrade the
roadways while other property owners who benefit from the improve-
ment do not share in the cost.
The voluntary paving assessment procedure generally conforms to
the following procedure:
1. The petitioner returns a petition signed by greater than
66.7% of the owners and/or the owners of greater than 66.7%
of the land abutting the road;
2. When signatures of greater than 66.7% have been confirmed,
the Indian River County Engineering Department will do a
survey and begin design work on the paving and drainage of
the requested road;
3. A Public Hearing will be advertised in a newspaper at least
15 days prior to when the Board will conduct the Hearing.
Also, individual notices will be sent to all lot owners
abutting the road(s) at least 15 days in advance of the
hearing advising them of the public hearing and the pre-
liminary assessment amount;
4. If the project is approved by the Board, the proposed paving
will go on the County Paving list until the paving improve-
ment can be scheduled; and
5. The cost paid by each property owner depends on how much
benefit each property owner receives from the improvement and
may be determined by factors such as front footage, the
distance of the property from the improvement, the area
benefited by the improvement or a combination of these
factors.
The forced assessment differs from the voluntary assessment in
that the County Commission authorizes road paving and property
assessment without the concurrence of the property owners.
38
Since Sebastian Grove Estates is included in the Sebastian com-
mercial/industrial node and is zoned for heavy commercial uses,
the staff feels that some coordinated action should be taken in
this area to upgrade the roadways. It is the staff's position
that a forced paving assessment would accomplish that objective in
the most equitable manner.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board direct the staff to implement
a forced paving petition throughout Sebastian Grove Estates that
will assess 100% of the cost of paving equitably among all the
benefiting property owners.
Planner Miller added that staff would like to modify their
recommendation concerning any reference to the 100% percent
contribution.
Chairman Scurlock wondered if there is enough potential
interest in the area to necessitate the Commission initiating
action for a forced petition, and he wished to know how this
differs from any other petition situation where we require our
indication of interest by 660.
Director Keating explained that since this property is in a
node area which the County has determined is appropriate for
non-residential development, staff feels the County probably
should assist the applicant in some regard and at least insure
the roads are up to standard. In addition, the paving require-
ment has discouraged several other applicants who were interested
in developing in this area.
Commissioner Bowman asked how many land owners are involved,
and Planner Miller advised there are five or six existing
businesses in the area; most of the 63 platted lots are undevel-
oped.
Cha"irman Scurlock believed it has been indicated those
owners have been contacted and are not interested in paving. His
main question was what responsibility we have because of accept -
Ing the original road for maintenance.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to speak, and
Randy Mosby of Mosby and Associates, Inc., came before the Board
representing the McClains. Mr. Mosby felt there is a question re
right-of-way on High Street - the plat shows a 30' R/W to the
39
APR 16 1 BooK 6 P} ,r 175
rAPR 16 1986
BOOK 64 Fa,c 176
north and they may not have adequate R/W to go that route. If
the McClains were to have to pave back to Old Dixie, which now
exists as a 12' wide road, they would have to widen that to the
minimum 221, which would be another 1,000' or so of pavement. He'*
emphasized that the all the McClains want to do is develop a
small mini -warehouse; they are willing to pay their fair share,
but feel $15-30,000 of roadway improvements makes it unfeasible
to develop their lot and they want some relief.
Chairman Scurlock was. not sure one small mini -warehouse
project was sufficient to justify a forced assessment of the
entire area. When there is sufficient demand to develop the
area, there will be others who are willing to sign a petition.
Commissioner Lyons noted that High Street is in the county
and also in the City of Sebastian, and he did not believe we can
force an assessment on the people in the city. He noted that CR
512 and Old Dixie are county roads; we can assess for them and
also can assess for Woodmere Rd, and High St. in the county area.
He believed the cheapest way to go would be High Street from 512
down -to Woodmere Road.
Discussion ensued re various alternatives, and Chairman
Scurlock felt the best idea, if the McClains are willing to pay
the cost of advertising, would be to have a public hearing to
identify this situation to the owners in the area so we can get a
better feel as to how many really want this.
Commissioner Bowman noted that this is not as simple as just
doing High Street, and Chairman Scurlock stated that his attitude
would be to deal with the entire node so all would participate
and it all could be paved at one time.
Commissioner Wodtke did not feel it makes sense for us to
separate the city and county areas, and he believed this area
could very well tie into the City area on CR 512 and be part of
one jurisdiction.
Mr. Mosby noted that it would take the full participation of
all the owners to annex the remainder of that area into the city,
40
and he felt that might be more difficult than getting the road
paved.
Chairman Scurlock asked the County Attorney to research this
problem, and Attorney Vitunac stated that he had checked and
determined that we cannot do an assessment within the city
limits.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board agree, if the
applicant is willing to advertise a public hearing re
a proposed paving of the county portion of Sebastian
Grove Estates Subdivision, that we will assist with what
is needed to get notice to the people.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if we are going to contact the
City of Sebastian to see if they will allow us to pave the part
of High Street that falls within their jurisdiction.
Attorney Vitunac felt this would be extremely complicated.
Commissioner Lyons pointed out that his Motion was relative
only to the portion within the county, and Mr. Mosby asked if
paving just the County portion of High Street would be considered
an acceptable access for them.
Commissioner Lyons believed they would have to go to Old
Dixie, but Mr. Mosby pointed out that Old Dixie would have to be
widened. He believed the county can pave within the city.
Chairman Scurlock agreed the county could pave there, but
would nol have the assessment ability.
Public Works Director Davis stated that he was confused and
wished to know if widening of Old Dixie is included in the
proposed paving.
Chairman Scurlock felt it is and clarified that his
understanding is that the intent is to draw up an assessment
based on the improvements needed for the area, have a hearing,
and see if it is go or not.
41
APR 16 1966 Boor 64 F,+,c277
L—
APR 16 1986
BOOK 64 178
Commissioner Lyons asked if the widening of Old Dixie
couldn't be assessed as a part of the total project, and Attorney
Vitunac advised that the rule for assessment is that the cost
assessed cannot exceed the benefit received.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that apparently the landowners
cannot build if this is not done; so, he felt there is a big
benefit.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if we have sufficient R/W to widen
Old Dixie, and Director Davis stated that the plat shows 70' of
R/W, which is sufficient.
Commissioner Bird returned to the meeting at 10:40 o'clock
P.M. and stated that he abstain from voting on this issue as he
had missed the discussion.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 - 0 with
Commissioner Bird abstaining.
TREE REMOVALMAND CLEARING VIOLATION CASE - (AMDECO)
Art Challacombe, Chief of Environmental Planning, made the
following presentation and presented photos of the site:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 3, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
- SUBJECT:
Robert 1 . K a ' ng ICP
Planning & Develo ment Director
TREE REMOVAL/LANDCLEARING
VIOLATION CASE NO.
CV -86-04-385
FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: Tree Removal
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regularly scheduled meeting on April 16, 1986.
11W
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On July 17, 1985, Amdeco Commercial Developers, a subsidiary of
Humana Hospitals, submitted a major site plan to the County for
review and approval. The site plan was approved by the Plan-
ning and Zoning Commission at their regular meeting on February
13, 1986. The plan proposes the construction of a single
story, six unit medical office building to be located on the
east side of Bay Street (83rd Avenue), just southeast of Humana
Hospital in Roseland.
Prior to site plan approval, the subject property was heavily
forested with Sand pine trees, a predominate tree species in
the area. The County Planning staff, taking note of this fact,
placed special conditions on the approved site plan relating to
tree protection. On February 7, 1986, staff issued Amdeco
Developers a landclearing and tree removal permit.
On March 26, 1986, staff, in conducting routine inspections,
observed that Amdeco throuqh a hired contractor, Michigan
Properties, Inc., cleared a portion of the site which was
designated on the approved site plan as an area to be preserved
and also cleared approximately two acres of property which was
not within the boundary limits of the approved site plan. In
reviewing the tree survey submitted by the developer, staff
determined that one hundred and five (105) Sand pines were
removed in violation of the County's tree protection ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
This is the most extensive clearing violation to be
brought before the Board of County Commissioners. Not only is
this a case inwhich a large number of protected trees are
involved; this action was taken in disregard of the tree
protection conditions noted on the approved site plan and
specifications of the tree removal/landclearing permit. 'The
action was taken with the developer's knowledge despite staff
input and communication with the developer's representatives at
the Technical Review Committee meetings and on other occasions
throughout the site plan review process.
The destruction and removal of each of the above-described
Protected trees without first obtaining a tree removal permit
is unlawful and violates Section 23 1/2(a) of the Code of Laws
and Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida.
Section 23 1/2-16 of the County Code makes the unpermitted
removal of each protected tree a separate violation and pro-
vides that each violation is punishable upon conviction by a
fine of up to $500.00 or 60 days imprisonment or both.
If the maximum fine were to be levied as the result of this
action, the dollar amount could be as high as $52,500.00.
Mitigating measures such as replacement, relocation, or other
landscaping improvements may be considered or required by the
Board of County Commissioners in fashioning a remedy.
Also as a result of this violation, the requirements of the
approved landscaping plan (Section 13J, Code of Laws and
Ordinances, Indian River County cannot be met in that eight
Sand pines within the non -buildable area as depicted in the
site plan were removed by the developer. ' These eight trees
were to be used' as landscape credit which would meet the
requirements of the landscape ordinance.
APR 16 19811
43
BOOK 6 `Ar F.179
APR 16 1966 Boos 64 Fe;1S®
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the following:
1) that the respondent comply with the landscape require-
ments of the site plan by installing eight additional
trees on the site;
2) that the respondent submit a voluntary payment of
$52,500.00.
In the event that the voluntary settlement cannot be reached,
staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
staff the authority to pursue available remedies in County
court.
Chairman Scurlock wished more information about the
importance of preserving sand pines, and Planner Challacombe
explained that the Roseland area is a predominant area of sand
pine scrub regime, which is an important and needed regime in the
Treasure Coast Region. In fact, the Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission has made a study to develop guidelines for protection
and restoration of sand pine habitat a priority item. Planner
Challacombe displayed a chart showing location of the site and
the scrub pine habitat, emphasizing that this was a heavily
forested site. He stressed that this is different than viola-
tions brought before the Commission before in that there were
specific guidelines set out on the permit, and they were not
adhered to.
Discussion ensued about the area that was delineated to be
cleared, and it was noted that the total site was literally
skinned and the 105 trees removed in violation were outside the
site plan area.
Harvey Harbridge of Michigan Properties, the contractor
engaged by Amdeco to carry out this project, came before the
Board and pleaded that misunderstanding and confusion led to the
violation.
Commissioner Lyons inquired if they had received permission
to clear the land from the owners or from the county, and Mr.
Harbridge stated that they understood the owners did have the
permission to do the clearing required to site the building.
44
Mark Tombs with Amdeco Developers, believed the confusion on
the contractor's part is that there was an initial plan to
develop two buildings, but because of cost overruns, it was
revised to a single building development and they had discussions
on trying to save cost in site clearing, stockpiling soil, etc.
Mr. Tombs stated that it was not their intention to tell the
contractor to clear the whole four acres of trees because they
did not want to violate any local ordinance. He felt strongly
that the whole thing is just a misunderstanding between himself
and his contractor and stated that they are here now with hat in
hand to see what kind of solution can be worked out. He assured
the Board that they understand the severity of the problem.
Commissioner Lyons asked if there was any question in Mr.
Tombs' mind about the site and what it covered, and Mr. Tombs
stated there was not.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the solution is not as simple
as just substituting landscaping for the sand pines that were
removed as we wanted to preserve that specific type of tree.
Planner Challacombe confirmed that sand pine is basically a
wildlife habitat, and it is desired to preserve it because there
are only certain things that will survive in such a harsh regime
and there are specific species that are indigenous to it.
Commissioner Bird asked if we gave them permission to remove
everything other than,8 sand pines, and Planner Challacombe
explained that was only in the net buildable area.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the 105 trees removed in viola-
tion were removed from the entire site, and it is anticipated
that another building will be erected on part of this same site
at some time in the future. He wished to know when and if that
other building is put on site, how many trees it would reduce
the violation by as he felt that would give the net effect.
Planner Challacombe believed at build -out of their master
plan no more than 27 trees would have been left.
45
Boob 64 F,:cc 181-
A R R. 16 1986 BOOK 64 P";r
182
Chairman Scurlock stated his suggestion would be that we be
paid immediately for those 27 trees, and then escrow the balance
until the remaining facility is constructed.
Attorney Vitunac noted that if the project is abandoned
before completion, the money then would be used to replant the
trees.
Planner Challacombe informed the Board that one of staff's
primary concerns at this point is wind erosion at the site. We
need to have some kind of stabilization to preserve the site and
eliminate some problems, and he recommended seeding and mulching
bahia grass to stabilize.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, to ask the respondent for an
immediate contribution for the 27 trees or $13,500
and to escrow the remainder of the $52,500 fine
($39,000) until such time as the project is completed
or is abandoned and to provide proper stabilization
of the site as quickly as possible.
Commissioner Bowman stressed that the area involved is a
pristine area, which is very important to the geology of the
county, and we are dealing with something that will not grow
anywhere else. She believed the respondent should at least be
required to purchase another such pristine area and donate it to
the county because the Motion doesn't save anything of what was
destroyed.
Commissioner Lyons noted that we can use the money to
purchase such land, and Commissioner Wodkte pointed out that the
money placed in escrow also would be released based on the
development plan and how it progressed.
Attorney Vitunac emphasized that we should have a time limit
re the development schedule, and after discussion it was agreed
to set a limit of seven years.
46
Commissioners Lyons and Wodtke agreed to make the time limit
of seven years a part of the Motion.
Commissioner Bowman continued to emphasize that we are going
to settle for $13,500 and that is all we are going to get to
purchase another area.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that if they got the permit to
build the additional structure, they then would have removed only
27 trees that should not have been removed.
Commissioner Wodtke felt possibly we should have special
classifications of trees in our ordinance, and for a sand pine,
for instance, the fine.,should be set at as much as $4,000 a tree.
Chairman Scurlock believed the net effect is that this is
not a very profitable job for the land clearer, and he felt that
is the message we wanted to send out.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4-1 with Commissioner
Bowman voting in opposition.
Attorney Vitunac advised that he will draw up a written
escrow agreement to be kept on file for seven years, and if the
project isn't developed in that time, the County will keep the
money and use it either to put in more trees or buy some other
land.
DER/ARMY"CORPS/DNR PERMIT APPLICATION - SEMBLER
The Board reviewed the following memo:
47
BOOK F 1:, 1��
APR 16 1986
APR 16 1966 BOOK 64 F,av; 184
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 4, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R./ARMY CORPS
& D.N.R. PERMIT
SUBJECT: APPLICATIONS
Robert M. i ea ingi ICP
Planning & Development Director
C-9__
FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: Sembler
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regularly scheduled meeting on April 16, 1986.
D.E.R. DREDGE & FILL PERMIT APPLICATION
FILE NUMBER 31-118047-4
APPLICANT: Sembler & Sembler Inc.
WATERWAY & LOCATION:
The proposed project is located on the Indian River, on lots 5
and 6 of Park Estate Subdivision in Section 31, Township 30S,
Range 29E in the City of Sebastian.
WORK & PURPOSE:
The applicant proposes to replace an existing 515 ft. dock
structure with a new 545 ft. dock and construct a 510 ft.
breakwater. The dock will accommodate thirty-four boat slips.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
The Conservation & Coastal Zone Management Element of the
Indian River Comprehensive Plan:
Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region; and
The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Management Plan.
The proposed project is located entirely within the corporate
limits of the City of Sebastian. The applicant presently has a
lease agreement with the State of Florida to operate a marina,
commercial dock or docking facility on submerged sovereignty
lands. The project is not expected to impact those portions of
the Indian River within the unincorporated area of the County;
however, staff questions the necessity of constructing the
proposed breakwater.
The breakwater would consist of strategically located concrete
pilings wrapped with auto tires. Based upon the proposed
spacing requirements as depicted on the application, approxi-
mately thirteen such pilings would.be utilized. Although this
type of breakwater is the least damaging in terms of
environmental impact, it is also the lease effective in provid-
ing boat protection from wind and wave action.
48
The dock proposed is essentially a replacement for an existing
dock structure. Because the proposed structure is nearly equal
in size to the dock being replaced, no additional boat slips
may be expected, thus not creating additional potential impacts
to the Florida manatee as a result of the project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners autho-
rize staff to transmit the following comments to the D.E.R.:
1) Indian River County has no objections to the proposed
dock replacement;
2) The D.E.R. should require that the applicant provide _
documented justification for the proposed breakwater
and review the potential hydrographic impacts of the
breakwater on the surrounding water and shoreline
area.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously accepted
staff's recommendation per the above and authorized
them to submit the proposed comments to the DER.
COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT CORP. - WASTEWATER AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed the following memo from the Utility
staff:
TO: BOARD OF COU TY COMMISSIONERS DATE: APRIL 7, 1986
THRU: TERRANCE
DIRECTOR, UTILITY SERVICES
FROM: RONALD R. BROOKSIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SPECIALIST
DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
WASTEWATER AGREEMENT
BACKGROUND
In February 1985 the Board entered into a wastewater agreement with Commercial
Center Development Corporation for wastewater service to the proposed South
Vero Square Shopping Center that was to be located at US 1 and Oslo Road (See
Exhibit I). The agreement provided for County wastewater service utilizing the
Vista Royal Wastewater Treatment Plant subject to Commercial Center Development
Corporation contributing to specific improvements in the wastewater plant and
the Vista Royal collection system.
The improvements were a necessity to improve treatment at the plant and to
accommodate the increased flow that would be created by the South Vero Square
Shopping Center.
49
APR 16 1986
BOOK 64 F'A,E 185
A P R 16 1986
BOOK 64
Also, subsequent to the agreement the Division of Utility Services approved
plans for the construction of the on-site water and wastewater systems
needed to provide water and wastewater service to the proposed shopping center.
CONDITIONS
The construction of the South Vero Square Shopping Center has long ceased and
it appears that it may not resume in the near future, if at all. In addition,
Commercial Center Development Corporation has failed to comply with its agreed
upon terms of the wastewater agreement that was approved by the Board in
February 1985, and there is question as to whether they ever will comply.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff's position is that Commercial Center Development Corporation has failed
to comply with the originally executed agreement and in view of the extensive
passing of time and questionable continuation of the South Vero Square Shopping
Center all agreements and approvals by the County should be reconsidered and
executed anew. Staff therefore recommends and requests that the Board of
County Commissioners officially void any and all utility agreements and permits
or authorizations heretofore executed or issued by the Board and the Division
of Utility Services.
Chairman Scurlock believed Director Pinto is simply asking
for authorization to move in this direction and does not require
any action today.
Director Pinto advised that unfortunately staff did not know
Commercial Center Development Corporation's building permit had
expired and it was extended for 90 days, or they would have tried
to stop it at that point. He emphasized that the corporation is
asking us to just wait around, and without funds we can't reserve
any capacity.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
accepted staff's recommendation and authorized
them to move in that direction if no other
solution can be reached.
GOLF COURSE - AWARD OF BONDS, RESOLUTIONS, ETC_
Jud Freeman, Bond Counsel of the firm of Freeman,
Richardson, Watson 8 Kelly, Jacksonville, informed the Board that
the bond insurers have asked for some changes in the original
Resolution authorizing the construction and equipment of a public
golf course, No. 85-78 adopted July 17, 1985, and he has no great
50
problem with any of these changes, which are set out in the
proposed amending resolution, as follows:
On Page 4 carrying over to Page 5, the bond insurer wants an
amendment of the definition of federal securities which deals
with the potential defeasance of the bonds in the future by
refund or some other means.
On Page 6 there is a housekeeping change in the description
of the pledge fund sources. Mr. Freeman explained that they were
double counting the income on some sinking fund money so they
stopped that and made a minor adjustment to the definition of
project to give the county some flexibility.
On Page 7 some minor technical changes were requested by the
underwriter's counsel. They want redemption premium mentioned
where we mention principal and interest in the bond resolution.
On Page 8 there is a more important amendment. Mr. Freeman
explained they allowed the pledged revenue sources to flow
through and be used for any lawful purpose. These were locked up
formerly. There is also a technical correction re what happens
to investment income on the sinking fund, and he had no problem
with that.
On Page 9 there is an insertion requested by the bond
insurers. If you have additional parity bonds and they are
variable rate bonds, they want some means to determine an
assumption for interest rate on those bonds so coverage can be
figured. Mr. Freeman had no problem with their formula and
believed it is reasonable to ask for some kind of standard. Also
on Page 9, a.phrase was added dealing with the Construction Trust
Fund allowing the deposit of legally available funds from other
sources in this fund.
Commissioner Wodtke questioned the statement on Page 9
"funds in an amount approved by the County Administrator of the
Issuer," and wanted to know if we can give the Administrator that
authority legally.
51
BOOK 64
I
BOOK 6-4
FACE ��
Attorney Vitunac stated that this doesn't affect the Board's
powers at all, and it can be changed if desired.
Commissioner Wodtke just wanted to be sure the Board knows
about anything like this and authorizes it, and Mr. Freeman
explained that they just need to have some kind of mechanism for
getting the amount approved.
On Page 10 Mr. Freeman advised that this change deals with
subrogation. It is a technical change which was desired for
clarification and really doesn't add anything that is not
existing under the present law.
On Page 11, second paragraph, the bond insurer asked for the
right to give consent under certain circumstances when bond
holders give consent to amendments to the Resolution, and -since
they are insuring the bond issue, Mr. Freeman felt it is reason-
able to let them have consent power also. He informed the Board
that covers all the amendments.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously.
adopted Resolution 86-19 amending Resolution
85-78 re issuance of bonds for the construction
of a public golf course adopted July 17, 1985.
52
?ESOLUTION NO. 86-19
A RESOLUTION AMENDING A RESOLUTION OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ENTITLED:
"A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
AND EQUIPMENT OF A PUBLIC GOLF COURSE IN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING THE
ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING $4,200,000
RECREATIONAL REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1985, TO
FINANCE THE COST THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR
THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST
ON SUCH BONDS FROM THE NET REVENUES TO BE
DERIVED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE GOLF COURSE,
THE RACETRACK FUNDS AND JAI ALAI FRONTON FUNDS
ACCRUING ANNUALLY TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO LAW, AND CERTAIN
INVESTMENT INCOME."
DULY ADOPTED ON JULY 17, 1985, BY MAKING
CERTAIN CHANGES NECESSARY FOR THE ISSUANCE
OF A MUNICIPAL BOND INSURANCE POLICY WITH
RESPECT TO THE BONDS; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR RESOLUTION. This resolution
is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 125, Florida
Statutes, Indian River County Ordinance No. 77-19, duly enacted
by the Board on August 3, 1977, as amended, and other applicable
provisions of law.
SECTION 2. FINDINGS.
mined and declared that:
It is hereby ascertained, deter-
A. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida (the "Board"), on July 17, 1985, duly adopted a
resolution entitled:
"A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
AND EQUIPMENT OF A PUBLIC GOLF COURSE IN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING THE
ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING $4,200,000
RECREATIONAL REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1985, TO
FINANCE THE COST THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR
THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST
ON SUCH BONDS FROM THE NET REVENUES TO BE
DERIVED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE GOLF COURSE,
THE RACETRACK FUNDS AND JAI ALAI FRONTON FUNDS
ACCRUING ANNUALLY TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO LAW, AND CERTAIN
INVESTMENT INCOME."
(the "Resolution").
-1- Boa 64 FD.HJS9-
APP 16 1986
r . ASR 16 1986
BOOK
B. It is necessary and desirable to amend the
Resolution by making certain changes necessary for the issuance
of a municipal bond insurance policy with respect to the bonds.
SECTION 3. AMENDMENTS TO RESOLUTION. The Resolution is
amended in the following manner.
A. Section 2 of the Resolution is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. The following terms shall have
the following meanings herein, unless the text otherwise-
expressly
therwiseexpressly requires. Words importing singular number shall
include the plural number in each case and vice versa, and words
importing persons shall include firms and corporations.
A. 'Act' shall mean Chapter 125, Florida Statutes,
Indian River County Ordinance No. 77-19, duly enacted by the
Board on August 3, 1977, as amended, and other applicable provi-
sions of law.
B. 'Additional Parity Obligations' shall mean addi-
tional obligations issued in compliance with the terms, conditions
and limitations contained in this resolution and which shall have
an equal lien on the Pledged Funds.
C. 'Amortization Installment,' with respect to any Term
Bonds of a series, shall mean an amount or amounts so designated
which is or are established for the Term Bonds of such series,
provided that the aggregate of such Amortization Installments for
each maturity of Term Bonds of such series shall equal the agqre-
gate principal amount of each maturity of Term Bonds of such
series delivered on original issuance.
D. 'Authorized Investments' shall mean any of the
following if and to the extent the same are at the time legal for
investment of county funds; (1) direct obligations of or obliga-
tions unconditionally guaranteed by the United States of America;
(2) time deposits represented by certificates of deposit fully
secured in the manner provided by the laws of the State of
Florida; (3) repurchase agreements between the Issuer and
-2-
M M
'qualified public depositories,' as defined in Chapter 280,
Florida Statutes, or between the Issuer and any government bond
dealer recognized as a primary dealer by the Federal Reserve Bank
Of New York, in each case having a capital and surplus or net
capital of $100,000,000, which agreements are fully secured by
obligations described in (1) above that have been physically
delivered to a third party agent and -are held in the name of the
Issuer; or (4) any other investments specified by Section 125.31,
Florida Statutes.
E. 'Board' shall mean the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida.
F. 'Bond Registrar' shall mean a -bank or trust company,
located within or without the State of Florida, which shall main-
tain the registration books of the Issuer and which shall be
responsible for the transfer and exchanqe of the Bonds.
G. 'Bonds' shall mean the Recreational Revenue Bonds,
Series 1985, herein authorized to be issued, together with any
Additional Parity Obligations.
H. 'Bond Service Requirement' for any Bond Year, as
applied to the Bonds of any series, shall mean the sum of:
(1) The amount required to pay the interest becoming
due on the Bonds of such series during such Bond Year.
. (2) The amount required to pay the principal of Serial
Bonds of such series maturing in such Bond Year.
(3) The Amortization Installment for the Term Bonds of
such series for such Bond Year. In computing the Bond Service
Requirement for any Bond Year, the Issuer shall assume that an
amount of the Term Bonds of such series equal to the Amortization
Installment for the Term Bonds of such series for such Bond Year
will be retired by purchase or redemption in such Bond Year.
When determining the amount of principal of and interest on the
Bonds which matures in any year, for purposes of this resolution,
the stated maturity date of Term Bonds shall be disregarded, and
the Amortization Installment, if any, applicable to Term Bonds in
-3
APR -1 6 196 sobs a
J
-APP .16 1986 NOW
such year shall be deemed to mature in such year.
64 F�4!sr-192
The amount of the Bond Service Requirement for any Bond
Year shall be reduced by the amount deposited into the Sinkinq
Fund and/or the Bond Amortization Account, from legally available
funds, for payment of the principal of, interest on and/or
Amortization Installments for the Bonds.
I. 'Bond Year' shall mean the annual period ending on a
principal maturity date or an Amortization Installment due date
for the Bonds.
J. 'Cost of Operation and Maintenance' of the Project
shall mean the current expenses, paid or accrued, of operation,
maintenance and repair of the Project, as calculated in accor-
dance with sound accounting practice, but shall not include
payments in lieu of taxes, any reserve for renewals and
replacements, extraordinary repairs or any allowance for
depreciation.
K. 'Federal Securities' shall mean, collectively, any
of the following to the extent the same are sufficient for
defeasance under state law (1) direct obligations of (including
obligations issued or held in book entry form on the books of the
Department of the Treasury of the United States of America), or
obligations the principal of and interest on which are uncon-
ditionally guaranteed by the United States of America; (2) bonds,
debentures or notes or other evidence of indebtedness payable in
cash issued by any one or a combination of any of the following
federal agencies whose obligations represent the full faith and
credit of the United States of America: Export Import Bank of
the United States, Federal Financing Bank, Farmer's Home
Administration, Federal Housing Administration, Maritime
Administration, Public Housing Authority and Government National
Mortgage Association; (3) certificates of deposit with commercial
banks, savings and loan associations and mutual savings banks
properly secured at all times by collateral security described in
(1) and (2) above; and (4) the following investments fully
-4-
I .i M M
insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation: (a) certificates
of deposit, (b) savings accounts, (c) deposit accounts or (d)
depository receipts of banks, savings and loan associations and
mutual savings banks. The value of the above investments shall
be determined as provided below. 'Value,' as of any particular
time of determination, means the value of any investments as
follows: (a) as to investments the bid and asked prices of
which are published on a regular basis in The Wall Street Journal
(or, if not there, then in The New York Times): the average of
the bid and -asked prices for such investments so published on or
most recently prior to such time of determination; (b) as to
investments the bid and asked prices of which are not published
on a regular basis in.The.Wall Street Journal or The New York
Times: the average bid price at.such time of determination for
such investments by any 2 nationally recognized government
securities dealers -(selected by the Issuer in its absolute
discretion) at -the time making a market in such investments; (c)
as to certificates of deposit and bankers acceptances: the face
amount thereof, plus accrued interest; and (d) as to any invest-
ment not specified above: the value thereof established by prior
agreement between the Issuer and AMBAC Indemnity Corporation, New
York, New York ('AMBAC'). If more than one provision of this
definition of 'value' shall apply at any time to any particular
investment, the value thereof at such time shall be determined in
accordance with the provision establishing the lowest value for
such investment.
L•. "Fiscal Year' shall mean the period commencing on
October 1 of each year and ending on the succeeding September 30.
M. 'Gross Revenues' shall mean all income or earnings
derived from the operation of the Project; all proceeds of the
sale, condemnation and/or insurance on the Project; and any
income from the investment of money in the funds and accounts
herein established for payment of the principal of and interest
on the Bonds.
-5-
Bao .64 F,,,c.1.93
r APR 16 1936 1
BOOK. 194
N. 'Issuer' shall mean Indian River County, Florida.
O. 'Net Revenues' -shall mean the Gross Revenues, after
deduction of the Cost of Operation and Maintenance.
P. 'Outstanding Obligations' shall mean the Capital
Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1980, dated April 1, 1980, and
Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1981, dated October 1,
1981, of the Issuer.
Q. 'Pledged Funds' shall mean, collectively, the Net
Revenues and the Racetrack and Jai Alai Fronton Funds.
R: 'Project' shall mean the existing properties and
assets, real and personal, tangible and intangible, owned and/or
operated by the Issuer, used or useful for a public golf course
and related clubhouse facilities, and all properties and assets
hereafter constructed or acquired as additions, improvements and
extensions thereof.
S. 'Qualified Independent Consultant' shall mean such
qualified and recognized independent consultant, which, if
appropriate, may be the certified public accountants retained,
from time to time, to prepare the annual audit of the Issuer;
having.favorable repute or skill and experience with respect to
the acts and duties'to be provided to the Issuer, as shall from
time to time be retained by the Issuer to perform the acts and
carry out the duties herein provided for such consultants.
-_ T. 'Racetrack Funds and Jai Alai Fronton Funds' shall
mean that portion of the racetrack funds and jai alai fronton
funds accruing annually to the Issuer under the provisions of
Chapters 550 and 551, Florida Statutes, and allocated to the
Board pursuant to law.
U. 'Record Date' shall mean the 15th day of the month
immediately preceding an interest payment date for the Bonds.
V. 'Registered Owner' shall mean any person who shall
be the owner of any outstanding Bond or Bonds as shown on the
books of the Issuer maintained by the Bond Registrar.
W. 'Reserve Account Requirement' shall mean the amount
-6-
I M M
required to be deposited in the Reserve Account for the Bonds as
determined by resolution of -the Board on or prior to the sale of
the applicable series of Bonds.
X. 'Serial Bonds' shall mean any Bonds for the payment
of the principal of which, at the maturity thereof, no fixed
Amortization Installment or bond redemption deposits are required
to be made prior to the 12 month period immediately preceding the
stated date of maturity thereof.
Y. 'Term Bonds' shall mean the Bonds of a series, all of
which shall be stated to mature on one date and which shall be
subject to retirement by.operation of the Bond Amortization
Account, herein created and established."
B. Subsection 3D of the Resolution is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"D. The principal, redemption premiums, if any, and
interest on the.Bonds to be issued pursuant to this resolution
and all other payments specified herein will be payable solely
from the Pledged Funds, in the manner herein provided. There are
no other outstanding obligations of the Issuer payable from such
Pledged Funds, or any portion thereof, except the Outstanding
Obligations payable from the Racetrack Funds and Jai Alai Fronton
Funds; however, the Issuer shall advance refund the Outstanding
Obligations and defease the lien of the holders thereof on the
Racetrack Funds and Jai Alai Fronton Funds before the issuance of
any of the Bonds."
C. Section 14 of the Resolution is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"SECTION 14. SECURITY FOR BONDS. The principal of and
interest on the Bonds shall be secured forthwith equally and
ratably by a first lien upon and a pledge of the Pledged Funds.
The Issuer hereby irrevocably pledges such Pledged Funds to the
payment of the principal, redemption premiums, if any, and
interest on the Bonds."
D. Paragraph number (6) of Subsection 16C of the
APR 1 1986 �ooK -64 FaE195
AP.R 16 1966 Bou 64 F;, J96
Resolution is hereby amended to read as follows:
"(6) Sixth, after the above required payments have
been made, for any lawful purpose."
E. The next to the last paragraph of Subsection 16C of
the Resolution is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Money on deposit in the Revenue Fund, the Sinking Fund
(excluding the Bond Amortization Account and the Reserve Account
therein), the Bond Amortization Account and the Improvement Fund
may be invested and reinvested in Authorized Investments which
mature not later than the dates on which the money on deposit
therein will be needed for the purposes of such funds and accounts.
Money on deposit in the Reserve Account may be invested and rein-
vested only in those Authorized Investments described in
Subsection 2D(1) of this resolution, maturing not later than the
last maturity of the Bonds. All income on investments derived
from the Revenue Fund, the Bond Amortization Account, the*Reserve
Account and the Improvement Fund shall be deposited in the
Revenue Fund. All income on investments derived from the Sinking
Fund (excluding the Bond Amortization Account and the Reserve
Account therein) shall remain on deposit therein."
F. Subsection 16J(1) of the Resolution is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"(1) There shall have been obtained and filed with
the Issuer a certificate of a Qualified Independent Consultant:
(a) stating that he had audited the books and records of the
Board relating to -the collection and receipt of the Pledged
Funds; (b) setting forth the amount of Pledged Funds received by
the Issuer for 12 months out of the 18 month period immediately
preceding the proposed date of delivery of such Additional Parity
Obligations with respect to which such certificate is made; and
(c) stating that the Pledged Funds for such preceding 12 month
period is at least equal to 1.25 times the maximum Bond Service
Requirement to become due in any ensuing Bond Year on the Bonds
then outstanding and the Additional Parity Obligations proposed
. . M ® r
to be issued. For the purpose of determining maximum Bond
Service Requirement in the event of the proposed issuance of
Additional Parity Obligations, the interest rate on any proposed
variable rate Additional Parity Obligations shall be deemed to be
the greater of 110% of the current interest rate on such variable
rate Additional Parity Obligations as if they were then out-
standing, or The Bond Buyer 20 General Obligation Bond Index for
the last week of the month preceding the date of sale of such
proposed variable rate Additional Parity Obligations."
G. Subsection 16N of the Resolution is hereby deleted
and.Subsection 160 is hereby redesignated Subsection 16N.
H. Section 17 of the Resolution is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"SECTION 17. CONSTRUCTION TRUST FUND. All of the pro-
ceeds derived from the sale of the Bonds (except (a) an amount
equal to accrued and capitalized interest, if any, on the Bonds
to be deposited in the Sinking Fund, and (b) an amount equal to
all or a portion of the Reserve Account Requirement to be depo-
sited in the Reserve Account), plus any legally available funds
in an amount approved by the County Administrator of the Issuer,
shall be deposited in a trust fund which is hereby created,
established and designated as the 'Recreational Facilities
Construction Trust Fund' (the 'Construction Fund'). The
Construction Fund shall be deposited and maintained with any
banking institution in the State of Florida approved as a county
depository and subsequently designated by the Board. The money
therein shall be used only for the payment of the cost of the
Project, brit, pending such application, may be invested in
Authorized Investments maturing at such time or times as
necessary to meet the requirements of the Construction Fund, the
income from such investments to remain in the Construction Fund
pending completion of the Project. Any balance of unexpended
money in the Construction Fund after completion of the Project
shall be deposited in the Revenue Fund."
��� -9-
APR 1 BOOK � F,-197
BOOK 64 PA -H 98
'APR 16 ON
I. Section 18 of the Resolution is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"SECTION 18. DEFEASANCE. If, at any time, the Issuer
shall have paid, or shall have made provision for payment of, the
principal, interest and redemption premiums, if any, with respect '-
to any of -the Bonds, then, and in that event, the pledge of and
lien on the Pledged Funds in favor of the Reqistered Owners of
such Bonds shall be no longer in effect. For purposes of the
preceding sentence, the deposit of Federal Securities in irrevo-
cable trust with a banking institution or trust company, for -the
sole benefit of the Registered Owners of such Bonds, in an amount
such that the principal of and interest on such Federal
Securities will be sufficient to pay when due the principal,
interest and redemption premiums, if any, on such outstanding
Bonds, shall be considered 'provision for payment.' For the pur-
poses of this Section, amounts paid by AMBAC under the municipal
bond insurance policy shall not be deemed paid pursuant to this
Section, and shall continue to be due and owing until paid by the
Issuer in accordance with this resolution. Nothing herein shall
be deemed to require the Issuer to call any of such outstanding
Bonds for redemption prior to maturity pursuant to any applicable
optional redemption provisions, or to impair the discretion of
the Issuer in determining whether to exercise any such option for
early_ redemption."
J. Section 21 of the Resolution is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"SECTION 21. MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT. No material
modification or amendment of this resolution or of any resolution
amendatory hereof or supplemental hereto, may be made without the
consent in writing of the Registered Owners of 51% or more in
a
aggregate principal amount of the Bonds then outstanding, or the
Registered Owners of all the Bonds to be affected by such modifi-
cation or amendment; provided, however, that no modification or
amendment shall permit a change in the maturity of such Bonds or
-10-
a reduction in the rate of interest thereon or in the amount of
the principal obligation, or affect the unconditional promise of
the Issuer to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds as
the same shall come due from the Pledged Funds, or reduce the
percentage of the Registered Owners of the Bonds required to con-
sent to any material modification or amendment hereof, without
the consent in writing of the Registered Owners of all such
Bonds.
For the purpose of this Section, to the extent any Bonds
are insured by.a municipal bond insurance policy -issued by AMBAC,
and AMBAC is not then in default under such policy or is not then
bankrupt, insolvent or in receivership, AMBAC shall be deemed to
be the Registered Owner of any Bonds so insured (a) at all times
for the.purpose of giving any approval or consent to the execu-
tion and delivery of -any supplemental or amendatory resolution
which under this resolution requires the. written approval or con-
sent of the Registered Owners of not less than 60a in aggregate
principal amount of the Bonds outstanding, and (b) following a
default in the payment, when due, of principal, redemption
premium, if any, and/or interest on the Bonds."
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY OF INVALID PROVISIONS. If any
one or more of the provisions herein contained shall be held
contrary to any express provision of law or contrary to the
policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited, or
against public policy, or shall for any reason whatsoever be held
invalid, then such provisions shall be null and void and shall be
deemed separable from the remaining provisions and shall in no
way affect -the validity of any of the other provisions hereof.
SECTION 5. REPEALING CLAUSE. All resolutions or parts
thereof of the Board in conflict with the provisions herein con-
tained are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby superseded and
repealed.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall take
effect immediately upon its adoption.
BOOK 64 Pa; -J,99
. -11-
APR 16 1966
r .6 1986
A� 1 RESOLUTION NO. 86-19 BOOK 64 FA.,U.200
Bird The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Bowman and, upon being put to a vote,
the vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Commissioner Richard Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 16th day of April, 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Attest`:
F.REUA WRIGHT, Cleo k
APPROVED'AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL'SUFFICIENCY
By
CHARLES P. VITUNAC
County Attorney
f C
DOIq C. SCURLOCK, JR. hairman
-12-
Mr. Freeman next discussed the Resolution awarding the
Bonds, noting that they had some details remaining to be fixed
such as the date of the bonds, the maturities, the purchasing
price, the bond registrar, etc. This is a housekeeping type
resolution, and he was not able to get it to the Board sooner
because they did not have all the marketing information. Mr.
Freeman informed the Board that M. G. Lewis 6 Co. has offered to
buy the bonds at a price of $2,646,251.85 plus any accrued
interest; this, of course is a discount price. They fixed the
dates, the redemption provisions, maturity schedules etc., which
are mostly market matters and have been approved by the County
Administrator. Mr. Freeman understood the County wants to use
Florida National Bank as the paying agent and bond registrar.
OMB Director Baird advised that Florida National was chosen
because they were the low bidder. There is an average coupon
rate of 7.45. The underwriter spread is 1.8%; we started at
2.25% and worked down to 1.8. Our last issue was a 2.34% spread.
Administrator Wright felt Director Baird did an outstanding
job in reaching a negotiated price with the underwriter, signifi-
cantly better than we have done before, and the Chairman agreed.
Director Baird stated that based on the interest rate the
first 30 months, the annual cost will be $202,110; the average
interest expense will be $245,000 annually; and the first
principal payment will be due in 1991. Right now the closing
costs are estimated at about $74,427 without the discount.
Chairman Scurlock thanked OMB Director Baird and staff for
an excellent job, and Commissioner Bird added his congratulations
and noted that these rates make the project even more feasible.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 86-20 Awarding $2,720,000 Recreational
Revenue Bonds, etc.
54 8001` 04 Fr®�
APR 1 1966
APR 16 1986
RESOLUTION NO. 86-20
A RESOLUTION FIXING THE DATE, MATURITY
SCHEDULE, TERM BOND AMORTIZATION INSTALL-
MENTS, INTEREST RATES, INTEREST PAYMENT
DATES, REDEMPTION PROVISIONS AND BOND
REGISTRAR AND PAYING AGENT WITH RESPECT
TO $2,720,000 RECREATIONAL REVENUE BONDS,
SERIES 1985, OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA; AWARDING THE BONDS AT NEGOTIATED
SALE TO THE PURCHASER; APPROVING THE FORM
AND DISSEMINATION OF THE OFFICIAL STATE-
MENT FOR THE BONDS; FIXING THE RESERVE
ACCOUNT REQUIREMENT FOR THE BONDS; CAN-
CELLING AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ISSUANCE
OF THE BALANCE OF THE BONDS; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, a resolution (hereinafter called "Resolution")
of the Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter called
"Governing Body") of Indian River County, Florida (hereinafter
called "Issuer"), duly adopted on July 17, 1985, as amended,
authorized the issuance of not exceeding $4,200,000 Recreational
Revenue Bonds, Series 1985 (hereinafter called "Bonds"), to
finance the cost of construction and equipment of a public golf
course and related clubhouse facilities; and
WHEREAS, prior to adoption of this resolution, signifi-
cant changes have occurred in the municipal bond market regarding
interest rates on long term municipal bonds, which are favorable
to the Issuer; and
WHEREAS, based upon all available information and advice
from the staff of the Issuer, the Governing Body has determined
that it is in the best interest of the Issuer to respond to these
favorable market conditions without undue delay; and
-K WHEREAS, there is insufficient time to respond to these
favorable market conditions by offering the Bonds for public
sale; and
WHEREAS, the complex character of the issuance of the
Bonds requires lengthy and detailed structuring which could be
unreasonably restricted by the lack of flexibility at public
sale; and
WHEREAS, a negotiated sale of these Bonds will result in
the most favorable bond financing plan and is in the best
interest of the Issuer; and.
WHEREAS, there has been filed with the Issuer, prior to
adoption of this resolution, the disclosure statement required by
Section 218.385(4), Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer has received a commitment for muni-
cipal bond insurance from AMBAC Indemnity Corporation, New York,
New York (hereinafter called "Insurer"), and, therefore, expects
to receive from Standard & Poor's Corporation, New York, New
York, and/or Moody's Investors Service, Inc., New York, New York,
0
prior to issuance of the Bonds, a bond rating in one of their 3
highest classifications; and
WHEREAS, M. G. --Lewis & Co., Winter Park, Florida
(hereinafter called "Purchaser"), has, by written proposal,
offered to purchase $2,720,000 aggregate principal amount of the
Bonds at the price of.$2,646,251.85, plus accrued interest to
the date of delivery, at the interest rates set forth below; and
WHEREAS, the Governing Body deems it necessary and
desirable at this time to fix.the date, maturity schedule, term
bond amortization installments, interest rates, interest payment
dates, redemption provisions and bond registrar and paying agent
with.respect to the Bonds; to award the Bonds at negotiated sale
to the Purchaser; to approve the form and dissemination of the
official statement for the Bonds; to fix the Reserve Account
requirement for the Bonds; and to cancel authorization for the
issuance of the balance of the Bonds; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA: -
SECTION 1. REMAINING FISCAL DETAILS FOR BONDS. The
date, maturity schedule, term bond amortization installments,
interest rates, interest payment dates and redemption provisions
for the Bonds shall be as set forth below.
The Bonds shall be dated April 1, 1986, and bear interest
payable on September 1, 1986, and semiannually thereafter as pro-
vided in the Resolution.
56 Booz 64
APR 16 196 �
APR -16 1986
BOOK 64 Pk -204
$425,000 aggregate principal amount of the Bonds
shall bear interest at the rates per annum and mature serially on
September 1 in the years and amounts as follows:
be issued as term bonds and shall mature on September 1, 2002,
and bear interest at the rate of 7.40% per annum. Amortization
installments are hereby established for such Bonds due September
1, 2002, and such Bonds due September 1, 2002, as will be
selected by lot, shall be deemed to be due on September 1 in the
years and amounts as follows:
YEARS AMOUNTS
1999
$70,000
INTEREST
75,000
2001
INTEREST •-
YEAR
AMOUNT
RATE
YEAR
AMOUNT
RATE
1991
$40,000
6.40%
1995
$55,000
7.00%
1992
45,000
6.60
1996
60,000
7.10
1993
50,000
6.80
1997
60,000,
7.20
1994
50,000
6.90
1998
65,000
7.30
$320,000
aggregate principal amount
of the
Bonds shall
be issued as term bonds and shall mature on September 1, 2002,
and bear interest at the rate of 7.40% per annum. Amortization
installments are hereby established for such Bonds due September
1, 2002, and such Bonds due September 1, 2002, as will be
selected by lot, shall be deemed to be due on September 1 in the
years and amounts as follows:
YEARS AMOUNTS
1999
$70,000
2000
75,000
2001
85,000
2002
90,000
Principal amounts of the Bonds or portions thereof
maturing September 1, 2002, to be selected by.lot, which shall be
equal to the following mandatory amortization installments:
YEARS
AMOUNTS
1999
$70,000
_ 2000
75,000
2001
85,000
2002
90,000
shall be redeemed on September 1 in such years prior to their
maturity (except the installment maturing in the year 2002) by
operation of the Bond Amortization Account, at the price of the
principal amount thereof plus accrued interest to the date of
prior redemption, or be purchased in the open market at a price
not to exceed such redemption price.
$1,975,000 aggregate principal amount of the Bonds shall
be issued as term bonds and shall mature on September 1, 2015,
and bear interest at the rate of 7.50% per annum. Amortization
installments are hereby established for such Bonds due September:
57
1, 2015, and such Bonds due September 1, 2015, as will be
selected by lot, shall be deemed to be due on September 1 in the
years and amounts as follows:
YEARS
AMOUNTS
YEARS
AMOUNTS
2003
$ 95,000
2010
$160,000
2004
105,000
2011
170,000
2005
110,000
2012
180,000
2006
120,000
2013
195,000
2007
125,000
2014
210,000
2008
135,000
2015
225,000
2009
145,000
Principal amounts of the Bonds or portions thereof
maturing September 1, 2015, to be selected by lot, which shall be
equal to the following mandatory amortization installments:
YEARS AMOUNTS
2003
$ 95,000
2004
105,000
2005
110,000
2006
120,000
2007
125,000
2008
135,000
2009
145,000
YEARS AMOUNTS
2010
$160,000
2011
170,000
2012
180,000
2013
195,000-
2014
210,000
2015
225,000
shall be redeemed on September 1 in such years prior to their
maturity (except the installment maturing in the year 2015) by
operation of the Bond Amortization Account, at the price of the
principal amount thereof plus accrued interest to the date of
prior redemption, or be purchased in the open market at a price
not to exceed such redemption price.
The Bonds or portions thereof maturing in the years 1991
through 1995, both inclusive, are not subject to redemption prior
to their maturity. The Bonds or portions thereof maturing in the
year 1996 and thereafter shall, at the option of the Issuer, be
redeemable other than by operation of the Bond Amortization
Account, in whole at any time on or after September 1, 1995, or
in part, in inverse order of maturity and by lot within a single
maturity, on September 1, 1995, or on any interest payment date
thereafter, at a price of par and accrued interest, plus the
following premiums expressed as percentages of the principal
amount thereof, if redeemed at the following times:
58
800 6 PnE 205
APR 16 1986
I
Redemption Period
(both dates inclusive)
September 1, 1995, through August 31, 1996
September 1, 1996, through August 31, 1997
September 1, 1997, through August 31, 1998
September 1, 1998, through August 31, 1999
September 1, 1999, and thereafter
Boa 61 PA,c 206
Redemption Premium
2%
1 1/2
1
1/2
0
SECTION 2. BOND REGISTRAR AND PAYING AGENT. The bond
registrar and paying agent for the Bonds shall be Florida
National Bank, Jacksonville, Florida.
SECTION 3. RESERVE ACCOUNT REQUIREMENT. The Reserve
Account Requirement (as defined in the Resolution) for the Bonds
is $0.00.
SECTION 4. AWARD OF BONDS. $2,720,000 aggregate prin-
cipal amount of the Bonds are hereby awarded and sold to the
Purchaser at the price—of $2,646,251.85, plus accrued interest
to the date of delivery, bearing interest as stated above, and
upon the remaining terms and conditions of the proposed Bond
Purchase Agreement, dated April 16, 1986, attached hereto.
SECTION 5. STATEMENT OF INSURANCE. There shall be
printed on the back of each Bond a statement to the effect that
the principal of and interest on the Bonds is insured by the
Insurer, and the proper officer of the Issuer is authorized and
directed to pay the premium for such insurance upon the delivery
of the Bonds.
SECTION 6. OFFICIAL STATEMENT. The form and dissemina-
tion of the preliminary Official Statement with respect to and in
connection.with the marketing of the Bonds are hereby approved.
The proper officers and/or employees of the Issuer are hereby
directed to cause the final Official Statement for the Bonds to
be prepared in substantially the form of the preliminary Official
Statement, with such changes and additions as may be suggested
from time to time by the proper officers and/or employees of the
Issuer.
SECTION 7. CANCELLATION OF BALANCE OF BONDS. The
authorization for the issuance of the unsold balance of the Bonds
is hereby cancelled and rescinded.
59
SECTION 8. NECESSARY ACTION. The proper officers of
the -Issuer are hereby designated agents of the Issuer in connec-
tion with the issuance of the Bonds, and are authorized and
empowered, individually or collectively, to take all action and
steps and to execute and deliver any and all instruments, docu-
ments or contracts on behalf of the Issuer which are required by
the Resolution and/or are necessary and desirable in connection
with the execution and delivery of the Bonds, and which are not
inconsistent with this resolution and any other action relating
to the Bonds.
SECTION 9. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall take
effect .immediately upon its adoption.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Bowman . who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Bird and, upon being put to a vote,
the vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C. -Scurlock, Jr.
Vice Chairman Patrick B. Lyons
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr.
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 16th day of April, 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By G
DON C. SCU LOCK, JR. airman
Attest:'IS)
FREDA' ,WRIGHT, Cle
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
By
CHARLES P. VITUNAC
County Attorney
60
Roos 6 F,i,r.207
r APR 16 1966
BOOK 64
GOLF COURSE - AWARD BID FOR IRRIGATION MATERIALS
Administrator Wright advised that the irrigation materials
were taken out of the construction contract with Guettler in an
attempt to purchase direct and have a savings on the sales tax,
and Bruce Sheldon is here today representing architect Ron Garl
of Links Design to give a recommendation on which system to buy.
Commissioner Bird stated that he and the Administrator both
apologize for submitting the information on the irrigation bids
in this form at this time. He explained that the irrigation
system is a very important part of the design. The architect
usually will call on major equipment suppliers to design a system
and submit the plan back to him, at which time he will review the
design and possibly modify it. Two different suppliers, Rain
Bird and Toro, have designed systems, and the Board now has
prices before them from both suppliers for the system they feel
will supply the needs of the golf course. Mr. Sheldon is here
representing our architect to make a recommendation as to the
system they prefer.
Administrator Wright believed we are saving at least $10,000
by purchasing direct no matter how the bid goes.
Bruce Sheldon of Links Design informed the Board that the
architect will recommend the Toro irrigation system basically on
the --idea that it is an accepted industry standard to irrigate
greens with 2" of water per week precipitation rate and 1i" per
week on the tees and the fairways; it is also an accepted
industry standard for the course to be watered over a 6 day
period rather than a 7 day period. The Rain Bird plan was based
on 1i" over the entire golf course over a 7 day watering period,
which does not give you the extra day in drought situations. The
Toro plan puts 2" on the greens and 1i" on the tees and fairways
watering over a 6 day week. Mr. Sheldon clarified that this
represents 10 hours of watering versus the Rain Bird plan which
is a 7 day week and 101 hours. The Toro plan will put out
585,000 gpd for 18 holes; the Rain Bird plan running 7 days a
61
week will put out only 432,000 gpd, or a difference of
approximately 150,000 gallons per day.
The Chairman asked if that gallonage meets specifications,
and Mr. Sheldon stated that they did not have specific require-
ments as to gallonage or inches. He emphasized that they have a
particular concern for the site because it is the sandiest site
they have ever worked on; the percolation rate is tremendous; and
they are concerned about putting $70,000 of grass on the site and
making sure it lives.
Chairman Scurlock believed they surveyed the site before
they took the job and asked why they designed the specs at 1111
and 2" if they thought the sandy soil would require more. Mr.
Sheldon clarified that they do not think it will require more
than that; the problem is that the Rain Bird plan does not
provide 2" on the greens.
The Chairman stated that it then apparently doesn't meet the
specs in any event and there is no need to even to consider this
any further. Mr. Sheldon explained that there were specifica-
tions, but they did not provide a number for certain inches or
quantities. Those numbers are just an accepted industry
standard.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the architect apparently did
not prepare any specifications, but just told the suppliers to go
design a system and present it. He continued that as he sees it,
there is a $24,423 expense difference with the Toro system being
more expensive. In addition to that, he wished to know if the
Toro system requires an additional pump to go to an additional 9
holes.
Mr. Sheldon advised that the Toro will require one pump to
be set in the pump station for a third nine holes; the Rain Bird
does not require that.
Lengthy discussion ensued with the Chairman adding up the
difference in costs between the two systems, starting with the
$24,000 difference plus $10,000 for the additional pump, and then
62 BOOK 64 wl),F.209
APR 16 1986
BOOK 64
taking into consideration the difference in operating costs based
on the horsepower of the pumps used and the operating cost per
kilowatt hour, which he figured at $12,000 a year more for the
Toro system.
Mr. Sheldon noted that it must be taken into account that
FPBL has a time -of -use discount rate, which November through
April is based on an 8 hour use envelope; the rest of the year,
it is a 15 hour envelope. He stated that the difference between
operating the systems based on the regular rate is $12,000 but
the difference in the actual cost of running the systems using
the time -of -use rate is only $300 with Toro being the less
expensive.
Chairman Scurlock noted that we still have a $34,000
difference between the two, but Commissioner Bird pointed out
that the other $10,000 will be plugged into the cost of the third
nine and it will be paid eventually.
Debate continued as to the original cost and operating costs
of the two systems. Chairman Scurlock continued to discuss
watering times and operation over six hours and did not under-
stand why the specifications weren't the same for both suppliers.
Mr. Sheldon noted that basically both bidders were told the
same thing - they weren't told anything...,..-
- Chairman Scurlock did not feel the architect should have had
to design the irrigation system, but he did feel he should at
least have specified how much water is needed.
Commissioner Bird informed the Board that probably 90% of
the golf courses in Florida over the last ten years have used
Toro equipment, and he would recommend we pay the difference for
the Toro system because he believed it will give us additional
assurance of the water capacity we may find we need because of
the soil characteristics of the course.
Administrator Wright wanted the Board to understand the Toro
bid does not contain certain items such as concrete for thrust
63
blocks, steel pipe for the dogleg to connect the pump station,
etc.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the Rain Bird system does, and
the Administrator advised we never have received a list of
materials from Rain Bird.
Commissioner Lyons stated that he felt very uncomfortable
about this whole affair. First, he would like to find if Rain
Bird bid on the same specifications and second, he wanted to see
if what we are getting for our money is the same or different.
Chairman Scurlock believed a letter had been received from
the Rain Bird bidder, and this was confirmed by Mr. Sheldon who
had a copy. The Chairman then read the following letter into the
record:
/
B®YN Irrigation Sales Since 1958
April 8, 1986
Indian River County Commission
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Attention: Mr. Michael Wright, County Administrator
Subject: Sand Ridge Golf Course
Dear Mr. Wright:
The following is submitted in response to your verbal request on April 3
for additional information.
Design
I will briefly summarize the evolution of the design as follows:
Original: We designed a system that gave a 1k inches of water
per 7 day week on the golf course. This design was
received and approved by the architect prior to being
released for bids.
Revision No. 1: The architect requested 2 inches on the greens and 12
inches on the tees and fairways over a 7 day week.
Ran Garl told me that this was an original requirement.
However, Bruce Sheldon advised that he had never heard
of the requirement until this change was made. We re-
sponded that we can meet that requirement. Enclosed
you will find a copy of the letter dated February 20,
1986, which answered that request.
64
APR r 1986
Boas 64 uG 211
A
P, P R 16 1986
BOOK 64 Pi"U 212
Revision No. 2: This revision was given last Thursday, April 3. The
architect now requires 2 inches per week an the greens
and tees and 12 inches on the fairway in a 6 day week.
Further, the water time was reduced to 9 hours. The
architect also requested the use of DR 91 heads on the
tees.
We have reviewed our design as well as the Toro design
and come to the following conclusions:
A. The original water time for both -systems based
on a 7 day week is:
9.6 hours for Rain Bird
9.0 hours for Toro
B. Neither system can meet the revision No. 2 re-
quirement for the time of 9 hours over a 6 day
week without major design changes that will re-
sult in increased costs for both systems.
Pipe:
The architect has not made a decision on which pipe is to be specified.
Class 200 or schedule 160.
Pump Stations:
A careful review of the Rain Bird design will show the following:
A. The pump station that is being proposed for the 18
hole design will also meet the requirements for 27
holes.
B. The lower horsepower requirements will result in
substantial savings in electrical power over the life
of the irrigation system.
C. The price for the pump station in the bid we have
furnished is for a station that will accomplish the
27 hole requirement. Hence, a further savings to
your golf course.
D. The pump station is a by-product of a more efficient
irrigation system which will result in a low maintenance
over the life of your golf course.
E. Service and support is wither from Boynton Pump in
Boynton Beach or the manufacturer in Orlando, Florida.
Hence, we are within 2 hours of your golf course.
Price:
We have quoted your requirements 2 times and have been the low bidder both
times.
We have submitted a price in our letter of March 3, 1986, to you that stands
as written, with the price extended through April 15, 1986.
We are providing that price on the basis of our providing the following:
1. In field inspection and trouble shooting to insure
the irrigation system is installed correctly.
2. Incorporate the field revisions in to the final
"as built" drawing.
3. Train your golf course personnel in the opperation
of the system.
65
I trust that this letter sets forth our position accurately and clearly.
That is, we have designed an efficient cost effective system that met the
original and Revision No. 1 requirements. We can now only question why
Revision No. 2 was imposed on not only our system but on the Toro design
as well.
Please advise as to what further assistance we can provide to you.
Very truly yours,
I
Georgereenfield
Golf Mznaper _ _
Mr. Sheldon informed the Board that where the letter states
that the design was accepted by the architect, it was accepted by
him, and Mr. Garl did not realize that the plan did not produce
2" of water on the greens. He further stated that Revision No. 1
in the letter is actually an original requirement as that is the
industry standard.
Discussion resumed as to the amount of water each system can
produce in 6 days, and Mr. Sheldon believed the Toro system can
put out the required gallonage over a 10 hour daily period while
the Rain Bird system would take 101 hours 7 days a week.
Norwood Glover, Vice President of Hector Supply Co., -
speaking for the Toro system, advised that their running time
will vary from 13 minutes to 27 minutes per head depending on the
size head used. He claimed that Rain Bird is using a head that
puts out 46 gpm, and they space them 90' apart while Toro has a
heads that put out 65 gpm spaced 80' apart and they will cover at
least 20% more of the golf course.
Mr. Sheldon stated that the greater coverage is another
reason for their recommending the Toro system as it is a factor
to be considered in relation to the possible future disposal of
effluent on the golf course.
Commissioner Bird wished this could be a simpler, more
clearcut issue, but unfortunately it is not, and we are in the
eleventh hour and need to move ahead with ordering the material.
He noted that we are paying the architect a goodly amount of
money to advise us; we are building a golf course that will last
66
APR 16 1986 BOOK
APR 16 1986 Boa 64 uUF- 214
the county for very many years; and he felt the additional money
spent for the Toro system will be money well spent.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, to accept the architect's recom-
mendation and award the bid for irrigation materials
for Sand Ridge Golf Course to Toro through Hector
Supply Company. tl
Commissioner Wodtke felt we need the greatest ability we can
to get water on this golf course and with the Toro system, we can
go to an extra day if we have to and have more coverage. He
believed the architect had thought about all this.
Commissioner Lyons advised that he planned to vote against
the Motion on the basis that he did not feel the architect has
fairly presented the difference between the two systems nor does
he feel comfortable about the fact that there has been some
confusion. He did not want to hold up the project, but he did
not think a week's difference in accepting the bid would make
that much difference.
Chairman Scurlock referred to the discrepancy of the figures
quoted for electricity as compared to those he had been given,
and -stated he would vote against the Motion on the floor as he
did not feel he can actually compare the two bids.
Mr. Glover informed the Board that it takes 27,100 gallons
of water for a 1" acre of water; 1" for 100 acres would be 2.7
million gallons and Rain Bird can't put out that much in their
ten hours.
The Chairman noted that Rain Bird says Toro can't either.
Commissioner Bird believed that none of the Board members
are irrigation experts, and although he did agree the specs could
have been tighter, he noted we are paying the architect to make a
recommendation; we do have some time constraints; and he did not
think we can have the specs redrawn because we do need to order
67
W
M M r
the pump station. He continued that he did not attempt to second
guess other Board members on the projects which they have
researched and worked very hard on, and he felt the difference in
cost is a very small percentage to hold up a 21 million dollar
project where we are working on a very critical schedule so we
don't interfere with our projected revenue flow..
Chairman Scurlock noted that he makes it a practice to
oversee and research all areas the Board is concerned with, and
in this case he was given different numbers; although, he does
not know if they are correct or incorrect.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that we can get a Rain Bird
representative here and try to get more answers, but it appears
the Toro plan gets more coverage, and he believed it is worth the
difference. He hated to put Commissioner Bowman on the spot,
however.
Commissioner Bowman stressed that she did not want to hold
up the project either. However, she was not impressed with the
architect when he was here; she doesn't like the way he is
handling this now; and she was not inclined to accept his
recommendation.
Chairman Scurlock was upset that he had presented all these
questions to the Administrator about three weeks ago and only
received this information today.
Administrator Wright advised that he had bundled up all the
information and forwarded it to the architect and was hoping to
get something from the architect to present to the Board. We do
at least, have an oral report from the architect.
Chairman Scurlock agreed that we need to do something to
keep moving ahead. He believed there is no question but that we
would get a good system with Toro and probably would with Rain
Bird, and he did not know if the extra to put on more inches is
needed or not.
Commissioner Bird felt there is no doubt that Rain Bird is
I
certainly a notable company in the irrigation business and that
68
APR 16 1986 BOOK F-, r 215
APR -16 1986 BOOK 64 Fri lu
they have the ability to design and install a system as well as
Toro; in this case, however, he did feel they underdesigned their
system a bit in order to try and come in a little lower. He felt
they could redesign and put out the same amount of water, but
believed they would have to upgrade.
Commissioner Lyons noted that he is beginning to give a bit.
Since Rain Bird didn't show up today and they knew what the
attitude of the architect was, he felt possibly there is nothing
they can add.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
Administrator Wright apologized to the Board and assured
them he would try to get the information to them sooner in the
future. The Board generally agreed the architect could have
handled this a little better.
GOLF COURSE - ARCHITECT FOR CLUBHOUSE, ETC.
General Services Director Dean informed the Board that on
the 10th of April he and Commissioner Bird met with architect
Charles Block to negotiate a fee to design..a clubhouse, cart
shed, etc. Mr. Block informed them that the normal curve for
this type of design work was 80, but he was interested in helping
the county with the project, and, therefore, negotiated a 6% fee
for the basic design. He did include a stipulation that any work
outside the basic design work would be at $50 an hour, which is
quite standard. It was made clear to Mr. Block that the club-
house and all buildings would have to be designed within our
budget.
Administrator Wright noted that staff will ask the Board to
make a decision on the type of management on May 7th, and this
will have a direct impact on the size of the clubhouse. Mr.
Block would not actually start any design work on this building
69
before decisions were made on the management, etc. What we are
doing now is just getting him on board at a certain percentage.
Chairman Scurlock asked if Mr. Block's share will change if
we decide not to go right away with the clubhouse facility, and
Administrator Wright stated that whatever he does, it will be 6%
of the low bid or the construction cost.
Commissioner Bird advised that the architect's fee will come
out of the money set aside for the various buildings.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to approve the contract
with C. E. Block Architect for the clubhouse,
maintenance and golf storage buildings as recom-
mended by staff.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if it is normal for the architect
to include engineering for sewer and water and drainage, and
Administrator Wright stated that in the past we have done some
offsite work, sometimes to the edge of the buildings and
sometimes further. It has been on a case by case basis, and the
recommendation on May 7th will cover this question.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
SAID CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
RESOLUTION - USE OF COUNTY -OWNED VEHICLES
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant County Attorney Bruce
Barkett:
70
APR �6 BOOK 6 FF,,C 217
J
l
ROOK 64 FA;E1�
TO: DATE: FILE:
Indian River County Board April 7, 1986
of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION REGARDING
USE OF COUNTY -OWNED
VEHICLES
FROM: • Bruce Barket '114
Assistant County Attorney
REFERENCES.
The attached resolution is offered at Joe Baird's suggestion to
reduce the volume of intricate record-keeping required by the
Internal Revenue Service. The resolution prohibits personal,
nonwork-related use of County -owned vehicles except for commuting
to and from work.
Commissioner Lyons asked if this includes the Sheriff, and
OMB Director Baird stated this is meant only for Board of County
Commission vehicles.
Commissioner Lyons did not feel that is what the proposed
Resolution says as he felt that actually a.11 the people working
for the Sheriff, the Property Appraisers, etc. are County
employees.
Attorney Vitunac advised his interpretation was that
county employees means Board of County Commission employees. If
it was desired to include the Sheriff, etc., you would also name
Constitutional Officers.
Director Baird explained that there is a new IRS ruling
stating that if anyone who has the use of a county vehicle takes
it home, that has to be looked at as compensation, and this
compensation either is by true mileage or by $1.50 each way. If
we want to use the $1.50 method, we have to pass this resolution
stating that such vehicles cannot be used for personal use. The
intent was to do this for the Board of County Commission
employees only as we do not keep the records for the
Constitutional Officers. All emergency vehicles, Sheriff,
Firemen, etc., are exempt.
71
Commissioner Lyons still felt all these people can be con-
sidered county employees, and Commissioner Wodtke suggested the
Resolution be worded "Be it resolved by the County Commission
that all personnel under the control of the Board of County
Commissioners......."
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, to adopt Resolution 86-21
in regard to use of County -owned vehicles, reworded
as above.
Some discussion ensued as to which employees take such
vehicles home, what happens if they stop at the grocery store en
route, etc., and it was explained that the "on-call" personnel
take these vehicles home and there is no problem if they make a
stop which is on their normal route.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
72
APR 16 1986 Boa 6 I rnuF 21�
Fr'_
APR 16 1986
BOOK 6-4 F -Al- 290
or.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY RESTRICTING THE PERSONAL USE OF
COUNTY -OWNED VEHICLES.
WHEREAS, the responsibilities of certain County Employees
require that those employees have a County -owned vehicle at their
disposal at all times; and
WHEREAS, such employees are required to commute to and
from work in a County -owned vehicle; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Board to prohibit per-
sonal use of such a vehicle for other than commuting purposes;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY that County personnel,
under the Board of County Commissioners, whose employment re-
sponsibilities require them to have access to County -owned
vehicles at all times, and to use such vehicles to commute to and
from work each day, are prohibited from using such vehicles for
other than work-related and commuting purposes.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
f ollows :
Chairman Don
C. Scurlock, Jr.
Aye
Vice -Chairman Patrick B.
Lyons
Aye
Commissioner
Richard N.
Bird
Aye
Commissioner
Margaret C.
Bowman
Aye
Commissioner
William C.
Wodtke, Jr.
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared that Resolution No. 21
was duly passed and adopted the 16th day of April, 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By e
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
Chairman
Attest: J .'
FREDA WRIGHT
Clerk
73
W
0
REWARD FOR COUNTY QUILT
Commissioner Lyons stated that he would like to have permis-
sion for Administrator Wright to advertise a reward for informa-
tion leading to the return of the County Quilt. He advised that
he had received a note from Utilities Director Pinto offering to
donate $100 to the reward fund, and he asked what the Board felt
would be a reasonable reward.
Administrator Wright noted that we are dealing with a item
on which you cannot put a true value, and he felt it calls for a
significant reward, possibly $1,000.
Commissioner Bowman expressed the hope that the Sheri-ff
realizes this is a case of grand larceny. She personally
believed the quilt has gone to some private collector.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
the Administrator to offer a reward of up to $1,000
for information leading to the return of the County
Quilt.
TRIP TO TALLAHASSEE RE LIABILITY INSURANCE
Commissioner Wodtke informed the Board that there are
business people, representatives of Piper Aircraft, of the City
Council, of the Hospital, of the doctors, etc., traveling to
Tallahassee on next Monday, April 21st, to attenda discussion on
the liability issue. The plane leaves at 8:00 A.M. and will
return at 5:00 P.M. and there is a seat available at a cost of
$192.80 if the County wishes to send a representative . He noted
this is not merely a concern of the medical profession; it
concerns joint several liability also.
Commissioner Lyons agreed that we definitely have an
interest in this issue and felt we should have someone express
our concern.
74
APR 19856' BOOK 6 FSG 2?1
APR 1 1986 BOOK 6 Ft,c
Attorney Vitunac advised that Assistant County Attorney
Bruce Barkett has volunteered to go, unless the Board prefers to
send a Board member.
Some discussion ensued in regard to adopting a Resolution to''
be presented, and Attorney Barkett recommended caution in that
regard as he did not believe we have been properly briefed on the
legal issues involved. He suggested it would be preferable just
to send someone to monitor the situation and then come back with
a report on what is contemplated and make a recommendation.
Commissioner Wodtke felt we should have some expression of
our concern re the joint several liability issue.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized
Attorney Barkett to travel to Tallahassee, April 21,
1986, to represent the County, monitor the discussion
of the liability issue, and express our concern.
JOINT CITY -COUNTY MEETING
Administrator Wright advised the Board that he and City
Manager John Little feel a joint meeting of the City Council and
County Commission to talk over some broad scope issues, such as
utilities, annexation, etc., would be beneficial.
Discussion followed as to a possible date, and the Board
asked the Administrator to try to set up such a meeting for 7:00
P.M. Tuesday, May 13th.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
__ seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:40 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
_�/� ,mil _-• /'��� , �-��
Clerk
Chairman Z7
a