HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/4/1986Wednesday, June 4, 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,
June 4, 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
L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Acting County Administrator; Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph
Baird, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend Robert Dickinson gave the invocation, and Commis-
sioner Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Commissioner Bird advised that he wished to add an item in
regard to out -of -County travel for himself and Attorney Barkett
to attend a meeting of the Governor and Cabinet on June 17th in
regard to obtaining funds for the Howell/Chapman beachfront
acquisition.
Attorney Vitunac believed that date may have been changed to
July 1st.
It was agreed to add this to the Consent Agenda as Item K.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to have out -of -County travel
authorized so he could attend the Army Corps of Engineers meeting
in Jacksonville in regard to beach preservation. He also
requested the addition of an item in regard to appointing an
additional member to the Beach Preservation 8 Restoration
Committee.
Chairman Scurlock wished to add an information item de-
veloped by staff on a recent bid which we added as an emergency
item last week and approved and for which he now believed we have
insufficient funds for him to be able to sign the contract. This
BOOK 64 PAGE590
r41986
�u�
BOOK 64 FAUr 591
will be a report and a request for a workshop to analyze our
options. It was agreed to add this as Item 11 A, under the
Chairman's items.
Acting Administrator Thomas wished to have Item 5C under the"
Consent Agenda deleted as it has a mathematical error.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
added and deleted items on today's agenda as
described above.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Reports
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to
the Board.
Transportation Tentative 5 -year Transportation Plan
and Annual Program Budget - July 1, 1986 through
June 30, 1991.
B. Certificate of Need - Fellsmere Vol. Ambulance Squad
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved the issuance of a Certificate of
Need for the Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance
Service for 1986.
2
ijl. f f; WHEREAS,, the FELLSMERE VOLUNTEER Ambutanee Senviee pnovi.dea i;!rCD
qua ity emergency m benv iceb a zeas o INDIAN RIVER County; _
and
HER
WHEREAS, there has been demonstrated that there is a need Son this ambutanee service
to opeAa to .in .thio county to provide az enti at a ery icu to the cWzens o6 this
County, and,
WHEREAS, the above ambo ance .seAvice has indicated that it akU comply with att the
.%equ ,%ement6 o6 the Emergency Medicae Senvice.s Act os 3913, the Board o6 County
i Commizzi.onelus o6 INDIAN RIVER County hereby .ts.sues a Cerfii6ieate os pubtie
Convenience and Neeedzs y am ee company Son the yeah 1986
III, I M
In .csaudng this cert 6icate it is understood that the above named ambutanee 4enviee �
wig meet the requiJtements os State Leg.iztati.on and provide emergency zerviced on
., a twenty -Sour hour 6a6.c,s Son the So.Ctowing area (d)
n ,
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY I' .
gg
��1,
4i Y
Approved:
.
r
- --_ -- _ — — — — - — SII► sus
d. ^�', ••� �\ \ �,��� :riles .,. ■
1 , 11
4
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICESnib
fI
IJ
*� i
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
,�.
ijl. f f; WHEREAS,, the FELLSMERE VOLUNTEER Ambutanee Senviee pnovi.dea i;!rCD
qua ity emergency m benv iceb a zeas o INDIAN RIVER County; _
and
HER
WHEREAS, there has been demonstrated that there is a need Son this ambutanee service
to opeAa to .in .thio county to provide az enti at a ery icu to the cWzens o6 this
County, and,
WHEREAS, the above ambo ance .seAvice has indicated that it akU comply with att the
.%equ ,%ement6 o6 the Emergency Medicae Senvice.s Act os 3913, the Board o6 County
i Commizzi.onelus o6 INDIAN RIVER County hereby .ts.sues a Cerfii6ieate os pubtie
Convenience and Neeedzs y am ee company Son the yeah 1986
III, I M
In .csaudng this cert 6icate it is understood that the above named ambutanee 4enviee �
wig meet the requiJtements os State Leg.iztati.on and provide emergency zerviced on
., a twenty -Sour hour 6a6.c,s Son the So.Ctowing area (d)
n ,
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY I' .
gg
��1,
4i Y
Approved:
.
r
- --_ -- _ — — — — - — SII► sus
d. ^�', ••� �\ \ �,��� :riles .,. ■
1 , 11
JUN 4 1966
C. Release of Assessment Lien - (Erfurt)
BOOK 6 ;t FA0c 5.93
This was deleted from the agenda because of a mathematical
error.
D. Bid #293 -_Lubrication System_- Rebid
The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 21, 1986 FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC BID `x,`293 -Lubrication System -
County Administrator Rebid
FROM: REFERENCES:
Carolyn,Qoodrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received Tuesday, May 20, 1986 at 11:00 A.M. for
IRC #293 -Lubrication System for the Fleet Management Depart-
ment.
13 Bids were sent out. Of the 5 Bid Proposals received, 1
was a "No Bid".
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The low bid was submitted by L. H. Travis, Inc., Winter
Haven, F1., in the amount of $9451.41. The bid meets all
specifications.
3. Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that IRC #293 be awarded to the low bidder,
L. H. Travis, Inc., in the amount of $9451.41.
There is $10,000.00 -budgeted in Account #501-242-591-66.49.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #293
for Lubrication System for the Fleet Management Depart-
ment to the low bidder, L. H. Travis, Inc., in the
amount of $9,451.41 per the following bid tabulation:
4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
yQ
Serial #
Cost
3575
1840 25th Street
oJQ
$4274.00
7017
6-84
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
VZ;)
' C;
U.
BID TABULATION
c i
o°�o,
0
o'
Q1 �
m
BID NO.
DATE OF OPENING
IRC BID #293
May 20, 1986
q
BID TITLE
LUBRICATION SYSTEM -REBID
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT
PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT P
1. LUBRICATION SYSTEM -REBID
OTA F0, COMPLETE SYSTEM
9805,89
9451
41
NB
9718
00
10352
00
2. Days required for deliver
installation after receipt of
Purchase Order Days
7-10
7-10
21
33
E. Surplus Property - 2 Point of Sale Terminals
The Board reviewed memo of Purchasing Manager Goodrich:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 20, 1986 FILE:
r
THRU: Joseph A.—Baird SUBJECT: Surplus Property
Director. Management & Budget
FROM:(._' REFERENCES:
Carolyrr:Goodrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
I. Description and Conditions
The Clerks Office has 2 IBM Model 5265 Point of Sale
Terminals that are now obsolete.
Asset #
Date Purchased
Serial #
Cost
3575
8-80
11487
$4274.00
7017
6-84
23595
5199.00
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The terminals must be declared as surplus property, so they
can be advertised and sold to the best bidder.
3. Recommendation
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners declare
this equipment as surplus property, so they can be sold to the
best bidder.
5
JUN 4 1986 BOOK 64 F ct51
JUN 4 1986 BOCK 64 oGE595 -7
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously declared
the 2 IBM Model 5265 Point of Sale Terminals
surplus property as requested by the Clerk.
F. DER/Army Corps/DNR_Permits Appl. - (Clemons)
The Board reviewed recommendation of Environmental Planner
Challacombe:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 23, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R., ARMY CORPS AND
D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICA-
�SUBJECT: TIONS
R ert M. Kea i g AIC
Planning & Development Director
FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES:'
Clemons
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of June 4, 1986.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION
File No. 31-120223-4
APPLICATION DESCRIPTION:
Applicant: Mr. Byron Samuel Clemons
726 Tides Road
Vero Beach, FL 32963
Water & Location: The project is located in
at 726 Tides Road, Silver Shores Subdivision Unit 2, Section
30, Township 32 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct a private
single 6' x 35' dock (210 square feet) and a 35' wooden bulk-
head. No dredging or filling below mean high water will be
performed.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
The Conservation & Coastal Zoning Management Element of
the Indian River Comprehensive Plan
Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Reqion
6
The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
The proposed project is located in the City of Vero Beach on an
artificially created waterway; thus is not within the Indian
River Aquatic Preserve and is not subject to 16Q-20, Florida
Administrative Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to forward the following continent regarding this
project to thu Florida Department of Environmental Regulation:
1) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should consider the potential cumula-
tive impacts of dockage projects upon the Florida Manatee.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to forward comment re the above project to
the DER as recommended.
G. County Jail - Clarification Change Order #1 - Retainage
The Board reviewed memo of General Services Director Dean:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 28, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
Thru: Michael Wright SUBJECT:
County Administrator Clarification Change Order
Number One - Retainage
H. T. "Son$y" Dean
FROM: DirectorREFERENCES:
General Servi es
The contractor has requested subject order and our architect has
recommended it.
The reason being that materials purchased by the County are subject
to the 10% retainage as stipulated in the contract. We are holding
100 of the contract price plus the 100 on materials which is "double
dipping" as interpreted by both our Architect and the Contractor.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
Clarification Change Order #1 in regard to Retainage
(County Jail).
7
JUN 41986 BOOK 6 4 F,:,L 596
JUN 4 1986
FRIZZELL ARCHITECTS
CHANGE ORDER
OWNER
❑
ARCHITECT
❑
.CONTRACTOR
❑
FIELD
❑
OTHER
sou 64 Fm -H597
CLARIFICATION
PROJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL - CHANGE ORDER NO: One (1)
(name, address) PHASE I
OWNER: INDIAN RIVER BOARD OF COUNTY
COMIMISSIONERS
TO: (Contractor)
r
RSH CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
P. 0. Box 52149
Jacksonville, Fl. 32201
L
DATE: May 14, 1986
ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 1766
CONTRACT FOR: General Construction
J CONTRACT DATED: March 27, 1985
YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE SUBJECT JOB:
SALES TAX RETAINAGE:
Retainage on amounts paid directly to vendors by'
Indian River County for sales tax savings purposes
shall not be deducted from payments to the General
Contractor. This applies to both previous and sub-
sequent applications for payment by RSH Constructors,
Inc.
The Contract Time will be (IArc1II3$8$��i�[g$
The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore Is
TOTAL
( ) Days.
Ann Acte
Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect.
Signature of the Contractor Indicates his agreement herewith, Including any adjustment In the Contract Sum or Contract Time.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT ................................... s 3,768,1481.00
FORMER CHANGE ORDERS .............................. 5,864.00 $ 3, 774, 845.00
Approved as to form
and legal sliff iciency
By *L�—
Charles
P. Vitunac
County Attorney.
W. R. FRIZZELL ARCHIT i INC.
BY c
r1i
...................................................... .... s No Change
REVISED CONTRACT PRICE ... $ 3.774.845,00
APPROVED:
RSH CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
CONT C R, 2=
BY
DATE ✓)
PAGE OF 1 PAGES
8
ACCEPTED:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WM W�w " t1if A�
v'
H. Property_ Appraiser - Reimburse Insurance Proceeds etc.
The Board reviewed memo of OMB Director Baird:
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: May 28, 1986 FILE:
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Reimburse Property Appraiser
Insurance Proceeds and Declare
Automobile Surplus Property
FROM: jos& Baird REFERENCES:
OMB Director
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners received a check in the
amount of $2,214 from Adjustco Insurance Company to repair a 1981 Bronco in-
volved in an accident. The automobile is one of the Property Appraiser's ve-
hicles and he would like the County to issue a check to him for the amount of
the proceeds received.
The damaged vehicle was to be replaced this fiscal year, therefore, the
Property Appraiser would also like the Honorable Board of County Commissioners
to declare the automobile surplus property.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
authorized issuance of insurance proceeds check
to the Property Appraiser in the amount of
$2,214 and declared the damaged 1981 Bronco
surplus property.
9
BOOK 64 NVUE 598
JUN 4 1966 BOOK 64 u, . 599
I. Professional Engineering Services - Misc. Intersection
Improvements— and —SchooT-7one1�eacons--`---- —�
The Board reviewed memo of Public Works Director Davis:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: May 28, 1986 FILE:
Hoard of Countv Com.ni.ssioners
•• r
MichaelV.-right, SUBJECT:
County Achinistrator
FROM:
'James W. Davis, P.E.`
Public Works Directo,
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Professional Engineering
Services -.Miscellaneous
Intersection Improvements and
School Zone Speed Reduction
Beacons
The Consultant Selection Committee interviewed four engineering firms on
May 27, 1986, for the following project design:
Intersection Improvements (Signalization & Widening)
8th Street and 27th Avenue
4th Street and 27th Avenue
Old Dixie Highway at 4th Street
Oslo Road at US 1
School Zone Speed Reduction Beacons
Fellsmere Elementary
Osceola Elementary
Vero Beach Elem✓ntary
Thompson Elementary
14,
The Selection Committee recommends that staff be authorized to begin
contract negotiations with the following firms in the prescribed order as
listed below:
1) Lloyd and Assoc., Inc.
2) Kimley-Horn Assoc. Inc./Beindorf & Assoc.
3) Williams, Hatfield, and Stoner/Carter Engineering
Once a contract is prepared, the Board of County Commissioners will be
requested to approve the contract and funding.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
authorized staff to begin contract negotiations
with the firms in the order listed above.
10
ow
J. Grant Application -Library Services_ Technology
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved Application to the Division of
Library Services for an automation planning
grant and authorized the signature of the
Chairman.
(Said Grant will be put on file in the Office of the Clerk
when fully executed and received)
K. Out -of -County Travel_- Tallahassee
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved out -of -County travel for Commissioner
Bird and Assistant County Attorney Barkett to
attend the meeting of the Governor and Cabinet
re the Save Our Coast Program in Tallahassee
on July Ist, 1986, in regard to acquisition
of the Howell/Chapman beachfront property.
L. Out -of -County Travel - Jacksonville
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved out -of -County travel for Commissioner
Wodtke and Public Works Director Davis to
attend a meeting of the Army Corps of Engineers
re Beach Preservation in Jacksonville on Monday,
June 9, 1986.
11 BOOK 64 Pp,c 60®
� JUN 41986 J
BOOK 64
ADDITIONAL_ MEMBER_ FOR BEACH_ PRESERVATION & RESTORATION COMMITTEE
Commissioner Wodtke informed the Board that we had two
people from Harbor Branch Foundation on this committee, Dr. Smith
and Dr. Hoskins, but due to the reorganization, they are no
longer employed there. Dr. Jay Langfelder, who now is with
Harbor Branch Foundation, was very instrumental and practically
totally in charge of the North Carolina beach area study, and he
has expressed interest in sitting on the committee as an
individual. Commissioner Wodtke noted that we have not as yet
received his resume, but a committee meeting is scheduled for
next Tuesday; he could let Dr. Langfelder attend the meeting and
then bring his resume to the Board later and he can be appointed
then, or it could be done today if the Board desires.
Chairman Scurlock had no problem with making the appointment
today.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
appointed Dr. Jay Langfelder to the Beach
Preservation & Restoration Committee.
REZONING - ACREAGE S. OF S.RELIEF CANAL TO A-1 (WGYL TOWER)
The hour of 9:10 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
12
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 oajh
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
r
a
in the matter of`2U
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of __ -;1%W,
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, fora 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 beforeAle thisday of � A.D. 19
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian W County, Florida)
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
untyotondoRiverCoto consider adoption f aCu
dinance rezoning land from: RS -8, Single -Family
,
Residential District to A-1Agricultural DhMcf,
County and is l
The property is presently owned by Indian River
ocated south
south of South Relief Canal, of tat Place and, of Lateral ' J"
Genal and west of Old Dixie Highway,
The subject pr
Op" Is described as:
From a point of east rlinMing at the section of the �.rroTlg --Doff-way line of a
foot wide right -toot Wide o -w line of a 260 -
'let Canal of the Indian the
err Fames
Water Management District, said P.O.B.
being in the SE +/, of the SW +b of Sec -
33 tion 13, Township 33 South, Range 38
east, Indian River County Florida;
Run northeasterly on said south right -of -
ay fine of the South Relief Canal a dis-
tone of 600 feet to a point; thence run
southeasterly on a line parallel to the
east l agdistan a of n800�eet Lateral
point;
'theta run southwestariY'on a line paral-
lel to the south rtghtof-way One of the
South Relief canal a distance of 600 fast
to the Intersection of the east
no�rthwestterly m�s id Cam: thence run
line of Lateral "J" Canal dinfce off
600 fast to said P.O.B.
Containing 8.26 acres more or less.
1:A publicest hearing at which parties In
IntePortunity to be th a d, shall
iill �b h lhava by ff.
in-
thaniver County Florida, inCommissiothe County
Commission Chambers of the, Countr1tyy
Administration Building, located at 1840
Wednay J ne 4,11 erO et Florida1a.on
decisione who may wish to appy e
on which may be mad% at this
meeting will need to ensure that a verba -
Om record of the proceedings Is made,
which includes the teatimorry and evt-
dence upon which the appeal Is basad.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioner,
Scurlock, Jr.,
May 14, 27,1888
Staff Planner Melsom made the following presentation:
TO: The Honorable MembersDATE: April 14, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST
TO REZONE 8.26 ACRES
u � SUBJECT: FROM RS -6, SINGLE-FAMILY
Robert M. heating,/ AIC RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO
Planning & Developmeritt_irector A-1, AGRICULTURAL DIST-
RICT.
THROUGH: Richard Shearer, AICP
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FRON&obert G. Melsom REFERENCES:
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 June 4, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The County has initiated a request to rezone 8,26 acres located
south of the South Relief Canal, east of the Lateral J Canal, and
JUN 4 1986 13 g00K 64 FACE 602
BOOK 64 PAGE603
west of the Indian River County Solid Waste Transfer Station from
RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to
A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit per 5 acres). This
request was initiated to allow WGYL Radio, the lessee, to expand
an existing radio transmission tower on the site.
On December 4, 1978, WGYL received special exception -site plan
approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission to construct a 312
foot radio transmission tower on the site. However, the radio
transmission tower was not constructed at that time.
On July 22, 1982, WGYL received special exception approval from
the Planning & Zoning Commission to construct a 294 foot radio
transmission tower. On October 22, 1982, the applicant completed
construction of the tower.'
On April 11, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
ordinance 85-37 (the Residential Zoning Conversion Ordinance)
which rezoned this parcel from R-1, Single -Family District (up to
6 units/acre), to RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to
6 units/acre). The R-1 district allowed transmission towers as a
special exception use. The RS -6 district does not allow trans-
mission towers. This rezoning rendered the radio tower a noncon-
forming use.
On March 12, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners instructed
staff to initiate a rezoning request for this property to allow
for the expansion of WGYL's transmission tower.
On April 24, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the 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 represents an 8.26 acre parcel of land owned
by Indian Fiver County and leased to WGYL for a radio tower
transmission site. North of the subject property, across the
Lateral 0 Canal, is Indian, River Heights subdivision zoned RS -6.
South and west of the subject property is undeveloped land zoned
RS -6. East of the subject property is the Indian River County
Solid Waste Transfer Station, zoned RS -6.
Future Land Use Pattern
In 1976, the County discontinued use
landfill and leased it to WGYL for
Due to the fact that this property
economically unfeasible to develop
due to construction costs. The
designated as a future site for a
radio transmission towers arc a us
park.
of the subject property as a
a radio transmission tower.
was a landfill, it would be
this property residentially
subject property has been
County maintained park, and
that is compatible with a
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and all of
the land around it as LD -2, Low -Density Residential-2.(vp to six
units/acre). The proposed agricultural zoning is in conformance
with this land use designation and is consistent with the uses
that surround the property.
14
Transportation System
Access to the site is through an easement along the South Relief
Canal connecting the subject property with Old Dixie Highway
(classified as a secondary collector on the Thoroughfare Plan).
The proposed rezoning will not decrease the existing level of
service "C" for this section of Old Dixie Highway.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive. However, approximately one acre located along the
lateral J canal is designated as being located within flood zone
A which is an area most susceptible to a 100 year flood. The
remainder of the property is not designated as flood -prone.
Utilities
Neither County sewer nor water is available to the subject
property at the present time.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis including both the Planning and
Zoning Commission's recommendation and the fact that the
residential zoning conversion ordinance changed the radio tower
from a conforming use to a nonconforming use and that this
proposed rezoning would bring the tower back into conformance
with the zoning ordinance, staff recommends approval.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
Acting Administrator Thomas noted that this property is
adjacent to the old dump, and he has been advised that the intent
still is to use this for recreation purposes in the future. He
believed we have been in the process of rezoning the balance of
our parks to Agricultural, and he would like the Board to
consider doing the same with the balance of this park property.
Chairman Scurlock inquired if Mr. Thomas wished the Board to
proceed with the subject rezoning today and then initiate a
request to rezone the balance, and he agreed.
The Chairman then informed the Board that in the license
agreement with WGYL, there is a 300' height limitation, and the
whole purpose of building the new tower is to go higher. He
believed the 300' figure was used simply because that was the
height of the tower at that time.
Chris Hubbard, manager of WGYL,. confirmed that was the
height of the tower at that time, and it may present a problem
because the lease mentions a 300' tower and associated
15 BOOK 64 FADE 6.0
rJUN 4 198
structures.
BOOK 64 FACE Q -
He believed a taller tower could qualify as an
associated structure, but he would prefer to have this clarified.
Chairman Scurlock stated that he would like to direct staff
to go ahead and work on modifying the tower lease as a separate
item and bring it back. The Board had no objections.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 86-37 rezoning 8.26 acres
to A-1 as requested by WGYL.
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 37
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:
From a point of beginning at the intersection of the east
right-of-way line of a 160 -foot wide right-of-way line of a
250 -foot wide right-of-way for the South Relief Canal of the
16
Indian River Farms Water Management District, said P.O.B.
being in the SE $ of the SW j of Section 13, Township 33
South, Range 39 east, Indian River County, Florida;
Run northeasterly on said south right-of-way line of the
South Relief Canal a distance of 600 feet to a point; thence
run southeasterly on a line parallel to the east
right-of-way line of Lateral "J" Canal a distance of 600
feet to a point; thence run southwesterly on a line parallel
to the south right-of-way line of the South Relief canal a
distance of 600 feet to the intersection of the east
right-of-way line of Lateral "J" Canal; thence run
northwesterly on said east right-of-way line of Lateral
"J" Canal a distance of 600 feet to said P.O.B.
Containing 8.26 acres more or less.
Be changed from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District, to
A-1, Agricultural 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 4th day
of June , 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., hairman
REQUEST MAJOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL & SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL -
SEXTON
The hour of 9:10 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
17
JUN 4 1986 BOOK 64 FAG, 606
JUN 4 1996 BOOK 64 FA J F. 607
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
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subsc
(SEAL)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of Public Hearing to consider the
granting of special exception approval for an
agricultural business in the A-1, Agricultural
Is presently
owned by Sexton Grove Serrvice aect pro�nc and o--
cated at the southwest comer of 43rd Avenue
and 17th Street, S.W.
j The subject property is described as.
NORTH i9.5 ACRES OF TRACT 1, SEC-
ti TION 33, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, -
RANGE 39` EAST, IN INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ACCORDING TO "
THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS
OF THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPA-
NY, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2,
PAGE 25, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS
OF ST. LUCIE 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
Commission Chambers of the County Adminis-
tration Building, located at 1840 25th Street,
Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday, June 4,
1986, at 9:10 a.m.
Anyone who may wish to appeal arty 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 will be based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY:-s.Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
May 16, 28,1986
Staff Planner David Nearing made the following presentation
recommending approval:
18
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: May 19, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert Ni, keatiing,, CP SUBJECT:
Planning & Development Director
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller
Chief, Current Development
RANDY SEXTON'S REQUEST FOR
APPROVAL OF A MAJOR SITE
PLAN APPROVAL AND GRANTING
OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION
APPROVAL
FROM: David C. Nearing REFERENCES: Sexton
Staff Planner eellf DAVE
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of June 4, 1986.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION
Acting on behalf of Randy Sexton, Carter Associates has submitted
a major site plan application to develop a grove maintenance
facility (agricultural business) which requires special exception
approval in the A-1, Agricultural Zoning District. The proposed
development will consist of a 6,250 sq. ft. building which will be
used for office facilities and to store equipment and chemicals
used in grove maintenance. The proposed site is located on the
southwest corner of the intersection of 17th Street S.W. and 43rd
Avenue.
Pursuant to Section 25.3 of the Zoning Code, Regulation of Special
Exception Uses, the Board of County Commissioners is to consider
the appropriateness of the requested use based on the submitted
site plan and the suitability of the site for that use. The
commission then concurrently makes a recommendation to the Board
of County Commissioners regarding the special exception use and
acts on the submitted site plan. The County may attach any
conditions and safeguards necessary to ensure compatibility of the
use with the surrounding area.
On May 22, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to
approve the site plan and to recommend that the Board approve the
request for special exception use approval.
ANALYSIS
1. Size of Property: 14.6 acres
2. Area of Development: 2.08 acres
3. Zoning Classification: A-1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit/5
acres)
4. Land Use Designation: LD -1, Low Density Residential (allows
up to 3 units/acre)
5. Building Coverage: 6,250 sq. ft. or .07o of area of
development
5, Off -Street Parking Spaces Required: 14
Provided: 14
6. Access/Circulation: The site is accessed off 17th Street
S.W. by a 22 foot wide marl drive. The traffic circulation
plan ha-• been approved by the Traffic Engineer.
7. Drainay,_ Plan: The.: proposed stormwater management plan has
been approved by the Public Works Department, and a Type "A"
stormwater permit has been issued.
19
BOOK D E 61
JUN 4 1966 BOOK 64 F,� 609
8. Landscape Plan: The proposed landscape plan is in confor-
mance with the requirements of Ordinance #84-47.
9. Utilities: The Director of the Environmental Health Depart-
ment has approved the proposed on-site well and septic
system.
10. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Groves
hast: Groves
South: Groves
West: Groves
11. Requirements for Agricultural Business (Sec. 25.1):
1. Agricultural businesses may be allowed to locate the A-1.
'district only upon a finding by the reviewing body that
such businesses are directly related to or, provide
services for active agricultural operations and that
such uses would not be more appropriately located in a
commercial or industrial zoning district.
2. Agricultural businesses shall include, but not be
limited to: Agricultural business offices; fish hatc-
heries; and sales of agricultural equipment, products
and supplies.
3. Agricultural businesses shall not be interpreted to
permit wholesaling or processing operations.
Section 25.1 of the Zoning Code, Regulations for Specific Land
Uses, details specific criteria to be considered when reviewing an
agricultural business for approval as a special exception use.
All of the criteria have been met. Although the special exception
process allows the Board of County Commissioners to impose any
additional conditions to ensure compatibility of the proposed use
with surrounding property, the staff does not recommend the
imposition of any special conditions in this case.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board
of County Commissioners grant special exception approval to locate
an agricultural business in an A-1 zoning district.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously granted Site Plan
Approval and Special Exception Approval for property
located at the SW corner of the intersection of 17 St.
SW and 43rd Ave. as requested by Randy Sexton and as
recommended by staff in their memo of May 19, 1986.
20
DISCUSSION RE BANNING TRAIN WHISTLES AT CERTAIN HOURS
Chairman Scurlock commented that he voted against any
banning of train whistles when this was brought up a year or so
ago because he had a question re enforcement. He further noted
that he wrote to the FEC requesting voluntary cooperation and was
not only ignored but told very clearly that the FEC had no intent
of limiting the whistles. He stated that at this time he defin-
itely would support an ordinance banning the train whistles at
the hours presented in the proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Lyons inquired in the event the municipalities
do not wish to participate in the proposed ordinance whether they
have to adopt an ordinance opposing it.
County Attorney Vitunac confirmed they do, but noted we
could make the ordinance apply to the unincorporated area only;
Commissioner Lyons preferred to make the ordinance apply to the
entire county.
Commissioner Bowman inquired about our liability if we pass
this, and Attorney Vitunac advised that this is a legislative
function of the Board of County Commissioners. The Board would
be making a determination that people will be protected
sufficiently by following the dictates of the statute which
require certain size signage, etc., to protect people at railroad
crossings at night, and the Board would be making a finding that
the increased danger, if any, is worth the added convenience to
people because of statistics which show that these train whistles
may not save anybody anyway. He pointed out that the ordinance
would allow trains to sound their whistles if there is an
emergency situation. All the ordinance is eliminating is the
mandatory noise when no one is anywhere near the crossing, and he
did not think the Board would be liable for anything.
Commissioner Bowman inquired if this would hold up in court,
and Attorney Vitunac expressed his opinion that it would.
Commissioner Wodtke reported that Fort Pierce has adopted
this practice, even though their attorney advised against it, and
21
JUN 4 1986 BooK 64 r:AcE 610
JUS! 41996 �J�j/�
Boa 64 FrS:GC 611
he has now received a copy of an ordinance from the City of
Melbourne similar to those of Fort Lauderdale, Oakland Park, and
New Smyrna Beach, all of which ban the train whistles during
certain night hours. He continued that after the research he has
done, he has gotten to the point where he feels more comfortable
about being able to say that for the convenience of our people,
the additional liability is a general liability that we can
adopt. He wished to know if the County Attorney was saying that
if we adopt the proposed ordinance it would be countywide and we
would be liable in the municipalities.
Attorney Vitunac clarified that the Board has the choice,
and if they have a concern about the liability, can make the
ordinance applicable just to the unincorporated area. He did not
believe there is a real liability question, however, as he felt
it is something where we are immune.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that there are no railroad
crossings in the county without gates.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, to instruct the County Attorney
to prepare a countywide ordinance prohibiting the
sounding of train whistles between the hours of
10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. and advertise a public
hearing.
Commissioner Wodtke requested that the municipalities be
notified and invited to participate in the public hearing, and
Commissioner Lyons agreed to include this as a part of the above
Motion.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION with the above
addition. It was voted on and carried unanimously.
22
RESOLUTION RE ISSUANCE OF LIBRARY_ BONDS_ AND REFERENDUM
Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that per instruction to
proceed with setting up the bond issue recommended in the Library
Report, he has prepared a Resolution authorizing issuance of
bonds not -to -exceed 8.2 million and the holding of a referendum
on September 2nd of this year. There is plenty of time to
schedule this referendum and advertise so the voters know what
the issues are.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, to adopt Resolution 86-34
authorizing the issuance of up to 8.2 million
General Obligation Bonds to expand the public
library system and also providing for a bond
referendum re same to be held September 2nd.
Commissioner Bird wished to be sure plans are under way to
educate the voters, and Commissioner Lyons assured him that the
two Friends of the Library Associations have gotten together on
this, and there will be an extensive public education program, On
top of that the Indian River Chamber of Commerce has indicated
its support and will make that known through its publication.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if there was any consideration of
the November ballot instead of September to allow more time, and
Commissioner Lyons stated they did talk about that, but it was
felt it is better to get it off and going right now.
Chairman Scurlock wished to point out that while the 8.2
million is for a five year capital improvement program, the funds
have to be expended within three years because of the tax law;
so, there is a real possibility of not issuing all the 8.2
million at the same time and carrying out the program in two
steps.
Commissioner Lyons emphasized the need to get this settled
23
JUN 41986 BOOK 6 4 FAGE612
so we have some real facts to give the public.
BOOK 64
He noted that he
still would like to try to find a way to have this bond issue,
for whatever the amount turns out to be, come on the heels of the
Beach Bond issue at about the same millage. He stressed that the
8.2 million is the outside figure.
Chairman Scurlock felt confident we can structure it so that
the final payment of the beach bonds will be made and this debt
service will come on line, but felt it probably will have to
extend over more than a five year period.
Commissioner Lyons stated that we are trying to catch up and
build for the future so he had no problem with some of the people
in the future paying for this.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the only reason we are going
ahead with the Resolution now is to get the bond issue set up so
we can proceed if the public approves it, and Commissioner Lyons
confirmed this was one reason and also because the Library group
needs to know what we have in mind.
Chairman Scurlock further pointed out that the tax laws are
about to change and the bond advisors are telling us that
although they don't know what will happen in September, they
cannot see that it will be as good as what exists.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and approved unanimously.
24
RESOLUTION NO. 86- We-)
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
THROUGH ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, IN AN
AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$8,200,000 TO FINANCE THE COST OF
IMPROVEMENTS TO AND EXPANSION OF THE PUBLIC
LIBRARY SYSTEM AND SERVICES IN THE COUNTY;
CALLING AND PROVIDING FOR A BOND REFERENDUM
OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS RESIDING IN THE
COUNTY TO BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 ON THE
QUESTION OF THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN
MATTERS WITH RESPECT THERETO AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
SECTION 1.
AUTHORITY OF THIS RESOLUTION.
This resolution is adopted pursuant to Section 125.01,
Florida Statutes, Chapter 100, Florida Statutes, and other
applicable provisions of law.
SECTION 2.
AUTHORIZATION OF BONDS.
Subject and pursuant to the provisions hereof, general
obligation bonds of the County of Indian River, Florida (herein
called "County"), are authorized to be issued in one or more
series in an aggregate principal amount not exceed EIGHT MILLION
TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($8,200,000) to finance the cost of
improvements to and expansion of the public library system and
services in the County; together with other purposes necessary,
appurtenant or incidental hereto, including all costs of the
issuance of the bonds. Such general obligation bonds shall be
payable from ad valorem taxes levied without limitation as to
rate or amount on all taxable property in the County. None of
such bonds shall be issued for a longer term than thirty years
from their date of issuance and such bonds shall bear interest at
the rate or rates, not exceeding the maximum rate permitted by -
applicable law at the time of the sale of the bonds, to be
determined upon sale of the bonds.
JUN 4 1966 24 (a) Boos 64 FnIJE614
I
rJUN- 4 198
BOOK 64 FA,F 615
SECTION 3.
BOND REFERENDUM
A bond referendum of the qualified electors residing in
the County is hereby called to be held on September 2, 1986, to
determine whether or not the issuance of general obligation
bonds, in one or more series, in an aggregate principal amount
not to exceed EIGHT MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
($8,200,000) shall be approved by such qualified electors to
finance the cost of improvements to and expansion of the library
system and services in the County together with other purposes
necessary, appurtenant or incidental thereto, including all costs
of the issuance of the bonds.
All qualified electors residing in the County shall be
entitled and permitted to vote in such bond referendum. The
places of voting and the Inspectors and Clerks for the bond
referendum shall be the same as those places designated and those
persons appointed for the primary election to be held in the
County on the same date. The polls will be open at the voting
places from 7:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M. on said day.
RRrTTnW 4 -
OFFICIAL
_
OFFICIAL BALLOT.
Voting machines shall be used at such bond referendum
and the ballot to be used shall be in substantially the following
form:
OFFICIAL BALLOT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOND REFERENDUM - September 2, 1986
Shall Indian River County, Florida, issue
general obligation bonds, in one or more
series, in an aggregate principal amount not
to exceed $8,200,000, bearing interest at the
rate or rates, not exceeding the maximum rate
permitted by applicable law at the time of
the sale of the bonds, to be determined upon
sale of the bonds, maturing not later than 30
years from the date of issuance thereof,
payable from ad valorem taxes levied on all
taxable property in the County without limit
as to rate or amount, for the purpose of
financing the cost of improvements to and
expansion of the public library system and
services in the County as more specifically
described and provided in the Resolution of
the Board of County Commissioners adopted
June 4th , 1986.
1
M M M
The ballots and voting machines shall be so arranged
that the qualified electors may vote "FOR BONDS" or "AGAINST
BONDS".
SECTION 5.
ABSENTEE VOTING.
Paper ballots shall be used at such bond referendum for
absentee voting. The form of ballot to be used in the bond
referendum for absentee voting shall be in substantially the form
provided in Section 4 above.
SECTION 6.
PRINTING OF BALLOTS.
The Supervisor of Elections of the County is authorized
and directed to have printed on plain white paper a sufficient
number of the aforesaid ballots for use of absentee qualified
electors entitled to cast such ballots in such bond referendum,
and shall also have printed sample ballots and deliver them to
the Inspectors and Clerks on or before the date and time for the
opening of the polls for such bond referendum; and further is
authorized and directed to have printed on plain white paper and
delivered in accordance with law the official ballots for use in
the voting machines and to make all appropriate arrangements for
the conducting of such bond referendum.
gRrTTnM 7 -
REFERENDUM
_
REFERENDUM PROCEDURE.
The bond referendum shall be held and conducted in the
manner prescribed by general law for holding bond referenda. The
Inspectors and Clerks at each polling place shall canvass the
vote and make due returns of same without delay to the Board of
County Commissioners. Such returns shall show the number of
qualified electors who voted in such bond referendum and the
number of votes cast respectively for and against the issuance of
such bonds. The returns of the Inspectors and Clerks shall as
soon as practicable be canvassed by the Board of County
Commissioners, which shall declare and certify the results of
such bond referendum. The certificate of declaration of results
JUN 4 1986 �4 (c) Bou 64 rF�, 61 6
JUN
4 1���
Bou 64
p,:,, 617
shall be recorded
in the minutes of the Board of County
Commissioners.
SECTION 8.
ELECTION RESULTS.
If a majority of the votes cast at such bond referendum
shall be for the issuance of such bonds, the issuance of such
bonds shall be approved and then such bonds may be issued as
hereafter provided by the County.
SECTION 9.
NOTICE OF BOND REFERENDUM.
This resolution shall be published in full by the Clerk
of the Board of County- Commissioners as part of the notice of
such bond referendum, together with an appropriate caption in
such form as she shall determine, in a newspaper published and of
general circulation in the County, at least twice, once in the
fifth week and once in the third week prior to the week in which
the bond referendum is to be held, the first publication to be
not less than thirty days prior to the date of such bond
referendum.
SECTION 10.
SEVERABILITY.
In the event that any word, phrase, clause, sentence or
paragraph hereof shall be held invalid by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect any other word,
clause, phrase, sentence or paragraph hereof.
SECTION 11.
REPEALING CLAUSE.
All resolutions in conflict or inconsistent herewith
hereby are repealed, insofar as there is conflict or
inconsistency.
Lyons
SECTION 12.
EFFECTIVE DATE.
This resolution shall take effect immediately.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
24 (d)
M M M
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 N.
Bird
Aye
Commissioner
William C.
Wodtke, Jr.
Aye
Commissioner
Margaret C.
Bowman
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared Resolution No. 86-34 duly
passed and adopted this 4th day of
Attest: W
Freda Wright
Clerk
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
June , 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: C --
Don
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
Charles P. Vitunac - County Attorney
DISCUSSION OF WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS PROBLEM OF INSUFFICIENT FUNDS
FOR SOME CAPITAL PROGRAMS
Chairman Scurlock explained that he added this item to
today's agenda because approximately sixty days ago he requested
Administrator Wright to set up a County workshop as he had a
feeling that not all the information on our capital improvement
programs was available. We did have that meeting, and out of
that meeting we indicated that, in fact, we would hpve a
different reporting procedure so that the Commission is fully
24 (e)
BOOK 64Pr�UC
'JUN
4 986
BOOK 64 Fe,-r
61
aware of any changes
in capital items, travel, and some other
items. The Chairman stated that at that time he had a
significant concern and was almost into a position of asking the
Budget Office to be removed and placed directly under the Board
of County Commissioners, but based on the fact that a new
reporting procedure would be established, he said he would hold
off on that. What has occurred now is that at our last meeting
an emergency item was added for the Board to consider the award
of a 1.9 million bid for a company to construct the second phase
minimum security facility, and he had some concern then, as he
does even more now, that there were insufficient funds for him to
sign that contract. He has not signed the contract and wi.11 not
until he has further direction from this Board. He, therefore,
would like the Board members to listen to a presentation that
will clearly indicate that although much information was
available on our capital projects, in many cases this information
was not presented to the Board, neither in that workshop nor
subsequent to it although he has documentation from staff where
this information was requested and never delivered.
The Chairman continued that in reference to the Jail, we
have a significant overrun which the staff will be presenting.
When we originally passed a 9.5 million bond issue, there were a
number of projects that it was to cover and budgets were
established for each of them, including the Sheriff's complex.
Chairman Scurlock advised that he checked with General Services
Director Dean as early as this morning to confirm that he still
concurred that he had never received a memo from Architect
Charles Block indicating a 2.7 million cost for the Sheriff's
Administration Building rather than the 1.5 million set out in
the bond prospectus. The net, in the Chairman's opinion, is that
at the very minimum there is a 2.7 million shortfall and most
probably a 3.5 to 4 million shortfall.
The Chairman then presented the letter from Architect
C.E.Block re the Sheriff's Administration Building cost dated
25
M
January 10, 1986, letter from Clerk Freda Wright indicating
consistent problems with the Administrator, a letter from the
Sheriff indicating the same thing, and memos from staff which
confirm that information was not made available:
r. RANSM11TAL
ifiER
AIA DOCUMENT G810
PROJECT: --�C ���► �{,�, ^`�/, �{� ARCHITECT'S �J2b
(name, address) yr 1 +� \,�`,U�/�•t�j�� PROJECT NO. �--
DATE: (Df= 1
r -I
TO: , �`�✓/� If enclosures are not as noted, please
inform us immediately.
If checked below, please:
ATTN: ( ) Acknowledge receipt orenclosures.
L J ( ) Return enclosures to us.
WE TRANSMIT:
herewith ( ) under separate cover via
( ) In accordance with your request
FOR YOUR:
( ) approval { ) distribution to parties 4—) information
review & comment ( ) record
( ) use ( )
THE FOLLOWING:
( ) Drawings { ) Shop Drawing Prints ( ) Samples
( ) Specifications ( ) Shop Drawing Reproducibles ( ) Product Literature
( ) Change Order
COPIES
DATE
REV. NO.
DESCRIPTION
ACTION
CODE
nt_Innv r. ncuon Inuicatea on Item transmttteo
CUUE 8. No action required
C. For signature and return to this office
KLMARKS
<.UPIES TO:
(with enclosures)
❑
❑
D. For signature and forwarding as noted below under REMARKS
E. See REMARKS below
BY: —Z i
C. E. BLOCK ARCHITECT, INC.
1995 39th Avenue
P.O. Box 1206
Vero Beach, Florida 32961-1206
AIA DWUMENT (.810 • IRANWITTAL ItITLR • AI'RI! 19,0101110N • AIA's. • COPYRIGHT W 1970
:III N%'ISM -NN It11I (tE ARCHIrECTS. 1705 MASNA( Ilt-1'tr1%A%'I\UE, N.W., WA,H1.NGI0V. D.C. 211016
26
ONE PAGE
JUN 4 1986 BOOK 4 FAGE?0
� JUN 41986
BOOK 4Fr1uC 6)1
ae,olock architect, inc
27
.Q
`O
Cn
,p
January 10, 1986
:T
Mr. F1i chael Wright
County Administration Building
<
1840 25th Street
Q
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
C
CD•
Sheriff's Administration Building Cost
1. 33,000 Square feet Administration Building
$1,502,490.00
2. Site work with extra parking required
297,990.00
3. 20,000 square feet confiscated property
OO
structure
300,000.00
4. Maintenance shop building
65,625.00
►v
O
5. All equipment and relocation
300,000.00 est.
0'
6. Shop/maintenance equipment
20,000.00 est.
•
C
7. Loop Road (Jail and Sheriff's Bldg.)
30,000.00
-%
O
8. Landscaping
15,000.00
C7
9. Emergency g y generator and transfer switch
36,500.00
Q Q
n
10. Gas pumps and tank
32,000.00
11. Miscellaneous equipment (flag pole)
5,000.00--
0
*Total
$2,604,605.00
Q
* Not included is any furnishings, telephone system, and
impact fees.
W
fV
CEB:rdm
0-
O
CDO-
•
W
O
CJS
CJI
01
�O
W
-O
.n
27
16
May 30, 1986
Honorable Don C. Scurlock
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
Vero Beach, Florida
Dear Doug:
I want to thank you for your help in getting me
the space I need for my Finance Department.
I regret having to come to you, but I had gotten
a continuous runaround from the administration for over 18
months on my request, and our need had become critical.
I also appreciated your input and help during our
meeting on definitions of responsibilities.
Again, thanks for your help and if I can be of
help in the future, give me -a call.
FW: jmr
28
Sincerely,
Freda Wright
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Commissioners 1// _
Administrator
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
Community Dev.
Utilities
Finance
Other _-
9
JUN 41986 BOOK rf�uE � �
r JUN 4198
o -af
P. O. BOX 608
PHONE 569-6700
June 3, 1986
BOOK
Z.T."TW DOB ECK • 1A7)IAN
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
VERO BEACII. .FLORIDA 32961
Honorable Doug Scurlock., Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Doug:
64 F''
,
F•. U�. ,:dP
R117ER COUIVTY
I appreciate the meeting this afternoon with regard to our new
Sheriff's Administration Building and making me aware of a
problem I did not know existed.
During the last two (2) years I have made every attempt to work
closely with Administrator Wright with regard to providing him
information concerning all facets of construction and/or any
other information concerning the building of our new facility.
It is apparent to me, by the information I have received, that
the Commissioners were not aware, nor was I, until now, the true
and acutal costs provided by C. E. Block, Architect, of the new
Sheriff's Administration Building. Nor do I know how this figure
was derived in the report from M. G. Lewis and Company, Inc. It
is apparent, that shortly after receiving this document, that
Administrator Wright received a letter from C. E. Block dated
January 10, 1986 outlining eleven (11) different items at a pro-
jected cost of $2,600,000. It is obvious that the Commissioners
should have been immediately informed at that time that there was
a substantial shortfall in funding for the new facility.
Tentative plans for the current building were approved by the
Commissioners December 11, 1985; therefore, I see no reason this
amount in the January 10 letter should have been kept from the
Commissioners.
This incident is just one in a series of problems we have experi-
enced during the last several years with Mr. Wright. Although,
they were not major and were ultimately resolved in one fashion
or another, this is probably the most prominent that will cost
the tax payers of Indian River County. These substantial defi-
ciencies cannot be covered by the veil of a simple mistake.
Again, I commend you for being fully aware of all financial mat-
ters pertinent to the County. As Sheriff, I will make every
effort to assist you in lessening the burden on the tax payers,
as a result of this shortfall.
If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to con-
tact me.
Since ly,
R. T. "Tim" Dobeck, Sheriff
Indian River County
29
TO: Sonny Dean DATE: May 23, 1986 FILE:
General Services Director
Mike Wright
County Administrator
n
FROM: Jos A. Ba i rd
OMB irector
SUBJECT: Formalizing Budget for:
I. Minimum Security Facility
2. Sheriff °s Office
3. Communications Center
REFERENCES:
Attached is correspondence I sent regarding the projected costs for the
Sheriff's Building and Minimum Security Facility. I have not gotten any re-
sponse and therefore would like to sit down at your earliest convenience to
develop a detailed budget for the project.
In addition to the above mentioned budgets, we need to develop one for
the new Health Facility.
i
TO: Sonny Dean DATE: February 13, 1986 FILE:
General Services Director
SUBJECT: Formalizing a Budget for the
Minimum Security Facility -
$1,300,000.00
FROM: Josey A. Baird REFERENCES:
OMB Director
As you are well aware, Indian River County will soon begin construction
of a minimum security facility with the estimated cost of $1,300,000. Because
the bonds were not issued and funding was not in place at budget time, there
was no formal budget adopted. To satisfy the legal requirement and to enable
us to have better cos: control, I would like to adopt a line item budget as
soon as possible. The following are the standard line items for a project:
All Travel
Legal Ads
Professional Services
Engineering Services
Land
Construction in Progress
Construction Interest
Furniture and Other Office Equipment
Other Machinery and Equipment
Communications Equipment
The above list can be modified without any problem. Since we have already
begun purchasing furniture for the facility, I would like to proceed at your
earliest convenience to work with you on formalizing a budget.
30
JUN 4 1986 BOOK FA 'U'. 6���
BOOK 64 roi;E6i5
TO: Michael Wright DATE: February 13, 1986 FILE:
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Sheriff's Office and
Communications Center
FROM: Joseph A. Baird REFERENCES:
OMB Director
A budget for the Sheriff's Office and Communications Center has never
been adopted. At the present time, I am not certain of the true capital
cost of the facility, however, I have heard $2,500,000 mentioned. If this
is the true figure, we will have to issue additional bonds since we borrowed
$1,500,000 for the project. This would not normally concern me, but I am al-
ready beginning to receive bills on the project. To satisfy legal requirements
and to enable us to have a better idea of the true cost of the facility, I
think someone may need to sit down with the Sheriff's staff and begin working
on a line by line budget. The following are the standard line items we use in
a project:
All Travel
Legal Ads
Professional Services
Engineering Services
Land
Construction in Progress
Construction Interest
Furniture and Other Office Equipment
Other Machinery and Equipment
Communications Equipment
I am not sure where we stand as far as our authority or function in regard
to the Sheriff's facility. Please advise, so that I do not get my horns trinir,ed.
The Chairman emphasized that he does not sit here today to
try to blame and he does not want to protract this situation, but
he has had personal comments made about himself, his actions in
relation to terminating the employment of Administrator Wright
and possible interference with the administration, and he will
not stand undefended. He emphasized that at the previous meeting
he asked specifically if anyone wanted additional information
because he would provide it and he had many more similar
situations he wanted to present to the Board's attention, but he
felt pursuing this at this point will take us nowhere. We need
to set up a workshop and begin to solve our problems and unless
he is pushed, he now will just ask staff to present
31
� a i
information on the shortfalls. The Chairman stressed that these
are not his figures. Now that the staff has not been directed.
not to give him information, OMB Director Baird, his secretary,
General Services Director Dean, and Director Thomas have been
working the entire weekend and have developed these figures. The
Chairman pointed out that if this information was developed in
four days, it obviously could have been developed in the past.
Director Baird reviewed the following information breaking
down the project expenses and unanticipated surplus and deficits.
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: June 3, 1986 FILE:
Commissioners
THROUGH: Tommy Thomas I
County Adminis rator
Via Sonny D
General Sery a Director
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT: Financial Status of Jail,
Minimum Security Facility
and Sheriff's Building
REFERENCES: $9,855,000 Bond Prospectus
Below is a summary of all revenues and expenses on the Jail and Minimum Security
Facility. We have also included information on the Sheriff's Building, but at this
time we are unable to estimate the total cost of the facility. Money was borrowed to
fund the projects in the $9,855,000 bond issue and is shown as. loan proceeds in the
breakdown.
REVENUES
One cent Sales Tax
Loan Proceeds
Interest Income
JAIL - PHASE I
156 BED FACILITY
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT
REVENUES AND EXPENSES
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENSES
Sand
Soil Monitoring
Jail Building
Architect Fee
Installation of Underground Utilities
Water Meter, Pit & Backflow Preventer
Site Work (Parking Lot)
Impact Fees - Water & Sewer
Inspection
Furniture & Equipment
Miscellaneous
Interest Expense
Issuance Expense
Contingencies
TOTAL EXPENSES
UNANTICIPATED SURPLUS
32
$4,168,332
1,200,000
121,512
139,946
16,000
3,774,845
257,445
55,350
13,000
229,520
29,440
38,000
250,000
8,959
101,679
24,000
79,915
$5,489,844
5,018,099
471,745
BOOK 64 FAic R96
Ir
JUN
41986
BOOK
PHASE II
MINIMUM SECURITY FACILITY
120 BEDS
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT
REVENUES AND EXPENSES
REVENUES
Loan Proceeds.
Surplus Funds from Phase I
Interest Income
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENSES
Building
Architect's Fee
Site Work
Impact Fee
Water Meter, Pit & Backflow Preventer
Inspection
Furniture & Equipment
Miscellaneous
Interest Expense
Issuance Expense
Contingency (10%)
TOTAL EXPENSES
UNANTICIPATED DEFICIT
$1,300,000
471,745
145.000
1,906,700
133,707
145,000
60,240
13,000
38,000
125,000
8,000
271,398
56,100
207,000
SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND
COMMUNICATION CENTER
PROJECT SUMMARY
51,916,745
2,964,145
(1,047,400)
REVENUES
Loan Proceeds 1,500,000
TOTAL REVENUES 1,500,000
EXPENSES
Administration Building (33,000 Sq. Ft.) 1,502,490
Site Work (Including Parking) 297,990
Confiscated Property Building (20,000 Sq.ft.) 300,000
Maintenance Shop Building 65,625
All Equipment & Relocation 300,000 (est.)
Shop/Maintenance Equipment 20,000 (est.)
Loop Road (Jail & Sheriff's Building) 30,000
Landscaping 15,000
Emergency Generator & Transfer Switch 36,500
Gas Pumps and Tank 32,000
Miscellaneous Equipment 5,000
2,604,605
(1,104,605)
TOTAL EXPENSES
UNANTICIPATED DEFICIT
EXPENSES NOT INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE DEFICIT (NO ESTIMATES AT THIS TIME)
Telephone System
911 System
Impact Fees
Furniture & Equipment
Additional Landscaping
Sewer Improvements
Engineering
Interest Expense
Loan Issuance Cost
PLEASE NOTE: THE DEFICIT OF $1,104,605 DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL EXPENSES THAT WILL BE INCURRED
33
L_ j
o ® r
After consolidating the Jail, Minimum Security Facility and some of the Sheriff's
Building expenses, we show a deficit of $2,152,005. The total short -fall will defi-
nately be more.
In addition to the above mentioned projects the County is looking into construct-
ing a Health Facility. Sonny Dean and I are calculating the total cost of the project
and will present it to the Honorable Board of County Commissioners at a future meeting.
$9,855,000
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
REFUNDING AND IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BONDS
Series 1985
INTRODUCTION
This Official Statement, which includes the cover page, sum-
mary statement and appendices hereto, provides certain informa-
tion relating to the sale by Indian River County, Florida (the
"County"), of its $9,855,000 Refunding and Improvement Revenue
Bonds, Series 1985 (the "Bonds"). The Bonds are being issued
pursuant to Chapters 125 and 279, Florida Statutes, as amended,
County Home Rule Ordinance No. 77-19, enacted August 3, 1977, as
amended, and other applicable provisions of law (collectively the
"Act"); and Indian River County Resolution No. 85-75, adopted
July 10, 1985, as amended and supplemented, (the "Resolution").
All summaries herein of documents and agreements and all
summaries herein of the Bonds are qualified in their entirety by
reference to the aforesaid documents and agreements, copies of
which are available for inspection at the office of the County
Attorney.
The validity of the Bonds has been determined by a Final
Judgment of the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit
in and for Indian River County, Florida, rendered and filed on
August 26, 1985. The time for an appeal expired on September 25,
1985.
The attached Appendices are integral parts of this Official
Statement and must be read together with all of the statements
herein contained.
THE PROJECTS
Courtroom
The County has completed the construction of a fourth court-
room to be used by the Circuit Court. It is the largest court-
room in the court system and was necessary for capital offense
cases and condemnation proceedings. The cost of the facility was
$175,000.
Office Building (Court Function)
The County purchased and renovated a building of 6,000
square feet along with a parking lot adjoining the Courthouse at
the corner of 21st Street and 15th Avenue. This space is to be
used by the State Attorney's Office. The cost of these.facili-
ties was $325,000.
34
JUN, 4 1986
BOOK 64 F}U,t6908
Fr__
JUN 4 1966 BOOK 64 F,�Gc6'?'9
Detention Facility
The County has signed a contract and construction has begun
on a 156 -bed detention facility on 20 acres of land located on
43rd Avenue and South Gifford Road. The estimated cost of the
completed facility is $4,400,000. The voters of Indian River
County on November 6, 1984, approved, effective January 1, 1985,.
through December 31, 1985, a special one -cent additional sales
tax. for construction of the detention facility. The special
sales tax revenue will be $3,200,000, leaving a requirement for
$1,200,000 to complete the project. In addition, a 125 -man mini-
mum security work release facility is planned for early 1986 to
be built adjoining the maximum security building. The cost of
this structure is estimated to be $1,300,000.
Sheriff's Office and Communication Center
The County has contracted with an architectural firm to
` design an office -administration center of 30,000 square feet for
the Sheriff's Department. The facility will be located on the
20 -acre site of the detention facility. Also on this site will
be a 3,000 square foot communication center for the 911 and
County Communications. The proposed cost of these projects is
$1,500,000.
DESCRIPTION OF THE BONDS
The Bonds will be dated November 1, 1985, and will bear
interest at the rates per annum as set forth on the cover page
hereof, payable on March 1, 1986 (four (4) months) and semi-
annually on each September 1 and March 1 and will mature on
September 1 in the years and principal amounts as set forth on
the cover page hereof.
Chairman Scurlock wished to know if until yesterday we were
not under the impression there would be a shortfall in the Sales
Tax monies and that is in the bond projection.
It was confirmed by OMB Director Baird, and Director Thomas
that the Sales Tax was in the bond projection at 3.2 million, and
luckily we came out with an additional amount of money we didn't
know we had.
Commissioner Bird commented that if we estimated 4.4 million
for the jail, it appears we are going to end up spending 5
million, or $600,000 more, but that was something this Commission
approved. As the jail grew, the expenses of the jail grew from
the time we made the original estimate, and that is something we
all have got to live with.
The chairman pointed that is not where the problem is, it is
Phase II of the jail and the Sheriff's complex.
Director Baird informed the Board that the bond prospectus
shows the minimum security facility estimated at $1,300,000 total
35
cost, and the Sheriff's office and communication center at
$1,500,000. He continued to review the figures developed re the
Minimum Security Facility, noting that there is an unanticipated
deficit of $1,047,400.
Commissioner Bird asked if that project was part of the 9.8
million bond issue, and Chairman Scurlock listed the five
projects included within that issue: The fourth courtroom -
quarters for the State's Attorney - the first phase of the Jail -
the minimum security facility - and the Sheriff's complex.
Discussion continued, and it was noted that we haven't
awarded the contract for the Sheriff's facility yet.
Director Baird stated that he and Director Dean have worked
on the expenses and they are just beginning on Phase II. The
Sheriff's office and communications center is the third project,
for which a budget of 1.5 million was established in the bond
prospe tus, and while he does not have a complete expense
breakdown yet, he showed the expenses he does have, and these
come out of the architect's letter of January.
Chairman Scurlock asked if Director Baird ever saw that
letter until yesterday, and Director Baird stated he had not nor
had Director Dean.
Director Baird informed the Board that there are expenses
not included in the deficit of $1,104,605 for the Sheriff's
facility, and they are substantial, i.e., the telephone system,
the 911 system, water and sewer impact fees, furniture and
equipment, the additional landscaping required by Planning 8
Zoning, sewer improvements on the site, engineering, and interest
expense. Also, the architect has a concern that he drew the
numbers up 9 months or so ago, and they may have increased 8-10%.
Chairman Scurlock believed the interest expense which was
left out could amount to somewhere around $250-300,000.
Director Baird believed that it actually will be more than
that, depending on the length of time the project runs.
36
l JUN 4196
BOOK 6 4 i'a,%C 6.3®
JUN
41966
BooK
64 Ft,uE6:31
Chairman
Scurlock believed in the other buildings
we have
seen figures as high as $40,000 to $60,000 for relocation and
expansion of the telephone system.
Director Dean felt that was just for the in-house telephone
system, not the 911 system; it would be in the neighborhood of
$45-50,000 to relocate the 911 system.
Commissioner Lyons noted that there is an income item of a
50t charge that will offset some of the expense in moving the 911
system.
Chairman Scurlock advised that what he was trying to suggest
to the Commission is that just the items that there are no budget
figures for at this time could total from 1 to 1.5 million.
Chairman Scurlock commented that last week the Board
approved a 1.9 million emergency item bid, and he asked Director
Baird if that item was run through his department.
Director Baird advised that it was not.
Commissioner Lyons agreed there has been concern for quite a
time that we had some problems, and as unpleasant as this is, he
felt the Chairman should be congratulated for digging the
information out and bringing this to a head.
Commissioner Bowman agreed that the Chairman should be
awarded a purple heart.
Chairman Scurlock believed that Acting County Administrator
Thomas will want to suggest that we either have an internal
auditor or have the Budget Office report directly to the
Commission.
Acting Administrator Thomas felt the Board would like to
have a workshop on this and stated he would like to see a similar
presentation on the golf course even though he believed it is
reasonably within the scope. He then read the Board an excerpt
from Minutes of a meeting in 1972 where he had requested and
received authorization to request an audit by the state. Mr.
Thomas informed the Board that he has not been satisfied since
that time with the extent of our audit arrangements. He
37
emphasized that this is no reflection on the Clerk or May Zima
auditors, but he felt we need a compliance auditor who not only
makes sure the books balance, but also makes sure that what is
done complies with the Motion, the wishes, and the Resolutions of
the Commission. He felt that, in view of the growth pattern we
are faced with, if the Board will consider an internal auditor
who reports directly to them, it will save the taxpayers a good
bit of money.
Commissioner Wodtke believed back in 1974 the state hadn't
audited the county for seven years or so, and Mr. Thomas agreed.
Chairman Scurlock noted that it is Mr. Baird's job to track
the monies the Commission has authorized, and he has been in the
position on numerous occasions of saying that is not what the
Board said to do, and what happened is that he has had pressure
to go ahead and approve things anyway. This has made it very
difficult for him. He couldn't complain to his boss because that
was the guy telling him to do it, and if he came directly to the
Board, which he has done, he was reprimanded and told don't go to
the Board. The Chairman emphasized that every member of the
public has a right to this information, whether it be raw data or
a final report. The Chairman wished to make it absolutely clear
that Mr. Baird was not in his present position at the time that
many of these things took place. He emphasized that Mr. Baird
has done an excellent job as the Budget Officer; he is a
dedicated employee, who has spent many, many hours above and
beyond the call of duty; and these things are not related to
anything he has done. In fairness, the Chairman believed that
Mr. Dean has done a good job with the information available.
Commissioner Lyons confirmed that at a meeting not too long
ago both he and the Chairman were of the opinion that Mr. Baird
should report to the Board and not the Administrator, but this
was not implemented because at that time the Administrator said
he would find a way to make a workable arrangement, and we were
patient longer than we should have been.
38
Boa 64 P,+,x 632
4 1986
BOOK
64 PACE 6,33
Chairman Scurlock felt Mr. Thomas
is indicating
we should
work out some relationship where we have someone who has no
pressure on them and can report directly to the Board, and
Acting Administrator Thomas continued to emphasize his strong
feeling regarding the need for an individual compliance auditor
who will report directly to the Board.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman that Acting Administrator Thomas
come back to the Board with a recommended organiza-
tion for the Budget Officer and Compliance Auditor
as to how they should report.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if we could find an auditor who
would not only be able to provide the compliance part, but when
the State did audit us, would be able to say we had the right to
spend the money for the purpose it was spent.
Mr. Thomas believed we get some of that from May Zima and
continued to explain why we need a compliance auditor.
OMB Director Baird believed that we are talking about two
areas - one is compliance and by State statute, the Clerk has
that area. In this case we are talking about capital projects
where the auditor comes in afterwards and checks the documents.
He felt what we are trying to look at it is having these projects
costed out, presented to the Board, and monitored as we go along.
Chairman Scurlock stated that he would just like the Budget
Officer to report directly to the Commission so there is no
question about him getting fired if he squeals.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
39
The Chairman asked that there be discussion of a workshop on
the deficits.
Commissioner Bird appreciated all this information being
gathered, agreed we have some major decisions to make, and felt -
the Commission will come together and make them and work the
situation out as we always have in the past. He felt the major
thing we are faced with now is the Sheriff's complex and
communications center. We allocated a certain amount of money to
build that facility, which we so far haven't committed funds to
and haven't awarded contracts on, and it is coming in consider-
ably over that budget. He did not know that we can blame the
former Administrator or put the blame on any one individual for
that, but felt it is just something that has snowballed on us,
and we are going to have to get a handle on it.
Chairman Scurlock stated that he would not buy the statement
that this has just snowballed on us; the Administrator had known
this for a long, long time, and the fact is that this all has
gotten out of hand because the information was withheld. He has
the letter right here where the Sheriff states that this cannot
be considered just some "simple mistake." Chairman Scurlock
stressed that he has done his homework and worked hard and has
sat here for the last year doubling his time because of the
problems that began to arise, and he would specifically suggest
they are a direct situation resulting from the withholding of
information from himself and the Board of County Commissioners.
Chairman Scurlock noted that he is trying to be a gentlemen and
let Mr. Wright go in a reasonable way; he was a good administra-
tor for three years, but then these problems started cropping up.
He can document them for the past year, and he will have his day
in court if he is forced to it.
Commissioner Bird noted that he was just saying that he did
not think that Administrator Wright sat down individually with
the architect and told him what size to make the facility and all
the things to put in it and all the goodies that have been
40 BOOK FAEE6P��
JUN 4 19x6 6 4
Ir-
juN 4 1986
BOOK 64 P,1 E 6,35
escalating the cost from 1.5 million up to 2 or 3 million. He
did not feel that we can put the blame on him for that. That
blame has to be spread somewhere else.
Chairman Scurlock again pointed out that Administrator
Wright was given the information by the architect saying the
facility was not going to cost 1.5 million, and he never brought
that information to the Commission. The Chairman believed the
1.5 million figure came from looking at the building we were
thinking of buying over there, and then he never updated, and
when we made a decision to change and go a different way, it was
never brought in and the budget was never put together, even
though he has -letters from staff requesting this. In any event,
the Chairman stated that he felt we should drop this discussion.
He realized that Commissioner Bird was not going to apologize,
and we will get on with business and it will be a good County
Commission. But he did not wash his conscience last meeting and
he can guarantee that he did the right thing, and he is not going
to take a lot of gaff or innuendo in the press that he had some
sort of personal vendetta against Mr. Wright. The fact is that
it was simple mismanagement and the information was withheld.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would make the same point
he made last week when he said he felt the action taken at the
emergency -meeting last week was premature, and that he did not
have the information to justify accepting the Administrator's
resignation or terminating him. He emphasized that if the Board
had all the documentation and all the facts presented here and if
these proved that the Administrator was derelict in his duties to
the Commission, then he could have been terminated with cause and
we wouldn't have had to pay him $43,000 severance pay. However,
we went ahead and a majority terminated the Administrator prior
to receiving this information.
Chairman Scurlock asked if he had the information to justify
this now, and Commissioner Bird stated he did not, that he has
heard just one side of the story.
41
Chairman Scurlock wished it made absolutely clear that Mr.
Wright had coming to him with cause almost 6 months of severance
pay, and the net is that it was not $43,000 that we voted on, but
the additional three months or so, which is in the range of
$14-15,000. The Chairman explained that the basis for his
decision re the additional pay was that Mr. Wright had a contract
for two years, and he did not want to get in a situation of
possibly having to litigate and spend an attorney's time to
resolve it in our favor; so, for the possibly $4,000 dollars
difference, he figured that was the most amicable way to settle
the matter. Chairman Scurlock continued that he already had the
information re at least a 2 million deficit and now that he has
additional information, because it has been released and staff is
free to give it, if he had the decision to make over, he would
have fired him and fought paying him anything.
Commissioner Bird emphasized that was the point he just
made. He believed that according to Mr. Wright's contract, if he
was terminated with cause, we wouldn't have had to pay him
anything.
The Chairman stated that was not correct. For termination
with cause, we were required to pay him six months' salary; the
additional approximately 3 months was the payment not to
litigate.
Attorney Vitunac confirmed that with cause we had to pay the
Administrator the amount set out in the chart according to how
many years he worked, and he believed iI would be between four
and five months plus vacation, etc.
Commissioner Lyons further pointed out that when something
like this hangs fire, it affects all the many people who work
here and interrupts their productivity. He believed we saved
more than $15,000 by bringing this thing to an end.
Chairman Scurlock emphasized that this is over now; he just
wished to make a statement and now hoped for everyone to get back
to working together as before.
42
JUN 4 1986 BOOK 6 -,t)F 6a36
rr'--a�Ufd
41986
BOOK 64 I',�U'E
63 7
Commissioner Wodtke
believed that all of us did what we
thought was right at the time. These are projects we all worked
hard on. Commissioner Lyons worked hard on the jail; we need the
minimum security building and must build that; and we have the
Health Department coming up. He agreed we need to do more in
depth planning, and he urged that we continue to move ahead and
put this situation behind us as we need all these facilities and
we need to work as a group to find the mechanism to do it
economically.
The Board members agreed, and Commissioner Lyons pointed out
the urgency of the jail situation and the need to get authoriza-
tion for the minimum security building to be built as soon as
possible to strengthen our position and stave off the state.
The Chairman felt we need to call a workshop at the soonest
possible time, and reported that we already have received calls
from about six people interested in the position of County
Administrator.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
called a Special Meeting for 9:00 A.M. Tuesday,
June 10th, to address how to deal with the
unanticipated deficits.
DISCUSS SUPPORTING DR. DEAN AS DIRECTOR OF STATE DIVISION OF
BEACHES AND SHORES
Commissioner Wodtke reviewed the following letter:
L�
43
FLORIDA SHORE & BEACH PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION INC.
Last July 1, Dr. Robert Dean was appointed as Director of the State
Division of Beaches and Shores. He thus became the first professional
coastal engineer ever to head that agency. He has done a marvelous job
this past year which was culminated by a proposal, now pending in the
Legislature, to completely revamp the state's erosion control program
into a statewide beach management program.
Despite Dr. Dean's significant contributions and leadership, there is a
possibility that his contract as Division Director may not be renewed
July 1.
In my opinion, this would constitute a major setback to the state's
beach program. I know your office has worked with Dr. Dean and you know
first hand how valuable he is to the program.
At this point, the best way to assure Dr. Dean's continuation as
Director is to get the support of Governor Graham.
Please write a letter to the Governor urging him to make sure that Dr.
Dean's tenure is extended for another year.
W
Better yet, get your board to adopt a resolution to that effect.
You should send carbon copies of your letters or resolutions to Dr.
Elton Gissendanner, Executive Director of DNR.
I want to emphasize that Dr. Dean has no idea that I am writing this
letter. But I feel strongly that we need Dr. Dean for at least another
year.
Please don't hesitate to call me if you have any questions.
Sincerel ,
Tait
Executive Director
864 East Park Avenue • Tallahassee, Florida 32301 • (904) 222-7677
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously instructed the County
Attorney to write Governor Graham urging him to extend
Dr. Robert Dean's tenure as Director of the State Divi -
Sion of Beaches and Shores for,another year.
44
JUN 41986 BOOK
64 P,�cr 638
✓yT!���
DISTEItL TION LIST
May 22, 1986
,Ohla`'
N1AY1986
?,
Administrator
o REcm zD u'
Attcrney
BOARD Courrnr
Personnel
Don C. Scurlock,
COMMISSIONERS
X97�,
Public Works
2145 14th Avenue
51P1�1Z�ti
Community Dev. _
County Courthouse
U-iiitles
Vero Beach, FL 32960 -
Finance
QUier
Dear Mr. Scurlock:
Last July 1, Dr. Robert Dean was appointed as Director of the State
Division of Beaches and Shores. He thus became the first professional
coastal engineer ever to head that agency. He has done a marvelous job
this past year which was culminated by a proposal, now pending in the
Legislature, to completely revamp the state's erosion control program
into a statewide beach management program.
Despite Dr. Dean's significant contributions and leadership, there is a
possibility that his contract as Division Director may not be renewed
July 1.
In my opinion, this would constitute a major setback to the state's
beach program. I know your office has worked with Dr. Dean and you know
first hand how valuable he is to the program.
At this point, the best way to assure Dr. Dean's continuation as
Director is to get the support of Governor Graham.
Please write a letter to the Governor urging him to make sure that Dr.
Dean's tenure is extended for another year.
W
Better yet, get your board to adopt a resolution to that effect.
You should send carbon copies of your letters or resolutions to Dr.
Elton Gissendanner, Executive Director of DNR.
I want to emphasize that Dr. Dean has no idea that I am writing this
letter. But I feel strongly that we need Dr. Dean for at least another
year.
Please don't hesitate to call me if you have any questions.
Sincerel ,
Tait
Executive Director
864 East Park Avenue • Tallahassee, Florida 32301 • (904) 222-7677
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously instructed the County
Attorney to write Governor Graham urging him to extend
Dr. Robert Dean's tenure as Director of the State Divi -
Sion of Beaches and Shores for,another year.
44
JUN 41986 BOOK
64 P,�cr 638
r
JUN 1986
BOOK 64 F' 0r 6od
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE - PAVING REQUIREMENTS (Contd.)
Planner Stan Boling reviewed the following memo:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: May 23, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE
DIVIS N HEAD CONCURRENCE: ZONING CODE ESTABLISHING
SECTION 23.3(d)(3): PAVING
REQUIREMENTS
Robert M. Keating, IAICP , SUBJECT: Through: Michael K. Miller
Planning & Development`'Ijirectol Chief, Current Development
Stan Boling
FROM: Staff Planner
Barkett
REFERENCES: STAN3
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of June 4, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
At the May 21, 1986 Board of County Commissioners meeting, the
proposed major site plan paving requirements ordinance was con-
tinued until the June 4, 1986 Board meeting. This action was
taken to allow staff time to prepare additional graphics illus-
trating proposed ordinance requirements. The back-up material for
the ordinance was included in the packet for the May 21st meeting,
and that back-up has not been reproduced for inclusion with this
item. However, a copy of the revised ordinance, signed by the
County Attorney's office, has been appended to this agenda item.
The revisions made from the original ordinance as presented in the
May 21st packet allow traffic impact fees to be substituted for
escrowing funds in situations where roads are to be paved via the
capital improvements program.
The proposed ordinance requires all major site plan applications
for.projects that abut or -utilize unpaved roads to make provision
for paving, either immediate paving as part of the project's
construction, escrowing for future paving, or application of
impact fees for future paving via the County's capital improve-
ments program. Paving requirements are determined by four fac-
tors:
1. Road Type [private road, local public road, scenic or histor-
ic road, Thoroughfare Plan road]
2. Existing Traffic Volume [cumulative traffic effect of exist-
ing projects].
3. Project Type [small traffic attractor/generator or large
traffic attractor/generator].
4. Relation of Roads to Project [accessing road frontage,
remaining accessing road frontage, abutting road frontage].
Although some of the requirements for small and large traffic
attractor/generator projects are the same, all of the requirements
are fully specified under each heading. The requirements will
ensure that adequate road improvements are put in place when they
are needed to serve development.
Additional graphics will be shown during staff's presentation at
the June 4th meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the board of County Commissioners adopt
the proposed ordinance establishing Section 23.3(d)(3): Paving
icequirements. 45
VIP-
CD
C
PAVING REQUIREMENTS MATRIX
Remaining
Access Rd.
Access Rd. ALuttiny Rd.
Project Type:
Private Rd.
.Public Rd.
Scenic Rd.
T -Plan Rd.
Frontage
Frontage
Frontage
Small traffic
pave prior
escrow funds
case -by
escrow funds
escrow funds
N/A
escrow funds
generator/
to C.O.
or exercise
case basis;
or exercise
or exercise
or exercise
attractor
paving option
Board may
paving option
paving option
paving option
prior to C.O.
waive paving
prior to C.O.;
prior to C.O.
prior to C.O.
provisions
timing related
to road program
or Board approval
Small traffic
pave prior
pave prior to C.O.
case -by
pave prior to
pave prior
escrow funds
escrow funds
generator/
to C.O.
or exercise
case basis;
C.O.; timing
to C.O.
or exercise
or exercise
attractor util-
paving option
Board may
related to road
paving option
paving oFtlon
izing road
prior to C.O.
waive paving
program
prior to C.O.
prior to C.O.
exceeding 200 ADT
provisions
Large traffic
pave prior
pave prior to C.O.
case -by
pave prior to
pave prior
escrow funds
escrow funds
generator/
to C.O.
or exercise
case basis;
to C.O.; timing
to C.O.
or exercise
or exercise
attractor
paving option
Board may
related to road
paving option
paving option
o
prior to C.O.
waive paving
program
prior to C.O.
prior to C.O.
C=)
provisions
•
JUN 4 1996 BOOK 64 FvU 641
C �
.— Ca
COD)
M O 0 ca
COC
O
L
Unpaved public road w
0
17A
Paved public road
47
0
a
O
x
0
z
a
w
H
U
w
h
O
Z
P4
W
a
C14
bta r ela 1 M;.m M lal 0 RN Ii
48
JUN 4 1986 BOOK 64 PAUGE 642
D,DI.A-N
ST.
RIVER
I13CIE
LEE
rr,IPE
CO.
CO.
CO. ITE
Single Family
7.24 TE/DU
9.2 TE/IJU
10.3 TE/DU 10.0 TE/Dri
(Mainland)
(Mainland)
7.13 TE/UJ
7.5 TE/DU
(Beach)
(Beach)
I-Talti Family
7.35 TE/DU
6.7 TE/IXJ
6.2 TE/DU 5.2 TE/DU
Condaninium
zinland
Mainland
4.0 TE/DU
3.5 TE/DU
3.3 TE/DU
(Beach)
(Beach)
(Retire;nent)
nalti Family
N/A
6.7 TE/DU
N/A
(Rental Apt-)
Mobile Home
2.32 TE/DLJ
8.0 TE/EU
3.7 TE/DU 4.8 TE/DU
(Mainland)
(Mainland)
Shopping Center
?J/A
125.5 TE/
81.1 TE/ 82.0 TE/
1000 SF
1000 SF 1000 GFA
* (<100,000 SF)
(<100,000 SF)
47.7 TE/
*
41.4 TE/ 66.7 TE/
1000 GFA
1,000 GFA 1000 GFA
(>100,000 SF)
(>100,000 SF) (>100,000 GFA
Light Dxh strial
N/A
28 TE/
12.9 TE/ 5.46 TE/
1000 SF
1000 SF 1000 GFA
*
General Office
12.39 TE/
*
19.6 TE/ 17.7 TE/
1000 GFA
1000 GFA 1000 GFA
(>100,000 SF)
Medical Office
30.23 TE/
*
45.7 TE/ 54.6 TE/
1000 GFA
1000 GFA 10.00 GFA
Hotel/Motel
11.2 TE/01
*
11.9 TE/RI 10.14 TE/R:•i
(mainland)
10.5 TERM
(Motel)
8.19 TE/R4
(Beach)
10.2 TE/R.1
(Beach)
(Resort Hotel)
convenience
Retail
377 TE/
*
687.4 TE/ 625.2 TE/
1000 GFA
1000 GFA 1000 GFA
(24 -HR)
*ITE Rates
322.6 TE/
1000 GFA
(15-16 HR)
Planner
Boling believed
the main
thing evolving from the
workshop was
to tie the paving
requirement
to the amount of trips
that a project
generates,
and that's
what this ordinance does.
Chairman
Scurlock asked
if this
would be categorized as a
liberalization
of what we
had as he had
the feeling that what we
had was putting
an economic
hardship
on some small developments.
Director
Keating did
not feel it
is a liberalization. We
are just putting
the policy
that has
been in effect in the
ordinance in
the section
that was reserved
for it when the site
48
JUN 4 1986 BOOK 64 PAUGE 642
r JUS 4 1986
BOOK 64 mu 6433 7
plan ordinance was approved and being more specific and adding
some new concepts to it, particularly the concept of the
cumulative impact.
Commissioner Lyons felt one of the problems is that only the*
larger developer gets hit, and lots of small projects can add up
to more impact than one big one.
Planner Boling clarified that this sets standards for large
scale projects and also looks at the cumulative effects of
several projects on a road, and the difference between the two is
basically that the smaller project threshold is higher than the
large project threshold; that gives the ability to look at the
existing situations. If you have several small projects come in,
then there can be a build up of escrowing for that paving and
there can be some monies in place to get it started.
Chairman Scurlock speculated about a concept in regard to
setting standards for exceeding road capacity and then saying
that once we reach certain levels, that would immediately trigger
a mandatory assessment by the county.
Planner Boling believed that is something that could work.
He noted this is not a new amendment sort of thing; there is
already a place reserved for it in the site plan ordinance and it
fits in with the development process which is in place.
Commissioner Lyons discussed the trip generation rates,
which he believed are different than those used by the Regional
Planning Council. He noted that all counties involved in the
Hutchinson Island Management Plan got together and agreed how
traffic should be counted; so, he does not understand why we now
should enact an ordinance that does it differently.
Director Keating pointed out that during the Hutchinson
Island Plan study, controversy arose as to whether the trip
generation rates used by Martin and St. Lucie Counties were
applicable for our county, and our consultant as part of the
traffic impact fee study went out and actually did surveys. From
49
M
M
those surveys we have massive documentation which shows that in
some cases our trip rates are different than other counties.
Chairman Scurlock believed he can justify being at least as
stringent as the Regional Planning Council, but he could not see -
being less stringent.
t
Commissioner Lyons believed we must agree on a standard of
trip generation and have some uniformity throughout the region.
He noted that we are going to interphase with a project in St.
Lucie on 27th Avenue.
Commissioner Bird asked if we need to adopt these standards
as part of this ordinance.
Public Works Director Davis stated that we do not, but
Commissioner Lyons felt we must adopt some standards some place.
Planner Boling explained the formula used to escrow for
impact and stated that the break point is if the project
generates over 100 daily trips.
Commissioner Bird inquired if they can recoup from other
benefiting property owners, and Director Davis stated they have
not gotten into the logistics of reimbursing for that.
Director Keating clarified that basically this ordinance
doesn't say how it will be done; it just says if the project is
large enough that it will create ap impact, a paved road should
be in place prior to the C.O. being issued. The funding is
determined on a case to case basis.
Discussion continued re standards, and the Oslo area, for
instance; those who benefit; assessment -on corner lots by square
footage rather than frontage; etc.
Director Davis felt not only do we have an advantage with
the escrow situation, but the person who has put up the escrow
has an incentive to pursue a petition because he has already paid
his money.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
50
BOOK 64 pmi c 644
I
BOOK 64 Fi IJE 645
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the public hearing.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to adopt the ordinance amending Ordinance
85-52 Site Plan Review Procedures, establishing paved road
requirements.
Commissioner Wodtke continued to raise questions re the Oslo
area, and Director Davis stated that if the Board desires, staff
could look at the whole Oslo Park area, determine how many lineal
feet of road needs to be paved, divide by total square footage,
and come up with the cost per lot area.
Discussion continued at length as to how this would be
handled in various situations, and the possibility of some
variance or rule of reason procedure was then discussed.
Commissioner Lyons and Commissioner Bowman withdrew their
Motion.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously continued
the public hearing until the June 18th meeting at
10:00 A.M. and asked staff to come back with a
recommended variance procedure.
DOCUMENT TO BE MADE PART OF THE MINUTES
Deed to The Moorings Development Company is hereby made a
part of the Minutes as approved at the Meeting of May 7, 1986.
51
459414
COUNTY DEED
THIS DEED, made this day of June 1986, by
Indian River County, Florida, party of the first part, and
The Moorings Development Company, party of the second part,
WITNESSETH that the said party of the first part,
for and in consideration of the sum of Sixty Thousand
Dollars ($60,000) to it in hand paid by the party of the
second part, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has
granted, bargained and sold to the party of the second part,
its heirs and assigns forever, the following described land
lying and being in Indian River County, Florida:
All of Parcel "B" as shown upon the plat
of The Moorings Unit Two, recorded in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Indian River County, Florida, in Plat
Book 8, page 28.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the said party of the first
part has caused these presents to be executed in its name by
its Board of County Commissioners acting by the ChgJrmAn of
said board, the day and year afores id,
ATTEST: `
Frecr
Wright, e
Appm,•ecf as to form
and legal sufficien
By
Bruce Barkett • r•�
Asst. County attorney '.
ATTES i � .
R WRIGHT, C.
By its Board of CoUnty...Co i,3sh10"
1• ,
By: r C
Approved: May 7, 1986 ;
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:14 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
---2= G 'Atz
Chairman
52
BOOK 64 Fnn 646
ti�