HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/18/1986Wednesday, June 18, 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 18, 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 Commis-
sioners; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves,
Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend Dan Weaver, Sebastian Baptist Church, gave the
invocation, and Commissioner Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS .
Chairman Scurlock advised that under the Comprehensive Plan
we are required to hold two evening meetings two weeks apart
during the month of July, and we need to set dates and time.
Some discussion ensued, and it was agreed to set the meetings to
consider Comprehensive Plan amendments for the evenings of July
15th and 29th at 5:01 P.M.
Chairman Scurlock informed the Board that he will discuss
two items under Committee Reports - a request from the City of
Sebastian for some assistance re the North County wastewater
system, and the Finance Advisory Committee report on application
for industrial revenue bonds. He believed Commissioner Bowman
also wishes to add under Committee reports discussion on
contacting the Governor and members of the Legislature in regard
to addressing certain issues during this year's special session.
Commissioner Bird stated that under his
items he
would
like
JUS
L-
18
1986
BOOK
64
Fr1,UE 5
JUN 18 1996 BOOK 64 F��,r 6.96
to add a brief report on the progress of the Gifford Community
Building -and ask the Commission to contact the Governor for
funding.
Commissioner Scurlock requested that an item re the Contract..
for Phase II of the County Jail be added under the Administra-
tor's matters.
Acting Administrator Thomas requested that Item 6 under
Public Works - Additional Professional Services Traffic Impact
Fee program - be removed and taken up on next week's agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
added items to the agenda and deleted them
from the agenda as set out above.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Wodtke requested the removal of Item J for
discussion.
A. Proclamation - National Water Safety Week
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously designated
the week of July 1-6, 1986, as NATIONAL WATER SAFETY
WEEK.
2
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, over 400 swimmers drown each 1 ear in the State of
Florida, leaving many grieving loved ones; and
WHEREAS, the UNITED STATES LIFESAVING ASSOCIATION hopes to
call the public's attention to water safety measures that may
help lower the drowning rate for our counties; and
WHEREAS, the UNITED STATES LIFESAVING ASSOCIATION and its
membership of open water professional lifeguards want to alert
the swimming public to the following safety tips when entering
large bodies of open water:
1. Swim parallel to shore when swimming long distances
2. Know your limits; do not rely on flotation devices
3. Ask about rip currents and dangerous marine life
4. Avoid foolish diving in shallow water and off piers
and jetties
5. Keep glass off the beach
6. Drinking, drugs and swimming do not mix
7. Swimming alone is dangerous; share the fun with a
friend; and
WHEREAS, the UNITED STATES LIFESAVING ASSOCIATION CHAPTERS
from coast to coast urge you to SWIM SAFELY - SWIM NEAR A
LIFEGUARD;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA does hereby
designate the week of July 1 - July 6, 1986 as
NATIONAL WATER SAFETY WEEK
and urges all citizens to become more aware of water safety
measures that may save lives and lower the drowning rate in
Indian River County.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
� G
DON L. SCURLOC , JR.
CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
- 1 I
FREDA WRIGHT, CLERK
Adopted 6/18/86
3
BOOK
L)i DDE 6ZI7
r � X986
JUN 1 BOOK 6 4 N�-1iE
B. Change Order #2 - 2nd Street Water Project (Collee Mech.)
The, -Board reviewed memo of the Assistant Utility Director:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: JUNE 10, 1986
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO��
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY RVICFS
FROM:_ ��TEFFREY K. BARTON
-> ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER 02 AND
RETAINING RELEASE
2nd STREET PROJECT-COLLEE MECHANICAL
BACKGROUND:
Indian River County Utilities Project UW85-05-DS has been completed
and Change Order #2 reflects actual quantities of materials used.
The attached letter from our engineers stated the project is fin-
ished and retainage should be released.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1) Approve and sign change order #2 for a decrease in
the contract of $1,605.50 (total adjusted contract after change
orders $95,642.00)
2) Approve the release of $9,564.20 in retainage
(funds held in account # 709-000-206-016.00)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Contract Change #2 - 2nd Street Water Project
(Collee Mechanical)
4
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
CHANGE ORDER NO.
2
PREVIOUS CONTRACT PRICE
97,247.50
DATE:
UNIT
CHANGE
REVISED CONTRACT PRICE_
95,642.00
JOB NAME Indian
River County
Project #U85 -05 -DS " 0 Water Main on 2nd
St From 20th
Avenue
to 9th Court
--
2,500.00
OWNER: Indian
River County
Utilities Department
5000 LF
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
PRICE
•PREVIOU
UNITS
PREVIOUS
TOTAL
PRICE
UNIT
CHANGE
PRICE
CHANGE
REVISED
TOTAL
PRICE
1
Mobilization
LS
LS
2,500.00
--
--
2,500.00
2
8"0 Water Main
9.65/LF
5000 LF
48,250.00
(-)184
(-)1775.60
46,474.40
3
8"0 Gate Valve
475 EA
28
13,300.00
--
--
13,300.00
4
VO Gate Valve
340 EA
5
1,700.00
--
--
1,700.00
5
Fire Hydrant
1119 EA
6
6,660.00
--
--
6,660.00
6
Paved Road Restor.
4.00/LF
465 LF
1,860.00
(-)69
(-)276.00
1,584.00
7
Non -Paved Rd. Rest.
2.00/LF
100 LF
200.00
(-)50
(-)100.00
100.00
8
Paved Drive Restor
5.00/LF
35 LF
175.00
(-)6
(-)30.00
145.00
9
Non-Pvd Drive Rest.
2.00/LF
90 LF
180.00
(-)1
(-)2.00
178.QO
10
Seed & Mulch
0.30/LF
4325 LF
1,297.50
(-)73
(-)21.90
1,275.60
11
8 x 8 Wet Tap w/Vlv
1550 EA
1
1,550.00
--
--
1,550.00
12
1110 "Short" Lateral
200 EA
2
400.00
(+)16
(+)3200.00
3,600.00
1"0 "Long" Lateral
550 EA
3
1,650.00
--
--
1,650.00
14
2"0 "Short" Lateral
325 EA
10
3,250.00
(-)8
(-)2600.00
650.00
15
2"0 "Long" Lateral
925 EA
15
13,875.00
--
--
13,875.00
16
Encasement of 6'10
20/LF
20
400.00
--
--
400.00
Force Main w/6" of
Concrete
TOTAL ...............
.......
......
.97,247.50
(-)1605.50
$95,642.00
The amount of the Contract will be decreased by the sum of: One thousand, six hundred
five and 50/100's ($1,605.50).
The Contract total, including this Change Order, will be: Ninety five thousand, six hun-
dred forty two and xx/100's ($95,642.00).
The Contract period provided for completion will be unchanged.
This document will become supplement to the Contract and all provisions will apply
hereto.
Contractor: , y ,/ 'i -! �' t� Date:
Collee Mechanical, Inc.
Engineer:
Sippel,1 Masteller. Lor
Owner: C
Indian River County 44
—"- Date: L t
& lijeoVer, Inc.
Date: G / 9.
t
5
800!4
jU 1 g 1986
64 Ptd E 649
'JUN 18 1986 BOOK 700
C. Child Support Service - Reimbursement Contract
The. -Board reviewed memo of Assistant County Attorney Wilson:
T0: Board of County Commissioners DATE: June 10, 1986
SUBJECT: Child Support Service of Process
r Reimbursement Contract
James P. Wilson, Assistant County Attorney
Attached hereto are four original contracts to be executed
between the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Ser-
vices, the Indian River County Sheriff's Department, and the
Board of County Commissioners regarding the above -referenced
subject. This agreement is essentiaj.ly the same agreement
that has been renewed for the past two years and requires
the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to
reimburse 66.650 of the County's cost of service of process
from federal funds allocated for that purpose. This amount
was recently reduced to 66.65% from 70% due to changes in
federal policy. The Board approved and ratified this
reduction in funds on April 9, 1986.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
contract between the DHRS, the Sheriff, and the
County, for Child Support Service of Process Reim-
bursement, and authorized the signature of the
Chairman.
(Said Contract will be made a part of the Minutes when
fully executed and received.)
D. Renewal Pistol Permit
The Board reviewed memo from the Acting Administrator:
6
SUBJECT: Pistol Permit Renewal
FROM: L . S. "Tommy" Thomas REFERENCES:
Acting County Administrator
The following has applied through the Clerk's Office for renewal
of a pistol permit:
Pearl E. Dean
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
issuance of a renewal permit to carry a concealed
firearm to Pearl E. Dean.
E. Pistol Permit
The Board reviewed memo from the Acting Administrator:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: June 3, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Pistol Permit - New
FROM: L. S. "Tommy" Thomas REFERENCES:
Acting County Administrator
The following has applied through the Clerk's Office for a new
pistol permit:
Thomas A. Rego
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order.
UNi 1 1986 BOOK 64 PAGE 701
TO: The
Honorable
Members of DATE: June 3, 1986
FILE:
the
Board of
County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Pistol Permit Renewal
FROM: L . S. "Tommy" Thomas REFERENCES:
Acting County Administrator
The following has applied through the Clerk's Office for renewal
of a pistol permit:
Pearl E. Dean
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
issuance of a renewal permit to carry a concealed
firearm to Pearl E. Dean.
E. Pistol Permit
The Board reviewed memo from the Acting Administrator:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: June 3, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Pistol Permit - New
FROM: L. S. "Tommy" Thomas REFERENCES:
Acting County Administrator
The following has applied through the Clerk's Office for a new
pistol permit:
Thomas A. Rego
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order.
UNi 1 1986 BOOK 64 PAGE 701
JUN 16 1996 BOOK 64 Fr1,E 702
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
issuance of a permit to carry a concealed firearm
to Thomas A. Rego.
F._& G_` Reports
The following were received and placed on file in the Office
of Clerk to the Board:
Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund,
Month of May - $48,257.13
Month to Date Report for Month of May by Last
Name
_r
H. DER/Army Corps/DNR Permit Appl. (Scacrest Estates)
The Board reviewed memo of the Chief Environmental Planner:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 9, 1986 FELE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE D.E.R./ARMY CORPS
& D.N.R. PERMIT
UBJECT: APPLICATIONS
Robert M. Keats g, P
Planning &Development Director
FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: DER App.
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on June 18, 1986.
D.E.R. DREDGE & FILL PERMIT APPLICATION
FILE NUMBER 120955-4
APPLICANT: Seacrest Estates, Inc.
WATERWAY & LOCATION: The project is located on the Indian
River, on Live Oak Road, Orchid Isle Subdivision, Lot #58, in
the unincorporated portion of Indian River County.
WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant proposes to construct a 160
square foot dock with a 160 square foot observation deck. The
dock will be utilized as a single boat residential docking
facility.
8
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
- The Conservation & Coastal Zone Management Element of
the Indian River Comprehensive Plan;
- Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region; and
- The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Management
Plan.
- The Code of Laws & Ordinances of Indian River County
- Chapter 16Q-20 F.A.C.
The Indian River County Code of Laws & Ordinances specifies
that residential dock structures are accessory uses to the
principal residential use. The applicant is presently develop-
ing a single-family subdivision and until final plat approval
is obtained, the lots in Orchid Isle Estates cannot be sold or
have homes built upon them. In order to construct the proposed
dock facility, the applicant must have a principal structure on
Lot #58.
The proposed dock facility will be located within the Malabar -
Vero Beach State Aquatic Preserve and, as such, is subject to
Chapter 16Q-20 Florida Administrative Code. A staff review of
Chapter 16Q-20 finds that the proposed dock dimensions comply
with the size standards set forth in the rule.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners author-
ize staff to transmit a letter to the D.E.R. with the following''
comments:
1) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should consider the potential cumula-
tive impacts of the dockage project upon the Florida
Manatee;
2) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should evaluate the potential impact
of the project on ecologically significant submerged
bottomlands such as seagrass beds in the Indian River.
3) No dock construction shall be permitted by Indian River
County until the requirements of all local ordinances
related to dock facilities and mangrove protection have
been addressed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to transmit letter to the DER as recommended
in the above memo dated June 9, 1986.
I. Final Plat Approval - Silver Sands Subdivision
The Board reviewed staff memo as follows:
9
BOOK 64 F,, �E 7tla3
BOOK 64 Fnuc 70
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: June 9, 1986 FILE:
the Board'of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR
SUBJECT: SILVER SANDS SUBDIVISION
Robert Ni. Kea ng, CP
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Stan Boling /��� REFERENCES: Silvers Sands
Staff Planner/� IBMIRD
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration- by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of June 18, 1986. '
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Silver Sands (formerly known as Atlantis II) subdivision is a 15
lot subdivision of a ±7.09 acre tract located on the east side of
S.R. A -1-A, north of Surf Colony. The property is zoned RS -3
(Single -Family Residential up to 3 units/acre) and has an LD -1
(Low Density Residential up to 3 units/acre) land use designation.
The proposed gross building density is 2.12 units/acre.
The subdivision received preliminary plat approval from the
Planning and Zoning Commission on February 14, 1985. Pradip
Manek, president of Salama Development Corporation, owner, is
requesting final plat approval and has submitted a final plat that
is in conformance with the approved plat.
ANAT.YST14
The Public Works Division has inspected and verified that all
required subdivision improvements, including a dune crossover,
have been completed according to approved plans. The City of Vero
Beach has verified acceptance of the water system. The use of
individual septic tanks has been previously approved by the
Environmental Health Department. All subdivision improvements are
to be owned and maintained by a private property owners' asso-
ciation. Therefore, no maintenance agreement or security is
required. All applicable County requirements for final plat
approval have been satisifed.
RECOMMENDATION
B
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval to the Silver Sands subdivision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously granted Final
Plat Approval to Silver Sands Subdivision as re-
quested by Salama Development Corp.
10
J. Change - Welfare Department Guidelines
It was decided to hold this item over until Welfare Director
Joyce Johnson can be present at the meeting.
K. Release of Paving 6 Drainage Assessment Lien - (Erfurt)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Release
of Assessment Lien on property in Bonny Vista Acres
owned by Henry 6 Kathryn Erfurt and authorized
signature of the Chairman.
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIEN
For and in consideration of the sum of $624.06,
RECEIVED from HENRY S KATHRYN ERFURT, the receipt of which
is hereby acknowledged, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA (the
"County").hereby releases the property hereinafter described
from a certain special assessment lien recorded by the
County in its Official Records, Book 661, Page 1338, for a
special assessment in the amount of $588.74 levied in
accordance with the provisions of -Ordinance No. 81-27 of the
County; and hereby declares such special assessment lien
fully satisfied.. The property, located in Indian River
County, is more fully described as follows:
North 12.5 feet of Lot 17 and South 75 feet
of Lot 18, Block B. Bonny Vista Acres
Subdivision, as Recorded in Plat Book 6,
Page 7, Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida.
Executed by the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, and attested
and countersigned by the Clerk of such Board, all as of this
18th day of June 0 1986,
Attested and countersigned by:
Cl ;.� k oT------
Circuit Court
11
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
� G
Chairman
BOO -K F,, "'E
IM1 IF,
: �: �� 1.
Bou 64 Fa,r 71)6
AWARD OF BID - HERON CAY PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS
The -Board reviewed recommendation of the Utility staff:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: JUNE 5, 1986
THRU : L.S. TH WAS
ACTING ADMINISTRATOR
VIA: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
FROM: UEFFERY A. BOONE �9 3/_& e_
ENGINEERING OPERATIONS MANAGER
SUBJECT: HERON CAY PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS/
AWARD OF B I D
BACKGROUND:
On March 3,- 1986, the Board of County Commissioners authorized
Masteller 8 Moler Associates, Inc., for engineering services for the
subject project. The cost of improvements to the pump station were
estimated to $30,000.00. Plans, specifications and bid packages
were prepared, and bids were opened'..'une 9, 1986.
ANALYSIS -
Two bids were received: one from A.O.B. Underground, Inc., of West
Palm Beach, FL in the amount of $29,979.00 and the other from Ted
Myers Contracting Company, Inc., Winter Beach, FL in the amount of
$29,213.00.
Funding of the improvements to the Heron Cay Pump Station will be
included in the State Route 60 Wastewater improvements project.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Utilities Division recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners authorize awarding of the subject bid to Ted Myers
Contracting Company, Inc., of Winter Beach, FL.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid for
the Heron Cay Pump Station Improvements to the low
bidder, Ted Myers Contracting Company, Inc., in the
amount of $29,213.00, as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REPORT ON APPLICATION FOR INDUSTRIAL
REVENUE BONDS (Fla. Convalescent Center)
Chairman Scurlock informed the Board that he has a recommen-
dation from the Finance Advisory Committee in regard to a health
care facility, Florida Convalescent Centers, which has applied
for industrial revenue bonds. Basically the Committee indicated
12
to the applicant that although the County had a limited amount of
this type of funding available, they had received no other
applications for these funds and, therefore, would recommend
approval of the application. If there had been a competing
situation, however, they probably would not have made that
recommendation. The Chairman further noted that OMB Director
Baird has looked at their financial statements, and they are very
sound.
David Evans, Senior Vice President of Florida Convalescent
Centers, came before the Board and advised that his company has
submitted a request for 4.8 million in industrial revenue bonds.
Mr. Evans reported that the state has indicated there is a need
for 91 skilled nursing beds in Indian River County; they want to
fill that need; they are authorized by the state to fill that
need and are requesting they be allowed to participate in the
tax exempt bonding. This would allow about 4 percentage points
reduction in their interest rate, which would be a saving to them
and, in turn, to the citizens of Florida through the Medicaid
Program. He expected it would save approximately $100,000 a
year. Mr. Evans continued that they have the land under option,
architectural plans approved by the state, the construction
contract awarded, and he believed they can turn the 4.8 million
back into the County"economy very quickly through construction
employment, benefit to the tax rolls, and about 100 jobs in the
center which would have an annual payroll of approximately one
million dollars.
Commissioner Lyons wished to be sure that their site doesn't
straddle the right-of-way we want for Indian River Boulevard, and
this was confirmed.
Chairman Scurlock noted that he had discussed this.
application with Commissioner Wodtke who chairs the Economic
Development Council.
Commissioner Wodtke advised that he would like to ask the
13
JUN. 18 1986 BOOK 707
JUN 18 1966 BooK 64 PaG 708
Commission to consider deferring action on this application until
the applicant can make a presentation to the Economic Development
Council and they can determine if the proposed project fits
within the guidelines of the plan the Council has approved for
the community. He believed there is another applicant also, and
this request would use up our entire allocation of funds;
although, possibly there could be some surplus funds available.
Commissioner Wodtke realized that it always has been the respon-
sibility of the Finance Advisory Committee to review the
financial structure of applicants for industrial revenue bonds,
but he believed we need to work out a structure where these
applicants also make an appearance before the Economic
Development Council.
Chairman Scurlock believed our allocation is about 5.2
million so there would be less than a million left. He had no
problem with a presentation being made to the Council, but wished
to make sure that by next Wednesday we can either deny or approve
the pending request as we are facing a deadline with the proposed
changes in the tax law.
Commissioner Lyons wished to know if the other applicant re-
ferred to will have something that is ready to go, and Commis-
sioner Wodtke believed they will and that they are in the area of
Rampmaster.
Commissioner Lyons pointed out that those applicants have
never come to us, and he did not know how they are going to meet
the time schedule. He suggested that possibly we should go ahead
and approve the request before us on the basis that their
presentation to the Economic Development Council does not raise
any objections.
Chairman Scurlock noted that, in fairness, the Florida
Convalescent Center people have gone through the required process
and paid the $1,000 fee, and Commissioner Lyons agreed that this
14
process has not been carried on in the dark; these people have
been before the Commission at least one time before, and he did
not want to hold them up.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman to approve the request of
Florida Convalescent Center for 4.8 million indus-
trial revenue bonds pending favorable review by
the Economic Development Council.
Commissioner Wodtke had no problem with the Motion, but be-
lieved it puts Iegis.lative authority into an appointed Council.
Commissioner Lyons did not believe it would because if the
Council did not agree, the request would come back to the
Commission.
Chairman Scurlock commented that actually there is somewhat
of a gap here; we are given a yearly allocation of these type
funds, and we need an equitable formula of how to evaluate those
who apply and also a time frame. He believed the Economic
Development Council needs to be involved in this as well as the
Finance Advisory Committee, but noted that, in any event, this
may be a moot questioh as these type funds may not be available
after the new tax laws are enacted.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would like to see these
funds used to generate the most good to the County and,
therefore, would like to be able to evaluate the projects.
Discussion continued in regard to coordinating and
structuring to work out how this should be handled between the
EDC, the Finance Advisory Committee and the Commission.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
15
aooK 6
'JUN 18 1986 F��,r ���
L__
JUN 16 1966 aoo� 64 pp, E710
CHANGE TO WELFARE GUIDELINES (Continued from Consent Agenda)
Welfare Director Joyce Johnston came before the Board in
reference to a change in Welfare Guidelines as set out in the
following memo:
TO: Board of County DATE: June 9, 1986 FILE:
Commissioners/r(I
Through: L.S. ThomasActing County Admini
SUBJECT: Change to Indian River County
Welfare Department Guidelines
FROM: Joyce M Johnston, D' ctcREFERENCES: See Attached
Welfare Departmen(
Dr. J.B. Tucker, Director, Indian River County Public Health Unit,
after working with the Indian River Memorial Hospital to establish
a unified screening proceedure for the county pretaining to Maternal
Child Health programs is requesting a change of the guidelines for
his department. The new guidelines will reflect a 1850 of the current
Federal Poverty level.
The guidelines state that "The purpose of the Maternity Program is to
provide pre and post -natal care for clients who are ineligible for
Federal or State programs, and meet the current level of the Federal
Poverty Guidelines as stipulated by the Health Department".
I would recommend this change be made to the Welfare Guidelines.
ArPRDVED AGENDA ITEM
Date
BY: -
16
Director Johnston advised that the present guidelines are
set at 150% of the Federal Poverty level and the proposal is to
increase this to 185%.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired as to the reason for this
increase, and Director Johnston advised that with the change at
the hospital in regard to hiring doctors for the deliveries and
prenatal care, WIC, which is the nutritional assistance group of
the Health Department, has tried to work out a common across-the-
board percentage so everybody would be using the same guidelines -
The hospital wanted 2000, but WIC would not go that high. She
noted that the 185% standard will allow a pretty high level of
income to qualify.
Chairman Scurlock was not enthusiastic about the more
Liberal policy.
Commissioner Wodtke inquired about the possible effect of
this on the Welfare budget, and Ms. Johnston advised that it
won't have any effect because all Welfare does is screen the
people, but it will affect the Health Department money; however,
she did not know how much as she did not have any statistics as
to how many more peop"le will fall under the new guidelines.
Director Johnson informed the Board that the other thing
which the Hospital wants to do is accept people with insurance
whom doctors have turned down. She believed the lowest up -front
payment the doctors in the county will accept is about $500.
Many people, even those with insurance, just can't afford this,
and her understanding is that the Hospital will accept the
insurance and refund the Health Department for their share of the
care.
Acting Administrator Thomas commented that the reason we put
items on the Consent Agenda is to speed things up, but if the
17 Bou 6 4 PAGE 111
1986JUN 18
J
JUN 8 1986
BOOK 64 PnE 712
Board desires more information, we could pull this item today and
ask Dr. Tucker and Director Johnston to make a further and more
complete presentation at a later meeting.
Commissioner Bird agreed we need to know more about the
financial impact of this change.
ON MOTION MADE by Commissioner Lyons, the Board
unanimously agreed to table discussion re a change
in the Welfare guidelines to the next meeting.
REZONING - TO RFD (17th ST.SW WEST OF 58th AVE. - PHILO)
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:
18
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero, Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of�T(�(o
I/
NOTICE PUBLIC HEARII
Notice of hearing to consider the
a County ordinance•razoning land
Agricultural District, to RFD, Rural R
opment District The subtest ropy
sandy owned by Richard A. Philo: T
Is located wast of 58th Avenue (SP
north of 17th Street SW (Lockwood L
'The subject properly Is describe
7HE SuNA 358 FEET OF THE E
ACRES OF TRACT 18, SECT]
TOWNSHIP 33S, RANGE 391
CORDING TO THE LAST' Gi
PLAT OF LANDS OF THE 1NDIAI
FARMS COMPANY AS RECOR
PB 2, PG 25, OF THE PUBLIC RE
OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIC
-.,LAND NOW LYING AND BEING
DIAN RIVER 'COUNTY FLORIDA
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RECORD. ,
A public heating at Which par lei
and ,citizens shall have an oppon
heard, will be held by the Board of C
missloners of Indian River County, FI
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at upon%
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 May 21
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this l �; /pay of. `eA.D. 19
V (Rusin ss,
._Jr _ I . *
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County,
IN -
ling; .located at 1840 :25t
Florida on WedneWay..jun
I. -
wish to appeal ar�y dechdo
at this meeting w111 need t
m record of the proceeding
ides testimony and evidenc
rel Is based
county
Staff Planner Robert Melsom made the following presentation:
19
BOOK 64 Cr{uC 713
JUN 18 1986
BOOK 64 F��GE 6 _1 4
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 11, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: PHILO REQUEST TO REZONE
�j 2.44 ACRES FROM A-1,
SUBJECT. AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT
Robert M. Ke tn , TO RFD, RURAL FRINGE
Planning & Devel pm t Director DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
THROUGH: Richard Shearer
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROKkobert M. Melsom REFERENCES:
/lGM 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 18, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Richard A. Philo, the owner, is requesting to rezone 2.44 acres
located north of 17th Street Southwest, and west of 58th Avenue
from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to RFD,
Rural Fringe Development District (up to 1 unit/2.5 acres).
On May 8, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0
to recommend approval.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property consists of 2.44 acres of a 9.44 acre citrus
grove. To the north, south, east, and west of the subject
property are citrus groves zoned A-1 Agricultural District.
Further north, are three single-family residences. East of the
subject property, across 58th Avenue, is the Greenleaf
Subdivision zoned RS -1, Single -Family Residential District (up to
1 unit/acre). The presence of these single-family residences,
and the subdivision to the east.) indicate a trend toward the
development of single-family residences in this area.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as RR -1,
Rural Residential 1 (up to one unit per two and one-half acres).
This district provides a buffer between agricultural areas and
residential development, and protects agricultural lands from
growth pressures.
The proposed RFD zoning is in conformance with the RR -1, Rural
Residential 1 land use designation, and eventually will provide a
buffer between the agricultural land to the west and the
residential development to the east as the trend continues to
rezone more land in this area from A-1, Agricultural District, to
RFD.
20
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to 17th Street Southwest
(classified as a secondary collector on the Thoroughfare Plan).
The proposed single-family residence will not decrease the
existing level of service "A" for 17th Street southwest.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it located in a flood -prone area.
TTL J 1 _* L --
Neither County sewer nor water is available to the subject
property at the present time.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 86-38 rezoning 2.44 acres
north of 27th`'St. SW and west of 58th Ave.
from A-1 to RFD as requested by Richard Philo.
21 BOCK 64 PAaE 715
'JUN 18 1966
BOOK 64 PAGE 116
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 38
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
s4
the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
THE SOUTH 356 FEET OF THE EAST 10 ACRES OF TRACT 16, SECTION
29, TOWNSHIP 33S, RANGE 39E., ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL
PLAT OF LANDS OF THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY AS RECORDED
IN PB 2, PG 25, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA. SAID LAND NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY FLORIDA; LESS RIGHT-OF-WAY OF RECORD.
Be changed from A-1, Agricultrual District, to RFD, Rural Fringe
Development 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 18th day of June, 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By _� C
Don C. Scut ock, Jr. hairman
22
COUNTY-INIT. REZONING - 180 ACRES HOBART PARK TO A-1
The hour of 9:10 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of
In the ,Court,
was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues ofor
U
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 before me this =—� Ay 9#-�A.D. 19
(SEAL)
(Clerk of the Circu
(Bus
Indian River County,
NOTICE PUBLIC HEANNO
Notice of ; heating hdtlated : by. Indian Rtm
County to conIalder the adoption of a. County.or-
dinance rezoning land from: RS -3, Single -Family
Residential District, and -'RS-e, Single -Family
Residential Dietrict,'to A-VAgricultural District
The subject property Is presently owned by In,
than River County, and Is located north of 770
Street (Hobart Road). and on the east and vies!
TION '32, TOWNSHIP 31 `"SOUTH.
RANGE 39 EAST, LESS THE SOUTH
835 FEET OF THE EAST 820 FEET; AND
THE'SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST. OUARTfR-OF SECTION
33, TOWNSHIP -31 SOUTH, RANGE 39.'
EAST, -LYING WEST OF THE LATERAL
---
0 CANAL RIGHT -0F -WAY L
A public hWrIng at•which partiesrin fnter881
and citizens shall have an -opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida: In the
County Commission Chambers of life County
Administration Building, located at •1840 22bth
Street; Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday, June
18:1988, at 9:10 A.M a
The Board of County Commissioners may
grant a rezoning to a lose Intense zoning district
than the district requested provided I1 is doir
the some general use category
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decielor
which may be made at this meeting wUI need tc
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
is made, which Includes testimony and evidencc
upon which the appeal Is based d_
Indian River County
Board of CountJ Commissioners
B -94)on C. Scurlock, Jr.,
May 29, June 10.19118
Staff Planner.David Nearing reviewed the following memo:
23
BOOK fr,;E d
w
rJUN 18 1986
BOOK 64 u,UF 718
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 19, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:-
F - UBJECT:
Robert M. Keating, AIC
Planning & Development Director
THROUGH: Richard Shearer
Chief, Long -Range Planning
COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST
TO REZONE 180 ACRES OF
HOBART PARK FROM RS -3 &
RS -6, SINGLE-FAMILY RES-
IDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO
A-1, AGRICULTURAL DIST-
FROM: Dave Nearing a5 G °// RICT.
REFERENCES:
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning Co. Int. Hobart Memo
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of June 18, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Planning Department is initiating a request to rezone
approximately 180 acres of Hobart Park located east and west of
58th Avenue (Kings Highway), and north of 77th Street, from
RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre),
and RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6
units/acre), to A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5
acres) .
Currently, approximately 31 acres of the park lying east of
58th Avenue are zoned RS -6; 149 acres lying west of 58th Avenue
are zoned RS -3, and approximately 479 acres (the remainder of
the park) are zoned A-1. It is the County's intent to place
park uses within these areas. Since public parks and recreation
areas are a use requiring an administrative permit in the RS -3
and RS -6 zoning districts, and a permitted use in the A-1
district, the A-1 district is considered the most suitable for
this use.
On May 8, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0
to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
In this section an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of the.current and future land uses of the site and
surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utilities systems, and any significant impacts on environmental
quality.
Existinq Land Use Pattern
The subject property contains Hobart Park and a County solid
waste transfer station. For that portion of the subject
property located east of 58th Avenue, the surrounding land uses
are vacant land to the north, and park land to the west, east
and south. For that portion of the subject property west of
58th Avenue, the surrounding land uses are groves to the north;
vacant land, scattered single-family residents, and agri-
cultural activities to the west, and vacant land and the Indian
River Highlands Subdivision containing single-family lots to
the south.
24
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the entire subject property as
park. For that part of the site located east of 58th Avenue,
the property to the north is designated as LD -2, Low -Density
Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre) , and all of the land to the
east, south, and west is designated as parks. For that part of
the site located west of 58th Avenue, the land use designation
of the land to the north, south, and west is LD -1, Low -Density
Residential (up to 3 units/acre), while the land to the east is
designated as park.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to 58th Avenue
(classified as an arterial on the County's Thoroughfare Plan).
No additional traffic is expected as a result of this rezoning.
Environment
The subject site is not classified as environmentally
sensitive nor is it located in a flood -prone area.
Utilities
Currently no public utilities exist in the Hobart Park area.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners rezone that portion of Hobart Park
currently zoned RS -3 and RS -6 to A-1.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 86-39 rezoning 180 acres
of Hobart Park to A-1 as recommended by staff.
25
BOOK 64 PAGE719
BOOK 64 F�1GE 72.0O
ORDINANCE NO. 86_39
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP
FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing...
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined
that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST, LESS THE SOUTH 635 FEET OF THE EAST 620 FEET;
AND
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION
33, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LYING WEST OF THE
LATERAL G CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY;
BOTH PARCELS LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
Be changed from RS -3, Single -Family Residential District,
and 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 18th day of
June
1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By / G
Don C. Scurlock, Jr. 0hairman
26
COUNTY-INIT. REZONING 30 ACRES TO RM -6 - (COMMUNITY COLLEGE)
The hour of 9:10 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL,_,
":NOTICE4PUBuceEARING "w.-
In the Court, was pub-
Notice of . hearing, initiated by Indian Rid
County to. consider the adoption of's Couhty'<
Published Dail y
dinance rezoning land fro= -A-1°,`Agricultui
lished in said newspaper in the issues of�n
(�
District, to RM -8, MuMpWFamily Residential D
trict. The property Ispresenddy owned toll
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
north side. of Lun �g Rq8d, Is of h ed OnA
(C.R. 505-A) and north of the Male Relief Carta
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
The sub sot' propeAyIs'describe0sa
ALL OFCT 18, SECTION 5 •TOWN'
Before the undersigned authorit y pp
g y.personall appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
SHIP 33s, RANGE 39E; LYING NORTH
;OF; THE 'MAIN RELIEF CANAL, AC-;
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
rCOOt NG' TO` E LAST: GENERAL'.
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
PLAT OF IND U►N RIVER FARMS'COW'
PANY SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN ;
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and Inas be
been
PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25 OF THE PUB -
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Con-
LIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY
a
,FLORIDA; SAID PROPERTY NOWf.
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
LYING AND BEINGIN INDIAN RIVER'•
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND CONTAINING
�
in the matter of l
30.0 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
-
Sworn to and subscribed before me this ao A.D. 19
A public hearing at which parties In Inten
1 i
and. citizens shall have an opportunity to
heard, will be by the Board of County Go
l.�
missioners of Indian River County. Florida; 01
Chief Planner Shearer made the following presentation:
27
BOOK 64 Fa. .,JE 791
Administration Building, located et, 1840 2:
In the Court, was pub-
Street, Vero Ssac %florida on Wednesday, Ju
18, 1986, at 9:10 A.M. ,. a
Board 'oCounty" The COommiWormre m
lished in said newspaper in the issues of�n
(�
grant g►ant a rezoning to a less Intense zoning dish
athe district requested provided; It is Wtti
the same general use category.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any
which may be made at this meeting wwll�l need
ensure thata verbatim record of;the prooeedin
la made, which includes testimony and oviden
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
upon which the appeal is baegd 'r
Y,
Vero Beach, in said Indian River Count , Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
1Jndlan.RiverC y
Board of CountyCommisslonera �
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and Inas be
been
BByy•-a-DonG aau�riock,Jr
-Chalrmarr
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Con-
_
29; J1888
May une 10,
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this ao A.D. 19
1 i
l.�
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
(SEAL)
Chief Planner Shearer made the following presentation:
27
BOOK 64 Fa. .,JE 791
F
JUN 18 1986
BOOK 64 F,1;c 7V
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 13, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST
Robert M. Keating, P TO REZONE 30 ACRES FROM
Planning & Development Director A-1, AGRICULTURAL DIS-
TRICT, TO RM -6, MULTIPLE—
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DIS-
5 TRICT
FROM-1hard Shearer, REFERENCES: Co. Int. Request
Chief, Long -Range Planning chief
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of June 18, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The County is initiating a request to "rezone 30 acres located
one-quarter mile west of 58th Avenue (Kings Highway) on the north
side of Lundberg Road from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1
unit/5 acres), to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up
to 6 units/acre).
The subject property contains Indian River Community College's
Mueller Center and a citrus grove. The Department of Corrections
intends to construct a dormitory on this property to house
individuals who will be receiving training at the Mueller Center.
Schools with dormitory facilities may only be located in
multiple -family districts.
On January 15, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners heard a
request from the college for the County to initiate this
rezoning, and the Board so directed the staff.
On May 8, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -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 contains the Mueller Center and a citrus
grove. North of the subject property is a single-family
subdivision zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential District,
vacant land zoned RM -6, and a citrus grove zoned A-1. East of
the subject property is a citrus grove zoned A-1. South of the
subject property is the main relief canal. West of the subject
property is agricultural land zoned A-1.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the
land north, east and west of it as LD -2, Low -Density Residential
2 (up to 6 units/acre). The land south of the subject property,
across the main relief canal, is designated as RR -1,' Rural
Residential 1 (up to 1 unit/2.5 acres). The proposed RM -6 zoning
is consistent with the LD -2 land use designation and the RM -6
zoning north of the subject property.
28
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to Lundberg Road (a paved
road classified as a local street on the County's Thoroughfare
Plan), and is located one-quarter mile west of 58th Avenue
(classified as an arterial street). The maximum development of
the subject property under RM -6 zoning could generate up to 1,260
average annual daily trips (AADT). Lundberg Road and 58th Avenue
are currently at level -of -service A and can accommodate this
additional traffic.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
Utilities
The subject property has public water. County wastewater
services are not currently available.
RECOMMENDATION
Based. on the above analysis, including the Planning and zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
Chairman Scurlock inquired whether the College has
negotiated utilities, and Utilities Director Pinto believed that
has been resolved.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the
public hearing.
ig
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 86-40 rezoning 30 acres west of 58th
Avenue north of Lundberg Road to RM -6 for Indian
River Community College as recommended by staff.
29
BOOK 6 4 Ft4GE 3
r JUN' 18 1986
BOOK F° I 7? 4
ORDINANCE NO. 86-40
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIA14 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
prezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined
that this rezoning is in conformance with,ythe 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:
ALL OF TRACT 15, SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 33S, RANGE 39E, LYING
NORTH- OF THE MAIN RELIEF CANAL, ACCORDING TO THE LAST
GENERAL PLAT OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY SUBDIVISION, AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; SAID PROPERTY NOW LYING AND BEING
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND CONTAINING 30.0 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS.
Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District, to RM -6, Multiple -
Family Residential District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida on this18tay June
, 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By C
Don C. Scurlock, Jr. airman
3
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PRD ORDINANCE (Continued)
The hour of 9:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
aA�� ---
in the matter of e-l��.�'��� `26L
in the /Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues off�29
r NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARtNQ a,T $.�
TO CONSIDER
ADOPI'IQN OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE
county Commissioners of.lndian River County,
Florida,shall hold a public hearing at
:,2h par
t� in Interest and citizens shall have an opper
tunny to be heard, in the County Commissl
Chamhere of the County Administration Buil
Ing, located at 1840 26th Street,. Vero Beach
Florida, on Wednesday, June 18, 1988 at 9:1
a.m> to consider pwadoptlon of an-Ordlnan
entitled. 'j '
. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN . RIVER <:
COUNTY, FLORIDA; AMENDING INDIAN
'AJVER COUNTY ORDINANCE' NO. 8&S,
,PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP -,,'r
MENT (PRD) SPECIAL EXCEPTION _
STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES COR,
'RECTING ' SCRIVENER'S ERRORS;
.'.DELETION OF SUBSECTION REGARD-
ING AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT PRE-
LIMINARY PRD PLAN; REVISING UP- ?:
DATED CONCEPTUAL PRO INFORMA -^
TION REQUIREMENTS; REVISING CON
STRUCTION PRIOR TO FINAL PRD AP--
PROVAL REQUIREMENT; AMENDINp
CONSTRUCTION AFTER FINAL PRD.
APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS; REVIS-
ING FINAL PRD PLAN APPROVAL RE-
OUIREMENT; REVISING OCCUPANCY
AND USE. OF PREMISES REQUIRE-
MENT: AMENDINGREQUIREMENTS`
FOR PRELIMINARY, PRD PLAN SUB-
MISSION;, REVISING REQUIREMENTS ;
"FOR AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR
BUILDING PERMITS;: AMENDING RE-
QUIREMENTS.FOR -.TRANSFFR - ns:
'FORMATION PRIOR'TO TRANSFER ORt:
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at .:,PRD APPROVAL PROVIDING FOR.IN-, :'
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore "CLUSION. IN . CODE SEVERABILITY;
a,
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been AND EFFECTIVE DJNTE-
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- A copy of 1hijroposed ordinance and cone
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of Pondieteprwill
bnavailableegiiinnJ June otgroffice
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm second floor of the County Administration.BuI16
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this Ing• y,
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Anyone who may wish to appeal'any declslon
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
Sworn to and subscribed beforQ,me thi day of A.D. 19 Is made, which Includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is based
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
(SEAL)
1 P BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONE
BY: -s -Don C Scurlock q,, r
'nss Manager) Chairman 7
t_ �- = /
May 29. June 10,1988 �, r
tj
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian'A'fver County, Florida)
111
Staff Planner Stan Boling made the following presentation:
31
BOOK 6 4 Pt1Gt ;,?�5
J U1986 BOOK 64 FrJF 7
TO: Honorable Members of the DATE: June 4, 1986 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE, Through: Michael K. Miller
Chief, Current Development
tG i PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
Robert M. Kea i g, AIC SUBJECT: THE PRD ORDINANCE
Planning & Develo men Director
FROM: Stan Boling .4,t, REFERENCES: PRD
Staff Planner IBMIRD
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of Wednesday, June 18, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Since the Planned Residential Development (PRD) ordinance was
adopted (February 20, 1985), it has come to staff's attention that
some changes should be made to clarify or correct portions of the
ordinance. It has also been requested that, since the PRD process
will be utilized by large-scale projects, the ordinance should
recognize and allow for the participation of "secondary" develo-
pers that could purchase and develop phases or portions of large
projects in a timely fashion within the development process.
A joint Planning and Zoning/Board of County Commissioners workshop
was held on April 4, 1986 to discuss the proposed PRD amendments.
At the conclusion of the workshop, the Board indicated that the
proposed ordinance was to be brought to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for adoption. All of the proposed amendments in the
attached ordinance were reviewed at the workshop except for SECTION
8 which addresses concerns about development of "PRD property" not
in conformance with a formerly approved plan. At their May 22,
1986 regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0
to recommend adoption of the attached ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The PRD process (general steps outlined in attachment #2) is an
amalgam of the special exception, site plan, and subdivision/
platting processes. However, the actual development process is
fairly straight -forward: site plan approval and a land development
permit are needed prior to obtaining building permits, final PRD
plan (plat) approval is needed prior to selling individual lots or
units, and construction of all required improvements are needed
prior to obtaining Certificates of Occupancy (C.O.'s). Building
permits, final PRD plan approval and C.O.'s are the actual points
of control in the process. The proposed amendments are designed
to either correct and clarify steps in this process or to
establish an optional process for large-scale projects that allows
for participation of secondary developers yet is still guided by
the three points of control.
Sections 1-7 are corrections and clarifications of the existing
ordinance and PRD process. Section 8 is a proposed amendment
developed by staff to ensure that a transfer of PRD approval
accompanying a transfer of land to another party includes all PRD
obligations. Consideration of any other applications for develop-
ment approval on "PRD property" is prohibited until such time that
the PRD approval and obligations are assumed by the new property
owner.
Sections 9-11 allow for portions
developed by secondary developers.
primary developer to, in essence,
consisting of tracts that can be
secondary developers.
RECOMMENDATION
of large PRD projects to be
These amendments allow for the
develop a "PRD subdivision"
site planned and built -out by
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
attached ordinance amending the Planned Residential Development
(PRD) Ordinance No. 85-5.
V,
M
EXISTING PRD PROCEDURES
1• (Optional) Pre -Application Conference
2A. Applicant submits conceptual
2B1. Applicant submits
PRD plan concurrently with
conceptual PRD plan
preliminaryy PRD plan
PRD plan and bond
1
3A. P&Z Commission recommends
2B2. P&Z Commission re-
approval/denial of conceptual
commends approval/
plan, approves/denies pre-
denial of conceptual
liminary PRD plan subject to
plan
B.C.C. action on conceptual
Applicant submits
plan
plat recorded
4A. B.C.C. approves/denies con-
2B3. B.C.C. approves/
ceptual plan; if approved,
denies conceptual
preliminary PRD plan action
plan
by P&Z Commission automatically
takes effect
inspected
•
3B. If conceptual plan
is approved, applicant
submits preliminary
PRD plan
4B. P&Z Commission
approves/denies
preliminary plan
S. Applicant submits land development permit for all required
improvements (based on approved preliminary PRD plan)
6. Land development permit issued; applicant eligible to obtain
building permits for structures on the approved site plan.
No C.O.'s issued until final PRD plan approval has been
obtained and all improvements are constructed and inspected*.
7A.
Applicant submits final
7B.
Applicant constructs
PRD plan and bond
improvements
t -
t
8A.
-
Plan receives final approval,
8B.
Applicant submits
plat recorded
final PRD plan,
improvements
inspected
•
9A
A pplicant sells parcels/lots/
9B.
...
�
Plan receives final
units
approval, plat re-
corded
10A.
Applicant constructs improve-
10B.
Applicant sells
ments
parcels/lots/units
..11A.
Improvements inspected, P p bond
11B.
C.O.'s issued as
released
warranted
C.O.'s issued as
warranted
Process Completed
33
JUN 18 1986 BOOK 64 PAGE 72W7
JUN 18 1966
*NOTE: Proposed amendment ( 7) to specify this
Attachment #2
9 s
If proposed amendments (8), (9) and (10) are adopted, the
previously described "Existing PRD Procedures" would remain in
effect, and an optional procedure for large-scale projects would
be established. Such a procedure would be as follows:
Optional Procedures for Large -Scale Developments:
1. (optional) Pre -application conference
2. (a) Applicant submits conceptual PRD plan and follows
existing steps "2Bl-4B11, or
(b) Applicant submits conceptual PRD plan and a preliminary
PRD plan (such a plan would not include a site plan) and
follows existing steps 112A -4A".
I ry
(NOTE: proposed amendment (3) would allow preliminary PRD plans
for large-scale PRD's to be approved without site plans)
3. Applicant t
satisfies all
conditions included in proposed
amendment (4).
4. Applicant transfers development tracts to other parties
(developers, not ultimate users). -
5. Parties(developers) ( evelopers) submit site plans for development
tracts, site plan approval obtained.
6. A lic t
pp ant now has land development permit and site plan
approval and is eligible to obtain building permits. Resume
normal procedures, beginning with step 7A or 7B under
Existing PRD Procedures" (see previous page).
Planner Boling stated that everything discussed at the April
4th workshop is in the ordinance with the exception of Section 8.
They have some clarifications re the existing process. He noted
that they worked with the attorneys to alleviate some concerns
that came out at the workshop, i.e., what if someone gets
conceptual plan approval for a large piece of property and then
sells off a piece of it - does the person who buys it have to
comply with the conceptual plan? Sec. 8 deals with this and
makes it mandatory that they assume the obligations of the
conceptual plan or else come before the Board to amend it.
Commissioner Bowman wished to know if there is any time-
frame or do these things drag on forever.
34
M -
Planner Boling noted there are some time limitations; if
they don't act on a preliminary plan for 18 months and it is not
extended, it would expire.
Commissioner Wodtke asked how utilities for the smaller
piece that is sold off would be addressed, and Planner Boling
explained that before such a pod could be developed, all the
roadway structure would have to be into that pod and the
utilities serving that area. Everything would be set up so they
could hook into it. A maximum density is assigned at the time of
conceptual approval, and all the infrastructure would be based on
maximum development.
Chairman Scurlock asked if anyone present wished to be
heard. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 86-41 amending Ordinance 85-5, the
Planned Residential Development (PRD) Ordinance.
35
JUN 1 1986 vu 4 "k -E" 9
JUN 18 1996 Boos 64 F�+ur 730
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 86 - 41
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, APPENDIX A, SECTION 25.4
(ORDINANCE NO. 85-5), PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD)
SPECIAL EXCEPTION STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES; CORRECTING SCRIVENER'S
ERRORS; DELETION OF SUBSECTION REGARDING AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT
PRELIMINARY PRD PLAN; REVISING UPDATED CONCEPTUAL PRD INFORMATION
REQUIREMENTS; REVISING CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO FINAL PRD APPROVAL
REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING CONSTRUCTION AFTER FINAL PRD APPROVAL
REQUIREMENTS; REVISING FINAL PRD PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENT;
REVISING OCCUPANCY AND USE OF PREMISES REQUIREMENT; AMENDING-
REQUIREMENTS
MENDINGREQUIREMENTS FOR PRELIMINARY PRD PLAN SUBMISSION; REVISING
REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR BUILDING PERMITS;
AMENDING REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSFER OF LANDS; REVISING REQUIREMENTS
FOR DISCLOSURE OF REQUISITE INFORMATION PRIOR TO TRANSFER OF PRD
APPROVAL; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of County Commis-
sioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1
CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERRORS
A. Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Appendix A,
Section 25.4(b) is hereby amended to read:
Coordination with Other Regulations
Final Planned Residential Development (PRD) Plan approval, as
provided herein, shall constitute full compliance with the
subdivision regulations of the County. Final AIM PRD Plan
approval shall entitle the applicant to all the privileges of
recording a final plat afforded under the subdivision
regulations.
In the event of conflict between this section and other
zoning and subdivision regulations of the County, the pro-
vision of this article shall prevail to the extent of such
conflict.
In the event of conflict between this section and the
building and safety codes of the County, the provisions of
the building and safety codes shall prevail to the extent of
such conflict.
B. Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Appendix A,
section 25.4(e)(6)b.i. is hereby amended to read:
Credit for Golf Courses and Similar Major Recreational
Facilities. It is the intent of this provision to encourage
the accessibility of all open space areas to individual
dwelling units within Planned Residential Developments. The
following standards shall be utilized in calculating credit-
able space areas for major recreational facilities:
-- If more than sixty (60a) percent of the total
residential dwelling units within the PRD abut or are
adjacent to and have direct visual access to the golf
course or major recreational facility, one hundred
(100%) percent of the area contained therein shall be
credited towards open space;
36
M M M
-- If between thirty (305) percent and sixty (60%) percent
of 'the total residential dwelling units within the PRD
are adjacent to and have direct visual access to the
golf course or major recreational facility, seventy-five
(75%) percent of the area contained therein shall be
credited towards open space; and
-- If less than thirty (300) percent of the total residen-
tial dwelling units within the PRD are adjacent to and
have direct visual access to the golf course or major
recreational facility, fifty (500) percent of the area
contained therein shall be credited towards open space.
All golf courses and other major recreation facilities
included as open space for the PRD shall be permanently
reserved and maintained as common open space through deed
restrictions or other legal instruments, approved by the
County Attorney.
SECTION 2
DELETION OF SUBSECTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF PRELIMINARY PRD
PLAN
Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Appendix A,
Section 25.4(2)(2) is hereby deleted in its entirety.
AlWO-AA1/X04/A/)PX A40WX4WOWArid/of
00aW 04 40AO-t$ / /Ii a(.Yy / kkAVWVJ&CVW / 1444416t441 /god `t Q1 / 40416AAkl / to
SECTION 3
CONCEPTUAL PRD INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Appendix A,
Section 25.4(I)(3)(b)i. is hereby amended to read:
114
Updated Conceptual PRD Information. The preliminary PRD plan
shall include all -information required for the submission of
the conceptual plan, including
44folWt4oA/ /pVV--'Vg(Vtt//to//,
i��X��f►X��I/hidg��r/d��/lYg: number, size, location and maximum
density proposed for the entire PRD, and for each proposed
phase, such that when the proposed phase densities are
totalled, they do not exceed the total proposed maximum
density for the entire PRD. Other information shall include:
-- the development schedule;
-- open space and recreation areas;
-- vehicular and pedestrian circulation;
-- environmental conditions;
-- transportation and other public facility impacts; and
-- transfer of density from environmentally sensitive
areas.
37
JUN 18 1986 BOOK 64 FAGS 731
SECTION 4
BOOK 64 FrKH732
FINAL IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Appendix A,
Section 25.4(j)(1) is hereby amended to read:
Construction Prior to Final PRD Approval. Upon approval of the
Preliminary PRD Plan, an applicant may choose to apply for a Land
Development Permit in order to commence construction of required
improvements for the entire PRD or for approved phases. If the
applicant chooses to obtain a Land Development Permit, he or she
shall submit all construction plans and specification's required
pursuant to Section 7(E)(3) of the Indian River County Subdivision
and Platting Ordinance. All required improvements shall be
completed in accordance with the issued land
development permit prior to Final PRD Plan approval.
SECTION 5 It
CONSTRUCTION SECURITY REQUIREMENTS
Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Appendix A,
Section 25.4(j)(2) is hereby amended to read:
Construction After Final PRD Approval. Upon approval of the
Preliminary PRD Plan, if an applicant does not choose to commence
construction prior to obtaining Final PRD approval, he or she
shall submit all construction plans and specifications required
for a Land Development Permit pursuant to Section 7(E)(3) of the
Indian River County Subdivision and Platting Ordinance at the time
of final PRD Plan approval. Security will be required for the
performance and maintenance of all improvements,
6E(1/ x[16 od AOAi`
in accordance with Section 8 of the
Indian River County Subdivision and Plattinq Ordinance The
security shall guarantee the construction of improvements in
accordance with the issued land development permit, for the entire
PRD or phase(s) to receive final PRD plan approval.
SECTION 6
AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT FINAL PRD PLAN
Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Appendix A,
Section 25.4(1)(1) is hereby amended to read:
Authorization to Submit.����bX//b/F///�//XXyXp�¢
/A:&/VVQ(/004td/kV 0QiV1)*/
XtAt0/,4Af-Ai6.t44t/k6k/kjtbl AbO4446AW A-&/eVW:Vt(/a IV��t�(X/�I��b
/PVWaVQ'cY /)L4/ /4 aQ(31dQ(r/dV / IM44W /01ti/ fa44�AIAV / I° XX iX�i
0"019600-Ai/I°XAAIA I91/AXX/00A914tti6AAIAAh6iit/MAir0
16V / /tW / /,6/f/ / /4'cldV-Vy / / 1tj6fta AAA j6Ak,tk/ . An approved
preliminary PRD plan and the issuance of a land development
permit shall constitute authority for the applicant to submit
a final PRD plan prepared- in accordance with the approved
preliminary PRD plan and any conditions as may have been
required.
38
M M -
Furthermore, the applicant shall also furnish all such
supplementary information as may have been required 16]f//tom
as a condition of conceptual PRD
plan approval or as may have been required as a condition of
preliminary PRD plan approval.
SECTION 7
OCCUPANCY OF PREMISES
Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Appendix A,
Section 25.4(m) is hereby amended to read:
Occupancy and use of premises; director's certification.
Prior to the use or occupancy of any portion of the planned
development project, the Planning and Development director
shall determine that all of the requirements of the final PRD
plan have been complied with, including completion and
inspection of all required im rovements, for that portion of
the planned residential development project for which
approval of use or occupancy is being required".
SECTION 8
DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION, SUSPENSION OF APPROVAL CONSIDERATION
Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Appendix A,
Section 25.4(p)(2) is hereby amended to read:
Disclosure of requisite information. Failure to make the
required disclosure and assumption shall suspend all PRD
special exception, and plan approvals, and all consideration
of any other applications for development approval on the
subject property, until such time as proper disclosure and
assumption is made.
SECTION 9
PRELIMINARY PRD PLAN REQUIREMENTS OPTION
Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Appendix A,
Section 25.4(i)(3)a. is hereby amended to read:
General Requirements. All preliminary PRD plans shall
include all information required for the submission of
preliminary plats, as provided in the Indian River County
Subdivision and Platting Regulations, as well as a site plan,
as provided in Section 23 of this code.
39
JUN 18 1986 BOOK 64 Ft,Gt733
L
JUN 18 1986
BOOR 64 P,�GiE 7,34
Applicants of large-scale projects, defined as projects that
generate 1000 average daily trips or more,are not required to
submit a site plan as part of the preliminary PRD plan. A
preliminary plat is required, however. Applicants of large-
scale projects may apply for a land development permit for
common infrastructure and other improvements based on an
approved preliminary PRD plan that does not include a site
plan. No building permits shall be issued for any structures' -
in the project or project phase until a site plan has been
approved for such structures.
SECTION 10
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Appendix A,
Section 25.4(k)(1) is hereby amended to read:
Authorization to Apply for Building Permits. Upon issuance
of the Land Development Permit, the applicant shall be
authorized to apply for building permits for all structures
within the area which the land development permit is appli-
cable, whether it be for the entire development or approved
phase(s)j, unless otherwise restricted or prohibited by
Section 25.4(2)(3) of this code.
SECTION 11
TRANSFER OF LANDS RESTRICTED
Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Appendix A,
Section 25.4(k)(2) is hereby amended to read:
/aha(y/ 1114( lcyq /til: t�V:V f /Y3W / PPt0
16t / ,��/ �/i A k/ kllkllkl l /any/ fp' a't/�/e��' MV-V_V]! /4(g -Vote / /B' �C �i�X / PYko
IaXAli/ AA4/t60-0-4/ 4AA4/I6XA4/jtj600.td0d.
Transfer of Lands Restricted. The ownership of an -
within the PRD shall not be transferred by fee simple
to any parties until after the final PRD plan has been
approved and final plat recorded, with the following
exception. Development tracts within large-scale projects,
defined as -projects that generate 1000 average daily trips or
more, may be transferred prior to final PRD plan approval if
the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) the project has received conceptual PRD pan special
exception approval, preliminary PRD plan approval for a
phase or phases, and a land development permit for
common required improvements has been issued and
construction of said improvements has been completed:
b) the applicant has formed or is part of an association
that governs and is responsible for all activities and
obligations of all parties that will be developed within
the entire PRD project area, ensuring a unified control
of the total PRD project;
c) appropriate deed restrictions are recorded, ensurin
development of all tracts to be in accordance with the
approved conceptual PRD plan;
40
M M r
(d) said association and corresponding documents and deed
restrictions are acceptable in form to the County
Attorney;
e) the applicant aqrees in writ
tracts will be subject to the
requirements pursuant to final
other applicable requirements
development and occupancy by
ultimate intended users. '
responsible for recording
association documents.
_nq that the development
site plan and subdivision
PRD plan approval and any
.nd permits prior to their
, or marketing to, the
'he applicant shall be
any restrictions or
Satisfaction of these conditions and County approval of such
property transfers shall be deemed to be in conformance with
all applicable subdivision regulations.
SECTION 12
INCLUSION IN CODE
The Ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code of Indian River
County and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section",
"article", or other appropriate word and the sections of- this
Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
purposes.
SECTION 13
SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to
any person or circumstances is held invalid, it is the legislative
intent that the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or
applications of this Section which can be given in effect without
the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the
provisions of this Section are declared severable. -
SECTION 14
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this Ordinance (No. 86-41 ) shall become
effective upon receipt from the Secretary of the State of Florida
of official acknowledgement that this Ordinance has been filed
with the Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida on this 18th day of June ,
1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By
Don C. Scurlock, J Chairman
41
BOOK 64 FAGE 73
JUN 18 1986 BOOK 64 r! J -L, 736
DER/ARMY _CORPS/DNR_PERMIT APPLICATION __(FP&L OCEAN REEF)
Art -Challacombe, Chief of Environmental Planning, reviewed
the following memo:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 2, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R., ARMY CORPS &
SUBJECT: D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Robert M. Keat' g,Fnt
Planning & DevelopmDirector
CA-►
FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCE,9: Florida Power
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on June 18, 1986.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION
FILE NO. 31-20449-4
APPLICANT: Florida Power & Light Company
P.O. Box 14000
Juno Beach, FL 33408
WATER & LOCATION: The project is located in the Atlantic
Ocean, west of Oculina Bank in Indian River County; Latitude
270401N, Longitude 80°201W.
WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant proposes to construct a small
artificial reef by placing stabilized blocks of oil ash on the
bottom of the Atlantic Ocean for research purposes.
ALTERNATIVE & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
The Conservation & Coastal -Zone Management Element of the
Indian River Comprehensive Plan;
Coastal Zone Management, Interim
Policies for the Treasure Coast Rea
Goals, Objectives &
n;
- The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan;
- The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
The primary biological consideration in the use of waste
materials for the construction of artificial reefs is the
Possible toxicity of the waste material to the organisms that
42
M
the reef is designed to attract and shelter. In the case of
reefs made from oil -ash blocks, a matter of particular concern
is the potential effect of toxic constituents of the oil -ash
and/or other constituents of the blocks that could leach from
intact or broken blocks and contaminate the surrounding and
interstitial water, that might be ingested as particles from
broken or crumbling block material, or that might affect
organisms settling upon, burrowing into or otherwise colonizing
the reef structure.
Florida Power & Light Company, through its consulting agents,
Harbor Branch Foundation and Florida Institute of Technology,
have conducted a series of laboratory and field tests to
investigate these effects. Test organisms selected for the
experimental studies included bacteria, algae, crustacea, an
echinoderm, a mollusc, and two species of fin fishes so as to
represent the different components of the food chain and the
different feeding and habitat types that inhabit such reefs.
Field studies consisted of exposing test blocks of standard
oil -ash mixture together with control blocks of inert material
to two different marine environments. Organisms colonizing the
test and control surfaces were monitored with respect to total
biomass, species identification and numbers, and species
diversity indices.
Finally, selected organisms from both the laboratory experi-
ments and the field tests were analyzed for six trace metals
that might have been taken up from the oil -ash blocks and
concentrated by the organisms through processes of
bioaccumulation.
In summary, the laboratory and field tests revealed that
oil-ash/fly ash test blocks contain ingredients or create
conditions that may be toxic to a limited extent to some but
not all species of marine organisms. The evidence demonstrat-
ed, however, that such toxicity is limited to a brief period of
time (i.e., one or a very few days) immediately following the
first exposure of the block material to seawater. There is no
indication from the studies that intact blocks previously
exposed to seawater have any residual toxic effects upon any
kind of marine life. There is some indication that metals in
blocks made from oil ash may be accumulating in the tissues of
organisms that live attached to their surface. However,
rigorous field studies need to be conducted before conclusions
about hazards of bloaccumulation can be made.
The proposed project will provide the long-term research
monitoring and data needed to evaluate the feasibility of using
oil -ash blocks in the construction of artificial reefs.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to forward the following comment regarding this
project to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation:
1) The D.E.R, in permitting this project, should recognize
that the primary purpose of the project is for research
and development and should not be construed as a general
permitting activity. If, after a sufficient monitoring
period, the toxic effects of the blocks pose a threat to
marine life or water quality, the D.E.R. should require
that the reef be dismantled and the blocks removed from
the ocean floor;
2) Indian River County requests that monitoring data be
forwarded to the County for review during the study
period.
43
JUN 18 1986 BOOK 64 Fm) -L 737
BOOK 66 rn;F 38
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to accept the staff recom-
mendation as set out in the above memo of 6/2/86.
Commissioner Lyons commented that he has talked to John
Ryther at Harbor Branch and suggested he might also want to look
at the lime sludge generated by the City of Vero Beach and see if
that possibly could be combined in this experiment.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that in the beach renourishment
project, which has been under study for quite some time, there
are two borrow areas depicted by the Army Corps of Engineers, and
he would hope this artificial reef would not be placed in either
of those areas.
Commissioner Lyons agreed to make that provision a part of
the Motion, and Commissioner Bird concurred.
Commissioner Wodtke assumed that FP&L would accept any
liability that might result from this project.
J. Ross Wilcox, Ph.D., Chief Ecologist, Florida Power 8
Light, assured the Board that FPBL would accept the responsi-
bility for any liability which might arise. He advised that part
of the idea of using the F.I.T. property at the Tracking Station
Park was so they could have easy access to the ocean. Part of
the monitoring of the reef would be done by Zodiac boat launched
from the shore.
Commissioner Bird asked how large the test reef would be,
and Mr. Wilcox advised that it will be approximately 200 bricks
that will be the size of cinder blocks. There will be two
experimental piles of about 100 bricks each, two control piles of
concrete blocks, and two control vacant areas. These will be
between one to two miles off shore.
Commissioner Wodtke believed the borrow pits are proposed to
be only about 3,000' off shore.
44
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
AMEND ZONING CODE - SITE PLAN PAVING REQUIREMENTS (Cont'd.)
Staff Planner Stan Boling made the following presentation:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: June 9, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
RECONSIDERATION OF SITE
zeq SUBJECT: PLAN PAVING REQUIREMENTS
Robert M. Keat ng, ICP ORDINANCE
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller Mkp
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Stan Boling /�1�1 REFERENCES: Paving
Staff Planner IBMIRD
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of June 18, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
At the June 4, 1986 regular Board of County Commissioners meeting,
the Board considered the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code to
establish Section 23.3(d)(3): Paving Requirements. At the
meeting the Board agreed on the substance of the proposed
ordinance but withheld final adoption pending preparation of a
provision to exempt existing establishments from paving provisions
where planned improvements would not actually increase trip
generations/attractions. Staff has now prepared an additional
provision to the ordinance whereby, under certain conditions,
paving provision requirements can be exempted. This revision is
the underlined portion of the second page of the ordinance, shown
on attachment #1. Attachment #2 is the revised ordinance in its
entirety.
ANALYSIS
The revision allows the Public Works and Planning and Development
directors to review an applicant's project to determine if site
plan improvements will actually increase traffic to an existing
establishment. Criteria are established whereby the applicant
must prove that no increase in employees, deliveries, or patrons
would result from such a project. An example of a project that
could be exempted under such criteria would be an establishment
proposing to build a garage or shelter for vehicles already used
and parked out in the open on an existing developed site.
The criteria have been drafted to limit the application of exemp-
tions and maintain the purposes of the ordinance, namely to
require paving provisions commensurate to increases in road
impacts (added trips).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
ordinance establishing Section 23.3(d)(3): Paving Requirements.
45
BOOK 64
r JUN 18 1986
BOOK 64 FAGc 740
Planner Boiling noted that this is the third time this has
been before the Board, and the section added gives Public Works
and the Planning Department the option to exempt certain projects
where it can be proved no additional use will be generated.
Chairman Scurlock believed that basically staff has modified
the ordinance to provide a little more flexibility, and this was
confirmed.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Ccrimissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 86-42, amending the Zoning Code re site
plan paved road requirements.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO 86 - 42
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTAB-
LISHING SUBSECTION 23.3(d)3 OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, APPENDIX A; PAVED ROAD
REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING INCLUSION IN CODE, SEVERABILITY,
AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION 1.
Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances,
Appendix A, Section 23.3(d)3 is hereby established as
follows:
PAVED ROAD REQUIREMENTS
The following paving requirements shall apply to site plan pro-
jects which require major site plan application approval and which
also utilize or abut unpaved public or private roads and roadways.
46
s � �
A. Private Roads
Site plan applications for all projects accessed via
unpaved private roads or roadways shall include the
paving of such roads or roadways. County road design
and construction standards shall apply to all paving
improvements.
B. Public Roads
Provisions for the paving of unpaved public roads that
access or abut project sites shall be required as
specified below under General Requirements.
C. Scenic and Historic Roads
Paving requirements and provisions for projects utiliz-
ing or abutting unpaved scenic or historic routes, as
designated in the Comprehensive Plan, shall be addressed
on a case-by-case basis. The requirements specified
below under General Requirements shall apply unless
otherwise waived by the Board of County Commissioners.
Paving requirements and provisions may be waived by the
Board of County Commissioners if the Board determines:
(1) that the scenic or historic value or significance
of the road would be adversely impacted by road
paving,
(2) that road paving is not essential to provide
adequate access to the particular development and
through the surrounding area, and
(3) that the preservation of scenic or historic values
outweighs the impacts of permitting a particular
use to develop without paved access.
If paving requirements are waived, the Board may attach
any conditions deemed necessary to minimize impacts on
the road and surrounding area.
D. Thoroughfare Plan Roads
The paving of roads designated on the Thoroughfare Plan
shall be required as specified below under General
Requirementa. Improvement of Thoroughfare Plan roads
shall be in coordination with the County long-range
major street and highway program, or as approved by the
Board of County Commissioners. In granting such
approval to pave Thoroughfare Plan designated roads in
advance of the long-range major street and highway
program and schedule, the Board of County Commissioners
shall consider the timing of improvements, adequacy or
deficiency of right-of-way, funding and construction of
improvements, and the effect on the long-range major
street and highway program.
E. General Requirements
Paving requirements are established to ensure that
adequate road improvements are provided to adequately
serve development projects and developing areas. County
road design and construction standards shall apply to
all paving improvements. Mixture of residential and
non-residential traffic shall be avoided where possible.
Persons applying for site plan approval of projects
utilizing or abutting unpaved roads shall, as part of
their application, include the appropriate provision for
paving, as specified below.
47
UUI 18 1966 BOOK 64 F,+ E741
JUN 18 1996 Bou 64 m#,)E 742
The County Public Works director shall determine the
daily traffic trip generation of projects in accordance
with accepted standards and good traffic engineering
practice. Any required submission of escrow funds shall
include an escrow agreement acceptable to the County
Attorney. Such agreements shall include provisions
necessary to accomplish and facilitate future road
paving.
Upon request by a major site plan applicant, the Public
Works director and Planning and Development director
shall review a project proposal to determine if the
project may be exempted from the requirements of this
Subsection "E General Requirements"). Where both
directors determine that the following criteria are
satisified, the major site plan shall be exempted from
the requirements of the "General Requirements" portion
of this paving requirements section of the site plan
ordinance.
1. The project proposal is either an accessory use to
an existing establishment or a modification of an
existing establishment. =4
2. The project proposal, if constructed, would not
cause an addition to the number of employees
currently working at the establishment.
3. The project proposal, if constructed, would not
cause an increase in the number of deliveries to or
from the establishment.
4. The project proposal, if constructed, would not
cause an increase in customers, buyers, or other
persons attracted to the establishment for business
purposes.
5. The applicant provides sufficient plans and
documentation to prove and ensure (certify) that
the previously listed criteria are satisfied and
will continue to be satisfied throughout the use
and operation of the improvements constructed as
part of the project, unless otherwise amended and
approved via the applicable development approval
process.
Appeals of the determination to exempt or not exempt a
project from the general paving requirements shall be
deemed to be appeals of site plan decisions and as such
shall be heard by the Board of County Commissioners
pursuant to section 23.2(m) (2) (b) of the site plan
review and approval procedures.
1. Small Traffic Attractors/Generators
Projects determined to be small traffic attractors/gen-
erators, defined as projects generating less than 100
(one hundred) average daily trips, shall provide for
road paving as follows:
(a) Access road frontage: for the paving of a road (s)
accessing the project, the applicant shall submit
funds in the amount of the project's share of
petition paving costs prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for all or any portion of
the project. Said funds shall be held by the
County to be used for the paving of the road(s)
accessing the project. The road segment to be
funded and later paved shall include all of the
project's frontage on the road.
48
_ M M
(b) Abutting road frontage: for the paving of a road(s)
abutting the project not utilized for access to the
project, the applicant shall submit funds in the
amount of the project's share of petition paving
costs prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for all or any portion of the project.
Said funds shall be held by the County to be used
for the paving of the road(s) abutting the project.
The road segment to be funded and later paved shall
include all of the project's frontage on the road.
Where abutting roads are designated on the capital
improvements program, traffic impact fees shall
substitute for escrowing funds.
(c) Paving Option: in lieu of submitting funds for
paving under 1(a) and 1(b) above, the project
application may propose to pave or arrange for
paving the project's access road frontage and/or
abutting road frontage, notwithstanding require-
ments for roads designated on the Thoroughfare
Plan, if such paving would connect to a paved
public road. If such a paving option is utilized,
no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for all
or any portion of the project until all paving has
been completed, and improvements are inspected and
approved by the County.
(d) Multi -phase projects: for purposes of determining
if a multi -phase project is a small traffic attrac -_
for/generator, the total project trip generation
shall be compared to the small traffic project
definition criteria.
(e) Cumulative effect: no certificate of occupany shall
be issued for any project utilizing access on a
road that exceeds 200 (two hundred) average daily
trips until the road accessing the project is paved
from the project's access point(s) to a paved
public road. Provisions specified below under 2
(a) , (b) , (c) , and (d) shall apply.
In considering the cumulative effect of small
traffic attracting/ generating project(s) on a
roads) or on an area, the Board of County Com-
missioners may determine the need for a forced
petition or assessment for road paving purposes in
developed or developing areas, and may impose such
an assessment.
2. Projects determined to be larger traffic attractors/
generators, defined as projects generating 100 (one
hundred) or more average daily trips, shall provide for
road paving as follows:
(a) Access road frontage to access point(s): the road
accessing the project shall be paved from the
project's access point(s) to a paved public road.
The design of the connection shall be in accordance
with County design standards. Said paving shall be
completed, and improvements inspected and approved
by the County, prior to the issuance of a certi-
ficate of occupancy for all or any portion of the
project.
(b) Remaining access road frontage: for the paving of
portions of a project's access road frontage not
covered in the above paving requirement [2(a)], the
applicant shall submit funds in the amount of the
project's share of petition paving costs prior to
49
JUN 18 1986 soon 64 Fa,E 743
'JUN 18 1986 BOOK 64 F1QF i 44
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for all
or any portion of the project. Said funds shall be
held by the County to be used for the paving of the
road accessing the project. The road segment to be
funded and later paved shall include all of the
project's frontage on the road.
(c) Abutting road frontage: for the paving of roads.
abutting the project, the applicant shall submit
funds in the amount of the project's share of
petition paving costs prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for all or any portion of
the project. Said funds shall be held by the
County to be used for the paving of the road
abutting the project. The road segment to be
funded and later paved shall include all of the
project's frontage on the road. Where abutting
roads are designated on the capital improvements
program, traffic impact fees shall substitute for
escrowing funds.
(d) Paving option: in lieu of submitting funds for
paving specified under 2(b) and 2(c) above, the
project application may propose to pave or arrange
for paving the project's remaining access road
frontage and/or abutting road frontage, notwith-
standing requirements for roads designated on the
Thoroughfare Plan, if such paving connects to a
paved public road. If such a paving option is
utilized, no certificate of occupancy shall be
issued for all or any portion of the project until
said paving is completed, and improvements are
SECTION 2.
inspected and 'approved by the County.
--
INCLUSION IN CODE
The Ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code
of Indian River County and the word "ordinance" may be
changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate
word and the sections of this Ordinance may be re -
SECTION 3. numbered or relettered to accomplish such purposes.
SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this Ordinance or the applica-
tion thereof to any person or circumstances is held
invalid, it is the legislative intent that the invalidi-
ty shall not affect other provisions or applications of
this Section which can be given in effect without the
invalid provision or application, and to this end, the
provisions of this Section are declared severable.
SECTION 4.
i
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this Ordinance (No. 86- ) shall
become effective upon receipt from the Secretary of the
State of Florida of official acknowledgement that this
Ordinance has been filed with the Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River Cdunty, Florida on this 18thday of June ,
1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By C
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., airman
50
M _
SOCIAL SECURITY MEDICARE TAXES
Finance Director Ed Fry came before the Board to discuss the
newly mandated Social Security Medicare Taxes, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 10, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: social Security Medicare Taxes
FROM: Finance Department REFERENCES:
Beginning April 1, 1986, all newly hired state and local employees must be
covered under Medicare.,
This was mandated by a bill signed by the President on April 7, 1986, making it
Public Law 99-272.
This means that at 1986 contribution rates employers must contribute 1.45
percent of an employee's salary with the worker making an equal matching
contribution for a total of 2.90 percent of payroll on the first $42,000 of
salary.
Director Fry explained that the end result is that for all
employees who have be°'en hired since April 1, 1986 and those hired
in the future not only will we have the 7.15% FICA contributions
but 1.45% contribution for the Medicare program; so, those
contributions will total 8.6% on each employee. Part comes out
of the employee's pay and is matched by the County. So far this
only covers employees hired after April 1, 1986, but there has
been extensive discussion about broadening this to cover all
employees at some time and that would generate a considerable
increase in the County budget. Director Fry continued that no
action is required at this time; he just wished the Board to be
aware of what is occurring and what could happen to increase the
tax burden.
51
JUN 18 1986
BOOK 64 F,�,F 745
JUN 18 1986
BOOK 6 4 J F 74 6
DISCUSSION __ CONTRACT _PHASE II_COUNTY _JAIL (Schopke Const.)
Chairman Scurlock referred to the following page of the
contract with Schopke Construction re Phase II of the Jail:
INDIAR RIVER COU14TY JAIL PHASE II
ADDENDUM NO. 2
' f(=)RECEN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL PHASE IIVERO BEACH, FLORIDA1986
DATE ISSUED: May 13, 1986 yED
BID DATE: May Z0, 1986
W. R. FRI'LZELL ARCHITECTS, INC.�; C5� •Ge0emr
Suite 202, 1400 Colonial Blvd. 4?11 ��<� cP SerWC=
Fort Myers Florida 33907 �/�
(813) 939-220 'f,�y.,r,71'i�rt
1878
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS DATED APRIL 21, 1986, ARE HEREBY MODIFIED AND INTERPRETED
AS FOLLOWS:
CHANGES TO THE PROJECT MANUAL
14. ADDENDUM NO. 1
Page 00901-37 Line 31: CHANGE heading on referenced attached Section
r r o m ii LGFi'�LHOIIL LC S B' to
'INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL PHASE II 187$'
15. SECTION 00800 - SUPPLEMENTARY GENERAL CONDITIONS
Page 00800-3, Line 43: ADD the following:
'9.11 Sales Tax
Add paragraph 9.11 as follows:
"9.11.1 To effect sales tax s-aving for the Owner, the Contractor shall
guarantee to the Owner the amount of $20,000 in tax savings which will be
credited to the Owner upon completion of the Work.
9.11.2 Any tax savings exceeding $20,000 but not exceeding $45,000 shall
be credited to the Contractor upon completion of the Work.
9.11.3 Any tax savings exceeding $45,000 will be credited 50% to the
Contractor and 50% to the Owner upon completion of the Work.
9.11.4 If the Owner fails to qualify for Florida Sales Tax exemptions on
zll purcha.es of materials rissocilted with the project or if the Owner
fails to designate a qualified person to facilitate the procedures for
obtaining the.contemplated sales tax savings, requirements of paragraphs
.11.1, 9.11.2 and 9.11.3 are null and void.
9.11.5 Purchase and payment procedures will be established by the Owner
to effect the sales tax savings provisions of this Article.'
9.11.6 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.
16. SECTION 01155 - SCHEDULES, REPORTS, AND PAYMENTS
Page 01155-6, Line 47: ADD the following:
'Sales Tax Savings Procedures:
Tile general procedures for major purchases will be as follows:
Indian River County will provide General Contractor with requisitions.
ADDENDUM t1O. 2
52
00902 - 1
z
3
5
7
8
9
10
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
39
40
41
42
43
44
46
47
48
49
50
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
The Chairman informed the Board that this is a situation
where we share with the contractor the saving on sales tax and it
also refers to the retainage. It is the same arrangement as the
first contract, but the page was omitted from what we considered
before and he wanted it brought to the Commission's attention
that it is on the same basis as the original. He already has the
authority to sign the contract, but wanted to be sure the Board
knew what he was signing.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE ENLARGING PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
County Attorney Vitunac reviewed the proposed ordinance and
suggested it be scheduled for a public hearing three weeks from .
this meeting. He advised that this ordinance will expand the
Planning & Zoning Commission to seven members. Each County
Commissioner will have the privilege of nominating one member to
the Planning & Zoning Commission, and the two additional members
will be appointed at -large. Each issue will require at least a
five- member vote.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
the County Attorney to advertise the public hearing
on the proposed ordinance as recommended.
RESOLUTIONS RE ISSUANCE OF 9.2 MILLION WATER & SEWER BONDS, ETC.
EXPANSION GIFFORD SYSTEM
Chairman Scurlock commented that he was disturbed by a
comment quoted from the Gifford community which indicated they
would like a more responsive County Commission. He believed this,
Commission probably has been the most responsive to the Gifford
community in the history of the county, and this project is a
prime example - a 9.2 million project that will put wastewater
within the entire community and also will pave a majority of
roads in the community. In addition to that, the Chairman
53
BOOK 64 FrUE 747
JUS 18 196
BOOK 64 F�- 74.8
noted that Commissioner Bird has worked extremely hard in the
recreation area, and he believed we have put more parks and
recreation improvements in that particular area than anywhere
else in the county. Chairman Scurlock believed that the comment
probably resulted as some backlash from the community because of
their problems with the drug situation, but he wanted to make a
statement to correct the record.
Commissioner Bird agreed with the Chairman's statement, and
he believed the majority of the people in Gifford would also.
Commissioner Lyons further pointed out that street lights
were another area improvement.
Commissioner Scurlock believed, on the other hand, that the
Gifford community has shown a more progressive attitude of late,
especially with the 9.2 million bond issue, which is not a free
ride. They put pressure on us to expand this project within
their community; they are trying to improve their community, and
he felt they are to be commended for their attitude.
Attorney Vitunac addressed the first proposed Resolution and
handed out a revised version, which he explained contained minor
technical changes. He introduced Charles Sieck of Rhodes & Sinon
and Art Diamond of M. G. Lewis & Co.
Mr. Sieck explained that this resolution is pursuant to the
FmHA Letter of Intent. It is the implementing Resolution to
issue the bonds pursuant to the ordinance, and it is pretty much
FmHA acceptable standard bond materials. FmHA has required that
interim financing be undertaken, which requires the project be
built prior to FmHA agreeing to buy the bonds, and this is where
the second Resolution re the Bond Anticipation Notes comes in.
The proceeds of the notes would be used to build the system, and
upon its completion and approval by FmHA and relevant agencies,
the bonds then would be issued and purchased by FmHA and the
proceeds of the bonds would be used to retire the notes.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the second Resolution has had
the same technical changes as the first. These changes are all
54
technical changes and don't change the substance of the
Resolutions as presented in the backup package.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the bond counsel, attorneys,
etc., all were satisfied with the language of the proposed reso-
utions, and this was confirmed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolu-
tion 86-35 authorizing the issuance of $9,200,000
Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series, 1986.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 86-36 authorizing the issuance of
$9,200,000 Water 8 Sewer Bond Anticipation Notes,
Series 1986.
SAID RESOLUTIONS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
BOARD.
Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that tomorrow he will
file an action in circuit court to validate both of these issues
- the permanent financing and the BAN - and if all goes according
to form, this should be closed before September 1st.
Art Diamond explained that under the present tax law there
is a September 1st deadline, either then or when the new tax bill
is passed. At that time there will be new restrictions. For
example, you will not be able to earn arbitrage or have longer
than a three year period for construction. We are trying to
avoid those restrictions by getting this done before September
1st, and he believed we can on the present schedule.
Chairman Scurlock inquired if we are moving ahead in regard
to making up the shortfall we have experienced. With land
acquisition costs, which we haven't plugged in anywhere, and the
55
JUN 18 16 BOOK 4 FA,I)E749
JUN 18 1966 BOOK 64 rmuE 750
shortfall of 3.5 million, he felt we are probably looking at an
additional 4 million minimum; so he hoped we can get into a
position to go out and place that before the new tax law comes
into effect.
Commissioner Lyons felt we are just going to have to make
some outside estimates and move ahead, and the OMB Director
confirmed that staff is working on this.
Commissioner Wodtke wondered how the new law might affect
the county's tax exempt status, and Mr. Diamond did not think it
is going to affect the tax exempt status of the type of things
the county finances, but it will hit industrial revenue bonds,
which are going to be "sunsetted" anyway. He believed they are
trying to curb excessive use of the tax exempt rate for
non-governmental purposes.
Chairman Scur-: o_ -E% tihanked Mr. Sieck and Mr. Diamond for
their efforts and their cooperation and felt they and their firms,
are doing a good job for the county.
DISCUSSION - PUBLIC DEFENDER BUDGET
= Assistant County Attorney Wilson advised the Board of the
budget problems of the Public Defender's office, noting that when
the Public Defender does not have sufficient staff to handle his
caseload, he can withdraw from a case, but the courts have held
that this will amount to an effective denial of counsel and they
can appoint an attorney for the defendant. The courts in this
circuit have a formula based on $35 an hour for out-of-court work
and $50 an hour for in -court work, and there is a maximum of
$1,000 for a misdemeanor case, but since we have seen over 500
misdemeanor cases in one year, this represents a considerable
expense. Attorney Wilson continued that Mr. Schwarz has
discussed his budget and offered some alternatives in the
following letters:
56
Honorable Don C. Scurlock Jr., Chairman
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
1840 Twenty Fifth Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: 1986-87 Budget Request
Dear Commissioner Scurlock:
DIRECT LINES TO MAIN OFFICE:-
f3051
FFICE:13051 287-2966 'STUART,
1305, 464-8564 (FORT PIERCE)
13050 562.1515 1 VERO BEACH)
REPLY TO: Stuart
DISTRIBUTION LIST
COmmissioners
Administrator
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
Community Dev.
Utilities
Finance e.- 9 r _'
Other
I have enclosed herewith my budget request for fiscal year
1986-87. As in the past, all expenditures will be substantiated
by monthly voucher requests submitted by this agency.
Through careful management planning, selective equipment
purchases and the elimination of reimbursement of certain costs,
I have succeeded in making substantial reductions in my operational
costs. These administrative decisions have resulted in a sig-
nificant reduction for Indian River County under last year's
request. Our projections also indicate that the actual expenses
in the current fiscal year will also be significantly under our
approved budget. An explanation of'these reductions is attached
to our budget request
Unfortunately, in spite of diligent efforts on the part of
our entire legislative delegation, it is apparent that I will not
receive the necessary resources, either positions or funding, in
order to meet our workload requirement during fiscal year 1986-83
commencing July 1st.
Upon expiration of the three existing special assistant public
defender contractson June 30, 1986, two of these attorneys will
be returned to our State payroll. This will give us three full-
time assistant public defenders filling authorized positions funded
by the State in order to handle the felony caseload in Indian
River County. The remaining two members of our staff in Indian
River County will be terminated at that time and we will no longer
able to provide assistant public defender coverage for misde-
meanors in the in'In;i,ian River Countv Court or in juvenile cases.
I am in the process of encouraging the courts to implement
assessment of liens in those cases where it is appropriate and
urging enforcement of these liens either through probation or
other appropriate action by the respective Boards of County
Commissioners. If these procedures are implemented, this should
permit employment of two attorneys or interns by the County
Legal Department to be assigned to our office to handle misde-
meanor and juvenile cases with virtually no fiscal impact upon
the taxpayers of Indian River County.
In view of the cooperative attitude previously taken by
your Board over the years, I would be more than willing to discuss
implementation of a responsible approach to this problem with
either the entire Board or your County attorney'if preferable.
I sincerely appreciate the assistance that I have received
from Indian River County during this past year in attempting to
overcome the problems created by the tremendous growth within the
treasure coast area.
nAr�
fr,ut 5
LAW OFFICES OF
MARTIN COUNTY OFFIC i%
ELTON H. SCHWARZ
1� �-�7L�'
IMAIN OFFICEI f1 ��•
Sl ETEEN7H
PUBLIC DEFENDER
SUITE 215. COURTHOUSE EX `f:
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA
P. O. BOX 2314�'� A • •;,
STUART. FLORIDA 33h --2314! y8r-+ .,
r
ROBIN W. FRIERSON
(3051283-6760 E�7L1380 U
DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER
ELIZABETH M. WILKINSON
', ,�• �, A ��,,,1 t,
BUSINESS MANAGER
,1
t! ...: .^'":,.y r,•:
May 22 1986
I(�1 U 7
Honorable Don C. Scurlock Jr., Chairman
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
1840 Twenty Fifth Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: 1986-87 Budget Request
Dear Commissioner Scurlock:
DIRECT LINES TO MAIN OFFICE:-
f3051
FFICE:13051 287-2966 'STUART,
1305, 464-8564 (FORT PIERCE)
13050 562.1515 1 VERO BEACH)
REPLY TO: Stuart
DISTRIBUTION LIST
COmmissioners
Administrator
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
Community Dev.
Utilities
Finance e.- 9 r _'
Other
I have enclosed herewith my budget request for fiscal year
1986-87. As in the past, all expenditures will be substantiated
by monthly voucher requests submitted by this agency.
Through careful management planning, selective equipment
purchases and the elimination of reimbursement of certain costs,
I have succeeded in making substantial reductions in my operational
costs. These administrative decisions have resulted in a sig-
nificant reduction for Indian River County under last year's
request. Our projections also indicate that the actual expenses
in the current fiscal year will also be significantly under our
approved budget. An explanation of'these reductions is attached
to our budget request
Unfortunately, in spite of diligent efforts on the part of
our entire legislative delegation, it is apparent that I will not
receive the necessary resources, either positions or funding, in
order to meet our workload requirement during fiscal year 1986-83
commencing July 1st.
Upon expiration of the three existing special assistant public
defender contractson June 30, 1986, two of these attorneys will
be returned to our State payroll. This will give us three full-
time assistant public defenders filling authorized positions funded
by the State in order to handle the felony caseload in Indian
River County. The remaining two members of our staff in Indian
River County will be terminated at that time and we will no longer
able to provide assistant public defender coverage for misde-
meanors in the in'In;i,ian River Countv Court or in juvenile cases.
I am in the process of encouraging the courts to implement
assessment of liens in those cases where it is appropriate and
urging enforcement of these liens either through probation or
other appropriate action by the respective Boards of County
Commissioners. If these procedures are implemented, this should
permit employment of two attorneys or interns by the County
Legal Department to be assigned to our office to handle misde-
meanor and juvenile cases with virtually no fiscal impact upon
the taxpayers of Indian River County.
In view of the cooperative attitude previously taken by
your Board over the years, I would be more than willing to discuss
implementation of a responsible approach to this problem with
either the entire Board or your County attorney'if preferable.
I sincerely appreciate the assistance that I have received
from Indian River County during this past year in attempting to
overcome the problems created by the tremendous growth within the
treasure coast area.
nAr�
fr,ut 5
r JUN 18 1986
BUDGET REDUCTTONS
BOOK
64 race 7,52
Please notice that this budget request is submitted with
substantial reductions in costs over last year due to the fol-
lowing economizing efforts by this office.
1. Purchased pagers in July 185.N Reduced budget by
reducing rent resulting in aneventual savings now
realized of approximately $2,520 per year.
2. Last payment of mobile equipment will be made in
January of 1987, which will reduce the administra-
tive expenses by $345.00 per month,$4,140 per year.
3. As Suncom lines are now in place in Indian River
and martin Counties, the need for direct (FX)
lines has now been eliminated resulting in ser-
vice being discontinued in Martin and St. Lucie
Counties. This will result in approximate savings
administratively of $4,068. The costs to St. Lucie
County will be increased as local office will no
longer have a direct line to the Vero area.
4. The recent purchase of a phone system to the Vero
Beach Office through the county courthouse has re-
sulted in reductions of the telephone charges for
the local office.
5. Elimination of the practice of reimbursing attorneys
and investigators for their base phone rate will re-
sult in a savings of approximately $6,000 per year
in administrative costs.
58
MARTIN COUNTY OFFICE:
IMAIN OFFICE)
SUITE 2 15 . COURTHOUSE ANNEX
P O. BOX 2314
STUART. FLORIDA 33495.2314
(3051283.6760 EXT. 380
LAW OFFICES OF
ELTON H. SCHWARZ
PUBLIC DEFENDER
NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA
ROBIN W. FRIERSON
DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER
ELIZABETH M. WILKINSON
BUSINESS MANAGER
June 17, 1986
DIRECT LINES TO MAIN OFFICE:
1305, 287-2966 1 STUART I
1305 1 464.8564 I FORT PIERCE)
• 3051 562.1515 - VERO BEACH)
REPLY TO:
JUN 19ss
- ;! ®
Honorable C. Pfeiffer Trowbridge co doANOOFCOUNTY
Chief Judge, 19th Judicial Circuit u` O&11MISSIONERS
Martin County Court House
Stuart, FL 33494
Re Rendition of Public Defender Services within the 19th
Judicial Circuit
Dear Judge Trowbridge:
It is with considerable reluctance that I am forced to advise
the court that my office will, as of July 1, 1986, be unable to
provide Assistant Public Defenders to represent indigents within
Martin, St. Lucie, and Indian River County who are charged with
misdemeanor or juvenile offenses within these three counties. As
Public Defender for the 19th Judicial Circuit, it is incumbent
upon me to operate this office within the number of positions.au-
thorized by the legislature; the funds provided by them in the an-
nual appropriations act; and, the maximum annual salary rate au-
thorized by law. For Fiscal Year 1986-87, (commencing July 1,
1986) this figure is set at 38 authorized positions and $1,074,040
for salaries and benefits, over 88 percent of our total appropria-
tion for the year. Although we have not yet received our salary
rate, I do not anticipate that it will permit employment of more
than 14 Assistant Public Defenders. I am addressing this letter
to you, as Chief Judge of this Circuit, by virtue of your author-
ity under Rule 2.050(b)(6), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., although I am
not requesting any judicial action on your part at this time. By
copy of this letter, I am advising all of the judges and county
commissions involved with an explanation as to the necessity for
this action as well as suggestions as to potential alternatives.
I have attached a statistical report reflecting the relative
case load changes within each of the four counties of this Circuit
as well as the Circuit as a whole for Calendar Years 1983, 1984,
1985, and estimates for 1986, together with actual figures for
the first four months of 1986 as compared to the first four months
of 1985. Although our misdemeanor case load has almost doubled
since 1983, our felony case load has almost tripled during this
Period of time.
In spite of these caseload increases, our authorized po-
sitions have only increased from 37 during Fiscal Year 1982-83
to 38 now authorized for Fiscal Year 1986-87. Our authorized
Positions and appropriation for salaries and benefits for the
past five years are as follows:
Salaries & Benefits
Auth. Pos. Appropriated
1982-83 37 849,694
1983-84 34 81 7, 748
1984-85 34 920,394
1985-86 36 91 8, 01 8
1986-87 38 1,074,040
JUN 18 1996 59 BOOK 6 rr �1
L
J
'JUN 18 1996 Bou 64 u, -)E 754
In order -to operate this office within the resources pro-
vided by the legislature, I cannot employ more than three Assis-
tant Public Defenders for martin County; five Assistant Public
Defenders for St. Lucie County; three Assistant Public Defenders
for Indian River County; 1.75 Assistant Public Defenders for
Okeechobee County; and, one Deputy Public Defender to coordinate
and assist in representation of all capital cases throughout the•'
Circuit. 3.75 positions are allocated to administrative functions,
and the remainder of the personnel are assigned to investigative,
secretarial, and clerical support functions throughout the four
full time offices within this Circuit.
In addition to the personnel authorized and funded as indi-
cated above, we will need two additional attorneys in Martin
County; three additional attorneys in St. Lucie County; and, two
additional attorneys in Indian River County if we are to provide
representation to all individuals entitled to public defender ser-
vices throughout the Circuit. This is seven more positions than
are presently authorized or funded for this office for Fiscal
Year 1986-87.
In view of all of these circumstance%, I am left with no al-
ternative but to decline acceptance of appointments in misdemeanor
cases in the County Court and juvenile cases in the Circuit Court
of Martin, St. Lucie, and Indian River County after June 30, 1986.
In analyzing the responsibilities of this office, I firmly believe
that our first priority should be the providing of effective assis-
tance of counsel in capital and non -capital felony cases. It is,
my intention to give this responsibi.lity my utmost priority and to
utilize such other resources as may be available to provide sup-
port services, where feasible and necessary, throughout all the
courts within this Circuit. All cases that have been assigned to
this office prior to July 1, 1986, will continue to be handled by
us until their conclusion.
Since this can no longer be considered a short-term crisis
situation, I have given careful consideration to available al-
ternatives. Unfortunately, none of these are without relatively
serious economic consequences. The existing situation has not
been created by the courts, the counties, the prosecutors, or by
MY office. It is solely a result of the growth within the 19th
Judicial Circuit and the accompanying increase in crime. The
following is a list of conceiveable alternatives that might be
considered as available:
Alternative No. 1: s. 27.53(2), Florida Statutes, pro-
vides for special assignments without salary to members
of The Florida Bar who have registered their availabil-
ity to the.Public Defender as Special Assistant Public
Defenders. Their fee, costs, and expenses are paid by
the counties as provided in s. 925.036, Florida Statutes.
It is not clear as to whether or not this type of assign-
ment requires court approval or not. However, I do not
consider this alternative acceptable since, without court
approval, such an interpretation would be a unilateral
decision on my part that such action be taken.
Alternative No. 2: Appointment by the court of Special
Assistant Public Defenders from the list of attorneys
who have represented their availability upon our filing
a Motion To Withdraw in each specific case pursuant to
Kiernan v. State, 11 FLW at 608 and Escambia County v.
Behr, 384 So.2d 147 (Fla. 1980). Again, these attor-
neys would be entitled to a fee, costs, and expenses
from the county as provided in s. 925.036, Florida Stat-
utes. In the absence of acceptance of some other al-
ternative, I anticipate that this will be the procedure
followed as of July 1, 1986.
60
Alternative No. 3: Each county could contract with one
or more local attorneys to handle these "overload" cases
on a fixed fee or upon such other contractual arrange-
ment as may be agreed upon. Under such an arrangement,
it is assumed that the contracting attorneys would work
out of their own offices and provide their own support
facilities as may be required. my best estimate'would
be that this will involve approximately 1,000 cases during
this next year for martin County; over 2,600 cases for
St. Lucie County; and, over 1,200 cases for Indian River
County. At an estimated cost of approximately $350 per
case, the fiscal impact becomes virtually prohibitive.
Alternative No. 4: Employment by the county through
their County Attorney's Office of two attorneys in
Martin County; three attorneys in St. Lucie County;
and, two attorneys by Indian River County with these
attorneys assigned to work out of our offices would
provide an alternative solution. Law school grad-
uates not yet admitted to The Florida Bar can be util-
ized as long as they serve under our supervision and
can be employed at a salary of approximately $1,425
per month. Attorneys recently admitted to the Bar
with relatively little experience can also be hired
at $1,890 per month. These are the salary ranges
that have currently been utilized by my office and
are generally considered to be reasonable. Each of
our offices involved currently have adequate space
to house these attorneys, and we would attempt to
provide the necessary support facilities including
secretarial services and necessary furniture and
equipment. Under this alternative, the total cost
to the counties would be between $34,200 and $45,360
each for martin and Indian River County for this
next year, plus the necessary matching funds for
fringe benefits, etc., as are required for all coun-
ty employees. The cost for St. Lucie County for the
next 12 months would be between $51,300 and $68,040,
plus necessary matching funds. Should either of the
counties elect this alternative, we would continue to
assist by maintaining our current recruitment practices
in order to obtain the most qualified individuals avail-
able and would provide all necessary supervision. We
currently have one attorney in martin County, two at-
torneys in St. Lucie County, and two attorneys in In-
dian River County available for such employment and
have numerous other resumes from qualified individuals
pending at the present time.
Although Alternative No. 4 is obviously the most economical
solution to this long-range problem, the ultimate decision will
have to be made by each of the Boards of County Commissioners.
Should they choose not to take any action at this time, my only
alternative is to proceed under Alternative No. 2.
EHS:rb
61 BOOK 64 F',1r 755
I
JUN 18 1986
BOOK 64 Frac 7;")-6
Chairman Scurlock did not feel there is any option; the
service has to be rendered and on the most economical basis, and
he, therefore, felt we should consider Alternative 3 and try to
negotiate a fee with some local attorney, He also felt we should
join in with our neighboring counties and file suit against the
state and tell the state to live up to its responsibilities.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, to direct staff to take whatever
legal steps are available, including lawsuit, to get
the state to meet its obligations and properly fund the
Public Defender's Office and also ask the neighboring
counties if they wish to participate in this action.
Attorney Vitunac did not know if such a suit would succeed,
but he believed it will bring attention to the problem and show
the state we are serious about this.
Attorney Wilson noted that this is a general problem all
over the state, not just in this Judicial Circuit.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Bird noted that we went with Alternative 4 last
year, but he did believe we should explore Alternative 3.
Public Defender Elton Schwarz advised that Martin County
pursued this alternative a few months ago. They received two
bids and accepted one for $350 per case for misdemeanors and
$500-550 for felonies; however, this could amount to $350,000 per
year.
Chairman Scurlock stated that one of the problems he has
with Alternative 4 where the County hires the attorneys is that
it sends the message to the state that this is a more permanent
situation with salary rather than a contractual basis.
62
1
Mr. Schwarz explained the reason for the salaried basis
instead of contract is that would entitle them to maintain health
insurance and other benefits. Under the original contracts, they
were in filled position of the state, but were on leave without
pay and they were able to pay in and maintain their health
insurance under that program. Under Alternative #4, they would
be county employees under the County Attorney's office assigned
to his office to handle misdemeanors.
Attorney Vitunac expressed his preference to go with
Alternative 4 with a 30 day out clause in case we were able to
contract with somebody cheaper.
Mr. Schwarz agreed that the County can fire whoever they
hire. Speaking as president of the Florida Public Defenders
Association, he continued to emphasize that this problem is
statewide. According to their formula, the Public Defenders are
23 million dollars short statewide and 700 positions short. The
prosecutors have the same situation. There are cases going
through the courts that are thrown out or lost because of the
overload the prosecutors have. Mr. Schwarz noted that in Dade
County they will not even file charges on anything short of a
second degree felony unless you really push. He felt the
criminal system in Florida has gone to pot, and the legislature
is just not establishing criminal justice as a priority. South
Florida is growing at a terrific pace and has an overwhelming
problem. Mr. Schwarz emphasized that he will continue every
effort to get the courts to assess liens against their clients in
appropriate cases. Some funds have been generated this way, and
it can be made a condition of probation.
Commissioner Bird suggested that it might be some help if we
correspond with the State Association of County Commissioners and
recommend that the criminal justice system in Florida be made a
major topic of discussion at their next mid -year conference.
Mr. Schwarz believed that both the State's Attorneys and the
63
JUN 18 1986 BOOK 64 Fmui,- 75 7
JUN
18 1996
Bou
64
Fnur 758
the
Public Defenders will
appreciate whatever the Board
can do
to
bring attention to this problem.
Commissioner Lyons agreed emphatically that we must do
something to get the state legislature to realize what is
happening as far as caseload is concerned. He pointed out that
our jail projections were way off base because of the tremendous
increase we have experienced in criminal activity, and the
shortfall for the Public Defenders and State's Attorneys directly
affects the jail population.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that the state recently passed
a Bill
that
says
250
of all
the
traffic violations and court
fines
will
go to
the
state,
and
we are going to lose that money.
He did not see how they can expect to combat crime if we don't
have the necessary personnel in the Public Defender and State's
Attorney offices and also not enough.judges.
Mr. Schwarz noted that we are all dealing with taxpayer's
dollars, and he believed the local counties are better equipped
to disburse those dollars in an appropriate manner than the
state, which is so much further away from it all.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Alternative 4 set out in the Public Defender's
letter dated June 17, 1986, with the addition of
an escape clause.
SEBASTIAN AREA WASTEWATER SYSTEM - REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE
Chairman Scurlock informed the Board of the following letter
he had received from Sebastian Councilman Rondeau:
64
L. Gene Harris
Mayor
June 17, 1986
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 127 O SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958-0127
TELEPHONE 05) 589-5330 "— DeBorah King"
Clerk
Don C. Scurlock/Chairman
Puard of County Commissioners
It *0 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Re: Sebastian Area Waste Water System
Dear Commissioner:
The Sebastian Area Economic Planning and Development Council and the people of
Sebastian are enthused with the developing sewage system in our area.
We are attempting at this time to contact all of the property owners in the affected
area. It would be of great help to us if you could supply us with a list from your
assessment roles of all of the people affected. Additionally, if this could be
broken down into the affected zones, it would enhance our ability to contact every-
one to let them know of our plans.
Due to the lack of personnel and funds, we are not able to immediately obtain this
list, therefore, we request your assistance. However, rest assured, once we do have
the list we will make good use of it so that we can develop a total sewage system
for the good of the Sebastian area.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
LLOYD RONDEAU, COUNCILMAN
CITY OF SEBASTIAN and
Liason, Economic Planning and
Development Council
The Chairman believed that if the Board would authorize the
Utilities Department and appropriate personnel to assist with
identifying the affected areas on maps, the City of Sebastian
will take over from there.
Utilities Director Pinto felt that this information probably
could be developed in one day's time.
65
BOOK 64 E 759
JUN 18 1996 BOOK 64 F.,+;r�
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to assist the City of Sebastian as requested.
REPORT ON GIFFORD COMMUNITY BUILDING
Commissioner Bird noted that as the Board knew, the land for
the Gifford Community Building was donated by the Town of Indian
River Shores, Architect Charles Block has donated plans, and the
Gifford Community is undertaking a very spirited fund raising
effort. Commissioner Bird advised that he has been working with
State Representative Dale Patchett for the last two years to see
if there are any state funds available for this project. Last
year Rep. Patchett put $250,000 in the budget for the project and
it made it down to the final budget cut by the legislature before
it was dropped. This year he was successful in having the
$250,000 left in the budget. These funds are in a portion of the
budget related to educational projects, and, therefore, they
appeared before the School Board and brought them up to date on
the project. The School Board unanimously endorsed the project
and will cooperate in designing educational programs to be used
in the facility in order to qualify for these funds.
Commissioner Bird believed the $250,000 appears to be in
sight, but we must overcome the Governor's potential veto.
Representative Patchett took back to Tallahassee yesterday a
petition with 3,000 signatures supporting the project, and he
felt it would be of great assistance if this Commission would
instruct Attorney Vitunac to compose a telegram to be sent to the
Governor encouraging him'to approve this budget item.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Lyons, the Board unanimously instructed
Attorney Vitunac to send a telegram to Governor
Graham urging his approval of the budget item
as described above.
66
REQUEST CONSIDERATION AT SPECIAL SESSION OF LEGISLATURE
Chairman Scurlock reviewed the following letter and believed
we should participate with our adjoining counties.
13;.;;�� BOARD 0'I r'n t INTY COM.111',` 't'' ('NTh
c
j 50 Kindred Street . Stuart, 1 luricr,r ti. s i ��
LO ERT �' ��� Co4ty I Administrator
BOACnr
RD COUNTY ;l
co -866
June 11, 1986
The Honorable Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Indian River County Board
of Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Mr. Scurlock:
PHONE (305) 283-6760
As I'm sure you are aware, the legislature has adjourned without
addressing the issue of criminal justice funding.
Our Board has authorized me to write to Rep. Thompson, Sen. Johnston,
and Gov. Graham asking that they include roads and criminal justice
funding in the special session called for June 19th. We would request
your immediate help in getting Tallahassee's attention in adding
criminal justice to the special session.
We feel that the legislature must address three (3) issues this year:
1. Sales Tax.
2. Gas Tax.
3. Funding for an Article V Review Committee as
recommended by the State Comprehensive Plan
Committee.
The Review Committee would be charged with reviewing the Criminal
Justice System to separate out state and county responsibilities so
that counties will not be forced to pay for state responsibilities.
We need your help as soon as possible if these important issues are to
be addressed.
Sincere ,
7
Thom°as G.
Chairman
Kenny, III
Commissioner Bowman felt this is extremely urgent as the
Legislature reconvenes tomorrow and she suggested that we either
phone or send a wire requesting that these matters be addressed
at the Special Session.
67
B00!( 6 '
CAGF 101
JUN 18 1996 sooK6 4 P,�,E76?
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
Attorney Vitunac to send a wire to Rep. Thompson,
Sen. Johnston and Governor Graham requesting that
they include roads and criminal justice funding in
the Special Session called for June 19th.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and -carried, the Board adjourned at 11:10 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
Chairman
68