HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/25/1986Wednesday, June 25, 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 25, 1986, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Patrick B.
Lyons, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and
William C. Wodtke, Jr. Absent was Don C. Scurlock, Jr.,
Chairman, who was out of state attending the American Waterworks
Conference in Colorado. Also present were L. S. "Tommy" Thomas,
Acting County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac,*Attorney to the
Board of County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and
Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
Vice Chairman Lyons, acting as Chairman in the absence of
Chairman Scurlock, called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Bowman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Acting Administrator Thomas advised that he would like to
have Consent Agenda Item J - Application for Installation of
NCIC/FCIC Computer Terminal in the New Jail Complex - deleted
from the agenda. 1�
Attorney Vitunac requested the addition under his matters of
an endorsement letter and resolution re industrial bond money for
a nursing home to be built by Florida Convalescent Centers.
Vice Chairman Lyons wished to add discussion of a letter
received from the Town of Fellsmere and the Drainage District
requesting to be added to the County's health insurance plan.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, Chairman Scurlock being absent, the Board
unanimously (4-0j approved the addition and deletion of
items on today's agenda as described above.
BOOK 64 Fa.;EVS
JUN 2 5 1996 BOOK
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
64 pmu- 779
The Vice Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 28,
1986.
Commissioner Bowman questioned the wording in the Motion on
Page 19
- "we would
like to
see
them come back in...."
and wished
to know
who "them"
referred
to.
It was explained that
this
should be corrected to read "we would like to see the Sebastian
Inlet District come back in...."
Commissioner Bowman then advised that in the next to last
paragraph on Page 21 the word "chlorine" should be replaced by
eq
"flouride."
These corrections having been made, ON MOTION by -
Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird,
the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the Minutes of
the Regular Meeting of May 28, 1986, as written.
The Vice Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of May 29,
1986. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Special Meeting of May 29, 1986, as
written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Vice Chairman Lyons noted that Item J had been deleted as
requested by Acting Administrator Thomas, and Attorney Vitunac
requested that Item E be removed for discussion.
A__Approval S Transmittal of Annual OEDP Report
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Goulet:
2
TO: The Honorable Members DATE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
June 16, 1986 FILE:
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
I- SUBJECT:
Robert M. Keati , 5pcp
Planning & Development Director
THROUGH: Richard Shearer, AICP
Chief, Long -Range Planning
APPROVAL AND TRANSMITTAL
OF THE ANNUAL OEDP REPORT
TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOP-
MENT ADMINISTRATION
FROM2effrey A. Goulet REFERENCES:
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of June 25, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
On June 3, 1986, the Overall Economic Development Plan (OEDP)
Committee met to discuss a draft annual report on the County's
OEDP. The Annual OEDP Report is due to the Economic Development
Administration by June 30, 1986. This report is required in
order for Indian River County to maintain its "redevelopment
area" status and its eligibility to apply for federal technical
assistance funds.
The Annual OEDP Report must include the following items:
1) A review of past year's accomplishments;
2) Report on any significant changes in the economy and its
development potentials; and
3) An update of the County's $evelopment strategies and
course of action planned for the coming two years. This
shall include any projects that may require EDA financial
assistance.
The County planning staff prepared the final annual report based
on the Committee's review of the draft report at the June 3
meeting. The Committee felt that no additional meetings were
necessary. The annual report reflects the past year's
accomplishments by the Economic Development Council and minor
changes to the OEDP.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the OEDP Committee's review, staff recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the Annual OEDP Report and
authorize staff to transmit the report to the Economic
Development Administration.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
the Annual Overall Economic Development Plan and
authorized staff to transmit same to the EDA.
OEDP Report is on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board.
3
JUN 2 5 W6
BOOK 64 FA.,Ur (8O
B__1990 Census Tract _& Block Group Proposal
Boa 64 rmu 781
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Goulet:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 16, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVIS ON HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: APPROVAL AND TRANSMITTAL
RbtS-erti M. eatirfg A'"fI OF THE 1990 CENSUS TRACT
Planning & Developmen Director AND BLOCK GROUP PROPOSAL
TO THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
THROUGH: Richard Shearer, AICP
Chairman, Census Statistical Area
FROa.ommittee
REFERENCES:
Jeffrey A. Goulet
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 25, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
In November of 1985, the Board of County Commissioners appointed
a Census Statistical Area Committee to review the geographical
boundaries for the 1990 c___as. The committee consists of the
following members: .
Wendy Bird, 1980 Statistical Area Key Person
Ann Robinson, County Supervisor of Elections
Walter Young, City of Vero Beach Planning Director
Deborah Krages, City Clerk, City of Sebastian
Ken Evitt, Administrative Assistant, Indian River County
School District
Qobert M. Keating, Director, Indian River County
Planning and Development Division
Richard Shearer, Chief, Long -Range Planning,
1990 Statistical Area Key Person/Chairman
On May 22, 1986, the Committee transmitted a copy of the proposal
to the mayors of all of the municipalities within the County for
their review and comment. The Committee did not receive any
comments from the municipalities and concluded that there was no
conflict with the proposal.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The County planning staff has worked with the Committee to
analyze and revise the current census geography. The U.S. Census
Bureau has defined strict criteria which the Committee used in
preparing the 1990 Census Tract and Block Group Proposal. These
proposed tracts and blocks will be utilized primarily at the
staff level to analyze socio-economic data in the County.
Because of the strict criteria established by the census bureau,
it was not possible to have census tract boundaries follow city
limit boundaries.
A proposed census map and legal descriptions defining the
proposed tracts and block groups is attached. Due to the large
increase in population since the census geography was last
4
updated, many new tracts were required. The Committee feels that
this proposal will adequately meet the needs of the Census Bureau
and provide the County with a much more detailed and accurate
data base for the coming decade.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the Census Statistical Area Committee's work, staff
recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
1990 Census Tract and Block Group Proposal and authorize staff to
transmit the proposal to the U.S. Census Bureau for review.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the 1990 Census Tract and Block Group
Proposal and authorized staff to transmit same
to the U.S. Census Bureau for review.
COPY OF THE ABOVE PROPOSAL is on file in the Office of Clerk
to the Board.
C. Liens - Nuisance Structure Demolition
The Board reviewed memo of Assistant County Attorney Wilson:
TO: The Board of DATE: June 17, 1986
County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Nuisance Structure Demolition
FROM: Je : Wilson `
As. ant County Attorney
The Liens attached hereto relate to nuisance structures
which were demolished pursuant to the order of the Board of
County Commissioners. The owners of the land upon which the
structures existed have not paid these assessments as of
this date. After signing, the Liens will be filed in the
public records to secure payment of the demolition costs.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized
Vice Chairman Lyons to sign Liens against property
owned by the following:
�19
Willie Bell Davis
Beulah Anderson
Lylphia Noble
John Lincoln
5
BOOK 64 FmuE 782
r 'JUS! 2
5 1966
LIEN
BOOK 64 fnIJE783
THIS LIEN, filed the day of , 1986
by INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a poIiticaT—subdivision o_Fthe State
of Florida, pursuant to the authority of Indian River County
Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 4, Article II, Sections
4-16 through 4-24, for cost incurred by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, to remove a
nuisance structure from property located within Indian River
County, and described as follows:
SPRUCE PARK SUBDIVISION
Lot 3, Block 4
Parcel No. 26-32-39-00.005-0040-00003.0
The name of the record owner of the
above-described property is:
Zylphia Noble
THIS LIEN is filed to secure the payment of
Seven Hundred Fourteen and 83/100 Dollars ($714.83), against
the owner by the undersigned, for the cost of demolition and
removal against the real property.
THIS LIEN shall, from the date of filing, accrue
interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum,
until the total amount, including interest, has been paid.
BOARD OF UNI
,BY.
a
Vice Chair
LIEN
COMMISSIONERS
yon
n
THIS LIEN, filed the day of , 1986
by INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political^ subdivision oF the State
of Florida, pursuant to the authority of Indian River County
Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 4, Article II, Sections
4-16 through 4-24, for cost incurred by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, to remove a
nuisance structure from property located within Indian River
County, and described as follows:
ESPY'S SUBDIVISION
Lot 20
Parcel No. 26-32-39-08-0000-020.0
The name of the record owner of the
above-described property is:
Willie Bell Davis
THIS LIEN is filed to secure the payment of
Two Thousand Fifty -Nine and 87/100 Dollars ($2,059.87),
against the owner by the undersigned, for the cost of
demolition and removal against the real property.
THIS LIEN shall, from the date of filing, accrue
interest at the rate of twelve percent (120) per annum,
until the total amount, including interest, has been paid.
BOARD Of,-�UNTY COMMISSIONERS
a I c c on
6 Vice Chair an
LIEN
THIS LIEN, filed the day of 1986
by INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a politicaT—subdivision oT tTie State
of Florida, pursuant to the authority of Indian River County
Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 4, Article II, Sections
4-16 through 4-24, for cost incurred by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, to remove a
nuisance structure from property located within Indian River
County, and described as follows:
HILLCREST SUBDIVISION
Lots 10 and 11, Block 5
Parcel No. 26-32-39-00002-0050-00010.0
The name of the record owner of the
above-described property is:
Beulah Anderson
THIS LIEN is filed to secure the payment of
Seven Hundred Fourteen and 83/100 Dollars ($714.83), against
the owner by the undersigned, for the cost of demolition and
removal against the real property.
THIS LIEN shall, from the date of filing, accrue
interest at the rate of twelve percent (120) per annum,
until the total amount, including interest, has been paid.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
M1
LIEN
THIS LIEN, filed the day of , 1986
by INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a poIiticaT—subdivision o-f-tFie State
of Florida, pursuant to the authority of Indian River County
Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 4, Article II, Sections
4-16 through 4-24, for cost incurred by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, to remove a
nuisance structure from property located within Indian River
County, and described as follows:
S 75' of N 225' of N 1/2 of NE 1/4 of SE 1/4
of SW 1/4 and S 37.03' of N 187.03' of
NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of SW 114
Parcel No. 29-31-39--00000-5000-0096.0
The name of the record owner of the
above-described property is:
John Lincoln
THIS LIEN is filed to secure the payment of
One Thousand Four Hundred Seven and 56/100 Dollars
($1,407.56), against the owner by the undersigned, for the
cost of demolition and removal against the real property.
THIS LIEN shall, from the date of filing, accrue
interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum,
until the total amount, including interest, has been paid.
7 BY
COMMISSIONERS
R
r JUN 2 5 1986
BOOK 64 F'F�GE 785
D. Work Authorization #7 - Masteller & Moler - 12th St.Water Main
The Board reviewed memo from the Utilities staff:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU : L.S. THOMAS
VIA: TERRANCE G.
FROM: JEFFREY A.
/%
PIN ',
�/
BOONE "
�v
DATE: JUNE 16, 1986
SUBJECT: 12th STREET WATER MAIN -FROM OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY
TO 6th AVENUE/AND COMMERCE AVENUE FROM 12th
STREET TO 10th STREET
BACKGROUND:
Proposed roadway improvements, by rhe Public Works Division, will
require replacement of existing transite water mains along 12th
Street from Old Dixie Highway to 6th,Avenue. Anticipated
increases in demand along the 12th Street corridor would
eventually warrant upsizing the existing water mains From 8 and
10 inch pipe to 12 and 16 it-- 4 -.-.e. Since the proposed roadwav
improvements demand immeOocation of the existing transite
water mains which would withstand being subjected to
const_ru}_- in the in::ta�iate area, the Utilities Division
:ese water Mains be upsized in conjunction with this`
.(�:ation to facilitate the anticipated increases in demand.
Additionally, new demand, south of 12th Street necessitates
construction of 16 inch main along Commerce Avenue from 12th
Street to 10th Street.
ANALYSIS:
14aste-ler Moler Associates, Inc. have prepared a proposal for
engineering services consistent with their "Agreement for Profes-
sional Services dated April 24, 1986 totaling $15,000.00.
Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc. have also prepared estimates
of the construction costs for the 2800 feet of water main along
12th Street from Old Dixie Highway to 6th Avenue and the 1350
feet of water main along Commerce Avenue from 12th Street to 10th
Street including all valves, hydrants and necessary appurtenances
totaling $195,000.00.
RECONMENDATIONS:
The Utilities Division recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the proposed engineering services by
Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc. in the amount of $15,000.00
and authorize the Utilities Division to solicit bids for the
subject construction estimated at $195,000.00.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
Work Author. #7 for engineering services by Masteller
& Moler Assoc, in the amount of $15,000 re 12th St.
Water Main, authorized the signature of the Vice Chair-
man, and authorized the Utilities Division to solicit
bids for the subject construction estimated at $195,000.
8
Date:
5/16/86
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Work Authorization No. 7 for Consulting Services.
Project No. 7 (County) 86024 (Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc.)
(Water)
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Title: 12th Street Water Main from Old Dixie Highway to 6th Avenue
and Commerce Avenue from 12th Street to 10th Street
Consulting engineering services relative to the 16" and 12"
diameter water main extension east from Old Dixie Highway to
6th Avenue along 12th Street, consisting of approximately 2800'
with valves, hydrants, and appurtenances and 16" diameter water
main extension south from 12th Street to 10th Street along Commerce
Avenue consisting of approximately 1350' with valves, hydrants
and appurtenances. Budget estimate for construction cost is
$195,000.00.
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND LUMP SUM FEE FOR SERVICES
Reference is made to the "Agreement for Professional Services"
dated April 24, 1986 and specific Article numbers and paragraph
numbers which are listed hereinafter to describe the scope of ser-
vices included on this project:
A. Project Design Services per Article 4, paragraph 4a. and 4b.
B. General Services During Construction per Article 5, paragraph
5a. and 5b.
C. Supplementary and Special Services per Article 6, paragraph
6c., 6d., 6e., 6f., and 6g. In addition, our services shall
include field surveys necessary for design and preparation of
construction plans and assistance to the County in obtaining
various permits and approvals for construction (permit fees
to be paid by the County).
D. Payment for Services per Article 8, paragraph 8b., the lump
sum fee for A, B and C above is $15,000.00. Payment shall be per
paragraph 8d.
APPROVED BY:
INDIAN
BOARD,
Date 6/25/86
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
Charles Vitunac
County Attorney
9
SUBMITTED BY•
MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC.
By V r -ill/ _
Steeph n E. Moler, P:E.
Executive Vice -President
Date
Boos 64 r -n -L 786
BOOK
E. Award Bid - So. Gifford Rd. Water Main Extension
64 PmuE787
The Board reviewed the following memo from the Utility
staff:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: JUNE 16, 1986
THRU: L.S THOMAS
VIA•
TERRANCE PINT0_/1
FROM: JEFFREY A. BOONE A/3
SUBJECT: SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD WATER MAIN EXTENSION
FROM 28th AVENUE TO 38th AVENUE
BACKGROUND:
On March 26, 1986 the Board of County Commissioners auth-'_—
the Utilities Division to construct a 16 inch water mai.-,,
South Gifford Road from 28th Avenue to 38th Avenue. Sin,: __gat
time engineering plans and specifications have been prepared by
Masteller and Moler Associates, Inc. and bids have been solicited
by the Utilities Division.
A " n T.t"= _. .
Bids for the subject project were received on June 12, 1986.
Coastline Utilities, Inc. of Port St. Lucie, Florida was the low
bidder at $106,884.00. Other bids received included AOB Under
ground of West Palm Beach, Florida $113,313.08, Ted Myers Con-
tracting Co.,Inc. of Winter Beach, Florida $118,286.10 and O.K.
Mock and Sons, Inc. of Auburndale, Florida $120,852.00.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Utilities Division recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners authorize awarding the bid for the subject project
to Coastline Utilities, Inc. in the amount of $106,884.00,
contingent upon the contractor acquiring all necessary licenses.
Utility staff member, Jeffrey Boone, advised that the award
of this bid has been complicated to some extent by the fact that
the low bidder is not licensed at the present time to do the work
and they are in the process of getting the qualification. Staff
has written their recommendation that the bid award be made
contingent on their getting the qualification and would like to
extend that recommendation to include that if the necessary
license is not in place within two weeks, that we award to the
second low bidder.
Commissioner Bird inquired what license they are short of,
and Mr. Boone informed the Board that the problem is that they
are in an in-between state on the general contractor's license
10
and have another contractor who is trying to qualify them. They
also do not have a county occupational license yet.
Vice Chairman Lyons emphasized that we certainly do not want
to see any delay on this because it is water to the jail. He did
not understand how we got'this far with the bid, and Mr. Boone
explained that this was not brought to staff's attention until
after they had written their recommendation, and they were
anxious to award to the low bidder because there is a consider-
able saving - $7,000.
More questions ensued re the licensing, and Assistant
Utilities Director Barton explained that a corporation can't take
the test for a general contractor's license, only an individual
can, and that individual then can attach his license to a
corporation. When and if that individual leaves the corporation,
he takes his general contractor's license with him. This is what
is going on and complicating the issue with the corporation that
is low bidder, and it is up to them to get a replacement general
contractor to qualify them.
Discussion continued re the timeframe. Vice Chairman Lyons
wished to know if the second low bid will hold for two weeks, and
this was confirmed. It was also determined that the second low
bidder is properly licensed.
Commissioner Bowman asked if there is any chance the second
bidder could cause some trouble because of this circumstance, and
Attorney Vitunac explained that we have a right to waive
technicalities on our bids. Also, we have a letter from the
general contractor saying he is going to lend his name to the
corporation; it just hasn't gone through the Building Department
appropriately yet.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) awarded
the bid from the South Gifford Road Water Main Exten-
sion to the low bidder, Coastline Utilities, in the
11
Bou 64 PA, -UE 788
I
'JUN 2 5 1986
sooK 64 DcE 789
amount of $106,884.00 subject to them having all
necessary licensing two weeks from this date, and if
not, the bid then will be awarded to the second low
bidder, AOB Underground of West Palm Beach, in the
amount of $113,313.08.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK .TO THE BOARD
F. DER/Army Corps/DNR Permit Application - (Alan French)
The Board reviewed memo of Planner Roland DeBlois:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 17, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: b.E.R., ARMY CORPS AND
D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICATION
SUBJECT:
Robert M. Kea ng, CP
Planning & Development Director
THROUGH: Art Challacombe
Chief, Environmental Planning
FRONkoland M. DeBlois REFERENCES: French
Staff Planner AVAD DIS:ROLAND
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of June 25, 1986.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
APPLICATION NO. 31-121116-4
APPLICANTS: Alan M. and Nancy L. French
P.O. Box 89
Lake Worth, Florida 33460
v4ATERWAY & LOCATION: The project is located in the Indian River'-
adjacent to Indian River Drive in Section 6, Township 31 South,
Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida.
The upland property associated with the project is Lot 11, Block
E of W.A. Martin Subdivision in the City of Sebastian, Florida.
WORK & PURPOSE: The applicants propose to construct a private
single dock extending 150 feet waterward, having a width of 4
feet (600 square feet). The project is proposed to have one (1)
boat slip, 25 feet in length and 14 feet wide. No sewage
pump -out or fueling facilities are proposed; no dredging or
filling is to occur.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
12
The Conservation & Coastal Zoning Management Element of the
Indian River Comprehensive Plan
Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region—
The
e ionThe Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
The proposed project is located in the City of Sebastian and is
therefore not within the jurisdiction of Indian River County.
Subsequently, the focus of staff review is on potential County
and regional impacts rather than site-specific impacts; and
in-depth field inspection of the project site was not conducted.
Chapter 16Q-20 of the Florida Administrative Code sets parameters
for private residential single docks located in the Indian River
Aquatic Preserve. Review of Section 16Q-20.04 (5) (b) , which sets
forth specific design standards and criteria for private single
docks, indicates that the project as proposed conforms to Florida
Administrative Code standards.
No dredging or filling is associated with the private single dock
project. In that respect, the project results in minimal
additional impact to an area where private single docks have been
previously permitted.
'?+-hough the extent of any impacts are not fully known at this
this and other proposed dockage projects in the Indian
River may result in negative cumulative impacts upon the Florida
Manatee.
Staff has not determined the extent to which the submerged
bottomlands of the proposed project area will be impacted; the
effect of Indian River development on ecologically valuable
seagrass beds should be considered.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to forward the following comments regarding this
project to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation:
1) The Department of Environmental REgulation and other
appropriate agencies should consider the potential
cumulative impacts of dockage projects upon the Florida
Manatee.
2) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should evaluate the potential impact of
marina projects on ecologically significant submerged
bottomlands such as seagrass beds in the Indian River.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0)
authorized staff to forward comments to the DER
as recommended in the above memo.
13 BOOK 64
JUN 2 5 1986
JUN 2
5 1986
Bou
64
Pmu-
7191.
G. Sewer Impact Fees
Countryside South Mobile Home
Park
The Board reviewed memo of the Assistant Utility Director:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY CON4ISSIONERS 'DATE: JUNE 17, 1986
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTOI'
D
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
FROM1`�- JEFFREY K. BARTON
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR COUNTRYSIDE -SOUTH
MOBILE HOME PARK (ROUTE 60 ASSESSMENT)
BACKGROUND:
Countryside -South has reserved 285 sewer taps on the Route
60 -Sewer Assessment Roll. They have -been paying off these taps
as the mobile home is sold. The monies for these payoffs has
been put into the impact fee account because the developer was
sending a check for the amount of the impact fee only ($1,250.00)
just as he does for his Countryside -North development. I have
revised the procedure and spoken to the developer. I have
written to him regarding the new procedure, but the oris;_-___
monies have been recorded i^ she wrong account groups within.._-_
Finance Department. They wish the Board of County Commissioners
to authorize the transfer to correct the error.
ANALYSIS:
The amount of funds placed into the impact fee account is
$15,000.00 which belongs in the Route 60 Sewer Assessment Fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
Utility Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the following transfer from the Impact Fee account to the
Pcute 60 Sewer Assessment:
Accounts Jaccrea`se Decrease
472-235-536-099.21 TRANSFER OUT $15,000.00 -----
472-000-343-065.00 IMPACT FEES ----- $15,000.00
Route 60 Sewer AssessmentGrou of Accounts:
706-000-381-020.00 TRANSFER IN $15,000.00
706-000-361-011.00 INTEREST ASSESSMENT $300.00
706-000-363-020.00 SEWER ASSESSMENTS $14,700.00
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved transfer from the Impact Fee account
to the Route 60 Sewer Assessment as set out above.
14
� � r
H. Bid Acceptance Gravity Sewer System - Sheriff's Admin. Bldg_
The Board reviewed memo of County Engineer Brescia:
TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
L.S. Thomas
Acting County Administrator
SUBJECT:
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director l�
FROM: Ralph N. Brescia, P.E.
County Engineer
BACKGROUND INFORiMATION
June 13, 1986 FILE:
Bid Acceptance
Gravity Sewer System
Sheriff's Administration Bldg.
REFERENCES:
The Engineering Staff has designed a gravity sewer system to provide
sanitary service to the proposed Sheriff's Administration Building --at
the jail site. Due- to the specialized nature of this type of
construction, plans and specifications were developed for outside
contractors to properly bid on this project.
This construction is required at this time since these lines will be
placed beneath the road which serves Phase I of the jail construction.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Advertisements for bids were placed in the Press Journal on June 3,-
4 and 5 and the Engineering Staff was available on June 10. for prebid
conference to answer specific questions by any interested contractors on
the plans and specifications.
Bids were received on Friday, June 13, 1986 at 10 a.m. in the County
Administrators Conference Room. Present at the bid opening were
representatives of Ted Myers Contracting.; Company, Inc. and Coastline
Utilities, Inc. The follQwing staff MQiaoers were also in attendance:
Mrs. Carolyn Goodrich, Manager Purchasing
Ms. Michelle A. Terry, Civil Engineer
Mr. Ralph N. Brescia, P.E., County Engineer
The bids were received as follows:
Company
Ted Myers Contracting Co., Inc.
Coastline Utilities, Inc.
Bid
$14,609.52
$19,564.00
The Engineering estimate prepared by the Engineering Department was
approximately $15,500.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the lowest responsible bidder, the Ted Myers
Contracting Co., Inc., be awarded the contract and that funds be
appropriated in the amount of $14,609.52.
Funding is to be from Fund #302 Sheriff's Administration Bldg.
15
r
Boa E792
JUN 2 5 1986
Boa 64 rFv.,E 793
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0)
awarded the contract for the gravity sewer system
for the Sheriff's Administration Building to the
low bidder, Ted Myers Contracting Co., Inc., in the
amount of $14,609.52, said funds to be appropriated
from Fund #302 Sheriff's Administration Building.
(CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK)
I Bid #294 - Office_ Equipment for _new _Jail
The
Board
reviewed memo
of Purchasing
Manager
Goodrich:
TO: Board of
County
Ccmmissioners
DATE: June 2,
1986
FILE:
THRU: L. S. "Tommy" Thomas SUBJECT: IRC BID #294 -Office Equipment
Acting County Administrator
for New Indian River County Jail
FROM: REFERENCES:
Carolyn,Goodrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received Tuesday, May 27, 1986 at 11:00 A.M..for IRC #294-
Office Equipment for New Indian River County Jail.
9 Bids were sent out, of the 7 Bids received, 1 was a "No Bid".
2. Alternatives and Analysis
All low bids were as requested or equal. No one bidder was low, the
low bids are as circled on the attached bid tabulation.
3• Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that IRC #294 be awarded by item to the low bidders,
as follows:
Halsey -Griffith, Vero Beach - Item #4 -
Meehans, Melbourne - Item #1, 5, 6, 9 and 12.
Roger's Office Products, Vero Beach - Item #2, 8
Office Products Services, Ft. Pierce, - Item #3, 7, 10, 11, 13 s 14
Total amount of award as recommended is $13,796.50.
Funds are budgeted in Account #302-906-523-66.41.
16
� � r
a3i a�
J � 0
s-
0 O O .Q
W 0 4- O co
O ++
Z E +
W m E .p
cn C a cn
0 •— m Oi
En c
L L
L-
0
0 o
m o a� —
m U
L •- O
4-
C .0 4-
O +.J O 3 a)
•- O -C
V) L — ++
N 4 O
Y 4- a7 L
UN O -a
+ C
c•- •- O
Z O m m E
p - -, 0
N E
O N W
• L C >
m 0 O
O U m U m
1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960 r`
SID TABULATION
+y ti
A
io
�c `` `` k,c" ' ,� u Low"
z -c" y a," a," o c tea, j
m �Qj
Ca ; m � Ly m m m •�"�" u Q3
° �; Q ;0 of ° o ��'� c�c� L°
Cz
zm k 3'C� °tea, ��°J �i �o� o moo.
BID NO.
IRC BID X294
DATE OF OPENING
May 27, 1986
BID TITLE OFFICE EQUIPMENT FOR NEW
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL
ITEM DESCRIPTION
NO.
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRI
1_ File Cabinet.Legal- 4 drawer
with lock_ Non 5340 �r equal
3132.00
150
00
NB
1,16
00
139
94
NB
I
NB
124
00
2. Side Chairs armless chrome
Global 2503 or equal
1 .60 40 each
62
00
NB
6
00
4
49_
00
65
81
46
00
Stool,1. Drafting
_
equal ('$529.60 8 each
87
00
NB
72
up
88
85
98
00
1 82
32
66
20
w/o c
ste
s
4. Wastebasket, nesect Sand,
w/98
65
Lawson 2180 or I-niml
240.00 16 Each-
IS
00
Ng_
18
1-8
40
NB
20
37
15
90
5. Cabinet Storage, Metal
36" x 18" x 7211 w/lock Tan
$850.00 InP=rh
190
00
NB
85
00
169
20
NB
160
85
101
00
0
O
Cn
pr
co
r
1
1.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
•
1840 25th Street
y
C
�'
u
�
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
'c
u
o
y
w
�`
BID TABULATION
���
cy
c'y
c.
0
BID NODATE OF OPENING
D�
IRC BID #294
a� o�
�`' m°J
mF,
c
•�
BID TITLE
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
-
UNIT V;i6CE UNIT
PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT
PRICE UNIT
PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRIC
6. Cabinet'Storage, Metal
36" x 18" x 42" w/lock Tan
i
i
140.00
110
NB
70 00
121 8o NB
142
46
90
00
7. Desk Metal 40" x 20" Sin le
Pedestal walnut/sand
$1485.00 15 each
140 00
NB
109 00
129 95 NB
159
22
99
00�
15 Parh
54
00
NB
32
00
20 50 NB
34
91
31
40
800
9. Clnrk, Computer Center. Elactric
PYR E1214 or a ual 10 each
33
00
NB
24
50
24 60 NB
NB
24
80
$245.00
(5245-
10. Computer i m--il Stand,
( 59
9
24 x 32, S iS i rrcco '• S 2EK or equal
1/ 1 ,8` 2 each 68
0
NB
62
00
67 70 NB
100
UO
co
r
1
1.
1
1
1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Streetj
Vero Beach, Florida 32960��
BID TABULATIONZr
ti
i
,a L0 H
�. m� i .a Z 'a
o Q. � ,o° �ym a� i°jQ4 � m
zm,� 3'c �; �°' �° �° ? (T (�,o o�`�`vo
0
BID NO.
IRC BID #294
DATE OF OPENING
BID TITLE
ITEM DESCRIPTION
NO.
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRIC
11. Printer Stand Wilson Jones
26705 or equal�$210.0 2 Each
290
00
NB
106
00
NB
NB
1
150
84
105
00
12. Side Chair, armless, United
S-31-InES6ar eg
40
00
NB
34
00
44
94
49
00
35
92
36
40
$374n nn
13. Paper Shreer, Shredmaster
1236 or equal 1 Each
1315
00
NB
1160
00
1135
44
NB
1113
23
42go
00
200.00
Item 13
h
14
14. Shre der Stand, Shredmastar
#1145478 or equal 1 Each
220
00
NB
181
00
182
10
NB
211
07
S13796,50
0
0
m
'JUN 2 5 1996 Boa 64 F, Ur- 7.97
J. Application for Installation of NCIC/FCIC Computer Terminal
i n-Mie—TaTT-i✓oinpTex_-----��__ _
This item was deleted from today's agenda by Acting Adminis-
trator Thomas.
K. Final Assessment Roll - 9th Court (2nd St. to S. Relief Canal)
The Board reviewed memo of Civil Engineer Michelle Terry:
TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE: June 17, 1986 FILE:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
L.L. Thomas
Acting C�ounA'nistrator Final Assessment Roll for
j,� SUBJECT: `9th Court from 2nd Street
Ralph N. Brescia, P.E. to South Relief Canal
County Engineer
FROM: Michelle A. Terry
Civil Engineer REFERENCES:
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The paving of 9th Court is complete. The final cost and
preliminary estimate for the work was:
Final Cost/FF Prelim. Const/FF Final Cost Prelim. Est
9th Court $9.0439 $9.71 $18,446.73 $19,595.90
All construction cost are under the original estimate. The Final
Assessment Roll has been prepared and is ready to be delivered to the
Clerk to the Board. Assessments are to be paid within 90 days or in
two equal installments, the first to be made twelve months from the due
date and the second to be made twenty-four months from the due date at
an interest rate of 1% over the Prime Rate established by the Board of
County Commissioners. The due date is 90 days after the final
determination of the special assessments.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Since the final assessment to the benefited owners will be less than
computed on the preliminary assessment rolls, the only alternative
presented is to approve the final assessment rolls.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Final Assessment Rolls for the paving of 9th
Court be approved by the Board of County Commissioners and that they be
transferred to the Office of the Clerk to the Board for collection.
20
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the Final Assessment Roll for 9th Court
from 2nd Street to the South Relief Canal and
authorized its transmission to the Clerk to the
Board for collection, at an interest rate of 1%
over the Prime Rate as of the date of approval,
or 9.50.
(Assessment Roll is on File in the Office of Clerk
to the Board.)
ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - BARTON ASCHMAN (IMPACT FEES)
Public Works Director Davis reviewed his recommendation, as
follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: June 5, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Tommy Thomas
Acting County Administrator SUBJECT:
Additional Professional
Services - Traffic Impact Fee
Program - Barton-Aschman
Assoc., Inc.
FROM:REFERENCES:
James W. Davis, P.E., ;
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Barton-Aschman Assoc. Inc. is requesting $23,857.14 for additional services
in completing the Traffic Impact Fee program. This additional compensation
is for the following:
Barton-Ascbman (Traffic Planning)
Modifications to Report
$
6,117.83
Computer Services
$
4,975.25
Modifying Impact Fee Dist.
$
2,860.00
Additional Meetings (6)
$
3,755.95
Sub -total
$
17,709.03
Additional Legal Services
$
4,765.11
Additional Services by Economist
(Dr. Nicolas)
$
1,383.00
_ T=
$
23,857.14
21
is--� � i� �..
+' I � 1 � i!
Boa 6
BOOK 64 PaUc ` ,99
The Original Contract between the County and Barton-Aschman, executed
September 25, 1984, provided for basic compensation in the amount of
$119,000 for the work. As of June 5, 1986, compensation of $95,089.60 has
been paid by the County, leaving a balance of $23,910.40 under the original
contract. At this time, the Consultant is requesting final payment of the
$23,910.40 as basic compensation under the original contract and $23,857.14.
for additional services, resulting in total compensation of $47,767.54.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Staff has negotiated the $23,857.14 compensation for additional services
from the Consultant's original request of $28,075.60 and has no objection
to payment for the additional services.
At the present time, the Planning and Public Works Division is working with
the Florida Department of Community Affairs to seek approval of the Barrier
Island Study as required by the Hutchinson/Orchid Island Resources Manage-
ment Plan. Until the DCA approves the plan, staff does not recommend
releasing the 10% retainage on the project, which amounts to $11,900.
RECOM+ MATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approving additional compensation in the amount of
$23,857.14 (invoice 35707 - Barton-Aschman Assoc.) and payment at this time
of invoice 34089 in the amount of $12,010.50 for a total of $35,867.64.
This action will result in the County holding back 10% of the original
contract amount (retainage of $11,900) until the Department of Community
Affairs approves the Barrier Island Study.
Funding to be from Account # 102-110-515-033.19
Director Davis explained that there were a number of
modifications to the impact fee districts after meeting with all
the municipalities and going through the program and making it
fit their needs, etc. He believed staff had informed the Board
additional services would be required.
Vice Chairman Lyons felt if it hadn't been for the work done
by staff and the consultant, we never would have had the unanim-
ity we have with the municipalities on this thing.
Commissioner Wodtke agreed, but felt it is kind of tough to
get a $24,000 bill after the fact; he realized staff has
negotiated this with them, but would like to have it broken down
and documented. He did not know if their contract says getting
authorization is required before rendering these additional
services.
Director Davis reported that 18 meetings were specified in
the original contract, and he believed as we got to that point
staff verbally communicated to the Board that the six additional
meetings would be over and above the specified services.
22
r
Commissioner Wodtke noted the cost of the six additional
meetings was $3,700, and there is still another $20,000 for
additional services. He just felt we need to get a little
tighter control.
Director Davis advised that he could have brought this to
the Board sooner, but he has been holding back payment until we
got a product the DCA could review.
Vice Chairman Lyons felt the contract may have something set
out in it that after a certain point additional services would be
a certain amount, and Director Davis confirmed this.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved additional compensation in the amount
of $23,857.14 for Barton-Aschman Assoc, and also
payment of invoice 34089 in the amount of $12,010.50
for a total of $35,867.64, as recommended by staff.
COUNTY GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN
OMB Director Baird reviewed the following memo and letter
from Gulf Group Services Corp:
23
JUN 25 4 1 •,N.
BOOK 6 4Fa 860
'JUN 2 5 1996
Bou 64 PA -ii E801
TO. Honorable Board of County DATE: June 18, 1986 FILE:
Commissioners
FROM: oseA. Baird SUBJECT: Indian River County Group ,
OMB Director Health Insurance Plan
Gulf Group Services Corporation"s contract for administering the Indian
River County group health plan will be due for renewal October 1, 1986.
Currently the health plan has adequate cash reserves, and we do not antici-
pate the monthly health insurance premiums increasing. A 15% increase in
medical costs was forcasted for the 1987 year which has been taken into con-
sideration.
Gulf Group Services Corporation is currently trying to negotiate a dis-
count with Indian River Memorial Hospital and will be approaching the Doctor's
Clinic in the near future for a discount.
Staff has reviewed H.M.O. (Health Maintenance Organization) insurance
plans and finds the major drawback to be a philosophical one. An H.M.O.
plan designates the doctors and the hospitals the participant is to use and
if he does so, it is covered at 100%, however, if he does not attend the
designated doctor or hospital, nothing is covered. The only time the use of
a non -designated doctor or hospital is covered is in the case of an extreme
emergency.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend the Honorable Board of County Commissioners remain with the
health insurance plan under Gulf Group Services, Inc.
GULF GROUP SERVICES CORPORATION
MIAMI REGIONAL GROUP OFFICE 12121 PONCE DE LEON BOULEVARD, SUITE 735 / CORAL GABLES FLORIDA 33134
May 29, 1986
I
Mr. Joseph Baird
Budget Officer
Indian River County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Joe:
NICK MORISCO
Regional Group Manager
TELEPHONE: DADE-305444-6588
BROWARD-305 764-1040
Representing: American General Group Insurance Company
Gulf Life Insurance Company
RE: GC 5372
This will confirm our renewal for the above group effective 10-1-86.
A comparison of current and renewal costs is as follows:
As can be seen, there is no change in the Maximum Annual Paid Claim Liability factors.
There has been a minor increase in the Specific and Aggregate pooled premium however
the Administrative Fee has decreased.
The net result is an approximate 1% decrease in total costs.
If the present pooling level of $50,000 were increased to $60,000 the current charge
of $6.60 could be continued, which would result in an overall decrease of approximately
6.5%.
Our underwriters have indicated that the reserve estimate as of 10-1-85 was $160,000.
The reserve estimate as of 10-1-86 is $210,000.
Joe, after you have had an opportunity to review the foregoing, let's get together with
Phil and discuss.
Sincerely,
Nickorisco
Current
Renewal
Maximum Annual Paid Claims Liability
Employee
$ 922.34
$ 922.34
Dependent
$1,561.70
$1,561.70
Specific Pooling, Per Employee Monthly
6.60
7.65
Administrative Fee, Per Employee Monthly 10.99
9.75
Annual Aggregate Premium
9,000.00
9,270.00
As can be seen, there is no change in the Maximum Annual Paid Claim Liability factors.
There has been a minor increase in the Specific and Aggregate pooled premium however
the Administrative Fee has decreased.
The net result is an approximate 1% decrease in total costs.
If the present pooling level of $50,000 were increased to $60,000 the current charge
of $6.60 could be continued, which would result in an overall decrease of approximately
6.5%.
Our underwriters have indicated that the reserve estimate as of 10-1-85 was $160,000.
The reserve estimate as of 10-1-86 is $210,000.
Joe, after you have had an opportunity to review the foregoing, let's get together with
Phil and discuss.
Sincerely,
Nickorisco
Commissioner Bird wished to know just what Health
Maintenance Organization (H.M.O.) is, and Commissioner Wodtke
advised that it is a special type of plan which offers you an
entire health care package, but only at a specified hospital.
This is a growing trend in hospital care, and some private
hospitals such as Humana, which has a plan called P.P.O.
(Preferred Provider Organization), are getting into it quite
heavily. Indian River Memorial is looking at various proposals
of this type.
Vice Chairman Lyons noted that this plan not only covers
the hospital stay; it is total medical care.
Commissioner Bird commented that he has no problem with the..
Gulf Health Insurance coverage, but wondered how often we go out
to open bidding.
OMB Director Baird noted that presently we have a self-
insurance plan; it is an annual contract we are entering into,
and he would prefer to stay with them because the insurance plan
is doing well and we have adequate reserves.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to know if Gulf will extend for
another year at the present rates.
Nick Morisco, Regional Group Manager of Gulf Group Services
Corporation, noted that their terms for renewal for the coming
1986-87 policy year a're set out in his letter to Mr. Baird, and
essentially there is no change in their rate structure for the
coming year because there are adequate reserves; actually, there
has been about a 1% decrease from last year.
Vice Chairman Lyons believed we simply pay them for the
administration of our money, and this was confirmed by Mr.
Morisco. The Vice Chairman had a question on the coverage
involving retired people on Social Security and Medicare.
Mr. Morisco explained that how Gulf coordinates with
Medicare is at the direction of the policyholder.
Commissioner Lyons wished to know if a retired person, for
instance, goes to the hospital and Medicare comes up with
25 BOOK 64 Ft10E 802
,SUN 25 1986
I
F- 2 5 198
JUS 6
BOOK 64 PAG—r803
everything except that first payment, $400 or so, does the person
on the Gulf policy get that payment.
Mr. Morisco explained that for active employees the group
plan is primary coverage no matter what their age. That is
federal law. For retired employees, that law does not apply, and
Medicare is primary. Mr. Morisco advised that Gulf commonly uses
an approach which they call a "carve out" - they calculate what
the group benefits are and then subtract any benefit that
Medicare pays; so, in some situations, the supplement from the
group program could be very little. That, however, can be
changed to a method called "coordination of benefits" in which
v,
Gulf would calculate their benefits, and so long as their total
benefit is greater than the difference between the total bill and
what Medicare paid, they would pay the difference. This presents
an increased liability for the County; of course, but if it is
desired that the program be administered that way, Gulf would be
happy to do it.
Vice Chairman Lyons noted that the policies he is familiar
with pay that way. He did not know what the extra cost for this
may be, but would recommend we handle it that way.
OMB Director Baird realized there has been a little problem
with the "carve out" for some employees and advised that staff is
looking into an alternative plan for our retired employees and
will be bringing that back to the Board. Mr. Baird noted that
the State now offers a plan for employees retired under the
Florida Retirement System, but he felt it is very costly -
something over $200 a month.
Commissioner Wodtke did not feel that is that expensive when
you consider the age group.
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that Gulf Life also has a
$200 deductible that nobody has mentioned, and Mr. Morisco
explained that when they implemented the utilization review
program, the plan was modified to include a $200 hospital
confinement deductible, which they will waive so long as the
M
employee prenotifies. It was never intended that the employee
pay that $200 deductible; it was put in there as an incentive to
make sure of the prenotification of the hospital stay.
Commissioner Bowman believed that if your bill exceeds
$50,000, you pay the whole shot or whatever Medicare does not
pay.
Mr. Morisco stated that it is not $50,000. The group
program has a waiver point above which benefits are paid at,100%,
and in calculating benefits, if that point is reached, Gulf would
coordinate 1000 with Medicare. Under the present program for
retirees it is done that way.
Commissioner Bowman noted that the Gulf people are way up in
Jacksonville, and the local agent is supposed to answer the
questions, but she went to the Gulf Life office here and they
know nothing about the group insurance and couldn't even give her
an 800 number.
Mr. Morisco advised that their local service office for this
area is in Fort Lauderdale, and OMB Director Baird noted that we
also have a County employee, Sheila Bland, who is supposed to
help if anyone has an insurance problem.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, to accept the recommendation
of the OMB Director to remain with the health
insurance plan under Gulf Group Services, Inc.
Vice Chairman Lyons wished to be sure that this does not tie
us in with all the present benefits as he felt strongly that
there is a need for better coverage for retired people.
Mr. Morisco advised that those can be changed at any time
and the company would adjust the policy accordingly.
OMB Director Baird agreed that we can change the benefits of
this plan, but it does cost more money.
27
J
UN 2 5 1�� BOOK �F�c� 804
BOOK 64_ F.F� cS95
Commissioner Wodtke inquired how many retired people we
cover and for how long, and OMB Director Baird advised this would
involve someone who has been with the county over ten years and
is 65; we have about ten at the most; and we cover them as long
as they live. He noted that under the present law if an employee
quits tomorrow, we have to cover them under our insurance policy
for 18 months, but they have to pay us the premium and we can
charge a premium up to 2%.
THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0)
Acting Administrator Thomas informed the Board that at
budgettime he will ask for a risk management officer. This was
in the budget before, but was never accomplished. He -believed
the importance of this position can be plainly seen, especially
with the present trend of the insurance industry, and felt sure a
qualified risk management person will be able to save the county
more than he is paid.
Commissioner Bird requested that we discuss at this time the
request of the City of Fellsmere and Fellsmere Drainage District
to be added to the County's health insurance plan, as set out in
the following staff memo:
28
TO: Honorable Board of County
Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DATE: June 12, 1986 I-ILt:
SUBJECT: Add the Town of Fellsmere
and Fellsmere Drainage District
to Indian River County's Health
Plan
REFERENCES:
The Fellsmere Drainage District and the Town of Fellsmere have requested
that Indian River County look into the possibility of adding their employees
to the County health plan. Staff has contacted Gulf Life Insurance Company
and we are able to add these employees to the insurance plan, however, they
do not recommend we do so. Our health insurance is basically a self-funded
plan and every employee we add is an additional liability, therefore, this
may not be in the best financial interest of the County. Currently, the
Fellsmere Drainage District has five employees which are all married and the
Town of Fellsmere has thirteen employees of which twelve are married and one
is single.
Obtaining health insurance for a small group of employees has become al-
most cost prohibitive in some instances. The above mentioned municipalities
looking at Indian River County's health plan so that they may offer their
employees a good health plan at a lesser cost to the taxpayers.
OMB Director Baird noted that this is a policy decision of
the Board. His only concern is that being a self-insured plan,
we are taking on a large liability. However, the cost of health
insurance is astronomical, and for a little business or a little
community, it is sometimes very hard to obtain it at reasonable
rates. a;.
Commissioner Bird agreed we are increasing our exposure, but
we are also increasing our revenue, and Commissioner Lyons felt
that is why you have groups - so you split the risk. He wondered
what obligation we have because the people in Fellsmere pay taxes
too, and Commissioner Bird inquired about their past risk
experience record.
Discussion continued re the number of employees, whether any
high risk employees were involved, etc., and Commissioner Wodtke
asked if the Town couldn't get insurance under the League of
Cities.
29
�N 2 5 X996
BOOK 64 FA.;E 806
JUN
2 5
1986
BOOK
64
PnE S07
OMB Director
confirmed that the League of Cities
does
have a
plan, and he believed they were having problems with that plan.
Discussion continued re adding on another 18 employees, the
increase in liability, etc., and Acting Administrator Thomas felt
that the actuarial is better with a larger group.
Mr. Morisco stated that it generally is. He noted, however,
that the Fellsmere employees are not actually employees of the
county; this is a bit different than adding 18 employees.
Commissioner Lyons pointed out that we already have added on
Mosquito Control, and Mr. Morisco understood that they provide a
service to the county; he did not believe the Town of Fellsmere
does.
Acting Administrator Thomas wishe=d to know if our actiipr-,-,`
is based just on our group, and Mr. Morisco confirmed that it is.
OMB Baird informed the Board that a 15% increase in medical
costs nationwide is being predicted for next year.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would like to be able to
help the Town and the District if we are able to, but he would
like some more information.
OMB Director Baird believed that it will take some time to
get this information together.
Commissioner Lyons felt if we have a safety program that it
should include the Fellsmere employees. This is all covered by
the General Fund; we have a certain obligation to those who pay
taxes, and if we can decrease the cost of the program they want
to give their employees by being part of this group and possibly
it might decrease our cost by having a larger group, he felt we
should take another look.
Commissioner Bowman agreed, and noted that we are only
talking about extending the umbrella by 2%.
Acting Administrator Thomas felt we should look into this
closely, especially since other agencies may come forward with
the same request if we do accept them.
It was generally agreed to research this situation further.
30
I
r
DISCUSSION_ RE_ AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE RE DOCKS
Assistant County Attorney Barkett reviewed the following
memo, noting that this essentially concerns families who are
holding properties with no home on them and want to construct
docks before they build the home:
TO: The Board of DATE: June 13, 1986
County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Concerning
Docks as Accessory Structures
FROM: Bruce Barkett,f Assistant County Attorney
Vacant lot owners, specifically within The Moorings, have
complained that due to anticipated restrictions on dock
construction by state and federal authorities, they may be
precluded from constructing docks on their property.
A dock is considered an accessory structure. Presently,
Section 25(g) of the Zoning Code prohibits construction of
the acces'so'-o'structure prior to the construction of the
prine.zrpal use,; The proposed ordinance amendment would allow
construction of docks as accessory uses in all zoning
districts prior to construction of the principal use. This
can be accomplished in either of two ways:
Alternative 1: Create a blanket exemption for docks as
accessory uses in specific zoning districts or in all zoning
districts, authorizing construction of docks prior to
construction of the principal use. This alternative would
require amendment of Section 25(g) (accessory uses) and
implementation of a permitting mechanism to collect a
removal bond and.,to insure construction standards.
Alternative 2: Authorize issuance of an administrative
permit to construct a dock as an accessory use prior_ to the
construction of the principal use on the property. This
alternative would require each dock application to be
reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and, if
appealed, by the Board of County Commissioners. This
alternative will require amendments to each of the zoning
districts, to include docks as appropriate for an
administrative permit, and will also require an amendment to
the regulations governing special uses.
Regardless of which alternative is chosen, it is recommended
that a removal bond be required before construction of a
dock, and that specific standards governing construction and
use of the dock as an accessory structure prior_ to the
construction of the principal use be contained within the
ordinance.
This matter is placed on the agenda for vour discussion and
guidance. -
31
JUN 2 5 1986
BOOK 64 FAGF808
JUN 2 5
1986
Bou
64
Fa IJ y
Vice Chairman
Lyons felt a further alternative was
not
to
change the ordinance at all.
Commissioner Wodtke asked how the City handles docks in
their jurisdiction, and Attorney Vitunac believed in the City it •
is a legal use and a dock can be built without any special
permit.
Discussion continued and Planning Director Keating believed
there are two issues - does the Board wish to allow this to
occur, and if so, how. He noted that in the meeting the
Attorneys and he had with representatives from The Moorings,
several conditions were suggested, one of which being that even
though the dock could be put there, it couldn't be used until the
primary structure is there and that a bond would be put up that
it would have to be removed if it was used. The property owners'
concern is to get the doc!in to vest it in case of some kind of
moratorium or ' prohibition in the future because of the
manatee issue.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if the Association or the
development couldn't have that restriction themselves without it
being a general requirement of the entire county, and Attorney
Barkett agreed that would be fine for The Moorings, but not all
of the properties which desire docks are in a subdivision.
Director Keating commented that staff's concern if these
accessory uses are allowed before the principal use, is that they
not become a detriment to the community and be used for purposes
they really shouldn't be used for.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that in order to amend the ordi-
nance, we need a public hearing and suggested that we discuss
both alternatives at that hearing and get the public input.
Attorney Vitunac suggested that perhaps we need to determine
first whether we want to change the policy as the only ones
expressing concern were a small group from The Moorings.
Commissioner Wodtke believed there is concern from other
areas throughout the county. This is allowable within the City,
32
and he believed single family areas still have to go through all
the permitting stages to do this, but Attorney Barkett noted that
is not necessarily so because most single family docks are exempt
from dredge and fill permits because of their size.
Commissioner Bird felt when you pay a premium for a bulk -
headed waterfront lot, you generally want a boat, etc., and he
believed most of these docks are built fairly close to the
bulkhead, which should not present that much of a problem.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would like to see us draw
up an Iordinance and would be in favor of considering allowing
docks for single family as an accessory use without the primary
structure.
Commissioner Bowman noted that there is a vacant lot next to
her house, and if someone puts up a dock while no one is living
on the property, nobody will be there to oversee what may go on,
and the public will be coming in and using the dock and causing
problems. She was not in favor of the idea at al"l.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would be in favor of
holding the public hearing and seeing what the public has to say.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, to authorize staff to prepare
an ordinance with the recommended alternatives and
schedule a public hearing.
Vice Chairman Lyons expressed his opinion that we are
creating a problem we don't have to have.
THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on with Vice Chairman Lyons and
Commissioner Bowman voting in opposition.
The Motion failed on a 2 to 2 vote.
33
JUS! 25 1986 BOOK 64 NaUESJO
JUN 25 1986 BooK 64 Fact �1
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CLERK TO TRANSMIT COUNTY FUNDS TO STATE
BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION INVESTMENT POOL
Attorney Vitunac explained that the proposed Resolution
makes it clear that the Board makes the decision where and when
money is to be invested, and the Clerk's office carries out the
function of transmitting it at the Board's direction. This
amendment to the existing resolution was requested by the Clerk,
and it is more or less a housekeeping item.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that this money is actually our
taxpayer's money, and he did not really want to send it out of
town -but would prefer to invest as much as we can on a local
1!
basis.
Actino,,.-ziministrator Thomas explained that insurance
coverage in the local financial institutions is only up to
$100,000, and on a short term basis we may be talking about
millions. He believed that we do make an effort to invest
locally whenever we can, but he did not feel we should invest
where we are not covered by the FDIC.
Commissioner Wodtke believed they have special reserves to
cover that kind of money.
Acting Administrator Thomas was aware of that, but noted
there may be a weekend when we get in a special payment from the
Tax Collector, fu, and for several days we may have
three or four million dollars. commented that he has dis-
couraged use of this investment pool from the point of view that
he has not been fully satisfied with some of the investments they
make to generate the interest; however, he believed the original
discussion related to who had the authority to make these
investments, and it now has been settled that it is up to this
Board to direct how the money is to be invested. This is merely
a custodial correction.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted
34
Resolution 86-38 authorizing the Clerk to open an
account and transmit County funds to the State Board
of Administration's investment pool at the direction
of the Board.
RESOLUTION NO. 86- 39
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CLERK OF THE
COURT TO OPEN AN ACCOUNT WITH THE STATE
BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION AND TO TRANSMIT
COUNTY FUNDS TO THE STATE BOARD OF
ADMINISTRATION'S INVESTMENT POOL.
WHEREAS, Indian River County from time to time has funds on
hand in excess of current needs; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the citizens of Indian
River County that funds be invested in such a manner as to yield the
highest return possible -consistent with proper safeguards for the
handling of government funds,
NOW, THEREFORE, 13E IT RESOLVED BY TIIE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
I. Freda Wright, Clerk of the Court of Indian River County,
Florida, is hereby designated custodian of County funds and
authorized to transmit such funds to the State Board of
Administration, or invest such funds in such a manner consistent
with the best interests of the citizens of Indian River County and
pursuant to the directions of the Board of County Commissioners.
Furthermore, the Clerk is authorized to withdraw funds from the
State Board of Administration or other investment account in the
name of Indian River County by giving timely notice together with
confirmation by letter executed by the Clerk and the Budget Officer
or other County employee designated by the Board of County
Commissioners.
Z. This authorization shall be continuing in nature until
revoked by the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners.
The foregoi►ig resolution was offered by Commissioner
wu�]tke who moved its ado tion.
P The motion was seconded
35
JUN 2 5 1996 �ooK Fact U1
BOOK 64 Face 813
by Commissioner Bird and, being put to a vote, the vote
Was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Absent
Vice Chairman Patrick 13. Lyons Ave
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Tho Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 25th day of .June, 1986.
BOARD O OUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN . IV :1A COUNTY, Ft&,ORIDA
By
' i ick B. L '1s
IVice Chairm-
INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS - FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS
Attorney Vitunac explained the proposed Resolution would
authorize execution of a letter of intent and inducement
agreement to Florida Convalescent Centers re the issuance of 4.8
million industrial bonds to finance a nursing home, and if this
Resolution is passed today, he would like to have the public
hearing on the bond on July 16th at 10 o'clock A.M. to get the
public input.
Commissioner Bowman asked if there is any urgency in
endorsing the letter of intent today because she would like to
look at the company's financial statements and the Finance
Committee report.
Attorney Vitunac felt there is some urgency because it puts
us another week closer to the September deadline for the new tax
bill. He noted that Mr. Evans, President of Florida Convalescent
Centers, is present and can answer any questions.
Commissioner Bowman reiterated that she would like to see
their financial statements as she felt they are a pretty healthy
organization financially and she was not sure the County needs to
endorse these bonds for them.
Mr. Evans explained that Florida Convalescent Center is not
a healthy organization financially. He assumed Commissioner
36
Bowman was talking about National Health Corporation, which is
the company that will manage the facility here, and they are
guaranteeing the bonds. He noted that the intent of using the
bonds is to get a more favorable interest which not only saves
them quite a bit of money each year in interest payments, but it
also saves the users of the services at the facility and the
Medicaid Program as well because the reimbursement from the state
is lower.
Vice Chairman Lyons asked if Mr. Evans was saying the
interest rates will be reflected in the rates they charge at the
center, and Mr. Evans stated that they have to be. In the first
place, they have to be competitive in the marketplace.
Commissioner Lyons believed the other nursing facilities
don't have these bonds; he doubted this will make a nickel
difference in the rates charged the public and did not know how
it will affect Medicaid.
Mr. Evans explained that Medicaid only reimburses for
allowable expenses; the interest charged by the financing
mechanism is one of those allowable costs, and it is measured by
the state. Mr. Evans also believed Mr. Thomas had told him one
other such facility in the county was financed through industrial
revenue bonds, and this was confirmed by Administrator Thomas.
Commissioner Wodtke felt their rates undoubtedly will be the
same as others and competitive with them, but as far as Medicaid
is concerned, he could state with assurance that they do come in
and look at allowable expenses. If they have a particular need
of 91 beds, then 37% of the beds must be held for Medicare
patients. He further reported that in regard to Florida
Convalescent Center's financial structure, the Economic
Development Commission met extensively with Mr. Evans yesterday
to discuss the project, and they also have met with the Finance
Advisory Board and were thoroughly scrutinized. Commissioner
Wodtke continued that it was his understanding that their
certificate of need expires the end of August so there is an
37
JJUN 2 5 1986 BOOL( 64 FA,E814
urgency to meet all these requirements.
Boa 64 815
He further noted that
the Motion at our meeting last week basically authorized the
issuance of these bonds pending approval by the Economic
Development Commission, and since that contingency has been met,
he felt this was just a follow up resolution.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted
Resolution 86-37 authorizing the execution and delivery
of a Letter of Intent and Inducement Agreement to
Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., with respect to
issuance of 4.8 million industrial revenue bonds.
Attorney Vitunac asked for permission to have the public
hearing at 10 o'clock A.M. on July 16th, and the Board had no
objections.
Commissioner Wodtke expressed concern about the use of local
contractors in the building of the proposed facility.
Attorney Vitunac felt the Board certainly could encourage
the use of local contractors, but pointed out that state law
requires competitive bidding.
38
RPSOLUTrora 86-37
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY BY
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA OF A LETTER OF INTENT AND
INDUCEMENT AGREEMENT TO FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS,
INC., WITH RESPECT TO THE COUNTY'S ISSUANCE OF NOT TO
EXCEED $4,800,000 IN PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ITS REVENUE
BONDS TO FINANCE THE COST OF A SKILLED AND I NTEP',MED I ATE
CARE NURSING HOME FACILITY
WHEREAS, Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., (the
"Company") wishes to acquire and construct a skilled and
intermediate care nursing home facility and wishes to have
Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of
Florida (the "County"), issue its revenue bonds to provide the.
necessary financing for such facility; and
WHEREAS, the County has determined that its issuance of
such obligations to assist the Company will serve a public
purpose by contributing to the prosperity of the State and its
people: and
WHEREAS, the Company has requested the County to
indicate to the Company its intentions in this respect in order
to induce the Company to proceed with such project and incur
expenses for its initiation and its financing.
NOVI, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners, are hereby authorized to. execute, and the
Clerk of the Board of the County is hereby authorized to attest,
the County's letter addressed to the Company or its affiliates in
substantially the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A"
and incorporated herein, with respect to the issuance of not
exceeding $4,800,000 in principal amount of its industrial
development revenue bonds on behalf of the Company, with such
changes therein as shall be approved from time to time by such
officers executing the same, such approval to he conclusively
evidenced by their execution thereof.
2. Such officers and all other officers and employees
of the County are hereby authorized to execute such further
agreements and take such further action as shall be necessary to
39
JUN 2 5 1986 BOOK 64 Fr,ut 816
JUN 2 5 1966
BOOK 64 F,�c- 817
carry out the intent and purposes expressed in the letter attached
as Exhibit "A". upon its becoming an agreement on its execution
by the Company, and are further authorized to take such other
steps and actions as may be required and necessary in order to
issue such bonds.
3. This Resolution is an affirmative action of the
County toward the issuance of its bonds in accordance with the
purposes of the laws of the State of Florida and the applicable
United States Treasury Regulations.
4. Approved and adopted by The Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, thi=, 25th day of June
1986.
ATTEST:
-- —Breda—�h'rig—I—rk-----
V.�dd UJBWww
(SEAL) Q101j.G.
BOARD OF COUNTY -COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN IVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
atrick B. Lyo ice chair n
�f
CREATION OF NEW ZONINGDISTRICTALLOWING SINGLE FAMILY 6 MOBILE
HOMES (ROSELAND)
Chief Planner Richard Shearer made the following
presentation:
40
M
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 16, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: CREATION OF NEW ZONING
Obert M. Kea in A DISTRICT ALLOWING SINGLE -
Director, Planning & Development FAMILY RESIDENCES &
MOBILE HOMES IN ROSELAND
FR0K-c"h-ard Shearer REFERENCES:
Chief, Long -Range Planning Mensing Memo :TK2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of June 25, 1986.
DESCRIPTIONS & CONDITIONS
On May 21, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners discussed the
possibility of creating a new zoning district which would allow
both single-family residences and mobile homes. A request was
made to establish such a zoning district at the May 8th meeting of
the Planning and Zoning Commission during a public hearing
concerning the Roseland Small Area Plan. Based on this request,
the Planning and Zoning Commission tabled action on the Roseland
plan and referred the matter of a new zoning district to the Board-,.
for direction. On May 21st, the Board instructed the staff to
prepare some alternatives for regulating mobile homes and
single-family dwellings in Roseland in the future.
The .County formerly had a district (the R-lRM district) which
allowed both mobile homes and single-family units. In April of
1985 when the new residential districts were adopted, the R-lRM
district was repealed. Since a large part of Roseland was
zoned R-lRM until that district was repealed, the residential
conversion ordinance rezoned those areas to RMH-8, Mobile Home
Residential District. The RMH-8 district allows mobile homes
up to 8 units per aCTO, but prohibits single-family units.
The area in Roseland, that was zoned R-1RM contains approximate-
ly 110 mobile homes, vacant land, and about six single-family
dwellings. During the fall of 1985, the Roseland Property
Owners Association approached the Planning Department about
this situation and inquired if this area could be rezoned to
R-lRM or another zoning district that would allow mobile homes
and single-family dwellings. The Association also indicated
that they felt the existing RMH-8 zoning was inappropriate
because it allows up to 8 units per acre., and they felt this
area should be limited to about 4 units per acre. Based on
this inquiry from the Association, the staff began work on the
Roseland Small Area Plan.
In December of 1985, the staff met with the Roseland Property
Owners Association's Board of Directors to discuss land use
issues in the area and to set boundaries for the Roseland Small
Area Plan. In January, the staff met with the Roseland Proper-
ty Owners Association to describe the process of preparing the
Roseland Small Area Plan and to discuss land use issues in the
area with the Association's general membership. One of the
main issues of concern to the Association was the RMH-8 zoning
of the area previously zoned R-lRM and the permitted density of
8 units/acre. Based on these concerns, the staff recommended,
41
JUN 2 5 1986 BOOK 64 fA�E 818
r JUN 2 5 196
BOOK 64 Fv 819
and the Board of County Commissioners approved, down -zoning
this area to RMH-6 when the nonresidential zoning conversion
ordinance was adopted on January 29, 1986.
The staff felt that down -zoning this area to RMH-6 would lower
the permitted residential densities and would provide an*
interim .zoning until the staff could study the situation
further. In March, the staff completed a draft of the Roseland
Small Area Plan. Several copies of this draft were sent to the
Roseland Property Owners Association for their review and
comment. The draft plan discusses the various issues in the
Roseland area including the mobile home zoning.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The Roseland Small Area Plan does not specifically address the
issue of mobile homes and single-family homes in one area.
While the plan recommends that density be limited in certain
areas, it also recommends that additional study be done on the
mobile home/single-family issues.
In further reviewing the area zoned RMH-6 which does contain
approximately six single-family residences, the staff has
considered several alternative zoning provisions for this area.
The following alternatives were reviewed:
1) No change in the current RMH-6 zoning;
2) Create a new zoning district that allows both
single-family houses and mobile homes;
3) Rezone part of this area to RS -6, Single -Family
Res ict.
Alterna.. _ i, no change current RMH-6 z;.- n, j.
alternative requires no rezoning action and would allow only
mobile homes to be located in this area in the future. Based
on the existing land uses in this area, including the existing
single-family residences which are nonconforming uses, staff
does not see any advantages to this alternative. The disadvan-
tages to this alternative are the facts that the existing
houses are nonconforming uses which cannot be replaced or
expanded and the fact that individuals living in mobile homes
cou-1-%-not replace them with single-family residences.
Alternative �2, create a new zoning district that allows both
single-family residences and mobile homes. The advantage of
this alternative is that all existing mobile homes and sin-
gle-family residences would be conforming uses and individuals
would have flexibility as to which type of dwelling unit they
could place on their lots. A disadvantage of this alternative
is that the staff does not feel that it is appropriate to allow
single-family residences and mobile homes in the same zoning
district. One of the purposes of zoning is to group similar land
use activities together and separate conflicting land uses.
Another purpose of zoning is to protect property values. Allowing
mobile homes to locate next to single-family residences would not
protect the property values of the single-family residences and
would be undesirable to most owners of single-family house. The
staff did prepare a draft of a new zoning district (the ROSE -4
district which is attached) which could be utilized under this
alternative. In addition, two alternative zoning proposals were
prepared for rezoning the subject area utilizing the ROSE -4
district (these alternatives are attached).
Alternative 3, rezone part of
alternative, part of this area
advantage of this alternative
42
this area to RS -6. Under this
would be rezoned to RS -6. The
is that the existing sin-
M r M
gle-family residences could be rezoned to become conforming
uses. The disadvantage of this alternative is that it may be
necessary to rezone some existing mobile homes also to avoid
spot zoning. The staff prepared a rezoning proposal for this
alternative which would rezone the existing single-family
dwellings and many of the mobile homes in this area to RS -6.
It is the staff's position that mobile homes and single-family
units are not compatible and, therefore, should not be allowed
in the same zoning district. Since a principal objective of
zoning is to protect property values and because such a zoning
district would fail to protect the property values of sin-
gle-family home owners in areas zoned for both single-family and
mobile home uses, the staff feels that no such zoning district
should be established. For these reasons, the staff feels that
Alternative 3 is the most appropriate option.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the County
not establish a zoning district which allows both mobile homes
and single-family units. The staff also recommends that the
Board direct the staff to prepare a recommendation concerning
rezoning part of this area from RMH-6 to RS -6.
Vice Chairman Lyons asked if there isn't a small area plan
in process for this area and if so, why it isn't with the
Planning 6 Zoning Commission.
Planner Shearer explained that they tabled action on it to
find out if the Board felt it is appropriate to have this type of
district.
Vice Chairman Lyons believed they are supposed to make the
recommendations to us and not vice versa.
Carolyn Eggert, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commis-
sion, was under the impression they had made a recommendation,
which is that they did not feel they could go on with the plan
until they had the Board's decision as to what they felt should
be happening in this one area. She advised that the Planning 6
Zoning Commission felt the old zone should be recreated, and the
Planning Department did not agree.
Commissioner Bird believed the Board felt the mixed use
desired could work up there, and Commissioner Wodtke stated that
he preferred Alternative 2, i.e., creating a new district to
allow both single family and mobile homes, but did not know that
he could delineate the specific area. He did feel this is unique
43
JUIN 2 5 1986 BOOK 64 FA11 8�Q
JUN 2 5 1986
BOOK 6 4 f'mGE���,
because this is land that is owned by fee simple title and it is
a homestead and different than a mobile home park.
Vice Chairman Lyons asked if the Board members were
indicating we should have a part of that area continue as a
double use district, and Commissioner Bird concurred, but noted
he would like to set those boundaries today and then have staff
continue to look at the overall area. He emphasized that he
would like to corral this double use in the affected area and
keep it as small as we can.
The Vice Chairman Lyons did not feel that we are in a
position to set these areas specifically today, and Attorney
s4
Vitunac believed it would be premature because we don't have the
proposed ordinance. He recommended staff write this up and bring
it back.
Discussion continued and Vice Chairman Lyons felt that all
we can say is that there is a need for a mixed, or double use
area of single family and mobile homes; ask the Planning
Department to come up with the area and a proposed ordinance
recreating this district to protect what already exists; and then
have the Planning & Zoning Commission come back and tell us what
their recommendations are.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to indicate the need for a
zoning district allowing single family residences
and mobile homes is 7oseland area; to direct
the Planning staff to come u- ;'!, a specific area
for this and a proposed ordinanc:�, to have
the Planning & Zoning Commission come bac. +�-
recommendation.
Fred Mensing of Roseland felt this issue can be pretty well
resolved today, but it was explained that this has to go to a
public hearing.
44
Mrs.
Eggert
noted that
she
only
meant set
the
boundaries in
the sense
that it
should not
be
all
of Roseland
but
just a
particular area within Roseland where this problem occurs.
Mr. Mensing did not believe any of the residents what to see
the area expanded. They just want to protect what is there
exclusively. That's what they are looking for and what they feel
they have been promised they can get.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that if we have that zoning
classification on our books, the Commission is going to have to
make the determination on any request for this classification
whether it is allowable or not. We cannot have an exclusive
zoning classification and restrict it to any particular piece of
land.
Vice Chairman Lyons agreed, and Com. Bird emphasized that he
certainly did not plan to expand this type zoning to any new
areas.
THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0).
PRESENTATION BY CONCERNED MINISTERS OF GIFFORD
Elder Charlie Jones came before the Board representing
Reverend Harold Brown"^and made the following statement:
45
JUN 2 5 1986 Boa 64 PAGE 892
JUN 2 5 1986 Boa 6 4 P,a,F
-893 7
To the Indian River County Commissioners, We the Ministerial Alliance of Gifford
respectfully appreciate the time we have been allowed to speak before you. In
recent years our Alliance has fought diligently to rid our community of Drugs, we
have formed Ministers Against Drugs, circulated handouts on the Horror of Drugs,
shown movies on drugs and we started a Drug Awareness program. Also we attempted
to meet and work with Sheriff Dobeck on several occasions. We come before you
today as spokesmen for the Gifford Community, with the support and backing of the
local residents. We know that with your efforts in the past ten years Gifford
has moved from no roads to paved roads, from a'wooded'field to a ballfield to a
thriving park, we sincerely appreciate all your efforts toward the betterment df
our community. For over two years the Ministers have attempted to alleviate
the problem of drugs, but now because of recent developments in our community we
feel that we can no longer sit back and allow our voices to be ignored. Gifford
is now embarked upon a New Era, we are for the first time a United Community,
Young Blood and Old Blood, the Sinner and the Saint all working and walking hand
and hand to bring about a better community. We promise to bring about positive
change on all fronts by increasing our voting power, and turning Injustices into
Justice, Hate into Love. We respectfully request your support and help in
enacting, establishing and enforcing several laws and programs. They are:
21
Brown Bag Law
1. 1. We feel that open cgnsumption of alcohol in our community is blatant
disrespect to our community, and our youth.
2. This law will assist with a cosmetic improvement for our community
(Face-lift) .
11 ?rohibiting Minors Access to Night Clubs.
1. 15, 16, 17, 18 year olds are being allowed in night clubs and are being
sold alcoholic beverages.
111 Loitering and Vagrancy Laws.
1. We feel that if these two laws are enacted and enforced, it would help
curtail the drug and crime problems.
1V Curfew Law (Minors).
1. We feel that a curfew would be beneficial to the Sheriff's Department
and our community.
V Clean Town Ordinance.
1. We feel that the lack of upkeep at some businesses in our community lends
itself to the criminal element.
2. Shabby businesses are an eye sore and degrading to the community.in
which they exist.
VI,�' Professional Police Patrols.
1. We feel that if the Sheriff's Department conducts rigorous,
complete and professional patrols in our community it would help
stop some rr_ h e crime, and afford our community an opportunity
to regain some of the tainted respect which the Sheriff's Department
has acquired in Giffo _`
2. Establish a county -wide Ad -Hoc Committee to oversee complaints
against the Sheriff's Department. '
Commissioners, we sincerely hope that you take our concerns seriously and
that we can formulate a close working relationship in reference to problems,
situations and actions of the Indian River County Commission pertaining to
Gifford. We have the undying support of 7,000 black people in Gifford from
the churches to the bars, and they are behind us 100%. We are a United Gifford,
with a United Purpose.
46
Vice Chairman Lyons appreciated the presentation and assured
Elder Jones that their concerns are shared by every member of the
County Commission. He emphasized that this is not a black and
white problem; it is a neighborhood problem, and it concerns us
all. He believed some of the requests listed will require advice
from our Attorney about what we can do and cannot do, and some of
these things the residents are going to have to address
themselves.
Fran Ross, speaking from the audience, noted that the
county has the agencies, and they should enforce these things.
Vice Chairman Lyons pointed out there are more things to be
done than people to do them, and it requires the cooperation of
the citizens to help us put the heat on where it should be
placed. He assured those present that the Commission will look
into all the points raised and come back with an answer.
Elder Jones requested that they be supplied a list of county
ordinances that affect the Giftord area.
r
Commissioner Bird stated that he would like to have the
County Attorney check the laws and see what does pertain to the
points that have been raised here, and then when this has been
ascertained, we would call a meeting including the Sheriff, the
Health Department, etc., and bring all those involved together to
see what can be enforced and also what we may be lacking.
Commissioner Bowman noted that we know we have building
codes and sanitation codes and we could start right now with
complaints to the Health Department and the Building Department;
however, first we need information from the community as to
where these places are.
Vice Chairman Lyons noted that the community has given us a
task; we accept it; and we will get back to them.
Elder Jones expressed appreciation and his opinion that the
county has a good Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Wodtke felt the Ministerial Alliance can be a
very integral part of what they are asking us to accomplish.
47
JUN 2 5 1996 BOOK 64 PA -UE 8?
JUN 2 5 1986 BOOK 64 FmJ 8?5
He believed Elder Jones has indicated that the community is
willing to do its part, and he felt that is the key to this
situation as it will take a total effort on everyone's part.
Com. Wodtke assured those present that our staff and Code
Enforcement people will do their part, and he hopes we can see
significant progress very quickly.
Reverend Brown requested that the president of the
Minister's Association, Reverend Orr, who traveled a long way to
be here today, be allowed to speak.
Reverend Orr wished to call the Board's attention to the
fact that when they had a problem in the school system, an ad hoc
committee was formed to help solve it. He stressed the need for
a committee of citizens from all over the county since drugs and
these other problems do not confine themselves to any one area.
The Reverend emphasized that the dt-U(j problem has been addresa
by federal officers and state officers, and they all say it has
become of epidemic proportions. Reverend Orr looked forward to
doing something to make Indian River County an even better place
to live.
Com. Wodtke agreed an ad hoc committee can be of help with
the problems in the community, but did not feel it should be the
responsibility of such a committee to concern itself with
specific complaints against the Sheriff's Department. He
believed there are other procedures to be followed to deal with
that.
Vice Chairman Lyons continued to stress that to accomplish
anything will require a concerted effort from the citizens of
Gifford as well as the County. He knew they have an active Civic
League there and hoped we can all join forces.
DISCUSSION RE WINTER BEACH CEMETERY _ TRANSFER OF REVERSIONARY
INTERESTS
Commissioner Wodtke referred to the following aerial chart:
48
� 7 �
71-1
N
32
P'l
PARCEL ON WHICH REVERTER. I
WOULD BE IMPOSED
22 ri
PARCEL TO WHICH REVERTER
NOW APPLIES
LN
- F7.j
.141
Ft IV—*
M2
R Gifloi
t ,iro I
C* Iseach
PROPOSED TRANSFER OF
REVERSIONARY INTERESTS
AT KIWANIS—HOBART PARK
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
b
I
t
49
JUN 2 5 1986 BOOK 6 4 FADE
JUN 2 5 1966 BOOK 64 Par 827
Commissioner Wodtke reviewed the history of this situation
whereby some years back a former County Commission authorized the
Cemetery Association to utilize certain land, and then found that
particular piece of property was some that came to us through the
State of Florida and had a use stipulation that had to be
removed. He then went over the steps followed in the long
process of trying to accomplish this and noted the Commission
authorized a piece of land twice the size of what we were going
to use to be offered in exchange for that reverter. As time went
on, however, we went into a change of staff and attorneys and
somehow files were misplaced. We now have been back to
:a
Tallahassee, backtracking their files, maps, etc., and Attorney
Vitunac asked that this be brought back to the Board for his
staff to be given direction to proceed as we originally wanted to
proceed. Commissioner Wodtke explained that the property we are
going to give the state a reverter, or a use restriction on, is
part of the property we are going to have the golf course on.
This will not have any effect on the golf course, however, since
the reverter right only applies in the event the property is not
used for recreational purposes, and the golf course is already
there.
Commissioner Bird asked if the Cemetery Association actually
needs that big a piece of property for expansion of the cemetery.
Commissioner Wodtke explained that this is the only place in
the county available for pauper burial, and he believed the
cemetery will eventually utilize that entire piece of land. He
continued that he is asking for reconcurrence of our intentions
and permission for the attorney's staff and himself to proceed on
with this swapping of reverters.
Attorney Barkett clarified that this was part of a tract
that was donated by the DNR, and staff needs authorization to
apply to the DNR and the Department of Interior to encumber one
piece of property and unencumber another.
50
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized
staff and Commissioner Wodtke to proceed with the
transfer of reverters re the Winter Beach Cemetery
property as described above.
Attorney Vitunac advised that a second Motion would be
necessary to deed that property over to the Cemetery Association.
Commissioner Bird asked if we can dedicate it to them or
just reserve it for their use, and Attorney Barkett noted that
the dedication was made in 1980, but he did not know what effect
it has now.
Acting Administrator Thomas believed we have a moral obliga-
tion there, and felt we should hear from the Winter Beach
Cemetery Association as to exactly what they are going to do.
Commissioner Wodtke reported that he did talk to the
Association recently, and he was sure they are willing and
anxious to work out any arrangements necessary. He believed the
dedication just gives them the right to utilize the property as a
cemetery and that we were going to work out some arrangement with
them for clearing land, space allocation, maintenance, etc. He
stated that he would like to have concurrence from the Commission
that it is our intention to follow up with the dedication of this
property and to authorize him, Administrator Thomas, and Attorney
Barkett to meet with the Association to work out the arrange-
ments. The Board had no objections.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:08 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
0
51
Chairman
BOOK 64 PAGE 8218
I