HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/2/1986Wednesday, July 2, 1986
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission
Chambers, 1.840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday,
July 2, 1986,`at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock,
Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman; Margaret C.
Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Absent was Commissioner
Richard N. Bird, who was in Tallahassee on county business. Also
present were L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Acting County Administrator;
Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County
Commissioners; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend Don Swords of Twentieth Avenue Church of God gave
the invocation and Commissioner Lyons led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Scurlock explained that there is an additional
Consent Agenda today consisting of 9 items. Item #1 is a
proclamation which will be presented immediately after the first
Consent Agenda is approved, and since Item #9 will involve
considerable discussion, he requested that it be removed from the
additional Consent Agenda and added under the County
Administrator's items.
Chairman Scurlock requested the deletion of Item 6 E under
the original Consent Agenda.
BOOK F"GE 899
JU�L 2 198E
rJUL 2 198
BOOK 64 PARE 830
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being absent), added to today's
Agenda Items 2-8 of an additional Consent Agenda which
will be considered after morning recess to allow the
Board an opportunity to review the backup material.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) added
Items #1 and #9 to today's Agenda, and deleted Item
6E of the original Consent Agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of '0yl/4/86. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 6/4/86,
as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 6/10/86.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 6/10/86,
as written.
2
PROCLAMATION - AMERICAN RED CROSS DISASTER RELIEF FILLUP DAY
Chairman Scurlock read the following,proclamation aloud and
presented it to Jim Ledbetter who accepted it in behalf of the
American Red Cross.
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, the AMERICAN RED CROSS gives aid nation-wide to
victims of all natural disasters through its Disaster Relief
Fund; and
WHEREAS, in 1985, the State of Florida spent over $2,000,000
of its allotted Disaster Relief Funds to assist the victims of
Hurricane Elena which devastated our Gulf Coast, and the victims
of tornadoes and fires which ravaged Central Florida; and
WHEREAS, the RED CROSS Disaster Relief Fund has been
severely depleted and is in vital need of replenishment for
future reserves; and
WHEREAS, three major oil associations of Florida; the
Service Station Dealers of Florida; the Florida Petroleum
Marketers Association, and the Florida Petroleum Council, along
with their participating pump locations, have agreed to donate
one cent per gallon for every gallon of gas pumped on July 3,
1986, to the RED CROSS Disaster Relief Fund;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, Indian River County, Florida that July 3, 1986 be
designated as
AMERICAN RED CROSS DISASTER RELIEF FILLUP DAY
in Indian River County, and the Board further urges all citizens
of the County to participate and support this worthy effort.
ATTEST:
Freda Wright, Cleyk
3
J U L 2 1,986
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., airman
BOOK 64 f'AGE 831
r-
JUL 2 198
I
BOOK 64 PAGE
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Wodtke requested that Item A be removed from
today's Consent Agenda for discussion, and Commissioner Lyons
removed Item D.
A. Sale_- Surplus Property
The
Board
reviewed the
following memo
dated
6/25/86:
TO: Board of
County
Commissioners
DATE: June 25,
1986
FILE:
THRU: Joseph A. Baird
Director, Management & Budget
SUBJECT: Sale - Surplus Property
/ s-a-�il,�.��U
FROM: Caroly Goodrich REFERENCES:
Manager, Purchasing Department
Description and Conditions
At the April 2 meeting, Asset #7289 - G. E. Master II Base Station,
was declared as surplus property by the Board of County Commissioners.
It was advertised twice as surplus property.
Communications of Vero Beach has offered to purchase the base station
for $1600.00.
The base station was purchased in 1984 for $2029.00.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Board accept the only bid of $1600.00
from Communications of Vero Beach.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that the County originally
purchased the base station for $2,029, and commended
Communications of Vero Beach on their integrity in bidding on
this item.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4-0)
accepted the only bid of $1600 from Communications of
Vero Beach for the purchase of surplus property, Asset
#7289 - G. E. Master If Base Station.
4
B. Supporting Documentation for Rental Rehabilitation Program
Vouchers
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/24/86:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: June 24, 1986 FILE:
THRU: L. S. "Tommy" Thomas.
Acting County Administrator
FROM: Guy L. Decker, J
IRC Housing Authority
Executive Director
SUBJECT: Supporting Documentation for
Rental Rehab Vouchers
FL29-V132-002
REFERENCES:
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration
by the County Commission.
The Department of Housing and.Urban Development in their letter of May 9 and
letter of June 17, 1986 has approved our application for an additional increment
of vouchers to be utilized in connection with our Rental Rehabiliation Program.
The amount of $68,420. has been reserved pending the submission of the required
documents. When the requested documents have been received and approved by HUD
they will execute the Annual Contributions Contract and forward to us for execu-
tion.
The documentation required by HUD is submitted and attached for consideration
and approval of the Board of County Commissioners.
1. Estimates of Required Annual Contributions, Forms HUD -52672 and HUD
52673; Back-up Worksheets - Year 1 (A,B,C); breakdown of request for
preliminary funds and Lease up schedule. (original and four copies)
I recommend the County Commission authorize the Chairman of the Board to
execute forms HUD 52672 and 52673 with their attachments for transmittal to the
Jacksonville Office of HUD.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
HUD Forms 52672 and 52673 for Project FL29-V132-002,
and authorized the Chairman's signature.
FORMS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
� � 1986 BOOK 64 F,� A S33
rJUL 2 1996 BOOK 64 Fa,E 834
C. Release of_SR_60 Water Assessment Lien - Old Sugar Mill
Estates
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0)
released (1) ERU assessment lien in the amount of
$926.07 on the SR -60 water project for Lot #36, Old
Sugar Mill Estates, Unit #3 (Sexton).
ASSESSMENT LIEN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
D. Approval and Execution of License Between WGYL and Indian
River County
Assistant County Attorney Jim Wilson added a provision on
Page 2 of the lease requiring the station to provide space for
our transmitting equipment if we put an antenna on this tower.
He also added a provision stating that we would have free access
to the tower to service our equipment if and when our equipment
is installed.
Commissioner Lyons asked what arrangements we have to make
for power, and Attorney Wilson explained that all utility bills
for activities on the premises will be paid for by the ,radio
station.
Chairman Scurlock understood that we had discounted the
actual rental payment down to $100 and then it accelerates to
$125; the other compensation the County receives is the space.
He was assured by Attorney Wilson that we have eliminated any
mention of tower height whatsoever in the agreement. We can go
up as high as permits allow.
6
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the License with WGYL Radio Corporation as
amended by the Assistant County Attorney.
AGREEMENT WILL BE PUT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
F. New Application for a Permit to Carry a Concealed Weapon
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/23/86:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: June 23, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Pistol. Permit New
FROM: L • s - °Tommy° Thomas
• Acting County AdministraERENCES:
The following person has applied through the Clerk's Office for
a new pistol permit:
James Edward Copeland, Jr.
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved a new application to carry a concealed weapon
for James Edward Copeland, Jr.
G. DER/Army Corps/DNR Permit Application _ Figgie Properties
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/24/86:
V1
Boa 64 FADE 8.35
10"_JUL 2 1966 BOOK 64 FmU 8a36
w
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 24, 19 86 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R., ARMY CORPS AND
D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICATION
SUBJECT:
Robert'M. Kea ng, CP
Planning & Developm nt Director
THROUGH: Art Chal acombe
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM:Roland M. DeBlois REFERENCES: Figgie Prop.
Staff Planner *1> DIS:ROLAND/TM-86-526
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of July 2, 1986.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
APPLICATION NO. 31-121495-4
APPLICANTS:
Figgie Properties
1835 20th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
WATERWAY & LOCATION: The project is located in the Indian River
adjacent to River Way Drive in Section 16, Township 33 South,
Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida.
The upland property associated with the project is Lot 13 of
Seagrove West Subdivision in Vero Beach, Florida.
WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant proposes to construct a private
single L-shaped dock extending 55 feet waterward, having a width
of 4 feet. The terminal platform of the proposed dock is 5 feet
in width and 30 feet in length; total square footage of the dock
is 350 feet. 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:
- The Conservation & Coastal Zoning Management Element of the
Indian River Comprehensive Plan
- Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region
- The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
- The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances specifies
that residential dock structures are accessory- uses to the
principal residential use. In order to construct the proposed
dock facility, the applicant must have a principal structure on
Lot #13.
The proposed dock facility will be located within the Malabar -
Vero Beach State Aquatic Preserve and, as such, is subject to
8
Chapter 16Q-20 Florida Administrative Code. A staff review of
Chapter 16Q-20 finds that the proposed dock dimensions comply
with the size standards set forth in the rule.
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 autho-
rize 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 cumula-
tive 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 Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0)
authorized staff to forward the comments listed in the
above memo to the DER.
H. Professional Engineering Service - Vero Lakes Estates
Drainage Study
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/25/86:
TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE: June 25, 1986 FILE:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
Tommy Thomas
Acting County Administrator SUBJECT: Professional Engineering Serv.
Vero Lakes Estates Drainage
Study
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. REFERENCES:
Public Works Directo
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Consultant Selection Committee interviewed four Engineering
firms on June 24, 1986, for the design of a master drainage plan for
Vero Lake Estates Subdivision
9
BOOK 64 FACE 837
,JUL 2 1986
Boos 64 F,�G 8'38
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
The Selection Committee recommends that staff and a representative
from the Vero Lake Estates Subdivision be authorized to begin contract
negotiations with the following firms. in the prescribed order as listed
below:
1) Beindorf and Associates -Vero Beach, Florida
2) Stottler, Stagg and Associates -Cape Canaveral, Florida
3) Gee and Jensen West Palm Beach, Florida
4) Boyle Engineering Corp. -Orlando, Florida
Once a contract is prepared, the Board of County Commissioners will
be requested to aprove the Contract. Funding shall be from the Vero
Lake Estates MSTU.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0)
authorized staff to begin negotiations with the
recommended firms as set out in the above memo for
professional engineering service in the Vero Lakes
Estates Drainage Study.
I. Consolidation of Agreements for Professional Services,
Masteller & Moler, Inc.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/16/85:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: JUNE 16, 1986
THRU: TOMMY THOMAS
ACTING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR, UTILITY SERVIC S
SUBJECT: AGREEMENTSFOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
MASTELLER & MOLER, INC.
BACKGROUND
On April 24, 1985, an agreement for professional services was
executed between Sippel, Masteller, Lorenz & Hoover, Inc., and
Indian River County. This agreement allowed the consulting engi-
neers to provide general consulting and engineering services for
water main extensions, storage tanks and relating systems, as needed
and authorized from time to time by the County.
On June 5, 1985, an agreement for professional services wasexecutedbetween Masteller & Moler_ Associates, Inc., and Indian River County.
The agreement allowed the consulting engineers to provide general
consulting and engineering services for wastewater treatment plants,
lift stations, main extensions and relating systems, as needed and
authorized from time to time by the County.
10
ANALYSIS
The new agreement -shall amend the original professional services
agreements by changing the, name of the corporation, combining water
and wastewaterintoone agreement, and by amending certain prices
for general consulting, and engineering services.
RECOMMENDATION
Utility staff asks the Board of County Commissioners to approve the
attached agreement for professional services between Masteller and
Moler, Inc., and Indian River County. This recommendation is based
on the utility departments complete satisfaction regarding the
consultants quality of work and competitive prices.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the consolidation of agreements for
professional services with Masteller 6 Moler, Inc.,
as recommended by staff.
COPY OF AGREEMENT IS ON -FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
AWARD OF BIDS - INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD SOUTHERLY EXTENSION, 12TH
STREET EXTENSION AND WIDENING, 8TH STREET EXTENSION AND
MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/23/86:
TO: The Honorable marbers-of the June 23, 1986
Board of County c«mnissioners DATE: FILE:
THROUGH:
Toffy Thomas,
Acting County Administrator
SUBJECT: Award of Bids - Indian River
Boulevard South Extension,
12th Street Extension and
Widening, 8th Street
Extension, and Miscellaneous
Improvements
FROM:James w. Davis, P.E.f 41- REFERENCES:
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Bids were received June 20, 1986, for the subject project after being
publicly advertised throughout the State of Florida. Two bidders responded
as follows
Dickerson, Inc. Stuart, F1. $3,973,809.36
Ft. Pierce Contracting, Ft. Pierce, F1 $4,925,955.43
11
JUL 2 1986 Boos 64 mE839
r"-
JUL 2 1986 BOOK 64 fnH 84®
The Engineer's Estimate for the project was $4,200,000. All bids were
reviewed and checked. Both bidders supplied bid bonds, etc.
ALTERMTIVE'S AND ANALYSIS
Even though only two bidders responded, the bids appear to be cxnnpetitive ..
and the low bid is within the budget that has been allocated for the
project.
RECOMVENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends:
The bid for the subject project be awarded to Dickerson, Inc., Stuart,
F1, in the amount of $3,973,809.36 and that funding be approved with
Revenues from Fund 109(Constitutional Gas Tax, Local Option Gas Tax, etc.)
Chairman Scurlock noted that these projects are to be funded
through the local option gas tax monies, and Public Works
Director Jim Davis did not anticipate using any of the monies
collected from the impact fees at this time.
Chairman Scurlock wondered if we start doing some of the
major projects with gas tax monies, would there be enough
projects of that nature left in that particular district that
could be funded with road impact fees. In looking at the budget,
he felt that the local gas tax monies are going to have to be
geared to supporting the Public Works budget with respect to some
of these major road improvements.
Commissioner Wodtke suggested putting down both accounts
("and/or") as a source of funding at this time, seeing that we
are going into budget workshops shortly.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0)
awarded the bid to the low bidder, Dickerson, Inc. of
Stuart, FL., in the amount of $3,973,809.36 for the
road improvements as set out in the above memo, with
the understanding that we do have the money available
in the budget to do the project, and that the actual
outlay of the funds will come back to the Board at a
later date.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
12
BOARD -OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
is
1840 25th Street
Vero
i°
u
w�
Beach, Florida 32960
y
BID TABULATION
b
am im OC
V
BID TABULATION
ti
pC k�
�c�
�1
D3p�
oC�
c� c
y
yF
c
i?
�,• wA
pC
y
im
4
14
le
BID NO.
DATE OF OPENING
`� `°
m
HC cC? iu
i�, a, o, of
3r
o
UNIT PRICE UNIT
y mm
ciy,
June .20, 1986
�
.:
lima
o mm
�'` vp
BID TITLE 12th St. Traffic and
m� 1.0up
Pedestrian Improvements
c
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRIC U
E NIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT
12th Street Traffic and Pedestrian
Boulevard Southerly Extension
Countv Prniart fi- RhAft t
k
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
is
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
i°
w�
BID TABULATION
BID NO.DATE
OF OPENING
ci 0)
4 ti
June 20, 1986
y
BID TITLE 12th St. Traffic and
vim
r
Q
Pedestrian 1 roveen
14
le
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE UNIT
UNIT PRICEI UNIT PRICE I UNIT PRICE I UNIT PRICE I UNIT PRICE UNIT
PURCHASE OF 12TH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/24/86:
13
JUL 2986 BOOK 64 rnUE 841
JUL 2 1986
Bou 64 nH1
• THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THPATE. JUNE 24, 1986 FILE:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
L.S. "TOMMY" THOMAS,'
ACTING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT:
JAMES W. DAVIS,
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR 1
12TH STREET PURCHASE OF
RIGHT OF WAY FOR INDIAN
RIVER BOULEVARD - SOUTH
PROJECT #8409
FROM: DONALD G. FINNEY-�1�1- REFERENCES:
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION AGENT
DESCRIPTION
1) Parcel #168 - 11.5' R/W
Mr. & Mrs. Michael Cooper have agreed to settle for the fait
market value of $3,968.00 as full compensation for the 1150
square feet of R/W which equates to $3.10 per sq. ft. for
the land and $1.00 square foot for the 402.5 square feet
of existing asphalt.
2) Parcel #147 - 8.5' R/W
Mr. & Mrs. Raymond .Gallotte have agreed to settle for the
fair market value for the R/W requested from the property
leased to American Pioneer Savings Bank. Mr. Alex Snow
appraised the 2,479 square feet of land at $ 12,395.00 which
equates to $5.00 per sq. ft.
3) Parcel #165 - 8.5' R/W-
The 7-11 store management in Houston have agreed to settle
for the fair market value of $5.25 per square foot arrived
at by Armfield, recent appraisal of similar corner property
at Primitive Baptist Church across the intersection from
this parcel. This equates to $10,741.50 for the 2,046 square
foot parcel.
4) Parcel #141 - Frank Zorc - 8.5' R/W
A certified letter was sent June 5, 1986 offering to purchase
at the fair market value of $2.00 per square foot arrived
at by Armf ield's appraisal of the adjoining parcel right
of way. This equates to $1,917.00 for the 958.5 square foot
parcel. Mr. Snow's adjoining property appraised at $5.00
per sq. ft. Mr. Zorc has agreed to sell at $5.00 per sq.
ft. or $4,792.00.
5) Parcel #135 - Forum Spa & Raquet Club - 8.5' R/W
Certified letters sent January 22, 1986 and June 5, 1986.
No response unable to determine ownership, although the
manager has said and refused to give out the Doctor's name
or address in South America, of the present owner. June 1986,
letter offering to purchase at the fair market value of $2.00
per square foot arrived at by a recent appraisal of a
nearby right of way parcel. This equates to $4,795.00 for
the 2,397 square foot R/W parcel.
6) Parcel #153 - 3.5' R/W
In divorce litigation. I have offered $4.20 per square foot
for the 245 square foot parcel or $1,152.00 to the Rennick's.
This offer has been sent to Norman Green, representing Ronald
Rennick and to Steven Fromang, representing Diane Rennick
in the divorce suit.
14
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is requested that The Board of County Commissioners
authorize the purchase of each of these parcels at their
respective fair market value. Secondly, to authorize an
appraisal of each individual: parcel and condemnation if they
can not be settled within 30 days.
FUNDING
Indian River Blvd. project #304-214-541-66.12
Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that staff has been
trying to clean up the acquisition of the remaining right-of-way
needed on 12th Street, and explained each parcel described in the
above memo.
Chairman Scurlock asked who actually owns Parcel #135, Forum
Spa & Racquet Club, and County Right -of -Way Agent Don Finney
reported that just yesterday he received a call from the property
owner who has the franchise for all of these spas and we will be
able to negotiate with him.
Commissioner Wodtke understood that we are only authorizing
payment of fair market value on these parcels according -to
Armfield, but Director Davis said that was not true in all cases
as we do not have appraisals for some of the parcels. In those
cases we do have a appraisal for the land next them. The owner
of Item#4 has not agreed to the $2.00, which we feel is the fair
market value of other surrounding parcels on the same roadway,
but staff's recommendation is that the Board authorize the
purchase of each of the properties at their respective fair
market value, including parcel #4 at $2.00 per square foot.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4-0)
authorized the purchase of the parcels listed in the
above memo at their respective fair market value, and
if settlements cannot be reached within 30 days,
authorized an appraisal of each individual parcel and
condemnation.
15
JUL 2 1986 BOOK 64 F,+GE843
FF-
JUL 21986
-7 BOOK 64 PnE844
Commissioner Lyons found it most irritating to have read in
the local newspaper a very adverse editorial on how slowly the
County has progressed in the southerly extension of Indian River
Boulevard. He pointed out that we have saved the taxpayers over
$1.5 million in recent negotiations for right-of-way, and
believed staff would continue to do a very fine job in getting
the remaining right-of-way needed.
TRI -PARTY AGREEMENT - RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION FROM VISTA GARDENS
CONDOMINIUM FOR SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/23/86:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: June 23, 1986 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Tommy Thomas,
Acting county Administrator SUBJECT:
Tri -Party Agreement for
Fencing, Drainage Easement,
and Right -of -Way
.Acquisition Along Vista
Gardens Condominium- South
Extension of Indian River
FROM:James 'James W. Davis, P.E,
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AMID CONDITIONS
Staff has met on several occasions with the Board of Directors of the
Vista Gardens Property Owners Association and Vista Properties
representatives to resolve issues relating to the South Extension of
Indian River Boulevard. The attached Tri -Party Agreement has been
developed and has been approved by the Vista Gardens Property Owners
Association and Vista Properties. The Agreement basically contains the
following
1) Provides for donation of needed right-of-way to the County by Vista
Properties.
2) Provides for drainage easement for stormwater overflow through
Vista Gardens Condominium
3) Provides for construction by the County of a 6' high or 8' high
masonry wall along the 1,616 IF west property line of Vista Gardens
Condominium. This wall construction will be located in a 15' wide
easement on the Vista Gardens property and will cost approximately
$71,744 ($42 to $50 per foot) . A variance will be required for this
wall.
4) Provides for a new 250' long access road to be constructed by the
between the existing Vista Gardens access road and Indian
River Boulevard located 600' east of US 1. Cost of this road is
approximately $10,000.
16
M M
ALTEMATIVES AND ANALYSIS
All parties support the attached agreement and recam-end its approval.
The Attorney's office and attorneys for the other two parties
have reviewed and approved this agreement.
RECONMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends the Agreement be approved by the Board and the Chairman
be authorized to execute it on behalf of the County. Raiding to be from
Fund 304, Indian River.Boulevard South construction.
Chairman Scurlock believed Item #3 might require a variance
and did not know how this Board could take action as the Variance
Board is an autonomous group and their appeal is not to this
Board but to the Circuit Court. He wondered if we should broaden
our ability to do more things within our own right-of-ways
instead of looking for variances all the time.
County Attorney Vitunac explained that the Board of
Adjustments has a right to grant a variance only if the unique
shape of the property creates an undue hardship on that piece of
property, which is probably not the case here.
Chairman Scurlock asked who would grant the variance for the
wall construction at Vista Royale, and Assistant County Attorney
Jim Wilson believed that the Board of County Commissioners has
the authority to grant the variance by ordinance or resolution.
Planning & Development Director Robert Keating advised that
there is no need for a variance.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board approve the
tri -party agreement with Vista Gardens Property Owners
Association and Vista Properties and authorize the
Chairman's signature, as recommended by staff.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would
vote for the Motion with the understanding that a variance is not
required to construct the wall or fence at Vista Royale.
17
JUL � Boor. DI -)E 845
r'-IJUL 21986
-7 BOOK 4 Fac, 846
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously (4-0).
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR PAVING OF STREETS IN SUBURBAN ACRES EAST
SUBDIVISION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/4/86
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: June 24, 1986 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Tommy Thomas
Acting County Administrator
F RO Wames W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Petition from Property Owners
SUBJECT: of Suburban Acres East
Subdivision for County to
Resurface 32nd Terrace by
Special Assessment and to
Assume County Maintenance of
32nd Terrace
REFERENCES: Petition from Property
Owners of 32nd Terrace
Twelve of sixteen property owners (75%) representing approximately 73% of
the total front footage along 32nd Terrace south of 8th Street have
petitioned the County to resurface and restore to County Standards 32nd
Terrace by 100% Special Assessment funding and accept this privately
dedicated road for maintenance. The road was constructed in 1977 to then
existing.County Standards.
ALTERNATIVES AMID ANALYSIS
Staff performed a visual inspection of the subject road on March 31, 1986.
The road pavement and base in some areas requires reconstruction. In
addition, a 36" corrugated metal pipe at the subdivision entrance may need
replacement in the next 10 years due to insufficient diameter, possible
corrosion, and evidence that fill above the pipe is settling which may be
due to existing corrosion or to inadequate compaction over the pipe.
Staff has also evaluated the function and condition of the road using the
County Acceptance Evaluation Criteria adopted in 1981. Based on that
evaluation, the road received a rating of 100 points. A minimum score of
100 points has been the past threshold for acceptance.
Due to the current numerous petitions submitted for existing dedicated
roads under the petition paving program, staff projects that this road
would not be reconstructed until mid 1987.
Based upon the numerical rating which just meets the 100 point threshold
once the road is reconstructed, the staff is of the opinion that acceptance
of this road would not impose a burden on the maintenance system once it is
reconstructed, except for possible future replacement of the culvert in the
Indian River Farms Water Control District Canal. The County's Master
Stormwater Plan prepared by Reynolds, Smith, and Hills, Inc. specifies a 8'
x 5' box culvert in the 8th Street Sublateral at this location. It is
estimated that 50 L.F. of 8' x 5' box culvert with headwalls would cost
$15,000. At this time, a 36 round steel culvert is in place. The
Property Owners Association representative has indicated that the Property
Owners would consent to funding the replacement of the culvert when
replacement is necessary, but not at this time.
18
r � �
I' � • I ISI 11 ' • � It 11 A !"
It is recoffwnded that the Board of County CaTmissioners authorize staff to
proceed with scheduling the Special Assessment project of reconstruction of
32nd Terrace. Replacement of the sublateral canal culvertwould be a future
obligation of the. Property Owners Association. The funding shall be 100%
Special Assessment.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board authorize
staff to proceed with scheduling the 100% Special
Assessment project for reconstruction of 32nd Terrace,
with the understanding that the future replacement of
the sublateral canal culvert will be at the expense of
the Property -Owners Association, as recommended by
staff.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wodtke asked how we could
make the Property Owners Association pay for the culvert when the
time comes, and Director Davis stated that the County could
assess the subdivision regardless of whether or not they all
agree.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously (4-0).,
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY MASTER PLAN
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/20/86:
19
JUL 21986 BOOK 64 PAGE 847
r
JUL 2 1996 Boa 64 Fm,)E S48
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: June 20, 1986 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Tommy Thomas,
Acting County Administrator SUBJECT:
Public Works Facility Master
Plan
FROM:James W. Davis, P.E., �" REFERENCES:
Public Works Director
The Consultant Selection Committee for the subject project received formal
presentations from four architectural/planning firms on June 12, 1985.
Initially, the Public Works Division described a scope of work to include a
master plan for a Public Works Facility to accommodate the Road and Bridge,
Traffic Engineering and Vehicle Maintenance Departments. As a result of
the Selection Committee meetings and further consideration of the possible
expansion of other Department needs, the selection committee is of the
opinion that a broader scope of work should be considered to include all
County Departments including Utilities, Parks, Building Maintenance, etc.
By the development of a Countywide space needs study; proper utilization of
the current County Administration Building, .future utility sites, and
satellite needs will be addressed.
St. Lucie County has recently completed a county -vide Master Plan, including
Court facilities. It is estimated that the cost of such a Master Plan
would be $100,000 for Indian River County, since certain studies have
previously been completed and can be incorporated.
cc: Selection Committee Members
Terry Pinto, Utilities Director /
Chairman Scurlock explained that while serving on this
selection committee, it became very apparent after interviewing
the various consultants that we need something more than just a
Master Plan for Public Works and understood that staff's
recommendation is that the Board address our entire space
problems during the upcoming budget sessions arid consider
expanding the scope of services to include,a space inventory and
space needs assessment.
Commissioner Wodtke agreed that we need to do something, but
hoped we would not have to spend $100,000 for someone to tell us
where to put everyone.
Commissioner Lyons felt we need somebody such as a space
specialist to make sure that we are getting the most out of our
office space.
20
Commissioner Wodtke noted that the Clerk of St. Lucie County
handles all space, and Commissioner Scurlock agreed that it is a
significant problem.
KINGSBERRY ROADRIGHT-OF-WAYACQUISITION - BUD JENKINS PROPERTY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/23/86:
(insert)
TO: The Honorable Members of the -June 23, 1986
Board of County Ccomissioners. DATE: FILE:
THROUGH:
Tawny Thomas,
Acting County Administrator
SUBJECT: Kingsberry Road (53rd Street)
Right -of -Way Acquisition
Bud Jenkins Property
10
FROM:James W. Davis, P.E. REFERENCES:
Public Works Director
DESCRZPTION AMID COMMONS
The County's Thoroughfare Plan designates Kingsberry Road (53rd Street) as
a Primary Collector Road functioning as the major east/west connector
between the future north terminus of Indian River Boulevard'and 82nd Avenue
(Ranch Road). At this time, sand mining activity is being conducted just
west of the FEC Railway along the Kingsberry Road corridor. Approximately
6 months ago, the owner of the property, Bud Jenkins, was informed that the
County would need a road right-of-way through the property and was
requested to cease mining in this area. Mr. Jenkins did cease his mining
activity in the right-of-way area and has agreed to cooperate in
selling of the right-of-way, to the County at. the appraised value. -Filling
of a portion of the right-of-way is required, and Mr. Jenkins would be
willing to fill the area at an agreed upon cost using
material on site.
Mr. Jenkin's original mining approval was issued in 1977 and the limits of
the mining activity are shown on the attached map. Since 1977, Mr. Jenkins
has acquired additional land along the North west of his property which
abuts the Lateral H Canal owned by the IM CD. In order to accamcdate the
proposed right-of-way and to compensate for the fill in the right-of-way,
Mr. Jenkins is requesting that his mining operation limits be revised to
incorporate the following:
1) Expand his mining limits to the west to a line 100' east of the east
right-of-way line of the Lateral "H" canal. This would reduce the
150' wide buffer requirement in the County's code and would required a
variance fran the Board of Adjustments.
2) Allow the owner to excavate the mining operation to a deeper depth.
The approved plan shown a depth of excavation to -7.5 mean sea level
(existing Ground elevation is +13 feet). Mr. Jenkins would like to
operate a dredge in the lake to go deeper.
21
Boa 64 P9 -UE 849
JUL 21986
.A
BOOK 64 FADE 85® 7
The above action would require planning and zoning Commission and Board of
Adjustment approval.,
In speaking with the Engineer for the IREWCD, Marvin Carter, there is no
objection but formal approval should be given.
RECON1VDATI0N AND FUNDING
It is recommended that
1) An appraisal be obtained for the 1,8001.f. x 120' wide right-of-way
through Mr. Jenkins property.
2) The staff be authorized to work with Mr. Jenkins in negotiating a
price to fill the excavated right-of-way area, Mr. Jenkins would have
to seek a modification of his mining permit to expand the mining
limits and excavate deeper.
Funding shall be from Fund 109, Gas Tax Revenue
Director Davis confirmed that his recommendation is not to
grant a variance. While Mr. Jenkins would like to expand his
mining limits, that would have to go through the proper Planning
8 Zoning procedures. Staff is recommending that.an appraisal be
obtained for the 1,800 1.f, x 120' wide right-of-way through Mr.
Jenkins property and that authorization be given for staff to
work with Mr. Jenkins in negotiating a price to fill the
excavated right-of-way area.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,,SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved staff's recommendation as set out in the
above memo.
Commissioner Bowman felt the minus 7.5 mean sea level was
just outrageous, and believed that Mr. Jenkins should not be
misled on this because nobody is going to give him a permit to do
that. She emphasized that there is no necessity to dredge in
sand mining.
Robert Keating, Director of Planning S Development,
explained that Mr. Jenkins' mining operation was approved years
and years ago and the Planning staff has been working with the
22
St. Johns River Water Management District to come up with some
general standards for mining. Mr. Jenkins wanted to go 10 feet
deeper, but the Water District has indicated that would not be a
good situation.
PERSONNEL ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC WORKS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/17/86:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: June 17, 1986 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Zbmmny Thomas,
.Acting county .minis ator SUBJECT:
n Personnel Adjustment -Public
Lois Hoder, Works
Personnel Director
FROM: James W. Davis P. EC
REFERENCES:
1) Michael Orr to J.Davis
Public Works Director dated June 13, 1986
dated June 16, 1986 & June 19, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Due to the increase in supervisory responsibilities of three current
positions and a need to establish two working crew leader positions for
drainage maintenance workers, the following five adjustments are presented
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Annual Salary
Department Position Position Paygrade/Salary Paygrade/Salary Increase
Traffic Markings Foreman I 10/$6.70 14/$7.14 $ 915.20
Engineering Technician
Engineering Eng. Inspector Enc -J. Inspector
9/$15,800.
13/$17,000
$1,200.00
Draftsman* Eng. Technician
11/$16,349
13/$17,480
$1,131.00
Road and Maint. Worker* Maint. worker/
6
9
0
Bridge Dept. Crew Leader
Maint. Worker* Maint. Worker/
6
9
0
Crew Leader
* CWA Union Bargaining Unit
J U L 2.1986 23 g
800 6
17JUL 21986
ALTERNATIVES AMID ANnYSIS
BOOK 64 PAGE 852
The adjustments to the Traffic Engineering and Engineering positions are
justified to resolve increase in responsibility that became necessary as
the overall Department responsibilities have increased. The Read and Bridge
Department positions are needed to maintain control in the field. Those
senior maintenance workers currently at higher pay levels will be
designated as crew leaders.
It is recommended that the above five positions be adjusted. The annual
cost of $3,246.20 will result in a prorated FY85-86 cost of approximately
$800 and can be absorbed in the existing budgets as currently funded.
After considerable discussion on whether or not to adjust
the salaries of the above five positions at this time, the Board
decided that the matter should be addressed during the budget
workshops which begin on July 15th.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
decided to take no action at this time, but agreed
to address the personnel adjustments during the
budget workshops.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - ENGINEERING FOR NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/26/86:
TO: The Honorable Members of theDATE: June 26, 1986 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Tommy Thomas,
Acting County Administrator
SUBJECT: Professional Engineering
Services - Indian River
Boulevard North Extension
FROM: James W. Davis, P.. REFERENCES:
Public Works Directo
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Consultant Selection Committee interviewed five engineering firms
on June 26, 1986, for the North extension of Indian River Blvd. to
Barber Avenue.
24
RECOMMENDATION
The Selection' Committee recommends that staff be authorized to begin
contract negotiations with the following firms in the prescribed
order as listed below:
.1) Boyle Engineering - Orlando, FL
2) Greiner Engineering —Orlando, FL
3) Reynolds, Smith and Hills Engineers - Orlando, FL
Once a contract is prepared, the Board of County Commissioners will
be requested to approve the contract and funding.
DISTRIBUTION --- —
Members of the Selection Committee
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board authorize
staff to begin contract negotiations with the
firms in the order listed in the above memo.
Under discussion, Chairman Scurlock asked if any of the
local firms were considered, and Public Works Director Jim Davis
explained that some of the Focal firms participated in joint
ventures with larger firms on this bid due to the large scope of
work.
Commissioner Lyons advised that it was felt the larger firms
would have more environmental expertise in the sensitive wetlands
area. He noted that another important area in this project is
bridge construction because we may be forced to elevate a part of
the road and we want to be able to get it engineered as
inexpensively as possible. Commissioner Lyons emphasized that
during the interviews, these firms were told that we are looking
at the practical problem of overcoming the objections of the
people in order to get that road built and built right the first
time, and that it is going to be a 4 -lane divided roadway.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
25
JUL 2 1986 Boor 6 F,,u 8o
Fr"JUL
2 1986
Bou
6a
r 854
PUBLIC HEARING
- PINCUS REQUEST TO REZONE 5.29 ACRES
FROM
AGRICULTURAL TO LIMITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
The hour of 9:10 o'clock A. M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
L
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press-Joumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero
Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter ofAJ� �� J
e
1
In the Court, was pub -
fished in said newspaper in thl issues of�%%P
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. /J yr
Swom to and subscribebefor me th, day of A.D. 19 c b
n ' B i ss ,anager)
(Cle t r ounty, Florida)
(SEAL)
NOTICE ,=C or::No
Notice og nearing to consider the adoption I
a County ordinance rezoning land horn: A-1.
AgneWtutel Drehrat to CL, L nnted Commercial
beNJ Kew nm= Bio ; ds°a
and east of 82rttl Avenue.
The subject property is described as:
-East 10 acres -of west 2083 acres of
Tract 12. Seehcrl 1, TownshRf 33.Sgp0b
<.._�ge 35 East as 1M.samgt ia.desig• .
..-staled tte 0u 4wgeneral plat of terga oofff.
'the mWan Nwer farms ComPanY, aced til "�.
Athe Ofte CO the Clem og pie Chad
rr,-1
A public hearing at which parties in Inter
and citizens Sht1a have an ollPorh•rtity to
heard. win be nerd M the Board t r County Cc
miasioners of Indhan Riven County, Florida, in i
County Commismon Chambers of the CCU
Atlnunianatwn Builtling, located at 1540 2
Street. Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday, J
2,195& at 9:10 XM.
grThitee Board rgof County ahers a
than the districtrdgueated provideszoningI is wdl
the same general use category.
Artyone who may wmh to appeal any decks
whrbh may be made at this meeting will need
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedir
is made. whxh in hen r cord y and evlden
upon which the appeal ra based..
Indian River County
Boom of County Cammrsslonore
Tay: s Don C. Scurlock. Jr..
chanman
June 12.24. 19116
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/13/86:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 13, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Ke _IP
g, A�
STHROUGH: Richard Shearer
Chief, Long -Range Planning
SUBJECT: PINCUS REQUEST TO REZONE
5.29 ACRES FROM A-1,
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO
CL, LIMITED COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT.
FROM: Robert G. Melsom REFERENCES: Pincus Memo
oGM 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 July 2, 1986.
26
r
DESCRIPTIONS & CONDITIONS
Albert R. Pincus, an agent for Albert J. Kaplan, the owner, is
requesting_ to rezone 5.29 acres located south of State Road 60,
and east of 82nd Avenue from A-1, Agricultural District, to CL,
Limited Commercial District.
The owner is requesting the rezoning to allow for the development
of his property in conformance with the surrounding commercial
uses along this, area of State Road 60.
On June 12, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to
recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of the current and future land uses of the site and
surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on
environmental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
Currently the subject property is undeveloped and consists of five
acres of a ten acre tract of land. North of the subject property
is undeveloped land and a Zippy Mart zoned CL, Limited Commercial
District. East, west and south of the subject property is
undeveloped land zoned A-1, Agricultural District. Further east
is the First Bankers branch office and data center, zoned CL
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and the land to the north, east and west are
located within the proposed boundaries of the 650 acre I-95/S.R.
60 commercial/industrial node. The land located south of the
subject property is designated as MD -1, Medium -Density Residential
1 (up to 8 units/acre). The proposed CL, Limited Commerical,
zoning is in conformance with the commercial/ industrial node land
use designation and is consistent with the surrounding CL zoning.
Transportation System
The subject property will have access to State Road 60 (classified
as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum
development of the subject property under CL zoning could attract
up to 3,680 Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT) which will not
decrease the existing level -of -service "A" for this section of
State Road 60.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a floodprone area.
Utilities
• County sewer and water will be available to the subject property.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
27
BOOK 855
FF"IJUL 21986
BOOK 64 PnuE 856i
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4-0)
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0)
adopted Ordinance 86-43, rezoning 5.29 acres from
A-1, Agricultural District to CL, Limited Commercial
District.
28
ORDINANCE NO. 86-43
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP
FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the -
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, The.Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined
that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
East 10 acres of West 20.83 acres of Tract 12, Section 1,
Township 33 South, Range 38 East, as the same is designated
on the last general plat of lands of the Indian River Fames
Company, filed in the Office of the Clerk of the •Circuit
Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, in Plat Book 2, page 25;
said land now lying and being in the Indian River County,
Florida. Less the North 30.0 feet for road right-of-way for
State Road No. 60 and the West 50.0 feet for road
right-of-way for State Road No. 609 (Ranch Road). Less the
North 630.0' thereof.
Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District, to CL, Limited
Commercial District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
29
JUL 2 1986 BOOK 64 FACE 857
Fr-
JUL
2 1986 BOOK FSC- 858
ORDINANCE NO. 86-43
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 2nd day
of July 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By G
2Y"Z
Don C. Scurlock, Jr. airman
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 11th day of July , 1986.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 14th day of July , 1986, at 11
A.M./P.M. and filed in, -the office of the Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY.
Bruce Barkett
Assistant County Attorney
PUBLIC HEARING - SMITH REQUEST TO REZONE 2.4 ACRES FROM RM -6 TO
LIMITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
The hour of 9:10 o'clock having passed, the Deputy Clerk
read the following Notice with.Proof_of Publication attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
r
r IUnCE txMIC a
t Nock* of hearing to aonSKW the aaopibn or
Published Daily
a county wamance rezoning lana from: BM 8.
Muuipte-Family ReaMnnnet Diatrict. to CL lirtr
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
ded Commencai DeAnct. The oraperty is pre -
TIr�BawpRN�N aMotiU.S. /or
soon, m c.a. Sto, ane norm of C Street
�
The aubJeG ixoPerh id desenbeded es:.
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Lots t thru 17 litelustve. stock ts'aM'
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
Ldl tt=C k 3. N/EONA PARK. accord -
h ml.led in the office of the Clark
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
of the (,pcinq Conn or Indian River
County,said iymdaln slaver
at Vero Beach in Indian River County,
land ttemg00"2.
County: a: to,a. ern,
_
AU Mat Parmgol
51100
A
of State�
a Poin6etne Blvd.: Lots s. 11.
�•' t �,.�
' �it .on.7
in matter of —' a e�.a L
aanntlnorth
14, t8. 18 and 17. mock 9. Weone Park
'. SutxkvisiW. according to the P1101J
Hereof recorded in PIatBook 2. Page '
17. putxie records 0f Irndien Riyer Cour►
ty, Florida. L ? .
r,
A p tit hearing at which, parties in In
Courtwas pub-
in the ,
and citizens Shan have an opportumty to
heard, vntl be held by the Board at Count'
ndsigonCounty C d idnan n;arC � fthe Florida. m
Admnmshatetn Budding, located at 1810
/Uhf _
fished in said newspaper in the issues of rr— r—
Street.veno Beach. Florida on Wednesday.
a,1986• at ate au.
The Board of County Cotes mar
grant a rezoning to a less ,rimae zm" district,
than the dstna requested provided d s wiMv4
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at -
Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
Me same general sae category. .
Anyone wino may = to appeal airy detwmon;
a a virade ar this11 need
dna ngthatmo tinw�n�,
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County,
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
remade which inetudes teahmony and evidence
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun.
next the first publication of the attached Copy Of
upon which the appeal is based
IBoarrdd of County"Ctyomnneswnere
ty, Florida, for a period of one year preceding
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
et': -s-Don C. Scurlock. Jr.,
or corporation any discount, rebate• commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
June t2 4. s n
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
o✓
Vn 19 0 `0
Sworn to and subscribe efo met _day of A.D.
(Busi s Yager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian Rive ounty, Florida)
(SEAL)
30
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/23/86:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 23, 1986 FELE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
W•fir---- SUBJECT: SMITH REQUEST TO REZONE
Robert M. Ke ting; AICP 2.4 ACRES FROM RM -6,
Planning & Development Director MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENT-
IAL DISTRICT, TO CL,
LIMITED COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT
FROM: f� REFERENCES:
Richard Shearer Smith memo
Chief, 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 July 2, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Mr. Elson Smith, Jr., an agent for Reva Miller and N.B. Ryall,
Jr., the owners, is requesting to rezone approximately 2.4 acres
located on the south side of County Road 510 (Wabasso Road) and
approximately 300 feet east of U.S. 1 from RM -6, Multiple -Family
Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to CL, Limited.
Commercial District.
The applicant is proposing to develop this property for
commercial uses.
On May 22, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0
to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality-.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is undeveloped. North of the subject
property, across C.R. 510, is an old grove zoned RM -6 and CL.
East of the subject property is a citrus grove zoned RM -6. South
of the subject property are single-family residences zoned RM -6.
West of the subject property is vacant land and a bait store
zoned CL. Further west, across U.S. 1, are two service stations,
a truck brokerage, two packing houses, a water tower and two
nonconforming single-family residences zoned CH, Heavy Commercial
District.
31
J U L 2 1986 Boos 64 mu 859
FF—JUL 21986
Boa 64 fm,c 860
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan generally designates the -subject property
and the land north, south and east of it as LD -2, Low -Density
Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). However, the Comprehensive
Plan also designates a 150 acre commercial/industrial node at the
intersection of U.S. 1 and Wabasso Road. The staff and the`'
Planning and Zoning Commission have recommended approval of a
Comprehensive Plan amendment that would reduce the size of this
node from 150 acres to 100 acres. The nonresidential zoning
conversion ordinance reduced the amount of commercially and
industrially -zoned land in the general area of the node to
approximately 150 acres. A subsequent down -zoning of 54 acres of
industrially -zoned land to RM -6 has reduced the amount of
commercially and industrially -zoned land in this area to
approximately 96 acres. Based on the proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment and recent rezoning, there are 4 acres of
residentially -zoned land in this area which could be included in
the node. Since the subject property abuts commercially -zoned
land to the west and has considerable frontage on C.R. 510, it
seems appropriate to allocate some of the unallocated node
acreage to include the subject property in the node.
Transportation System
The subject property has 700 feet of frontage on County Road 510
(classified as an arterial street on the County's Thoroughfare
Plan) and.has direct access to 46th Avenue (classified as a local
street). The maximum development of the subject property under
CL zoning could generate up to 2,037 average annual daily trips
(AADT). County Road 510 currently carries 5,600 AADT at
level -of -service "A" with a level -of -service "C" capacity of'
13,100 AADT.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive. The subject property does have a b flood -zone
designation indicating an area within the 500 year flood plain.
Utilities
County water and wastewater facilities are not available for the
subject property.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
closed the Public Hearing.
32
,JUL
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
adopted Ordinance 86-44, rezoning 2.4 acres from RM -6,
Multiple -Family Residential District, to CL, Limited
Commercial District.
ORDINANCE NO. 86-44
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP
FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the -
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined
that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
Lots 1 thru 17 inclusive, Block 10 and and Lot 11, Block 3,
WEONA PARK, according to plat filed in the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida.
in Plat Book 2,.page 17; said land lying and being in Indian
River County, FLorida; together with:
All that part of the following described property lying east
of State Road 510 and north of Poinsettia Blvd.: Lots 6, 11,
14, 15, 16 and 17, Block 9, Weona Park Subdivision,
according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 2, Page
17, public records of Indian River County, Florida.
Be changed from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District,
to CL, Limited Commercial District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 2 day
i
of July, 1986.
I
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER. COUNTY
By ' .;. C.
Don C. Scurlocc, Jr. C airman
33
2 1986 LOOK U4
J U L 2 1986
BOOK 64 N��E
PUBLIC HEARING - WELDON STOUT'S REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION
APPROVAL FOR A GUEST COTTAGE
The hour of 9:10 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
'_ Notice of Public Hearing, to consider the
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
ranting of special exception <approval, for a
uest cottage. The subject property Is presently
Before the undersigned authority y pp
g y personall appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
caned by Weldon J. and Betty A. Stout and is lo-
sated at 13700 Ruiner Lane.-
ane.says
saysthat he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
The subject property is described as:
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
LOT 7,. BLOCK "A" RIVER TREES SUB-
DIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT
a �A�
BOOK 9, PAGE 24, PUBLIC RECORDS
r
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
in the matter of, �Qi��
A public hearing at which parties in interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, Will beheld by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River. County. Florida in the
Commission Chambers of the County Adminis-
tration Building, located at 1840 25th Street.
ero Beach; Florida on Wednesday, July 2, 7988,
In the Court, was pub-
t9:10 am. "
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may he made at this meeting will need to
�/ /
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
Is made which include the testimony and,evi-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of//7� /r� .y / 5�
upon which the appeal is based -
dune
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -
BY: -s- Don C: Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
J12, 24,1986ense
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next *preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
/
Sworn to and subscri bef a me r day of fy A.D. 19
S • (Bu ine Manager)
(Ct' 1b • of1'diia ounty, Florida)
i�(SEAL)
34
� r r
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/23/86:
TO: The Honorable members of DATE: May 23, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. eats g, SUBJECT:
Planning & Deve opme'Tft Director
WELDON STOUT'S REQUEST FOR
RECOMMENDATION OF SPECIAL
EXCEPTION APPROVAL FOR A
GUEST COTTAGE
FROM: Michael K. Mille., REFERENCES: Stout
Chief, Current Development IBMIRD
Itis requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of July 2, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Weldon Stout, owner of Lot 7, Block "A" in River Trees
subdivision, has submitted a minor site plan as part of a request
for special exception approval of a guest cottage in the RS -6,
Single-family Residential Zoning District. The subject property
is located at 13700 Rufner Lane and is approximately 1.2 acres in
size.
Recently the applicant constructed a detached garage of approxi-
mately 1,000 square feet with the intent of including about 300
square feet of the structure as a guest room and family
recreational area. The applicant has certified that the requested
guest facilities will never be rented and will be used solely for
guests.
Pursuant to Section 25.3 of the Zoning Code, Regulation of Special
Exception Uses, the Planning and Zoning Commission is to consider
the appropriateness of the requested use based on the submitted
site plan and the suitability of the site for that use. The
Commission then concurrently makes a recommendation to the Board
of County Commissioners regarding the special exception use and
acts on the submitted site plan. The County may attach any
conditions and safeguards necessary to assure compatibility of the
use with the surrounding area.
At their meeting of May 22, 1986, the Planning and Zoning
Commission considered Weldon Stout's request to construct a guest
cottage. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend to
the Board of County Commissioners that special exception approval
of the guest cottage be given, and granted site plan approval
conditioned upon Board approval of the Special Exception Use and
the following condition:
The applicant shall execute, record and be responsible for any
fees associated with recording a document in the public records
that forever prohibits said guest facilities from ever being
rented.
An analysis of the approved site plan follows:
35
J UL 2 1986 BOOK 64 Fiat 8��
JUL 21996
TATT T VPTf�
BOOK 64 F�} 864
1. Size of Property: 1.2 acres
2. Zoning Classification: RS -6, Single -Family Residential
District
3. Land Use Designation: MD -1, Medium -Density Residential
District
4. Building Area: 1,032 square feet
5. Off -Street Parking Spaces Required: No additional parking is
required
6. Access: The guest cottage will be accessed by an existing
drive off of Rufner Lane.
7. Drainage Plan: A stormwater management permit is not,
required, and drainage improvements are not necessary.
8. Landscape Plan: Landscaping is not required.
9. Utilities: The residence is presently on private well and
septic system and the director of Environmental Health has
approved expansion of the existing system.
10. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Single-family
South: Groves
East: Vacant
West: Single-family
11. Guest Cottage Special Exception Criteria (Sec. 25.1)
a. Shall be an accessory structure or portion of a
single-family dwelling;
b. Shall not be located closer than 15 feet to the
principal dwelling on the lot;
C. No guest cottage may be utilized for commercial
purposes; and
d. The guest cottage shall only be used for the inter-
mittent or temporary occupancy by a nonpaying guest.
Section 25.1 of the Zoning Code, Regulations for Specific Land
Uses, details specific criteria to be considered when reviewing a
guest cottage for approval as a special exception use. All
criteria have been met. The special exception process allows the
Board of County Commissioners to impose any additional conditions
to ensure compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding
property. The staff recommends that the applicant be required to
execute and file a document in the Public Records that prohibits
the said guest facility from ever being rented. This recommenda-
tion is to ensure that prospective owners of the subject property
will be made aware that the guest facility is not to be considered
a rental unit.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
special exception approval for the guest cottage with the
following condition:
1. The applicant shall execute, record and be responsible for
any fees associated with recording a document in the public
records that forever prohibits said guest facilities from
ever being rented.
36
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0)
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
granted special exception approval for a guest cottage
as requested by Weldon Stout, with the condition as set
out in staff's recommendation in the above memo.
ADDITIONAL CONSENT AGENDA
2. DER/Army Corps/DNR Permit Applications
A. Idlwyld Corp., Inc.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/27/86:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 27, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
Obert M. ZedtiP
Planning & Deve opme t Director
D.E.R., ARMY CORPS AND
D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICA-
TIONS
FROM. -Art Challacombe REFERENCES: Idlwyld
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of July 9, 1986.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION FILE NO.S
31-120606-4, 31-120607-4, 31-120608-4, 31-120609-4, 31-120610-411
31-120611-4, 31-120613-4, 31-120614-4, 31-120615-4, 31-120616-4,
31-120605-4, 31-120604-4, 31-121672-4, 31-121673-4 & 31-121674-4
Applicant: IDLWYLD CORP. INC., P.O. Box 1117, Vero Beach,
Florida, 32961.
37
L AL 2 1986
BOOK 6 Fa'E O��
FF'_
UL 2 1986
BOOK 64 FADE 866
Waterway & Location: The projects are located in the
Indian River in Castaway Cove Subdivision, adjacent to Lots
22 through 36, Section8, Township 33 South, Range 40 East,
Indian River County, Florida. The upland property asso-
ciated with the project is located in the City of Vero
Beach.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct
private single 4' x 40' marginal docks with 20' x 81',
observation decks (320 square feet) for each of the afore-
mentioned lots. No sewage pump -out or fueling facilities
are proposed. No dredging or fill will be performed.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION FILE NO.
31-121618-4
Applicant: John Kelly, 1031 Royal Palm Blvd., Vero Beach,
Florida, 32960.
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the Indian
River in Castaway Cove Subdivision, adjacent to Lot 59,
Section 8, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River
County, Florida. The upland property associated with the
project is located in the City of Vero Beach.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct a
private single dock with an observation deck (574 square
feet). No sewage pump -out or fueling facilities are
proposed. No dredging or filling will be performed.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION FILE NO.
31-121583-4
Applicant: David & Sharon Marable, P.O. Box 3284, Vero
Beach, Florida, 32964.
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the Indian
River in Castaway Cove Subdivision, adjacent to Lot. 57,
Section 31, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, Indian River
County, Florida. The upland property associated with the
project is located in the City of Vero Beach.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct a
private single 4' x 40' dock with 20' x 8' observation
decks (320 square feet). No sewage pump -out or fueling
facilities are proposed. No dredging or filling will be
performed.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION FILE NO.
31-121617-4
Applicant: Dan Kiely, 59 Cache Cay Drive', Vero Beach,
Florida, 32960.
Waterway & Location: The project is located .in the Indian
River in Cache Cay Subdivision, adjacent to Lot 39, Section
29, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, India River County,
Florida. The upland property associated with the project
is located in the City of Vero Beach.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct
private single 346 square foot dock addition. No sewage
pump -out or fueling facilities are proposed. No dredging
or filling will be performed.
38
M M. M
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following,
The Conservation & Coastal Zoning Management Element of the
Indian River Comprehensive Plan
Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region
The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
All of the five projects are located in the City of Vero Beach.
Therefore, the focus of staff review is on potential County and
regional impacts rather than site-specific impacts; in-depth
field inspections of the project sites were not conducted.
Chapter 16Q-20 of the Florida Administrative Code sets para-
meters for private residential single docks located in the
Indian River Aquatic Preserve. Section 16Q -20.04(5)(b), Florida
Administrative Code, sets further specific design standards and
criteria for private single docks.
Although the extent of any impacts are not fully known at this
time, there may be cumulative impacts of these and other dockage
projects proposed to be constructed along the Indian River upon
the Florida Manatee.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners autho-
rize staff to forward the following comments regarding these
projects to the Florida Department of Environmental,Regulation:
1) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should coordinate with the D.N.R. to
determine if the proposed projects are located in•the
Indian River Aquatic Preserve and therefore subject to
requirements of Chapter 16Q-20, Florida Administrative
Code;
2) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should consider the potential cumu-
lative impacts of dockage projects upon the Florida Mana-
tee;
3) 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 Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
authorized staff to forward the comments listed in
the above memo to the DER.
39
BOOK. 6 PAGE 867
JUL 2 1986
BOOK 64 PAuF. 868
B. Mutual_ Development Corp.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/30/86:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 30, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R./ARMY CORPS
& D.N.R. PERMIT
�7 J SUBJECT: APPLICATIONS
Robert M. Keati g, P
Planning & Development Director
FROM: Art Challacombe be REFERENCES: Mutual Dev.
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of July 9, 1986.
D.E.R. DREDGE & FILL PERMIT APPLICATION
FILE NUMBERS 121749-4 & 31-121779-4
APPLICANT: Mutual Development Corp.
1835 20th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
WATERWAY & LOCATION: The projects are located on the Indian
River, Sea Grove Subdivision, Lots 10 & 25, in the unincor-
porated portion of Indian River County.
WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant proposes to construct a 240
square foot dock on Lot #25 and a 350 square foot dock on Lot
#10. The docks will be utilized as single boat residential
docking facilities.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
The Conservation & Coastal Zone Management Element of the
Indian River Comprehensive Plan;
Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region; and
The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Management Plan
The Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County
Chapter 16Q-20 F.A.C.
The Indian River County Code of Laws & Ordinances specifies
that residential dock structures are accessory uses to the
principal residential use. In order to construct the proposed
dock facility, the applicant must have a principal structure on
Lots 10 & 25.
40
The proposed dock facilities will be located within the Malabar
Vero Beach State Aquatic Preserve and, as such, are subject
to Chapter 16Q-20 Florida Administrative Code. A staff review
of Chapter 16Q-20 finds that the proposed docks dimensions
comply with the size standards set forth in the rule.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners autho-
rize staff to transmit a letter to the D.E.R with the following'
comments:
1) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should consider the potential cumula-
tive impacts of the dockage projects upon the Florida
Manatee;
2) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should evaluate the potential impact
of the projects on ecologically significant submerged
bottomlands such as seagrass beds in the Indian River.
3) No dock construction shall be permitted by Indian River
County until the requirements of all local ordinances
related to dock facilities and mangrove protection have
been addressed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
authorized staff to forward the comments listed in
the above memo to the DER.
C.�Earring Point Groves, Inc.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/30/86:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: June 30, 198.6 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R./ARMY CORPS
& D.N.R. PERMIT
SUBJECT: APPLICATION
Robert M. Keotin AICP
Planning & Development Director
FROWArt Challacombe REFERENCES: Earring Pt.
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on July 9, 1986.
D.E.R. DREDGE & FILL PERMIT APPLICATION
FILE NUMBER 120955-4
APPLICANT:
Earring Point Groves, Inc.
41
IU� 2 in mo 64 PAGE 869
J U L 2 1966
BooK 64 pc 870
WATERWAY & LOCATION: The project is located on the Indian
River, on Jungle Trail Road, in the unincorporated portion of
Indian River County.
WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant proposes to construct a 300
square foot commercial dock with a 180 square foot deck. The
dock will be utilized for river access to an existing fruit
stand on the upland property.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
- The Conservation & Coastal Zone Management Element of the
Indian River Comprehensive Plan;
- Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region; and
- The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Management Plan
- The Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County
- Chapter 16Q-20 F.A.C.
The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances does not
include general commercial docks as a permitted use in the
Agricultural Zoning District; however, the applicant's proposed
dock may be permitted within the agricultural zoning district
providing its use is limited to an access facility for the fruit
stand after site plan approval.
The proposed dock facility will be located within the Malabar -
Vero Beach State Aquatic Preserve and, as such, is subject to
Chapter 16Q-20 Florida Administrative Code. A staff review of
Chapter 16Q-20 finds that the proposed dock dimensions comply
with the size standards set forth in the rule.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners autho-
rize staff to transmit a letter to the D.E.R. with the following
comments:
1) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should consider the potential cumula-
tive impacts of the dockage project upon the Florida
Manatee;
2) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should evaluate the potential impact
of the project on ecologically significant submerged
bottomlands such as seagrass beds in the Indian River.
3) No dock construction shall be permitted by Indian River
County until the requirements of all local ordinances
related to dock facilities and mangrove protection have
been addressed.
r
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
authorized staff to forward the comments Fisted in
the above memo to the DER.
D. David McMahon.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/1/86:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 1, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
r
Robert M. eat' g, A CP
Planning & Dev opm nt Director
D.E.R., ARMY CORPS AND
D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICATION
FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: McMahon
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of July 9, 1986.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
APPLICATION NO. 31-121812-4
APPLICANTS:
David McMahon
c/o 1835 20th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
WATERWAY & LOCATION: The project is located in the Indian
River adjacent to Cache Cay Drive in Section 30, Township 32
South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida.
The upland property associated with the project is Lot 5.2 of
Cache Cay Subdivision located in the City of Vero Beach.
WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant proposes to construct a private
single L-shaped dock extending 30 feet waterward, having a
width of 4 feet. The terminal platform of the proposed dock is
6 feet in width and 30 feet in length; total square footage of
the dock is 300 feet. 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:
42
JUL
2 1986
BOOK 64 PAGE 871
r
J U L 2 1996 Bou 64 Facc,872
The Conservation & Coastal Zoning Management Element of
the Indian River Comprehensive Plan
Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Re ion
The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
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 Regu-
lation:
1) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should consider the potential cumula-
tive impacts of dockage projects upon the Florida Manatee...
2) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should evaluate the potential impact
of dockage projects on ecologically significant submerged
bottomlands such as seagrass beds in the Indian River.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
authorized staff to forward the comments listed in
the above memo to the DER.
3. IRC Bid #295- 40 Cubic Yard Roll -Off Containers
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/26/86:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: June 26, 1986 FILE:
THRU: L.S. "Tommy" Thomas SUBJECT: IRC Bid #295-40 Cubic Yard
Acting County Administrator Heavy -Duty, Open, Roll Off Container
FROM:REFERENCES:
Carolyn(Goodrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received Thursday, June 26, 1986 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC #295-
40 Cubic Yard Heavy -Duty, Open, Roll Off Containers for the Refuse
Department.
5 Bid Proposals were sent out, 2 Bids were received.
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The low bid was submitted by Industrial Refuse Sales, Inc. Lakeland, Fl.
in the amount of $2374.00 each, total*of $14,244.00 for 6 units.
43
3. Recommendation and Funding
It is recommended that IRC #295 be awarded to Industrial Refuse Sales, in
the amount of $14,244.00 for 6 roll -off containers.
There is $17,000.00 budgeted in Account #001-209-534-066.49.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
awarded IRC Bid #295 to the low bidder, Industrial
Refuse Sales, Inc., of Lakeland, FL., in the total
amount of $14,244 for 6 units at $2374 ea.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
iC
o
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
t ya
Q7 y
r
v."
a
BID TABULATION
Q7�
vo°
m
BID NO.
DATE OF OPINING
IRC BID #295
1 June 26, 1986
o Fa
ti a
BID TITLE
40 Cu Yd HO Open Roll Off Containers
o
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE UNIT
1. 40 Cubic Yard Heavy Duty,
Open Roll Off Container
6 Each
2390
00
2374
0
—Total
1434o
oo
j4244
0
2. Days required for delivery after
receipt of Purchase Order
_Days
14
30
4. Surplus Property
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/26/86:
TO; Board of County Commissioners DATE: June 26, 1986 FILE:
THRU: L. S. "Tommy" Thomas
Acting County Administrator
SUBJECT: Surplus Property
FROM: REFERENCES:
REFERENCES:
Carol yrt,:Goodrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions
At the June 4, meeting, 2 Point of Sale Terminals were
declared as surplus property. These terminals were
advertised for sale.
44
BOOK
�JUL 21986
J U L 2 1986 BOOK 64 F'DGE 87 4
2 Bids were received. The high bid was received from
Datamarc Computer Sales, Inc. in the amount of $656.00
each, total of $1312.00.
2. Recommendation
It is recommended that the 2 Point of Sale Terminals
be sold to the high bidder, Datamarc Computer Sales,
Alpharetta, Georgia, in the amount of $1312.00.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the sale of (2) Point of Sale Terminals to the
high bidder, Datamarc Computer Sales, of Alpharetta,
GA, in the amount of $1312.
PURCHASE AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
BID NO. DATE OF OPENING
.lune 24, 1986
BID TITLE Surplus Property -
h
1
i
�
�
FQ �
t
c
�
0
� ,
y,
u
�.I
rp LO
o '
V 1
O
oQ
Q
ITEM DESCRIPTIONI UNIT PRICEI UNIT PRICEI UNIT PRICEI I
NO.
Each 656 100 1 550 1 00
Total 1312 00 1100 00
44a
W
5. Authorization to Use Radio Frequencies
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/27/86:
TO: Board of County DATE:
Commissioners June 27, 1986 FILE:
THRU: L.S. "Tommy" Thomas
Acting County Administrator
SUBJECT: Authorization to .use Radio
Frequencies
FROM: H.T. Sonn 0ean REFERENCES:
Director, Ge eral Services
The attached request is for the Division of Forestry to
use the North County Fire District and Emergency Management
radio frequencies.
Staff feels this is a request where both the County and
Division of Forestry would benefit in time of an emergency
and mutual aid.
If none of the Board members has an objection, I will
honor the request and execute the authorization.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the request by the Division of Forestry to use
the North County Fire District and Emergency Management
radio frequencies.
45
JUL 2 1986 BOOK 64 pnE 875
rJUL 21986
6. Force Main at Commerce Avenue and 20th Street
BOOK 64 F -AGF. 876 -7
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/27/86:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: L.S. THOMAS
VIA: TERRANCE PI
FROM: JEFFREY.BOONE�
SUBJECT: COMMERCE AVENUE AND 10TH STREET
FORCE MAIN
BACKGROUND:
DATE: JUNE 27, 1986
The current demand on the existing force main along 12th
Street between US 1 and 6th Avenue in addition to
anticipated demand from new development along Indian River
Boulevard warrant the construction of a new force main from
12th Street to 10th Street along Commerce Avenue and
continuing east along 10th Street to the existing Waverly
Place lift station on 6th Avenue. The proposed force main
will eventually continue east on 10th Street from the
Waverly Place lift station to Indian River Boulevard and
continue north to the City of Vero Beach Wastewater
treatment plant. In addition to meeting current and future
demand, the proposed force main will make it possible to
eliminate the wastewater treatment plant at Janie Dean
Cheverolet.
AATAT.VCTC
Consistent with their "Agreement for Professional Services"
dated April 24, 1986 Masteller and Moler and Associates,
Inc. have prepared an initial budget estimate for
construction totalling $95,000.00 and have submitted a
proposal for engineering fees in the amount of $8,075.00.
Professional services include engineering design,
preparation of construction plans and specifications and bid
documents for the 3,000 linear feet of 8 inch PVC force
main.
RECOMMENDATION•
The Utilities Division recommends that the Board OF County
Commissioners approve the subject project with construction
costs estimated at $95,000.00 and authorize Masteller and
Moler Associates, Inc. to provide the above outlined
professional services at a cost of $8,075.00
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the construction of a force main at Commerce
Ave. and 10th St. at an estimated cost of $95,000 and
approved work authorization #7 with Masteller s Moler
for engineering services at a cost of $8,075..
46
C
y
,.
Rn r? or? an n[FFP
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.4 17 1986
Date: June 17 1986
----------------------
Work Authorization No. 7 for Consulting Services
Project No._7 _ _ (County) 86�032 _ (MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC.)
(Wastewater)
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Title:. Commerce Avenue & 10th Street Force Main Construction fron 12th Street
to 6th Avenue.
Consulting engineering services consisting of design, engineering & preparation
of. contract •plans and bid documents relative to the interconnection of the
existing VO force mains in 12th St. and 6th Ave. with an 8110 PVC force main
approximately 3000 LF in length to be constructed in Commerce Ave. and 10th
St. Project shall include valve chambers at each end of the new 8"0 force
main, bore and casing under U.S. #1 & restoration. Budget estimated for construc-
tion cost is $95,000.00.
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND LUMP SUM FEE FOR SERVICES
Reference is made to the "Agreement for Professional Services" dated
April 24, 1986 and specific Article numbers and paragraph numbers
which are listed hereinafter to describe the scope of services in-
cluded on this project:
A. Project Design Services per Article 4, paragraph 4a. and 4b.
B. General Services During Construction per Article 5, paragraph
5a. and 5b.
C. Supplementary and Special Services per Article 6, paragraph 6c.,
6d., 6e., 6f., and 6g. In addition, our services shall include
field surveys necessary for design and preparation of construc-
tion plans and assistance to the County in obtaining various per-
mits and approvals for construction (permit fees to be paid by
the County).
D. Payment for Services per Article 8, paragraph 8b., the lump sum
fee for A, B and C above is$ 8,075.00 . Payment shall be per
paragraph 8d.
APPROVED BY:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By /onit
C
Don --t. Scurlock, Jr
Chairman
Date Approved:_ 7-2-86
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
Charles Vitunac
County Attorney
47
SUBMITTED BY:
MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
By
Ear'f H. Masteller, P.E.
President
Date
JUL 2196 BOOK 64 PAGE 77
JULFF"_
2 1986 BOOK 64 P,aGc ® d 8
7. Proposed Federal Emergency Management Agency Rule 44 CFR 205
Establishing Procedures in Applications for Federal Disaster
Assistance
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/30/86:
TO: Don C. Scurlock DATE: June 30, 1986 Fit"'
Chairman elf..ter ^� to
Board of County Commissioners ,�R�C pNE o�
a_ C4MM1 ��
SUBJECT: Proposed Rule CCiai e='iso
44 CFR 205. DIS�gUTION LIST
Commissioners ` �_�� Administrator _JlI-
W Perorney �_
sonnel
FROM: Doug Wri�ht REFERENCES: Public Works
Director, Emergency Management CumMu,nity Dev. �—
Util;t;es �—
r1i'lance
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is propO_gj4.,a}g a
rule which may have a severe negative impact upon Indian Fti
County. The proposed rule, 44 CFR 205, establishes procedures
by which the states and their political subdivisions may apply
for Federal disaster assistance. The specific provision to which
I feel the County should object is the establishment of a state-
wide minimum threshold which must be met for each disaster before
any governmental unit.within the state can be eligible for Federal
disaster aid. For Florida, that minimum threshold will be
approximately 11 million.
Under this proposal; it is not unlikely to suggest a scenario
in which our County could be totally devastated by a disaster,
but receive no assistance because the state threshold is not met.
Thus, Indian River County would have to bear the weight of the
state threshold alone. For example, the State of Florida would
have to reach a statewide level of 11 million dollars in eligible
public damages before the federal government would share in the
recovery costs. If these regulations had been in effect during
1985 when Hurricane "Elena" and "Kate" devastated coastal areas
of our State, none of the areas affected would have qualified
for public assistance.
It is respectfully requested that the Commission consider adopting
a Resolution opposing this rule and ask our congressional
representatives to delay this rule change, thereby allowing for
congressional hearings and input from concerned parties. I know
this input would.create a more objective and uniform system which
will provide an equitable method of establishing state and local
financial capability indicators for a cost sharing threshold.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
authorized the Director of Emergency Management to
prepare a Resolution in opposition to the proposed FEMA
Rule 44 CFR 205.
48
8. Section _8 Existing Housing -Rental Assistance Program -Annual
Contributions FY -86-87
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/30/86:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: 6/30/86 FILE:
THRU: L. S. "Tommy" Thomas
Acting County SUBJECT: Section 8 Existing Housing Rental
Assistance Program gram - Annual
Contributions FY 86-87
J
FROM: Guy L. Decker, Jr.
Executive Director- REFERENCES:
IRC Housing Authority
Under our Annual Contributions Contract A -3409E (Certificates) and A -3409V
(Vouchers) with the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, we are
required to submit HUD Form 52672, Supporting Data for Annual Contributions
Estimates and HUD Form 52673, Estimate of Total Required Annual Contributions
for each project, requisitioning funds to cover our Section 8 Housing Assistance
Payments Program for FY 87.
Our Section 8 Program has had 1,927 applicants and has given rental assistance
to 530 families, elderly and handicapped individuals, with 207 families currently
under lease agreements.
I respectfully request the Board of County Commissioners' concurrence in the
execution of Forms 52672 and 52673 for Project FL29-E132-001/003 and Forms 52672
and 52673 for Project FI -294132-001 by the chairman for transmittal to HUD.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved HUD Forms 52672 and 52673 for Project
FL29-E132-001/003 and FL29-V132-001 and authorized
the Chairman's signature.
FORMS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
REQUEST FROM_VERO PRODUCERS, INC. FOR PARTIAL OCCUPANCY OF NEW
PACKING HOUSE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/13/86:
49
AL 2 1986 BOOK 64 FAGE 8 9
L
r JUL 2 1986
BOOK 64 f,'.E O8®
X EMU 120WEM Mgmmm mmimm'.0mo
P.O. BOX 650189 VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32965-0189—
cl(305) 562-2252
June 13, 1986
Indian River County Commission %'--"-� r -•c
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Partial Occupancy New Packing House
Vero Producers, Inc.
Oslo Road and 74th Avenue
Attention: Honorable Doug Schulock, Chairman
Dear Sirs:
DIST"IBUTICNI LIST
Cv.i�rr. C:.�i•..�J
Acre -
Uig.
s
n �
We respectively request that we be allowed to occupy and use the
de -greening rooms at the above installation before the total job is
completed. We expect to start harvesting lemons on or about July, 7,
1986, and we must de -green them prior to packing. Unfortunately, the
decision making process of the Department of Environmental Regulations
does not correspond with the Florida lemon season. We expect that
everything shown on our approved Site Plan will be completed on or
before October 1, 1986.
If this request is granted, we will be glad to provide you with a 100%
Performance Bond to guarantee that our project is completed in
accordance with all applicable requirements. I would ask that the
County Attorney provide me with the necessary specifications for an
acceptable Bond. We ask that July 7, 1986, be the effective date. We
would appreciate your placing our request on a Commission Meeting
agenda most convenient for you.
Thank you very much,
Sincerely,
-�Z9t
George F. Hamner
President
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that George Hamner, owner of
the new packing house, moved his operations to a safer location
as far as ingress and egress are concerned, and is now requesting
that they be allowed to use the de -greening rooms before the
total job is completed because now is the time for harvesting
lemons. Mr. Hamner is offering to post a 100% performance bond
to guarantee that the project is completed in accordance with all
applicable requirements.
50
Commissioner Wodtke wondered if a performance bond should be
required for the entire plant because Mr. Hamner will not receive
a Certificate of Occupancy for the other areas of the plant until
it is totally completed. He pointed out that there are different
securitiesthat could be used on a short-term basis rather than a
cash bond, such as a letter of credit.
Chairman Scurlock felt that would be up to the County
Attorney to determine,
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved Vero Producers, Inc. request to occupy on an
interim basis the de -greening room at the new packing
house being constructed on Oslo Road and 74th Avenue;
and instructed staff to come up with -an appropriate
bond to cover the uncompleted portion of the facility.
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE SOUNDING OF RAILROAD
TRAIN HORNS AND WHISTLES BETWEEN 10:00 P.M. AND 6:00 A.M.
The hour of 10:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press-Joumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of
In the_ Court, was pub- -
lished in said newspaper in the issues ot� led �i -1
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed befor mains _. day of A.D. 19
( sl ss Manager)
(SEAL) (Clerk of the CvcC TCou Indiag $ver County, Florida)
51
LLJUL 21986
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Board of County Commnaoneis of Indian
River County. Florida. will conduct a Pubbc i
Rases on Wednesday. July 2. 199 at 10:00 I
a.m. in the Commnsaon Chambers at 1810 251h i
Street, Vero Beach. FL 32880. to consider the
adopson of an ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROHIBITING THE
SOUNDING OF RAILROAD TRAIN
HORNS AND WHISTLES BETWEEN
10:00 P.M. AND 6:00AM.. PROVIDING
FOR WCORPORATiOM .a. CODE:
PROVIDING FOR 38YERABIUTY: AND
PROVIDING FPerson decidiall to appeal OR EFFECTIVE DATE.
.nada matter. atter. Wahe*1
will need e
record 01 the proceedings, and for such —
Poses. he/she may need to Bnsure that a vaba-
hm record of the proceednngs N made, wh.
record nncludea the teetnmony., evidence on:
which the appeal is based,
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1
DON C. SCURLOC(, JA. 1
June 13, 1986
BOOK. 6 4 FAF 8",1
I
J U L 2 1986
BOOK 64 FADE 882
Assistant County Attorney Jim Wilson explained that the
proposed ordinance was prepared at the direction of the Board and
noted that the City of Vero Beach yesterday passed a Resolution
to retain the blowing of train whistles and horns within the city'
limits.• He advised that Mike Orr of Engineering has estimated
the cost of the warning signs which will be needed at crossings
throughout the county. The signs will caution people that train
whistles and horns will not be blown during the hours of 10:00
o'clock P.M, to 6:00 o'clock A.M. We have not heard as yet
whether the City of Sebastian prefers the prohibition of train
whistles during the night.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if we have the ability to pass an
ordinance and make it effective in just the unincorporated areas
of the county, and Attorney Wilson confirmed it is within the
Board's discretion to decide if the ordinance should apply to
just the unincorporated areas or the entire county. He advised
that the only liability would be in the placing and maintenance
of warning signs, not the actual passing of the ordinance.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that the last time we
considered this ordinance, the Board wrote the FEC railroad
requesting them to cooperate with the community by not blowing
their whistles unless necessary, but they were totally
uncooperative.
The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Ray Scent, 1605 71st Court, which is approximately 6 miles
from the railroad tracks, began his arguments in favor of
retaining the train whistles by blowing a wooden whistle and
pointing out that the railroad used horns and whistles long
before there were crossing gates. Mr. Scent noted that the last
time this whistle ban was considered, many people signed ,
petitions against the ban, and he read excerpts from several
"letters to the editor" in opposition to the ban. He did not
understand why people settle next to railroads if they do not
52
like the noise and emphasized that the railroads were here long
before any major growth occurred in this county. Mr. Scent
pointed out that the Board of County Commissioners is responsible
for the health, safety and welfare of the people in this county
and that many lives have been saved by the blowing of a.train
whistle or horn, especially when a crossing gate is not working.
He did not feel Indian River County should pass an ordinance
banning the blowing of whistles or horns just because a few other
municipalities have done so and he also raised the point that
illiterate people cannot read the signs that say that the horns
don't blow.
Jack Graham of Vista Royale stressed that the people who are
opposed to the horns are also concerned about the safety of their
fellowman, but do not agree that the whistles serve to save lives
or prevent accidents, many of which occur when vehicles have
stalled on the tracks. Mr. Graham reported that 17
municipalities in Florida have passed an ordinance prohibiting
the blowing of horns during the night. He felt there were other
alternatives to horns, such as intense flashing lights on the
engines or a lower speed limit, and in conclusion, he urged the
Board to pass this ordinance banning the whistles during the
night.
Grace Clyman of Vista Gardens stated that she has been a
permanent resident for over 3 years and the train whistles do not
bother her. She stressed that there is an even greater noise
problem from the sirens and horns of police cars and emergency
vehicles passing by on U.S. #1. Since that noise cannot be
controlled, she did not believe that train whistles or horns
should be prohibited either. She urged the Commission to
reconsider passing the proposed ordinance.
Fred Mensing, resident of Roseland living approximately 400
feet from the railroad tracks, advised that he had the
distinction of being a Federally -appointed trustee of a short
line railroad for 3 years. He cautioned that a railroad engineer
53
JUL 2 1986 Boor. 64 rnUE 883
JUL 2 1966 BOOK 64 pnH 884
can become very complacent on a freight line such as the FEC and
doze off very easily if he does not have to be alert to blowing a
horn or whistle at crossings during the nighttime hours. He
explained that while there is a white pilot light on the crossing -
gate blinkers which is visible up and down the tracks to show
that a crossing gate is working, it is virtually impossible for
an engineer to see whether or not a gate actually is down. He
reported that a crossing gate malfunctioned just last week in
Roseland during the daylight hours. Mr. Mensing advised that it
takes one-quarter to one-half mile for a heavily loaded train
going 35 mph to come to a stop, and strongly urged the Board not
to prohibit the trains from blowing their horns and whistles at
night.
Katherine Gravenmier, 7850 46th Court in Winter Beach
emphasized that she would be not be alive today if train whistles
were not allowed. About two years ago the lights and gate at a
crossing were not working and she would have driven right in
front of a train if it had not been for the whistle blowing.
Nine years ago her husband and son were killed at a railroad
crossing because whistles were not allowed to blow going through
Vero Beach. There are many people who work at night and if the
whistles are not allowed, more people will be killed.
Chairman Scurlock believed that up to now there never has
been a law prohibiting train whistles or horns.
Florence Reese of Vista Royale complained that and her
house guests are not able to sleep at night because of the train
whistles, and that the noise makes it impossible for her to open
her windows during the night for some fresh air. She felt that
it is okay to say, "let the buyer beware," but they purchased
their condominium in'the daytime when the train whistles do not
blow as often.
Sophia Pennoyer of Woodlawn Manor Mobile Home Park
complained that the train whistles keep her awake at night, and
noted.that even if you can't see a train coming, you can feel it
54
because the whole ground shakes. She hoped that if the Board did
not stop the whistles, they at least would make the railroad tone
them down.
James Sullivan, 110 Springway Court, spoke in favor ofthe
ban. He felt that the train whistles are a'health problem also,
because he works everyday and getting a good night's sleep is
hard to do.
John McKirchy, Assistant City Attorney for Vero Beach,
advised that the City of Vero Beach passed a resolution last
night stating their intention in the event the proposed County
ordinance is passed, to pass a City ordinance excepting the City
and its territory from the provisions of the ordinance. The City
Council considered the competing considerations of safety and
noise and came down in the favor of safety. Although the City
would not intrude on the County's jurisdiction in the
unincorporated areas, the City's passing of this resolution
should be interpreted as a vote against the whistle bap.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed -
the Public Hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board adopt Ordinance
86-45 prohibiting the sounding of railroad train horns
and whistles between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 6:00
A.M. in the unincorporated areas of Indian River
County.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wodtke recalled that he was
against the train whistles the last time the ban was considered.
He pointed out that the people of Vista Royale feel that the
railroad should make use of the high technology available for
alerting their engineers to a crossing gate malfunction instead
55
JL 2 1986
BOOK 64 PnIIE885
rr,-
JUL 2 1986 BOOK 64 F', EF
-6
of relying on whistles and horns. He added that it is very
difficult to hear the horn in an air-conditioned car with the
windows closed and perhaps the radio turned on. Commissioner
Wodtke expressed his disappointment in the City passing a
Resolution to retain the whistles and horns during the nighttime
hours. He expressed concern over the attorney for the City of
Ft. Pierce having advised the City Council that there is some
liability and wanted some assurance that we are not placing the
taxpayers or -this Board under any liability for passing an
ordinance.
County Attorney Vitunac disagreed with the Ft. Pierce
attorney about the County having any liability in the passing of
this ordinance. He maintained that the only liability is through
the posting of warning signs and the maintenance and replacement
of those signs when necessary. He pointed out that the train
engineer can always blow his horn or whistle if he senses any
danger ahead, but if it gets to a point where the engineer is
constantly blowing his horn, we can always revisit the issue.
Commissioner Wodtke suggested modifying the Motion to state
that whistles may be sounded if there is any doubt whether a
malfunction may have occurred, but Attorney Vitunac felt the
wording is fine the way it is.
Commissioner Lyons intended to vote for this Motion because
he felt we have reached a point where a train whistle does not
-have the same effect that it used to have because of
air-conditioned cars, stereos, etc., and even if we hear the
whistle as a warning, it is going to be too late because the train
can't stop. He believed that we are looking at a thing of the past
and need to bring ourselves up to date.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried by a vote of 3-1, Commissioner
Bowman dissenting, and Commissioner Bird being absent.
56
- 7/3/86(JIM; nm)
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 45
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
PROHIBITING THE SOUNDING OF RAILROAD TRAIN
HORNS AND WHISTLES GETI"/EEN 10:00 P.M. AND
6:00 A.M.; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION
IN CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE,
WHEREAS the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County has determined that the sounding of
railroad train horns and whistles between the hours of 10:00
p.m, and 6:00 a.m. creates an unnecessary nuisance to the
residents. of the county; and
WHEREAS, Florida law provides that municipalities
or counties may enact ordinances prohibiting the sounding of
railroad train horns or whistles during the aforesaid hours.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY INDIAN RIVER:
COUNTY, FLORIDA BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS that:
SECTION 1.
GENERAL PROVISIONS.
A. It shall be unlawful for any endineer,'conduc-..
tor, fireman or other person in charge of or in control of
any locomotive or railroad train of any railroad company
operating wholly within this state to sound any railroad
train horn, whistle or other audible warning signal between
10:00 p.m, and 6:00 a.m, in advance of or at any public
at -grade crossing located within the unincorporated areas of
Indian River County, providing that the crossing is equipped
with train activated automatic traffic control devices,
which shall include, flashing lights, bells and crossing
gates.
B. This section shall not be construed to prohibit
the operator of any railroad train to sound a railroad train
horn, whistle or other audible warning signal when it
appears reasonably necessary in order to avoid bodily injury
or in other emergency situations, including a malfunction of
the automatic traffic control devices.
1
JUL 2 i9�6 BOOK 64 FAc�887
rJUL 21986
SECTION 2.
NMR PMAT I MI I ni rnnr:
8001( 64 ull 888
This ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code
of Ordinances of Indian River County and the wort!
"ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other
appropriate word and the sections of this ordinance may be
renumbered or relettered to accomplish such purposes.
SECTION 3
SEVERABILITY.
If any Section, or if any sentence, paragraph,
phrase, or word of this ordinance is for anv reason held to
be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding
shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance;
and it shall be construed to have been the legislative
intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional,
invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 4.
EFFECTIVE DATE.
--------------
This ordinance shall become effective on November
1, 1986.
Approved and adopted_ by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 2nd
day of July 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
BY
--
Chairman
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO DENY LICENSE TAGS FOR
DRIVERS WITH FIVE OR MORE OUTSTANDING PARKING VIOLATIONS
The hour of 10:15 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached; .to wit:
1
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Board of County
conduct of Indian
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
, wal
River County, Flontle, will conduct a Public
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being '
Heaneg on Wednesday. JWy 2, 1988 at 10:15
l„
a.m. ra in the Commission 32960. to at lade the
Sb88I. 11wo Beach. FL 32980. to consider the
�`/
adoption of an oMmanbe emitted: '
a
AN ORDINANCE OF IND" RIVER
COUNTY. FLORIDA BY ITS BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMIssioNERS. REOUIR-
,•J -)
inthe matter of „Ld2`CL1�Y/
ING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO
SUPPLY THE TAI COLLECTOR WITH
THE NAMES OF ALL PERSONS WITH
FIVE OR MORE OUTSTANDING PARK-
ING VIOLATIONS: PROVIDING THAT
SUCH PERSONS SHALL NOT BE
ICQUED LICENSE TAGS OR REVALIOA-
in the Court. was pub -
fished in said newspaper in the issues of_9�3 _l 6 /,
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County; Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office In Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida. for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement: and, affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said. newspaper. 94Swornto and subscribed betor me this - day of A.D. 19
AV
(B $I ass Manager)
ti
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Inc(iIll River County, Florida)
ITV; AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
'If any person decide$ to appeal any decision
made on the above matter. he/she will need a
record o1 the proceedings. and for such Pw-
'poses, he%she may need to ensure that a verba-
tim record of the proceedmge 1$ made, which
record includes the tearmWly, in wrience an
which the appeal is based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DON C. SCURLOCK. JR
June 13. 1986
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 7/1/86:
July 1, 1986
(1)f -f I WN O1-11111 I11 —IE TAX COO I__LECTOO R
GENE E. MORRLS, G.F.C.
TAX COLLE TOR
Mr. Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chmn.
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Dear Mr. Scurlock:
P. O. Box 1509
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA - 32961
TELEPHONEt (305) 567-8180
With reference to the proposed ordinance that registration renewal
be denied to those persons who have outstanding parking tickets, I
wish to go on record as being unalterably opposed to such ordinance
being enacted.
59
JUL 2 1986 BooK 64 F�.c�
Fr
J U L 2 1986
BOOK 64 FnIH890
The motor vehicle section of the tax collector's office is presently
over -burdened with adherence to rules and regulations promulgated by
the Division of Motor Vehicles. Our clerical personnel serve from
two hundred to five hundred people per day. To require that these
personnel expend additional time searching out parking offenders is
hardly worth the amount of revenue which would be derived.
It is my understanding that the number of unpaid tickets is somewhat
less than a hundred. If three or four thousand were outstanding, then
maybe it should be considered. There is no way to justify to the other
fifty thousand -plus citizens the additional time that would have to be
taken on every registration to try to collect such a few tickets.
Should the Board decide to go ahead and pass this ordinance notwith-
standing my strong objection, I would suggest that the ordinance be
enacted on a trial period of no longer than six months.
Very my yo rs,
�L
ene E. Morris, Tax Collector
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
John McKirchy, Assistant City Attorney for Vero Beach,
advised that the City Council is on record in favor of this
ordinance which would enable the enforcement of payment of
parking tickets, as the City's only recourse now is to seek civil
suit. He believed that the provisions in the proposed ordinance
are very fair.
Commissioner Wodtke felt it is difficult to try and
determine the impact this ordinance might have, and asked if the
City had the ability to go to Small Claims Court to collect these
tickets,
Attorney McKirchy believed it would not be worthwhile for
the City to go through that process and explained the diffi-
culties incurred in going that route.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that if this ordinance is
passed in Indian River County, people could always go down to Ft.
Pierce to purchase their license plates. He advised that the Tax
Collector sold 700 license plates yesterday and if his staff had
to look over a list to see if each person had any parking
violations, it would involve considerable time and effort and
60
create considerable delay in processing the long lines of people.
waiting to purchase their plates.
Tax Collector Gene Morris felt that the ordinance would work
if we could enter all parking violations into the State's
F.C.I.C. computer system by the law enforcement agencies whenever
5 tickets were accumulated; however, the State will not allow
that.
Commissioner Lyons agreed that the proposed ordinance was a
very good
idea, but
as a practical
thing, it
would be
very
difficult
to make it
work. He felt
we ought
to give
this problem
to our state legislators and let them enact a. State law to allow
us to put this information into the State license files.
Commissioner Wodtke suggested having the history of bad
checks come up on the computer also.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed
the Public Hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, that the Board request the
County Attorney and the attorney for the City of
Vero Beach to get together with the Tax Collector
and come up with a suggestion for a workable system
to present to the State Legislature.
Under discussion, Commissioner Lyons advised that the County
is planning to impose parking bans in some areas, particularly on
roadways along citrus groves.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
61
JUL 2 1986 BOOK 64 F,�cr �"�1.
r
JUL 2 1986 BOOK 64 � ,3-r 89P2
CHANGE IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/9/86:
TO. Board of County (il
DATE: June 9, 1986 FILE:Commissioners
Through: L.S. Thomas, Acting County Admini tr
FROM: Joyce M Johnston, D
Welfare DepartmeryE1
SUBJECT: Change to Indian River County
Welfare Department Guidelines
�ctoREFERENCES: See Attached
Dr. J.B. Tucker, Director, Indian River County Public Health Unit,
after working with the Indian River Memorial Hospital to establish
a unified screening proceedure for the county pretaining to Maternal
Child Health programs is requesting a change of the guidelines for
his department. The new guidelines will reflect a 1850 of the current
Federal Poverty level.
The guidelines state that "The purpose of the Maternity Program is to
provide pre and post -natal care for clients who are ineligible for
Federal or State programs, and meet the current level of the Federal -
Poverty Guidelines as stipulated by the Health Department".
I would recommend this change be made to the Welfare Guidelines.
Chairman Scurlock understood that the new guidelines will
cost the County $29,000 more a year, but felt that if proper
prenatal care is not given, then we face the long term expense
involved in taking care of those children who have various
deficiencies throughout their entire lives. From that
standpoint, it saves dollars.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board approve the
recommendation as set out in the above memo.
Under discussion, Commissioner Wodtke understood that other
agencies are using 185% of poverty guidelines, and he asked if
the recommended guidelines would qualify those women who cannot
62
get free service and end up walking into the hospital emergency
room when they are ready to deliver.
Dr. Tucker confirmed that it would, but he felt it would not
be, an excessive cost to the County because after we get past the
100% of poverty Level, some sliding scale fees will be imposed.
He explained that the difference between the Health Dept.'s fee
and'a private -practitioner's fee is that the non-payment of fees
is not used as grounds to refuse service. Also any fee that is
set by the Health Dept. has to be based on the actual service
cost as opposed to any profit being involved, which results in
the fee being considerably less.
Jan Gay, Assistant Manager of the Prenatal Program, gave a
brief rundown on the success of the program which involved 250
woman last year, and explained how good prenatal care for high
risk women produces good healthy babies.
Chairman Scurlock felt that it could not be emphasized too
much that the high cost of liability insurance is impacting the
entire medical field; in fact, it is difficult for even those
women who can afford to pay to find a doctor because so many
obstetricians have stopped delivering babies.
Dr. Tucker felt that the this program is covered by risk
management and falls under the sovereign immunity of the State of
Florida.
Commissioner Wodtke realized that while an annual income of
$20,000 is not very much these days for a family of four, he
knows of many families who manage to get by on that amount.
Dr. Tucker stated that basically we are spending a little
money now to save a substantial amount later on.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously, 4-0.
63
J U L 2 1986 BOOK 64 F'a: t 89, 3
J U L 2 1966 BooK Fa F 894
DISCUSSION RE PHASE II OF THE NEW JAIL WITH GENERAL CONTRACTOR_,
ARCHITECT, AND STAFF
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 6/30/86:
WE I 111 11s,
I IKCC4E
F,A
Schopke Construction b Engineering, Inc. 5•
General Contracting and Engineering Services A
1620 Tangerine Sr, Melbourne, FL 32901, (305) 720-0354
Lic. 12794
June 30, 1986
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960
Attn: Mr. Sonny Dean, Director of General Services
Re: Indian River County Jail Phase II
Dear Mr. Dean:
As a follow-up to our conversation on Friday, June
27, 1986, please accept this letter as Schopke Construc-
tion's written confirmation that we fully intend to:
1) Enter into a contract with Indian -River County.
2) Complete the project in accordance with the
plans and specifications and in a timely manner.
In accordance with this contract between Indian River
County and Schopke Construction, the County will hold
Schopke Construction, not our subcontractors, liable for
timely completion in accordance with plans and specifi-
cations. With this requirement at point, it becomes
imperative that the General Contractor be able to control
his subcontractors with any and all legal means provided
him. A General Contractor cannot perform with a sub-
contractor that he has no control over whatsoever. This
is the case with Willo Products, in the fact that we as
General Contractor can foresee that our contractural
control will be severely limited if we should subcontract
with this subcontractor.
If anyone should be reading this letter that has work-
ed in a General Contractors office on a bid day then they
would know the fast pace and hectic atmosphere preceeding
all bids. It is a normal and common occurance that in
the days following a bid that a General Contractor will
need to make some revisions after has has had time to
evaluate all aspects of bids received. Even the County
reserves the right for a period of evaluation regarding
bids received. Are you maintaining that the County needs
several days to evaluate six (6) bids while only.allowing
the General Contractor the final minutes left after receiv-
ing better than 150 individual bids for everything from
Termite Treatment to Toilet Paper Dispensers?
t4
JUL
This writer, having been the- one -responsible person-
for
erson-for Schopke Construction's bid was quite surprised on bid
day (May 20, 1986) to hear rumors that regardless of who
was listed on the list of subcontractors, that the County
was going to use Willo Products.
This rumor has since appeared to have some credibility
since:
1) Scope Sheets were received by the G.C. from three
different..Detention Subcontractors. However, only one
(Willo) quoted.
2) Upon.asking the other two subcontractors why they
did not quote, one replied that he did not want to
waste his time and money since a party in the Archi-
tect's office informed him that only Willo was going
to be approved.
3) This writer has also heard secondhand that the
desired Detention Control Subcontractor was told that
any monies he lost on Phase I could be made up in
Phase II.
4) Never in all my days of construction have I seen
an Architect and Owner so determined to stick with a
given subcontractor. This determination of the Archi-
tect and Owner is carried over and reflected in Willo's
uncooperative attitude and inflated price (approximately
$54,000 over the other two subs).
Therefore Mr. Dean, all we want is the chance to prove
our ability as a General Contractor using those subcontrac-
tors that have priced this project fairly and without con-
sideration for any possible previous deals struck.
We sincerely hope this problem can be cleared up with-
out involving alot of research and investigation into what
we believe is an unfair and illegal situation.
We have as General Contractor offered the County a
lower and fairly priced cost for construction. We admit
to sticking our necks out to some degree in an effort to
take advantage of a competitive market. This is not tal
be confused with bid shopping, since I never approached l J
any sub about lowering their price until it was suggest�d,
in your presence, by Mr. DiPalma at our meeting on Wed-
nesday, June 25, 1986.
Sincerely,.
Victor Cros y
Project Manager I
VC/js
cc: Mr. Ben DiPalma, W.R. Frizzell Architects
Mr. George Maxwell, Attorney -at -Law
Mr. Earl Spencer, Hartford Insurance
65
2 1986 BOOK 64 F,�UE 895
�JUL
2
1986
BOOK 64
U'1 896
Chairman Scurlock felt that this
is a very serious
allegation in that the above letter alludes to bid rigging, and
invited Mr. Victor Crosby, Project Manager of Schopke
Construction 6 Engineering, to come up to the podium and be very
specific in his answers to questions as to who rigged what.
Mr. Crosby explained that this issue was brought about by a
simple request by Schopke to change from one approved
subcontractor to another on the detention work on Phase II of the
new Jail. Schopke originally proposed to use Willo Products, but
wished to change to Dean Products. Mr. Crosby stated that prior
to bid Schopke had a very distinct understanding, which is not to
be construed as an allegation, that the County had a very strong
desire to keep Willo Products as a subcontractor for the
electronic detention system on the minimum -security facility, and
as recently as last Friday, June 28th, Sonny Dean, Director of
General Services for the County, stated over the phone that he
was very much relieved to see that Schopke had proposed to use
Willo Products.
Mr. Crosby informed the Board that prior to bid, Schopke
received scope sheets from several detention subcontractors;
however, at bid time they only received one complete price
covering all the detention scope of work, and he was mystified
why they did not receive bids from at least two other firms who
went to the trouble of sending in a very detailed scope sheet.
One of those firms was Dean Products, and that firm is synonymous
with Southern Steel, which was on the approved subcontractors
list. Mr. Crosby stated that Norman Dean came right out and said
that.Ray Stroud, Project Engineer for Frizzell Architects, told
him over the phone that it did not matter who was being proposed
for the detention equipment because Willo Products was going to
be the subcontractor on this project anyway. Further, in a
conversation as late as last Friday, Norman Dean reported that he
had talked to Mr. Warren Speakman of Electronic Systems,lnc.,
who stated that he had been told that any monies that he lost on
66
Phase I of the Jail could be made up in Phase II. Mr. Crosby did
not know who told Mr. Speakman this and admitted his knowledge of
the situation would have to stop with his conversation with
Norman Dean.
Mr. Crosby pointed out that when the general contractor's
bid .was awarded to Schopke at the May 28th meeting of the Board
of County Commissioners, Mr. Stroud specifically mentioned that
Schopke was proposing to use Willo Products, but at no time did
he mention who the sub -subcontractor would be. He then listed
the following objections that he got from Mr. Sonny Dean and
various representatives.of the architect's office for changing
from Willo to Dean Products:
1) That Schopke had listed Willo Products and could not change.
2) That Dean Products was not an approved subcontractor.
3) That Dean Products was not proposing to use Electronic
Systems, Inc.
In response to the above objections,•.Mr. Crosby pointed out that
the general contractor has the right to change a subcontractor
for good cause; Dean Products is synonymous with Southern Steel
Company, which is on the approved subcontractors' list; and no
mention was made at that meeting several weeks ago that Wil.lo
would be using ESI either. He believed that somebody had to have
made an assumption that Willo was going to use ESI, because at
that point even he, himself, did not know which sub -subcontractor
was going to be used.
Chairman Scurlock asked Mr. Crosby where he got all his
information, and Mr. Crosby said Mr. Ben DiPalma of Frizzell
Architects had written him a letter saying that Schopke could not
change from Willo to Dean Products. In that letter, however, Mr.
DiPalma stated that Schopke could change the electrical
subcontractor from Brewer to FMR. It was stated that there was a
reason for changing the electrical subcontractor, but not the
other. Mr. Crosby further advised that Mr.Sonny Dean had stated
that Dean Products was not approved, and we discredited that.
He, Mr. Dean, also said that Dean Products was not using ESI, and
67 4
JUL 2 1986 BOOK 6 4 c.897
JUL 2 1966 BOOK 64 Fac 898
further stated that Mr. Warren Speakman of ESI stated to him that
he would not work with Dean Products. That was also cleared up
by a telegram sent to the County stating that yes he would work
with Dean Products.
Chairman Scurlock asked Mr. Crosby if he had all this
documented, and Mr. Crosby advised that while he did not have the
telegram, he could get a copy from Norman Dean or perhaps even
the County's copy. Mr. Crosby emphasized that all Schopke wanted
to do was to change from one approved subcontractor to another
because Willo Products had demonstrated to them a hard, fast
attitude that it didn't matter who Schopke wanted or what
contractual conditions were needed, they were going to be the
subcontractor -- take it or leave it. In addition, there was not
only an uncooperative attitude but a total lack of cooperation
since day one in negotiating a fair price. Willo claimed Schopke
used their price, but Mr. Crosby believed that Willo merely
speculated that Schopke used their price in putting together the
general contractor's bid. He pointed out that a general
contractor is not obligated to use any price submitted to him by
a subcontractor. Schopke stuck their necks out because they felt
there was a better price out there after reviewing an
accumulation of separate, individual sub bids from companies such
as Morrow. Further, they felt that Willo's price was way out of
line and that Willo was taking advantage of a market because they
felt they had a very "in" thing on Phase II of the Jail.
Chairman Scurlock asked if it was common practice to stick
their necks out in the bidding, and Mr. Crosby answered that it
was, and that he had consulted with Mr. Schopke on this. He
explained that this is a typical norm and they can stick their
necks out because as general contractors they do have rights to
negotiate after. This is not meant to be construed as "bid
shopping". He wished to point out that at no time did they ever
go back to Willo and ask them to lower their price until it was
suggested to them by Ben DiPalma a week ago Tuesday in the
68
presence of Sonny Dean, Neal Schopke and Bill Baird. At that
point they just closed the door on him.
Mr. Crosby 'next read aloud a telegram sent to his attention
at Schopke Construction: "Re: Indian River County Jail - Phase
II, Area C, Vero Beach, Florida -- "Regret we cannot meet a
Lower figure of $327,500 obtained by your firm after bid time.
We expect a subcontract for $379,000, which amount was quoted
prior to bid time and used by you in preparing your bid as
evidenced by your listing of Willo Products. In the interest of
the time scheduled, we urge that you act promptly." Mr. Crosby
stated that there are a couple of things wrong with this
telegram. At no time did he ever ask them to lower their price
to $327,500. Mr. Jim Barnes of Willo asked him what kind of
ballpark figure he was looking at and those are the figures that
he could work with. Mr. Barnes further stated that Schopke used
Willo's price, which is not true. If Mr. Barnes had been in his
office while he put the bid together, he could give some credence
to his statement, but this is not the case. Mr. Crosby pointed
out that there are just too many circumstances and too much hard
core stance. Never in all his years as a general contractor has
he seen a subcontractor so determined to ride roughshod over a
general contractor as there has been in this case. While he did
not feel there was anything illegal or any collusion by anyone in
the County.or the architect's office to stay with Willo, he felt
that possibly Willo misconstrued some innocent statements.
Admitting that it was secondhand information, he repeated that
Norman Dean was specifically told by the architect that Willo
would be used on this project.
Commissioner Wodtke wanted it on record that there is no
relationship between Sonny Dean of the County and Norman Dean of
Dean Products.
Commissioner Lyons asked Mr. Crosby if he was saying that
the County conspired to find a way for Willo to make up their
69
BOOK 64 f't.uC 899
2 1 86
UL 9 BOOK 64 [A
money, and Mr. Crosby answered that he could not say that the
County specifically did that.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that Item #4 in the above
letter suggests to him that some sort of collusion took place,
and he wanted to get this cleared up, because this Commission has
been absolutely open. He pointed out that the County even redid
the specifications and rebid the job in order to receive more
competitive bids, and that effort resulted in a savings to this
County of approximately $850,000. He maintained that Item #4
suggests some concerted effort by either the County staff, the
architect, or both, to rig this thing so that one supplier
(Willo) would get the contract. He asked Mr. Crosby point blank
if this was true.
Mr. Crosby emphasized that he is not saying that the County
deliberately went in collusion with anybody; he is just saying
that possibly some innocent statements were made that might have
been misconstrued.
Chairman Scurlock repeated that this Commission is wide open
and if we need to get a Grand Jury to investigate this matter, we
want some names so that we can go over to the State Attorney's
Office and do what has to be done.
Mr. Crosby recalled that the cut-throat attitudes during the
bidding process on Phase I were not in evidence during the
bidding on the second phase of the Jail, which led him to believe
that a lot of people thought that maybe Willo did have a
locked -in situation.
Commissioner Wodtke understood that even if the general
contractor changed to a sub -contractor with a lower price, it
would not save the County one dollar because the County would
still have to pay the general contractor the amount in the
contract, but Commissioner Scurlock understood that a sharing can
be negotiated when allowing them to use a substitute.
Mr. Crosby advised that the County was offered a credit back
of $3400 if Dean Products was substituted, as they would be
70
saving approximately $8,000 and $5,000 of that is going into a
performance bond by Dean, which will give the County additional
assurance that this subcontractor will complete. He pointed out
that Willo's proposal specifically states "ho bond."
Administrator Thomas asked Mr. Crosby about his use of the
word "synonymous" when referring to Dean Products and Southern
Steel, and Mr. Crosby explained that the contract can be made out
to either one, Dean Products or Southern Steel. He agreed that
the County should have proof of that.
Ray Stroud of Frizzell Architects stated that Dean Products
is not on the approved list, but Southern Steel is. He wished to
state that at.no time did he say to anyone, including Norman
Dean, that Will,o had a lock on this job. However, when you are
bidding a job where there is already a portion under construction
and you are adding to it, especially in the detention area, the
subcontractor on the first phase does have an advantage, and he
could have said to someone, "Yes, it would be nice to have him,
but we have competitive bids." Frizzell felt there were
advantages to having Willo on this job because we would not have
to stock two sets of parts.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the architect had drawn up the
specifications in such a way that it would be the same common
parts, and Mr. Stroud said they had not, because in competitive
bidding, you have to allow people to bid their own comparable
equipment. Southern Steel and Willo do not have comparable
equipment in the operation of some of their doors. If we have to
go to a different subcontractor for Phase Il, it is very possible
that we would have to stock items for that hardware in addition
to the items that we are already stocking for Phase I; however,
that would depend on what subcontractor was used. He stressed
that the approved subcontractors' list is to prevent bid
shopping, and the day after the general contractor's bid was
awarded, Willo phoned asking who was listed for the detention
work, and he told them that they were and that we would be using
�si
71
BOOK 6
their bid, they listed Willo as their subcontractor for detention
equipment.
Chairman Scurlock asked if Dean Products had been on the
approved list, whether the architect would have had any objection
to using them, and Mr. Stroud answered that they would certainly
prefer using Willo because we would not have to stock different
parts or have two detention electronics people on site
coordinating the work.
Chairman Scurlock interjected that he was hearing that Willo
was locked in. He noted that while the contract was signed and
executed, it.has been held up because General Services Director
Sonny Dean discovered that an unauthorized change had been made
substituting Dean Products for Willo.
Commissioner Lyons asked if the second lowest bidder on the
general contract bid Willo, and Mr. Stroud advised that Scandia,
the second lowest bidder, bid Fries for detention electronics and
control and Taylor, Cotton and Ridley for detention equipment.
Mr. Stroud stated he had never heard of the last firm.
Commissioner Lyons felt that from a practical standpoint, we
are better off to have the same electrical controls and the same
hardware because it is going to be a complicated system to
maintain otherwise.
Sonny Dean, Director of General Services, took exception to
the implication here today that he was involved in any conspiracy
whether illegal or otherwise. He stated that he never had a
conversation with any general contractor or subcontractor prior
to this bid being awarded. At that point, he met with Mr. Crosby
and Mr. Schopke and did make the statement that we, the County,
were relieved that they had Listed Willo.
Mr. Crosby confirmed that the first contact he had with
Director Dean was after the bid had been awarded.
Chairman Scurlock was still having trouble with just how
incompatible these electronic and hardware items are, and Mr.
72
-1986
BOOK
b Fa,r2
them because we did not want to change.
When Schopke
submitted
their bid, they listed Willo as their subcontractor for detention
equipment.
Chairman Scurlock asked if Dean Products had been on the
approved list, whether the architect would have had any objection
to using them, and Mr. Stroud answered that they would certainly
prefer using Willo because we would not have to stock different
parts or have two detention electronics people on site
coordinating the work.
Chairman Scurlock interjected that he was hearing that Willo
was locked in. He noted that while the contract was signed and
executed, it.has been held up because General Services Director
Sonny Dean discovered that an unauthorized change had been made
substituting Dean Products for Willo.
Commissioner Lyons asked if the second lowest bidder on the
general contract bid Willo, and Mr. Stroud advised that Scandia,
the second lowest bidder, bid Fries for detention electronics and
control and Taylor, Cotton and Ridley for detention equipment.
Mr. Stroud stated he had never heard of the last firm.
Commissioner Lyons felt that from a practical standpoint, we
are better off to have the same electrical controls and the same
hardware because it is going to be a complicated system to
maintain otherwise.
Sonny Dean, Director of General Services, took exception to
the implication here today that he was involved in any conspiracy
whether illegal or otherwise. He stated that he never had a
conversation with any general contractor or subcontractor prior
to this bid being awarded. At that point, he met with Mr. Crosby
and Mr. Schopke and did make the statement that we, the County,
were relieved that they had Listed Willo.
Mr. Crosby confirmed that the first contact he had with
Director Dean was after the bid had been awarded.
Chairman Scurlock was still having trouble with just how
incompatible these electronic and hardware items are, and Mr.
72
Stroud explained that while the the systems will work together
and the _doors will open, some of the parts in those doors are not
the same and this might mean a cost of $5,000-$7,000 to stock
additional parts for the total job. He felt that the Board
should keep in mind that if something goes wrong with a.door, you
can't go to just one source.
Commissioner Lyons understood that if the Board should
decide that we find our situation with this contractor untenable
and were to go to the second highest bidder, we would be Looking
at a different make of door hardware and some $10,000 in
additional parts plus an additional $7,500 contract price.
The Chairman called for a recess to allow County Attorney
Vitunac time to research the County's options in this matter.
After the meeting was called back to order, Attorney Vitunac
advised that the County has the following three options:
1) Contract with Schopke without Wi-llo and allow him to
substitute a different contractor with different parts; or
2) Contract with Schopke only if he uses Willo, or;
3) Rebid the job with different specifications, and perhaps
specifying Willo or specifying something a Kittle tighter.
Chairman Scurlock asked on what basis we could reject
Schopke's bid, and Attorney Vitunac advised that the Board could
reject the bid if they decide after hearing this information that
they do want compatibility all the way through because of the
life and maintenance problems that might occur otherwise.
Mr. Crosby stated that if the Board does not allow him to
change subcontractors, they would be taking away a right of the
general contractor as set out in the August, 1976 edition of the
AIA Document A201, Paragraph 5.2.2, which states: "The
Contractor shall not contract with any such proposed person or
entity to whom the Owner, or the Architect, has made reasonable
objection under the provisions of Paragraph 5.2.1, and further
the Contractor shall not be required to contract with anyone that
he has any reasonable objection." Mr. Crosby stressed that his
73
BOOK 64 PAGE. 903
J U L 2 1966 BOOK 64 F,a 904
objection to Willo has been a total lack of cooperation since day
one.
Ben DiPalma, Project Supervisor for Frizzell Architects
explained that he denied Mr. Crosby's request to change the
subcontractor from Willo to Dean Products because that name did
not appear on the list of approved subcontractors. To this day
he has not seen any proof that Dean Products is Southern Steel.
He had been pleased also to see the job go to Willo, because the
compatibility is very important. He stressed that his reason
for refusal was for sticking to specifications.
Commissioner Wodtke felt that we must have a general
contractor and subcontractors who can go out and build this
project and get along with each other.
Mr. DiPalma stated that they have no objections to using
Dean Products if the Board so chooses, but he did object to the
alleged misinformation that he has heard this morning.
Commiss`-- _ ,:,-ran felt that the architect could have
avoided this whole thing if he had written into the
specifications that the detention electronics must be thus and
so, but in defense of the architect, Mr. Crosby pointed out that
Frizzell has done everything reasonably possible to keep the bid
open so that the County would receive the best price. He noted
that he has seen what can happen when a subcontractor thinks he
has an "in", and shuddered to think what that price would have
been if only one supplier was listed.
Attorney Vitunac asked Mr. Crosby point blank whether
Schopke would continue the contract if Willo was kept as the
detention subcontractor, and Mr. Crosby said they would not
because the County would be taking away a right.granted in the
contract. He stressed that if Schopke had received any
cooperation from Willo, they would not be here today.
Commissioner Lyons asked Jim Barnes of Willo Products if Mr.
Crosby's claim that Willo was holding him up was true, and Mr.
Barnes answered that he did not think so. He stated that they do
74
not have anything against Schopke and would be pleased to work
with them on this job. He noted that he made a number of calls
to reconcile this matter, but was unsuccessful.
The Board considered breaking for lunch while Mr. Crosby and
Mr. Barnes discussed their differences, but Mr. Crosby pointed
out that both firms would use Electronic Systems, Inc. in their
detention system, so there would be no problem with interfacing
the electronic equipment. He reiterated that Southern Steel is
on the approved list, but admitted that the County needs to see
proof that Dean Products is synonymous with Southern Steel.
A Motion by Commissioner Lyons to award the contract to
Schopke as bid without the insertion of Dean Products as the
detention subcontractor with the understanding that any change
would be negotiated with the architect and brought back to the
Board failed for lack of a second.
Attorney Vitunac felt that it is up to the architect to
prove why he does not want the substitution of Southern Steel.
Mr. DiPalma continued to argue at great length that we must
stick with the specification documents and that Schopke bid Willo
as the detention subcontractor.
Chairman Scurlock preferred letting the substitution take
place because he did not feel that compatibility of the equipment
was a problem, but felt the change would depend on ascertaining
that Dean Products is a subsidiary of Southern Steel which is on
the approved list, and that a performance bond will be posted.
Mr. Barnes stated that Willo would be glad to offer a
performance bond.
Commissioner Wodtke felt that it was important to get this
project moving.
75
J U L 2 1966
BOOK 64 F,.Gr 9-015
JUL 2 1996
BOLI( 906
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being absent) authorized the
Chairman to sign the contract with Schopke Construction"
based on their original bid amount and their utilizing
Southern Steel as a subcontractor with a credit to the
County of $3,400, and that Southern Steel will use
Electronic Systems, Inc.
Commissioner Lyons was unhappy with this matter, and
wondered how many more of these situations would be forthcoming.
Mr. Crosby stated that at the present time he has no problem
with any other subcontractor listed, and assured the Board that
he will be getting payment and a performance bond from Southern
Steel.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S PROPOSAL TO BUILD BUNKERS
FOR POLITICIANS TO SURVIVE NUCLEAR ATTACK
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/10/86:
76
10
COUNTY CSF
CUYAHOGA
June 10, 1986
Commissioners
Mary 0. Boyle
Virgil E. Brown
Timothy F. Hagan
Dear Commissioner:
As I'am sure you are well aware, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency has announced a tentative program to build 3,400 bunkers so that
we politicians will be able to survive a nuclear attack.
You may think, as I do, that the proposal is Orwellian. No one in
his or her right mind would spend public monies to promote this kind of
insanity.
Please join with me in opposing this plan. I ask that you urge your
Congressional Representatives and Senators to reject the program; I also
ask that you pass a resolution in opposition to FEMA's proposal. I would
appreciate it if you would send me a copy of your board's resolution.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,-
Timothy F. Lan
County Commissioner
Countv Administration Building 1219 Ontario Street Cluveland, Ohio 441 13 216 443-7171F
..
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
instructed the Director of Emergency Management to
prepare a resolution in opposition to FEMA's proposal
to build bunkers for politicians to survive a nuclear
attack.
COMPLAINT OF ODOR IN JUICE PLANT IN WABASSO
Commissioner Bowman reported that after receiving several
complaints about noise and a strong odor coming from the juice
77
JUL 2 1986 BOOK 64 i'AGE 907
TFH/bh
til: TA113 ;C� J L!ST
..
Acmi,-."St.rator 1r-
C.7
BOAM COUlffY
FcrZc, r:el
o,COMMISSIONERS � ry
Ly' LCV.
_
1 d
iir
Countv Administration Building 1219 Ontario Street Cluveland, Ohio 441 13 216 443-7171F
..
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
instructed the Director of Emergency Management to
prepare a resolution in opposition to FEMA's proposal
to build bunkers for politicians to survive a nuclear
attack.
COMPLAINT OF ODOR IN JUICE PLANT IN WABASSO
Commissioner Bowman reported that after receiving several
complaints about noise and a strong odor coming from the juice
77
JUL 2 1986 BOOK 64 i'AGE 907
J U L 2 1966
BOOK
f
r is t
plant located
in the old Dale's Manufacturing building,
she
went
up there yesterday but didn't smell anything. She advised that
they will keep tabs on it.
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD
Developers Agreement with Ryanwood Shopping Center
Agreement having been fully executed and received has been
put on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board as approved
at the Regular Meeting of May 28, 1986.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board of County Commissioners adjourned
at 1:35 o'clock P.M. in order that the District Board of the
North County Fire District might convene. Those Minutes are
being prepared separately.
ATTEST:
Clerk
W ONE -
/1
Chairman �-0000
78
P