HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/2/1986� r �
Tuesday, September 2, 1986
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission
Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday,
September 2, 1986, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice -Chairman; Richard
N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also
present were L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Acting County Administrator;
Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County
Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Barbara Bonnah,
Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Lyons led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Scurlock requested the following additions -to
today's Agenda:
1. A budget amendment to purchase Savin V-35 copier for Judge
Kilbride's Office.
2. Permission to obtain a quote from the Florida League of
Cities on County Insurance.
Attorney Vitunac requested the addition to today's Agenda of
a recommendation by the Planning Department to file a law suit
against the School Board for not following site plan procedures
in the building of two new schools.
Administrator Thomas requested the addition of approval of
recent negotiations on the 1986-87 contract with CWA.
`�n z :
VSEP 2 9986 BOOK V as �i. 5 E
Boa 65 m.,) -L 538
ON MOTION BY Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added
the above items to today's Agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 13,
1986.
Commissioner Lyons noted that the date of November 7, 1986
date mentioned on Page 37 of the Minutes and Page 2 of Ordinance
86-60 under E. Meetings, should be corrected to read: "November
17, 1986."
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 8/13/86, with
the corrections as set out above.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 20,
1986.
Commissioner Lyons noted that on page 2 in the discussion on
Sandridge Golf Club, it should read "building permit" instead of
"certificate of occupancy", and that the heading should be
corrected also.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, -the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 8/2.0/86 with
the corrections as set out above.
The Chairman asked if there were any changes or additions to
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of August -.27, 1986.
�3
2
ry
Commissioner Lyons requested that the wording in the second
paragraph on Page 1, where it states "the County might have to
extend our contract with the architect" be changed to read: "the
County might have to extend the completion time in the contract."
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 8/27/86, with
the corrections as set out above.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Bowman requested that Item B be removed from
the Consent Agenda for discussion, and Commissioner Wodtke
requested that Item D be removed also.
A. Final Payment to Ted Myers Contracting Co, Inc. - Gravity
Sewer Line at County Jail
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/13/86:
TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE: August 13, 1986 FILE:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
L.S. Tommy Thomas,
Acting County Administrator
SUBJECT:
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
Michelle A Terr
Y
Final Payment to
Ted Myers Contracting Co., Inc
Gravity sewer line at County
Jail.
Public Works Project 8236
FROM: civil Engineer REFERENCES:
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Construction of the gravity sewer line was completed by August
1986. The original contract of $14,609.52 was increased by a change
order in the amount of $6,931.50 making a total contract price of
$21,541.02. Final inspections by members of the Engineering Staff have
been conducted. The staff is satisfied that the project has been
completed properly and within the specified time requirements.
3
SEP 2 1986 BOOK 65 FADE 539
Boa 65 F'nl)F 540
SEp 2 1986
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
The Engineering Staff recommends that final payment in the amount of
$21,533.92 which is $7.10 less than the contract -price, to be remitted
to Ted Myers Contracting Co., Inc. Funds will come from the''Jail
Construction 'Phase 1, #302-906-523.066-51.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
final payment in the amount of $21,533.92 to Ted
Myers Contracting Co., Inc. for the construction of
the gravity sewer line at the new County Jail, as
recommended by staff.
FINAL PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
B. Bid Acceptance, Gifford Park Baseball/Softball Field Lighting
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/25/86:
TCS: UM HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE: August 25, 1986
THE BOARD OF COUNTY CCMMISSIONERS
FROM:
THROUGH:
L.S. Tommy Thomas
ActinKcia,
Administrator SUBJECT:
P.E.
County Engineer
FILE:
Bid Acceptance
Gifford Park Baseball/
Softball Field
Lighting
ichelle A. Terry REFERENCES:
Civil Engineer
BACKGROUND INFOAKATION
The Engineering Department has prepared plans and
specifications for the Baseball/Softball Field Lighting at Gifford
Park.
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS
Advertisements for bids were placed in the 'Press Journal on
August 11th,- 12th, and 13th and the Engineering Staff was
available on August 19th for prebid conference to answer specific
questions by any interested contractors on the plans and
specifications.
4
r �
Bids were received on Friday, August 22, 1986 at 10:00 a.m.
in the County Administrators Conference Room. present at the bid
opening were the following staff menbers:
Mrs. Carolyn Goodrich, Manager Purchasing
Ms. Michelle Terry, Civil Engineer
No contractors were in attendance.
The bids were received as follows:
Canpany Bid
All South Utlity Const. Co. $51,395.00
C. R. Dunn, Inc. $48,914.88
The Engineering estimate prepared by the Engineering
Department was approximately $40,000.00.
RE)OCMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff reccamends that negoiations with the lowest - -
responsible Bidder, C.R. Dunn, Inc. to obtain a favorable cost to
the County. This Bid is based on the local power .Canpany
providing service to a location approximately 30' behind and to
the South of Pole B-2.
Funding is to be from Fund #102-210-572-66.39 Parks and.
Recreation Capital Outlay. _
Commissioner Bowman wished to see this item rebid because
only two bids were received and the low bid exceeds the estimated
cost by $9,000.
Administrator Thomas explained that if the Board wishes to
rebid, it will be necessary for the Budget Department to make
some arrangements to carry these funds forward into next year,
because we won't be able to get the bid in before the beginning
of the next fiscal year.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, that the Board authorize staff
to rebid this item.
Under discussion, Administrator Thomas noted that we were
not able to complete 2 or 3 of the budgeted projects for this
fiscal year and that several others were done for less than what
was anticipated; therefore, there are sufficient funds even for
the $49,000 figure. That is the reason why he is recommending
that the funds be carried forward. He was not sure that we would
5
1986
BOOK.�.g 541
SEP
r- SEP 2 1986
-7 A
BOOK F'.")F 542?
do any better by rebidding, but with a little more time, we may
be able to get 2 or 3 additional bids.
Commissioner Bird suggested that the Motion read that staff
is authorized to renegotiate with the low bidder to try to bring
the project within budget, but, if unable to do so, that we then
reject all bids and go out for rebid.
Commissioners Bowman and Lyons agreed to amend the Motion to
include Commissioner Bird's suggested wording.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion,
as amended, was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0).
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street -
-Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION v"
BID NO. DATE OF OPENING \\
Aug. 22, 1986 `
BID TITLE Gifford Park Baseball/ v
Softball Field Lighting C %
"-S:
.V4
NO.' DESCRIPTION ' I UNIT PRICEI UNIT PRICEI UNIT PRICEI UNIT PRICE UNIT
C. Budget Increase for Computer Maintenance
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/26[86:
6
TO: Honorable Board of DATE: August 26, 1986 FILE:
County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Budget Increase for
Computer Maintenance
FROM: Freda Wright, '�f�• REFERENCES:
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Please adopt the following budget amendment for the Clerk to the Board:
Increase
010-000-369-040.00 Reimbursements 4,500
010-300-513-030.00 Operating Expenditures 4,500
During July and August, 1986 the computer was knocked out of service twice by severe
thunderstorms. To bring the computer back up, -it was necessary to have IBM
technicians come in on the weekend to repair' the computer. Since our maintenance
contracts do not cover weekend repairs, the cost of the repairs have caused us to
overspend our maintenance budget.
have received $4,500.00 from outside sources for the use of my data processing
-.personnel and computer equipment. I would like to use those funds to pay for the
repairs to the computer. Adoption of the requested budget amendment will not require
the use of any County funds.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the above budget amendment, as recommended by
Freda Wright, Clerk of the Circuit Court.
VA
SEP Z -IJ66
BOOK
aooK 65 c,,�(,,F 544
D. Budget Amendment_- Unemployment Compensation
The Board reviewed,the following memo dated 8/27/86:
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: August 27, 1986 FILE:
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Unemployment Compensation
FROM: Jos ph A. Baird REFERENCES:
OMB Director
Account Number
001-906-523-012.15
001-199-581-099.91
CYDI AMATTMI.
Account Name
Unemployment -Compensation
Reserve for Contingency
---.:Increase 'Decrease
$ 568
$ 568
Budget amendment is to allocate funds to pay for unemployment compensation
as per attached invoice.
Contingency Balance
As of 8/27/86 $69,152
Commissioner Wodtke asked if there were any appeal
provisions in this unemployment compensation case, because it
- appears that we did not do a good job in documenting our
evidence, and Commissioner Bowman agreed that it looks to be very
badly handled. She understood that the man was fired and then
was told that he could appeal, which seems to be a reverse
procedure.
Assistant County Attorney Jim Wilson believed the only
appeal left to the County is through the District Court of
Appeals on the grounds that we believe the referee did not follow
the proper rules.
Commissioner Wodtke was concerned because it looks like the
County's testimony was hearsay.
8
Attorney Wilson explained that the employee actually
resigned; therefore, he was never actually terminated, and the
reasons for termination cannot be introduced as evidence. The
bottom line is that former County Administrator Michael Wright
was wrong in accepting his resignation and should have gone ahead
and fired him.
Commissioner Wodtke hoped that we have learned a lesson in
this situation, and Chairman Scurlock felt the main question is
whether we are going to pay the $568 or go to court.
Commissioner Bowman felt we should chalk this up to an
expensive lesson..
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB
Director Joe Baird.
E. Budget Amendment - IBM Printer
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/26/86:
TO: The Honorable DATE: August 26, 1986 FILE:
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners _
THRU: Joe Baird
Director, OMB—' SUBJECT: IBM PRINTER
THRU: H.T. "Sonny" Den
Director, General ervices
-FROM: Don Cureton REFERENCES:
County Probation Department
An IBM Printer is not a part of the 1985-86 fiscal year budget.
Approval to purchase a printer and process a line item transfer
is requested.
The invoice for the first CRT, which was budgeted and purchaed in
the 1984/85 budget, was billed.against the Probation Capital
Outlay Account in July, 1986. A line item transfer is requested
to reinstate the funds to this account (001-908-523-066.41) from
the All Office Supplies Account (001-908-523-035.11). The amount
of funds to be transfered is $1,035.00.
Purchase of a second CRT for the Probation Department is budgeted
and will be ordered. Data Processing is developing programs to
computerize three (3) areas which currently constitute the major
portion of the Probation System.
9
SES 2 Bov 65 FAGE545
SES' 2 1986
BOOK 65 4'gGc.54
Approval of the printer would allow for printing of the daily,
weekly and monthly reports to be produced. The printer would
also provide_a means of printing dockets and documentation from
the Clerk of Courts records. The goal of Data Processing is to
have the Probation System in operation by September 12, 1986. It
should be noted, that in order to make the IBM Printer a cost
effective item, the equipment would be available for other
departments use as the need arises.
Mr. Don Hylton has indicated a printer to meet the needs of the
Probation Department would cost approximately $2,800.00. Should
purchase of the printer be approved, it is further requested
$1,500.00 be transferred from account number 001-908-523-035.11
(All Office Supplies) to account number 001-908-523.066.41
(Capital Outlay).
Account number 001-908-523-035.11 (All Office Supplies) has more.
than ample funds to handle the requested transfer and still leave
enough for operation for the remainder of the fiscal year. The
reason for the surplus monies is due to the fact that the budget
was prepared prior to the opening of the County Probation
Department on August 16, 1985. Therefore, the exact amount of
monies needed for this account was unknown at the the time of
preparation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the pLrrchase of an IBM Printer for the Probation
Department at a cost of $1,035.00 and approved the
following budget transfer.
= - -TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: -August 26, 1986 FILE:
Commissioners
FROM: J ose . -Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment
for Probation Dept.
to Purchase a Printer
REFERENCES:
Account Number Account Name Increase Decrease
001-908-523-035.11 - All Office Supplies 1,500
001-908-523-066.41 Office Furniture R, Equip. 1,500
FXPI ANATTMI•
Budget amendment is to purchase a printer for Probation at a cost of
$2,800. An additional $1,500 needs to be transferred to accomodate the
purchase.
10
F. DER/ARMY CORPS/DNR PERMIT APPLICATION - JAMES GARWOOD
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/26/86:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 26, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R., ARMY CORPS AND
D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICA
SUBJECT: TIONS
Robert M. Kea�elopir(ent
jing, .IgCP
Planning & De Director
FROM:Art Challacombe REFERENCES: DER/Garwood
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 September 2, 1986.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION
FILE NO. 31-14000-4
- Applicant: Mr. James Garwood, 1835 20th Street, Vera. -
Beach, Florida, 32960.
- Waterway & Location: The project is located in the Indian
River in John's Island, adjacent to Lot 2, Section 13,
Township 32 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County,
Florida. The upland property associated with the project
is located in the Town of Indian River Shores.-
- Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct a
private single 4' x 50' dock with a 40' x 6' observation
deck for a total of 520 square feet. No sewage pump -out or
fueling- facilities are proposed. No dredging or filling
will be performed.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
- The Conservation & Coastal Zoning Management -Element of the
Indian River Comprehensive Plan
- Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region
- The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
- The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
The project is located in the Town of Indian River Shores.
Therefore, the focus of staff review is on potential County and
regional impact rather than site-specific impact; an in-depth
field inspection of the project site was 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 forth specific design standards and
criteria for private single docks.
I 11
C86 Boa 65 rvIi,-.54`�
2 �
Ar
SEP 2 IS86 BOOK 65 c u- 548
Although the extent of any impacts are not fully known at this
time, there may be cumulative impacts of this 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 project is located in the Indian
River -Aquatic Preserve and therefore subject to require-
ments 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
Manatee;
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 Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to forward the comments as set out in the above
memo to the DER.
G. DER/ARMY CORPS/DNR PERMIT APPLICATION - KELLY LLOYD
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/19/86:
TO The Honorable Members DATE: August 19, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R., ARMY CORPS AND
D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICA-
SUBJECT: TIONS
Robert M. K6A4ng,,#TCP
Planning & Development Director
Art Challacombe Lloyd
FROM: Chief, Environmental P1agEFgRENCES: 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 September 2, 1986.
12
r
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION
FILE NO. 31-123742-4
- Applicant: Kelly Lloyd, 98 Springlake Drive, Vero Beach,
Florida, 32963.
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the Indian
River in Castaway Cove Subdivision, adjacent to Lot 56,
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 a 20' x 8' observation
deck for a total of 380 square feet. No sewage pump -out
or fueling facilities are proposed. No dredging or
filling will be performed.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
The Conservation & Coastal Zoning Management Element of
the Indian River Comprehensive Plan
Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives &
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region
The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
The Indian River County Code'of Laws and Ordinances -
The project is located in the City of Vero Beach. Therefore,
the focus of staff review is on potential County and_regional
impact rather than site-specific impact; an in-depth field
inspection of the project site was 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 forth specific design stan-
dards 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 this 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
authorize 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 project is located in the Indian
River Aquatic Preserve and therefore subject to require-
ments 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
Manatee;
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.
Sp 2 1906 12a BOOK 65 f'.,E549
L_
i�'Cdr f h,,U 5 vas• -7
SEP 2 19 �''� BOOK "Urr, �U
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to forward the comments as set out in the above
memo to the DER.
PROCLAMATION - RICHARD PARENT
In the absence of Richard Parent, the following proclamation
was made a part of the official record:
P R 0 C L A M A T 1 0 N
WHEREAS, Richard Parent has served on the Indian
River County Planning and Zoning Commission since March 11,
1981; and
WHEREAS, Richard Parent has shown dedication and
care for his community by volunteering his time, energy and
expertise to the Indian River County Planning and Zoning
Commission; and
WHEREAS -;'on July 22, 1986, Richard Parent resigned
from his position on the Indian River County Planning and
Zoning Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that
Indian River County recognizes' and is grateful to Richard
Parent for his unselfish service to the community through
the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission.
DATED this 2nd day of September, 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ATTEST:
Freda
G
onb�C. Scu lock, Jr.�
Chairman
NORTH BEACH AREA - WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES
The Board 'reviewed the following memo dated 8/21/86:
13
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: August 21, 1986.,
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO, i`
DIRECTOR OF UTILITYY'SS RVICES
FROM: RONALD R. BROOKS /�/ v
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SPECIALIST
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: NORTH BEACH AREA
WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES
BACKGROUND
The water franchise for North Beach Water Company includes the
Summerplace and Oceanaire Heights Subdivisions in the utility's
service area. As early as September 1983, residents of the two
subdivisions requested water service and petitioned -the County, to _
pursue having North Beach Water Company provide the service. =_
This department issued a letter to North Beach Water Company, --
dated November 3, 1983, requesting that the company make arrangements
to provide service to the subdivisions as soon as possible; or, if
they determined it not financially -feasible to-do so, provide a
financial report verifying such.
To this date, and after several meetings regarding the., matter,
North Beach Water Company has not -provided water service- to the
subdivisions and has not provided justification for not doing so.
Instead, the utility has recently expanded its distribution system to
provide service to the Indian Trails Subdivision. By doing so, they
have extended service outside of their franchised service area without
approval by the Board and prior to providing Service to the areas
within their existing franchised service area.
CONCLUSION
The North Beach/Orchid Island area is recognized as an
environmentally sensitive area with limited drinking water resources
in the island's shallow aquifer and very sensitive surface water
resources in the adjacent Indian River Estuary. The area is rapidly
developing and,it is essential that a safe water supply along with
proper management of wastewater be provided. Following the directive
approved by the Board, the Division of Utility Services is
investigating the purchase of the various utilities serving the North
Beach area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commmissioners consider
the water and wastewater needs of the North Beach area and authorize
the following:
1. Approval of the attached proposal for engineering services
by DSS Engineers, Inc. to perform an appraisal of all of the
water and wastewater utilities in the North Beach/Orchid
Island area and explore the value of the utilities for
purchase or the establishment of a rate base.
2. Scheduling of a Public Hearing with North Beach Water
Company to consider the adequacy of their service and their
reasons for not providing water service to Summerplace and
Oceanaire Heights, and further, to consider and address
violations of their franchise.
14 Bou 65 FADE 551
FF__
SEP 2 1966
BooK 65 F,m-H 552
Utilities Director Terry Pinto advised that we have had some
requests for North Beach Water Company to service Summerplace, a
residential area, ever since the plant went on line almost 3
years ago, and their reluctance to do so has caused concern on
our part that they are only interested in serving their
communities, but not their service area which includes
Summerplace and Ocean Air Heights.
Chairman Scurlock noted that North Beach did, in fact, send
out a letter to the residents of Summerplace asking if there was
interest in this particular service, and there was a very good
response. However, that information has never been conveyed to
the County Utilities Dept. He reported that he and Director
Pinto are meeting with Bill Sundstrum of North Beach Water next
week about their going outside their service area to service
Indian Trails, without any authority or even any discussion. He
believed there were certain agreements in their franchise that
requiref them to service their territory before expanding service
to outside areas. He would like to see our Legal Dept. begin
---putting itself in a position to litigate this matter if it
-= becomes necessary.
Director Pinto recommended that they be brought to a public
hearing to explain why they are not servicing the areas for which
---_-.they are granted, and that we start looking a.ttaking over all of
the -water and wastewater systems on the beach and putting them
under the County system.
Commissioner Wodtke questioned the proposal for engineering
services, and Director Pinto explained that the proposal is to
evaluate the North Beach Water plant, the Marsh Island water
plant, Sea Oaks wastewater plant, and Baytree, and to look at the
present cost and analyze construction costs. Staff is somewhat
concerned about the values presented by the company as to what
the planbcosts, and feel that they have put things into the
construction and engineering of construction that should have
been picked up by the developer. Director Pinto stressed that it
15
is a very well-built plant, but it is a little gold-plated
because of the asethetics of the community, and whether that is
something that we should allow in a rate base is something that
we must look at very closely. The total cost of the proposal is
$9,280, which includes all of the water and wastewater systems on
the beach, and this analysis will be funded out of the budget
item under franchises.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously -approved
staff's recommendation on Items 1 and -2, and authorized
the Legal Dept. to start preparing its position if
litigation becomes necessary.
Director Pinto explained that this is only the first step. ..
After the appraisal is done, they wiil come in for their Public
Hearing. If they do not satisfy us at that point, we will have
to take other action.
PUBLIC HEARING - RALMAR ASSOCIATES, INC. APPEAL OF PLANNING &
ZONING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF THEIR REQUEST TO REZONE 26.2 ACRES
FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL, TO RS -6, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
The hour of 9:10 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
Sip
16 BOOK 65
SEp 2 1386
BOOK F'"�r.5l
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Notice,
oticoNheaC 9 to consderr the ad
e option of
a County ordinance rezoning land from: A-1,
Agricultural District to RS -6, Single -Family Resf-
Published Weekly dential District. The property is presently owned
by Reimer Associates, Inc, and is located east of
58th Avenue (C R. 505-A) and north of 16th
Vero Beach, Indian River County,Florida street '
The subject property is described as
All that part of the southwest y/, Af the
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
r' South;`Range38East,lyk�gsouthof,the `
In Canal, as shown by unnumbered'
STATE OF FLORIDA
tract marked "Copeland on plat of In-
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
dian'River Farms recorded on page 2$e
of Plat Book 2, .Public Records o!`7St
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
Lucie County Florida
at Vero Beach in Indian River Count Florida; that the attached co
Y, copy of advertisement, being
LESS' AND EXCEPT It a parcel d8.
scribed as follows: From the southwest
corner of Section 4;: Township 33 south'
�-
�
Range 39. East;,. indian ' River County -
Florida, rulI. east along the south line. o
a s
Section 4a distanes of 80 fest;to a pbinl
on the east right -of -Way lintl' of Lateral`
�
- .'B" right -,of way,,thence continues Bast`
in the matter of " ( 4 �
along the -same* line, a distance of 2i�_
feet to the Pomt of Beginning. of the par
cel herein described thence run nbfth`_
280 feet;: thence run east 319 f r
thence run south 280 feet;'thenae rdifq
west 319 fast to the Point df;Beginnin ski
and.,,_
LESS AND E>)�EPt,the West eq ie€if,
in the Court, was pub -
being rfghtof Way�ac f atetdlkx$
"W,
W,, Canal• an I
LESS ANb EXCEPT, the south 30 feet`
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
thereof being the right of way -tor Rose ='
wood Aoad(,16thStrest), ,
.
Said, land`now lying and'being in krdiari;,"
River''
,County, orida and contain
28 23S cres more I
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at a so I' t of tha declsion by a Planning s
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore onIng' Commission,tordehlr the rezoning`
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered° The public hearing; at which partieg,in
rest
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida and citizshall-have�an opportunity
ens heardwill be held- y the.43oard bf,Coa
i
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- mmtsso' of IndlaA Mver.County Flom
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or n the •County Commission Chambers
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- urity Adminflgtraffon.Building, located a# If
tisement for publication in the said newspaper. eetr Vero Beach Florida da 01;luesd
5th Strptember,2,188$;40:10A M, „F
he Board }of a Courriy Comm{ssiohere rt
rants rezoning to "a less'intenob zoning disti
Sworn to and subscribed befre mV�his(�day of A.D. than., the district°requested provided itis will
(Business Manager)
meds5 wh-teFrInelr�dertesnldorg+-and 6 den
upon which the appeal la, bas@d
`�.'+✓ ""r (�tR .r--- L �, ,, ,a Indian River 0641
Board;of County Commissfoners
(Clerk of the Circuit urt, Indian River County, Florida) By: -s Dong ScurlockJr
(SEAQ Chairman
ug. 14
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/22/86:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 22, 1986 FILE:of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: RALMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
Robert M. a ting, A APPEAL OF PLANNING &
Planning & Development Director ZONING COMMISSION'S
DENIAL OF THEIR
REQUEST TO REZONE 26.2
ACRES FROM A-1, AGRI-
FROM:CULTURAL DISTRICT, TO
REFERENCES:RS-6, SINGLE-FAMILY
Richard Shearer RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Chief, Long -Range Planning
Ra mar Memo ric
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of September 2, 1986.
17
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Ralmar Associates,- Inc., is requesting to rezone approximately
26.2 acres located on the north side of 16th Street and the east
side of Kings Highway from A-1, Agricultural District, to RS -6,
Single -Family Residential District.
The applicant intends to develop this property for a
single-family detached subdivision.
On July 24, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0
to deny this request. The Commission gave as their reasons for
denial that this area was probably incorrectly designated LD -2 on
the Comprehensive Plan based on the low-density development of
the area and that the proposed zoning would allow higher density
residential development that is not in character with the
neighborhood. The applicants formally appealed this decision on
July 25, 1986.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-_
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-- _
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property contains a citrus grove. North of the;
subject property, across the Main Relief Canal, is
a.. -power
substation, a restaurant, and a single-family house zoned CG,
General Commercial District, and a commercial subdivision being
developed in a CL, Limited Commercial District. East of the
subject property are single-family residences and a citrus grove -
zoned RS -6. South of the subject property, across 16th Street,
is Kingswood Estates, a single-family subdivis-ion_ under
development zoned RS -3, Single -Family Residential District. west
of the subject property, across Kings Highway, are citrus groves
zoned A-1. In addition, the subject property surrounds a
single-family house on three sides.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the
land east of it as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6
units/acre). The land north of the subject property is part of
the 160 acre Kings Highway and State Road 60 Commercial Node.
The land south of the subject property is designated as LD -1,
Low -Density Residential I (up to 3 units/acre). The land west of
the subject property is designated as RR -1, Rural Residential 1
(up to 1 unit/2.5 acres) .
The proposed RS -6 zoning is in conformance with the LD -2 land use
designation and is consistent with the RS -6 zoning to the east of
the subject property.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access to 16th Street, a paved
road classified as a secondary collector street on the
Thoroughfare Plan. Moreover, the subject property has indirect
access to Kings Highway, a paved road classified as an arterial
street on the Thoroughfare Plan. The maximum development of the
subject property under RS=6 zoning could generate up to 917
average annual daily trips (AADT). Both 16th Street and Kings
Highway function at level -of -service "A" and this additional
traffic would not lower this level -of -service.
18
BOOK 65 FnUF 555
SEp 2 1986
Environment
BOOK 65
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
T14 -i l i 4- .. .+
County water is available from the County water main which runs
along the west side of Kings Highway. County wastewater service
will be available if the developer extends a line from the force
main located south of State Road 60 on the west side of Kings
Highway and reserves capacity at the west county subregional
wastewater plant.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning -and Zoning Commission denied this request for the
reasons cited in the Description & Conditions section of this
memorandum. '-The staff respects the Planning and Zoning
Commissions position; however, based on the above analysis,
particularly the facts that the proposed rezoning is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, is consistent with the
RS -6 zoning to the east, the subject property has good access to
the transportation network, and that County utilities are
available, staff recommends approval.
Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning, felt the area
was a unique situation, as far as the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
is concerned, because -it has 4 different land use designations.
He pointed out that the property to the east and to the southeast
has developed at a very low density, generally on lots of 1/2
acre or more.
Chairman Scurlock felt the main concern is that the only
- access to the development will be from 16th Street due to the
canal running to the west and north of the property. He stressed
that 16th Street (Rosewood Road) does narrow down as it
--_-approaches-Kings Highway and that the County did manage to save
the old oak tree that was so close to the road. Although he
realized that the developer does not intend to develop at the
maximum density, he pointed out that the land could be sold after
it is rezoned. It seemed to him that RS -3 would be more
appropriate than RS -6.
Richard Shearer, Chief of Long Range Planning, pointed out
that the developer would only be able to get 4.3 upa even if it
was zoned at RS -6. However, with RS -3 the minimum size of the
house is 1200 square feet of living area, and the minimum under
RS -6 is 750 square feet. He noted that if the RS -6 was granted,
9
19
W
the developer could request a higher density through a PRD
review, which would require another set of public hearings.
Chairman Scurlock asked if it might be possible for the
developer to obtain a permit from the Farms Drainage District to
place a bridge over the.canal to obtain access to the development
from Kings Highway.
Public Works Director Jim Davis could not speak for the
Farms Drainage District, but felt that it would be very difficult
to obtain a permit to place a bridge across the canal at that
point because of its proximity to the existing bridge at 16th
Street, whi.ch is -.too narrow and does -not meet current -
requirements. -
Chairman Scurlock pointed out how difficult it is to see
over the guardrails on those bridges to check for oncoming
traffic before pulling out'on Kings Highway, and Director Davis
stressed that Kings Highway is a: -problem in itself and the County
needs to expand it westward.
Samuel Block, attorney representing Ralmar Associates, Inc.,
the parent company of Ralmar Realty, circulated two color -coded
maps of the area bounded by 43rd Street on the east, K-ings
Highway on the west, SR -60 on the north and 16th Street -to the
south. One map depicts the densities under the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan and the other shows the current zoning districts.
Attorney Block emphasized that the property in this area was
zoned R6 in 1957, long before the Comp Plan was adopted and long
before all the fancy zoning districts were established. When the
Comp Plan was adopted in 1982, the whole area from 43rd Avenue to
Kings Highway, except for the commercial along SR -60, was
designated at LD -2. He felt that 16th Street seems to be a
dividing line between RS -3 on the south and RS -6 to the north.
Referring to the map showing the zoning districts, he noted that
all of the districts are standard, single-family residential
zoning, with the exception of the A-1, which is an agricultural
holding area. Whenever this area comes under review, however,
20
S E P 2 1986
aooK 65 F,r4cr 557
F__ -7
1986 BOOK 6t`5
the recommendation always has been to wait and see how it
develops. Attorney Block explained that when the Comp Plan was
adopted in 1982, this area was in groves and there are 26 acres
still in groves that are being maintained. He pointed out that
there are other undeveloped acres along 16th Street which are
entitled to develop at RS -6 and emphasized that all they are
asking for is the same basic zoning that has been there all
along. Attorney Block concluded by emphasizing that their main
evidence is the two maps which show the same zoning (RS -6) and
land use designation (LD -2) since 1957, and urged the Board to
uphold the appeal and grant the RS -6 zoning.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that when the Comp Plan was
adopted, it created quite a lot of nonconformity in some areas
which they realized would have to be brought into zoning
conformance eventually. He asked staff to explain why some of
the area was left at Agricultural, and Mr. Shearer explained that
staff_ r=ecommended downzoning a lot of property that was in
nonconformance, but did not recommend rezoning to a higher
-.-density any Agricultural property that was still in groves. In
those cases, staff felt it was up to the individual property
owner to apply for rezoning. Basically, they left agricultural
property alone.
Chairman Scurlock believed this is the exact same situation
as the one in Winter Beach, and asked staff why they did not
consider RS -3 for that entire area since the majority of it has
developed at low densities --large homes on large lots.
Mr. Shearer advised that we may want to do that, but we have
to be careful because there is an existing subdivision northeast
of the subject property which has developed at RS -6.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that when a postponement of this
public hearing was discussed during the meeting of August 26th,
he personally felt that we needed to take a better look at the
entire area because there is other undeveloped property along
that road which is currently zoned RS -6. From a legal standpoint
21
he would feel a lot better by addressing the entire area, and he
had asked Director Keating if the County could initiate something
like this, but was told that it was a very large project and
could not be done until January when amendments to the Comp Plan
are considered. However, he still has a problem with RS -6 and
realized that there are other property owners immediately
adjacent to this parcel who do not want RS -6.
Chairman Scurlock wished to see this property zoned at RS -3
and then have a County -initiated request to consider the entire
area for RS -3.
Attorney Vitunac did not see any problem with taking action
on this matter today one way or another, and advised that the
Board can pass a Motion instructing staff to consider a zoning to
be consistent for the entire area.
William Brown, Chairman of the Board of Ralmar Associates,
emphasized that Ralmar has done :everything they can to protect
the quality of life in Indian River County over the years and
they are in favor of controlled growth. Fortunately, the -
ordinances passed by the City of Vero Beach and Indian River
County are very strict and some of the best in Florida-. He
stressed that they are not talking densities, but proper_ zoning.
There is no way they can get 6 upa; they have investigated this
and feel it would be difficult to get even 4 upa. Mr. Brown
noted that Ralmar has built many fine projects of the highest
quality over the last 15 years and plan on developing this
subdivision with medium-sized, beautiful, even elegant,
single-family homes in a park -like atmosphere with many trees.
He realized that talk is cheap, but stressed that the Board
should consider the many quality developments Ralmar has built
over the years and the fact that they always have fulfilled their
promises and more. Mr. Brown believed that if they are not given
RS -6, the result will be spot zoning, and that once you deviate
from the Comp Plan, it all falls apart. Mr. Brown emphasized
22
L2
Sr�21986
Boa 6 F't,,c 559
SEP 2 1986 BOOK 6,5 Pk -,F560
that Ralmar does not want special treatment; they just want the
same zoning that other parcels have in that area -- RS -6.
Commissioner Wodtke asked Mr. Brown why Ralmar has a problem
with RS -3 when it is practically impossible to get 4 upa with the
RS -6, and Mr. Brown explained that they had their architect work
with the restrictions of the RS -6 and he worked it out to just
under 4 upa. He stressed that this is not an economical problem
with them; it is a matter of concept, and under the RS -3 they
could not follow that concept. They want the latitude to put on
it what they want to, and he stressed that these are not attached
dwellings nor is it a zero lot line development. They want to
build residences for people who want to live in a single-family
home without a large yard to keep up, and all maintenance would
be done by the association, which would be run by the members.
They plan on building -homes of 1555 square feet of living space
with a double garage plus approximately 1600 sq, ft. of
courtyard.
Commissioner Bird felt that the proposed development is very
d ose to RS -3 to accommodate what the other residents in the area
= n can feel comfortable with. Mr. Brown agreed it is close to RS -3
and that was one of the reasons they asked for the postponement
so that they could have time to talk with the residents to tell
--them what they are planning and arrive at some sort of a
solution.
Chairman Scurlock noted that if the RS -3 is granted today,
Ralmar still has the option of pursuing higher densities through
a PRD, but Mr. Brown felt that people in the area still would be
opposed to anything they want to do and Ralmar does not want to
Put themselves in that position.
Miles Mank stated that he and -his wife, Shirley, have lived
on 16th Street for years, and they feel RS -6 would establish a
precedent for higher densities on other properties in the area
that are still undeveloped, and would depreciate the values of
the existing developed property. He was very concerned about the
23
impact of the increased traffic and the safety of the children
along that narrow road. He stressed that if more than 3 upa are
allowed, there will be a great demand on the resources in that
area. Mr. Mank urged the Board to preserve the dignity and
beauty of this street by limiting the density to 3 upa.
George Beuttell, 5480 16th Street, also wished to have the
dignity and beauty of the area preserved. He emphasized that if
this parcel is allowed to develop to its maximum limit at 6 upa,
then Dr. Ames would have to be allowed that same density on the
25 acres that he owns immediately to the east. In addition, Mr.
Beuttell noted that his mother's 25 -acre parcel -is is a little_
further east and with Ralmar's 25 acres, there would be approxi-
mately 85 acres that would be able to develop at RS -6. He urged
the Board to consider the impact that would result and limit the
density to 3 upa.
Jim Sharp, 1616 51st Court,_ pointed out that the canal
running in back of this area to the north provides a natural
buffer to the commercial property along SR -60. The area is
unique in that access is very, very limited. He noted that when
he built his home he had to appear before this Commission to get
permission to build on a lot that was less than one acre_, and now
we are talking about 6 upa. Mr. Sharp emphasized that the area
has developed at 1 or 2 units to an acre, with the exception of
one subdivision in back of Winn Dixie.
Dr. Donald Ames, owner of 25 acres east of the subject
property, felt that the parcel in question should not be allowed
to develop at 6 upa because of the character of the neighborhood,
and stated that although his property has RS -6 zoning, he does
not intend to develop it at those densities.
Chairman Scurlock entered into the record a petition which
has been signed by approximately 72 residents and owners who are
opposed to the RS -6 zoning.
PETITIONS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
24
E 2 1986 BOOR 65 561
FF'__
SES
2 1966
Boa
65
P,,,IJE 552
Dr.
R. H. Vinson stated that he lives in the middle
of
the
area being rezoned and never envisioned their property would go
from A-1 to RS -6. He pointed out that there was never any
discussion about that possibility during the public hearings on
the adoption of the Comp Plan. He further stressed that the
people in the area are not really enthusiastic about the 3 upa
development across the street from the parcel in question. He
believed that RS -1 would be more in keeping with the
neighborhood:
Augusta Vinson, asked those people to stand who are in
opposition to the RS -6 zoning, and practically everyone in
attendance stood up.
Ed_Schlitt wished to have the following letter he sent in
made a part of the record: 13
ITL -10
ex= M
321 -21ST STREET, P.O. BOX 6007, VEI
August 6, 1986
Mr. Richard Bird
Indian River County Commiss
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
REALTORS
$I IDA
32961-6007 PHONE (305) 567-1181
AUG 1986 L
Q
Co:,:....�s ��.�•s
BQM1RDEOlftdtlL �
At�..r�t;;,t
CCM.MISSIONERS
Commuriiz Dev,
Utilities
Finance
Dear Dick: Other
As you know, we head up a group that is in the process of developing Kingswood
Estates, which is located on the south side of Rosewood Blvd. and Kings Highway.
Recently, there was a Planning & Zoning hearing in which Ralmar discussed the
possibility of a - development using zero lot line concept that would involve between
4 and 5 units per acre. This type of development would meet the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan which apparently had been amended in 1985 to allow those properties
north of Rosewood Blvd. to have a higher density because water and sewer would
be available to that area.
As you know, that particular area between 43rd Avenue and Kings Highway on both
sides of Rosewood Blvd., has probably the highest value per residence as any of
the properties on the west side of the Indian River. Many estate homes are on
25
M
M
L_ SEP
1 to. 5 acres of land, and because of the trend that had been set a number of years
ago and the high quality of the area, is the reason we located Kingswood Estates
in this area. I do not know why the property owners in this area were not alert
to the fact that a substantially higher density could be developed in those parcels
on the north side which actually fall among some of the most attractive homes in
the entire area.
As a result of the property owners expressing their concerns, Planning & Zoning
unanimously (4-0) rejected the proposal as not being in keeping with the other
properties along that street.
Mr. Brown stopped by to see me a few days before the Planning & Zoning meeting
and I must say that he has a good development concept and the type of project that
would be successful, but I frankly believe that he is trying to put it in the wrong
location. We at Kingswood now have about $1,800,000 invested between the cash
that we had put up, plus the mortgage that we have signed, and we have potential
buyers that contemplate building their own homes in there, and have held up waiting
what final action would be taken.
The property owner east of our land is Dr. Ames, and he also owns land to the east
of the tract in question. He has indicated that it is his plan to develop his
property into 1 acre estates and at the Planning & Zoning meeting he would be re-
questing a change in zoning to the 1 unit per acre concept.
Any consideration you can give us in this very important matter will be appreci-
ated by us and the property owners in the area in preserving the residential
values and the image of "a somthing special" street.
Sincere.- r's, -
fdaar-l. Schlitt -
Mr. Schlitt expressed his admiration for Ralmar Associates
and noted that if this was a PRD hearing where we knew exactly
what would be going on that property, he probably would be
supporting it rather than encouraging the Board to take the views
of the other residents in the area. Although he does not reside
in the area, he does have investors who have invested a
substantial amount of money in this area. When they developed
Kingswood Estates, their original thought was to have more lots
at a lower price, but after talking to Dr. Ames and other
residents in the area, they decided to go with 50 lots on 40
acres at a higher price. Mr. Schlitt hoped that the Board would
take all of this into consideration.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed
the Public Hearing.
26
BOOK 6 pnr.- 563
rp'--SEP 2
1966r
BOOK 65
f'''urr.564
Director Keating explained that
if the Board rezoned
it to
RS -3, they could not exceed 3 upa even if they went through a PRD
hearing; but they would have the ability to modify lot sizes,
frontages, setbacks, etc. by working with staff and coming back
in public hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and
the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Wodtke understood that during that process, the
surrounding neighbors would have an opportunity to come in and
express their feelings.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, that the Board adopt Ordinance
86-64, providing for the rezoning of 26.235 acres from
A-1, Agricultural District, to RS -3, Single -Family
Residential -District.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bowman pointed out that there
could be as many as 250 houses built on small lots in that area
- i -f the remaining properties develop at RS -6, and preferred to see
only 1.25 upa like Kingswood Estates.
Commissioner Bird asked if the applicant still preferred
additional time to work with the surrounding property owners
based on the information just presented, but Attorney Block
stated that they wished for a decision from the Board this
morning.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wodtke, by a 4-1 vote, Commissioner
Bowman dissenting, the Board directed staff to proceed
with the consideration of rezoning the property between
43rd Avenue and the east boundary of the subject
property to make it consistent in this area.
27
r
ORDINANCE NO. 86-64
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:
All that part of the southwest j of the southwest $ of
Section 4, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, lying south of
the Main Canal, as shown by unnumbered tract marked
"Copeland" on plat of Indian River Farms recorded on page 25
of Plat Book 2, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida;
LESS AND EXCEPT the parcel described as follows; From the
southwest corner. of Section 4, Township 33 south, Range 39
East, Indian River County, Florida, run east along the south
line of Section 4 a distance of 80 feet to a point on the
east right-of-way line of Lateral "B" right-of-way; thence
continues east along the same line a distance of 288 feet to
the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; thence
run north 280 feet; thence run east 319 feet; thence run
south 280 feet; thence run west 319 feet to the Point of
Beginning; and
LESS AND EXCEPT the west 80 feet thereof being the
right-of-way for Lateral "B" Canal; and,
: LESS AND EXCEPT the south 30 feet thereof being the
right-of-way for Rosewood Road (16th Street);
Said land now lying and being in Indian River County,
Florida, and containing 26.235 acres, more or less.
Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District, to RS -3,
Single -Family Residential District.
27a
�� 600K ID F'r1GE
ORDINANCE NO. 86-64
BOOK
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
5 F}vuF 566 7
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 2nd day
of September, 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By ZZ
Don C. Scurlock, Jr. LOhairman
ATTEST BY:ILL
FRE A WRIGHT, Cle
APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR FIRST INN VERO
MOTEL/RESTAURANT PROJECT
The Board reviewed the following memo.dated 8/21/86:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: August 21, 1986 FILE:
the -Board of County Commissioners
--- DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: -
- - APPEAL BY REINHOLD AND
,1 GERTRUDE WEIMAN OF
Robert M. Keat' g,pycp SUBJECT: CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN
Planning & Dev lopm6ht Director APPROVAL FOR FIRST INN
VERO MOTEL/RESTAURANT
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller MKM PROJECT
--Chief, Current Development
FROM: David C. Nearing REFERENCES: First Inn
Staff Planner 0- ey DAVEII
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of September 2, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On July 24, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a
major site plan application submitted by Carter Associates on
behalf of Reinhold_ and Gertrude Weiman, owners. The approved site
plan proposed the construction of a 31 unit motel and freestanding
restaurant. The site location is at 8799 S.R. 60, 600 feet east
of 90th Avenue, with the Holiday Inn West abutting to the east and
a 7-11 abutting to the west.
The proposed project is located on a 2.08 acre parcel of property
zoned CG, General Commercial. The site would be accessed by a 24
wide two-way drive off of S.R. 60. The site design provides
28
for 71 off-street parking spaces, exceeding the minimum required
number of spaces. The drainage plan, landscape plan, and proposed
utilities design all meet County standards and have been approved.
The applicant -has agreed to install a 4 ft. wide public sidewalk,
grant a 22 ft. wide marginal access easement, and install the
majority of the marginal access road with the remainder of the
road to be escrowed. The surrounding land uses consist of the
Holiday Inn Motel to the east, a 7-11 store to the west, a mobile
home park to the south and the Days Inn Motel to the north, across
S.R. 60.
On August 7, 1986, Carter Associates, Inc. on behalf of their
clients formally appealed several conditions attached to the
Planning and Zoning Commission's approval of the First Inn Vero
site plan. The appealed conditions concern the median cut and
other required traffic improvements in front of the project.
Specifically, the appeal concerned conditions l.a. and 2.c.
These conditions being:
A
1. Prior to release of the site plan, the applicant shall:
a. agree to construct the S.R. 60 median improvements
recommended by the traffic engineer and- submit plans -
showing the closing of the 88th Avenue median cut and
the installation of a left -turn lane in" the S.R. 60
median to service the Holiday Inn, the 7-11, and the
proposed site. These plans shall conform to the design
standards and criteria and be approved by the FDOT and
the County Public Works Department. This condition
shall be subject to FDOT approval of the project.
2. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy;- the
applicant shall:
C. construct a westbound left -turn lane in the =S.R. 60
median to service the site, and close the 88th Avenue
median cut. All construction shall -meet Coun_t_y and FDOT
design specifications.
The applicants' contention is that, because this project does not
exceed the 1,000 annual daily trips which would automatically
require the noted off-site improvements but only adds to the
existing traffic at this point of S.R. 60, the full cost of the
improvements should not be assessed to this project.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
As per County Code, whenever a project is expected to attract an
annual average of more than 1000 daily trips or 60 trips during
peak hours of operation on an annual average basis, the project
shall provide such off site improvements such as acceleration,
deceleration, and turning lanes as needed [Sec. 23.3(D)(4)(a)].
The figures used to compute annual average daily and peak hour
trip rates for a proposed use are found in a manual released by
the the National Transportation Research Board located in
Washington, D.C. The averages used are based on national surveys
of traffic generated/attracted by specific uses.
In reviewing this site plan staff examined the traffic impact of
this project on the existing median design, both individually and
in combination with the existing uses. Though it was. found that
tis project did not attract 1,000 trips by itself, when combined
with the existing motel and convenience store, the total trips
greatly exceed 1,000. Further analysis of the median design at
this location revealed several additional problems. These are:
1. no deceleration lane for westbound left -turn traffic on a 55
mph highway;
2. the current storage area for westbound vehicles wishing to
make left --turns is limited to one vehicle;
29
SEP 2 Boor 65 F,,4,c 567
L_
' e
P( 6P'�GE ��8
SSP � ���� BOO
3. the offset Holiday Inn driveway in relation to the 88th
Avenue median cut east of the site promotes westbound traffic
cutting across the eastbound lane in the wrong direction to
gain access; and
4. the current eastbound left -turn deceleration and storage lane
for 88th Avenue is substandard in size.
This analysis caused staff to conclude that adding additional
traffic volume to an already bad situation would only cause it to
worsen. Currently, it is estimated that the Holiday Inn motel and...
7-11 store are attracting a total of 1,607 annual average daily
trips. The First Inn Vero motel and restaurant are expected to
attract a total of 612 additional annual average daily trips,
bringing the expected total of trips to 2,219.
The staff recommended and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
agreed that the subject site plan should not be approved without
provisions for the necessary traffic improvements to be made prior
to CO. Several alternatives for financing the improvements were
also suggested by staff.
One alternative suggested by the staff was for the applicant to
pursue County initiation of a forced petition, whereby the cost of
the median improvements would be shared by all the businesses
involved. Such a petition would necessitate County Commission
action authorizing assessment of benefitting properties to pay for
the improvements. In this way, the improvements could be
constructed, safety could be enhanced, and each benefitting
property_would pay its share. This course of action was supported
by the Planning and Zoning Commission in their motion of approval
for this project:
On MOTION by Ben Baily, SECONDED by Ruth Stanbridge, the
Commission unanimously approved the Weiman request for
site -plan approval for a 31 unit motel and free-standing
restaurant at 8799 20th Street with the conditions as
outlined in the memorandum and also recommend to the
Board of County Commissioners that the idea of a "forced
petition" be looked at that will give relief to First
Inn Vero, Inc. in that they are a part of this problem
and not the entire problem. (Minutes of the July 24, '
1986 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting).
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board
of County Commissioners deny the appeal of Carter Associates, Inc.
on behalf of*Reinhold and Gettrude Weiman, and affirm the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Commission in approving the subject
--_site plan with the conditions attached including l.a., and 2.c.
The staff also recommends that the Board consider initiatinga
forced, assessment for benefitting properties to finance the
necessary median and roadway improvements in the vicinity of the
subject property.
Dean Luethje of Carter Associates spoke in favor of a forced
special assessment, and Public Works Director Jim Davis preferred
that the design of the median cut be the responsibility of the
developer, with the County staff simply doing the assessment roll
and holding the public hearing. This would be a 100% assessment
with no County contribution.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the median improvements still
would have to be approved by County staff.
30
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously denied
the appeal by Reinhold and Gertrude Weiman of
conditions of site plan for First Inn Vero Motel/
Restaurant Project; and instructed staff to arrange
for the design of the median strips by the developer;
and to advertise for a public hearing for a forced
assessment roll.
Discussion ensued regarding the median cuts on SR -60, and
Commissioner Lyons advised that the Transportation Planning
Committee is having second thoughts about their recommendation on z
eliminating the median at 44th Avenue and -SR -60, and Director
Davis said that staff is looking at all the median cuts on SR -60.
DER/ARMY CORPS/DNR PERMIT APPLICATIONS - GRAND HARBOR
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/22/86:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 22, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County - '
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R., ARMY CORPS AND
SUBJECT:
D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICATION
- -
Robert M. Kea ng,/"ICP _
Planning & Develo�ment Director
FROM:Art Challacombe REFERENCES: Figgie Prop.
Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ROLAND/TM-86-588
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their j
regular meeting of September 2, 1986.
U.S. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS PERMIT
APPLICATION NO. 851PK-20563
APPLICANT-: The Schaub Corporation (Grand Harbor)
Beachland Financial Center
Suite 201
660 Beachland Drive
Vero Beach, FL 32963-4212
WATERWAY & LOCATION: The project is located on -the West bank of
the Indian River on U.S. 1 between 45th and 53rd Streets in
Sections 13, 23 and 24, Township 32 South, Range 39 East,
approximately 3 miles north of Vero Beach, Indian River County,
Florida.
31 BOOK 6 5 m 599
SEP lg
SEP 2 1936 BOOK 6U F�'. E 5 70
WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant proposes to construct a multi -
fa mily residential community covering approximately 854 acres
with 3000 dwelling units. The project also contains a com-
mercial marina, an office park, a shopping center and golf and
tennis facilities. Approximately 127,131 cubic yards of dredge
material, taken from lakes to be created on existing uplands,
will be placed over approximately 39.4 acres of jurisdictional
wetlands. As mitigation, a total of 114.0 acres of jurisdic
tional wetlands will be created from existing uplands and 5.2
acres of existing wetlands will be rehabilitated. An existing
marina basin and entrance channel will be modified for com-
mercial use. The marina will provide docking for a maximum of
144 boats, of which one half will be restricted to sailboats.
The project site .is located in critical habitat for the West
Indian Manatee. The Corps of Engineers consulted with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the impacts this project
may have on -the species. It has been determined that, with the
inclusion of conditions for the protection of the manatee, the
project, if issued, will not jeopardize the continued existence
of the species. These conditions include (but are not limited
to) educational information, speed restrictions and studies to
determine the abundance and distribution of manatees.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The Grand Harbor estuarine plan has
undergone numerous revisions since the Board of County Commis-
sioners approved the Grand Harbor DRI development order on
October 23, 1985. In the process of development order
compliance, the applicant has removed the previously depicted
marina basins, limiting the development to include only the
existing basin for marina purposes. In addition, the applicant
has increased the amount of "high" marsh that will be preserved
or created on site and has prepared a mosquito management plan
for the proposed wetland system. Planning staff, as well as the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and the Governor's
Technical Subcommittee on Managed Salt Marshes is currently
reviewing all documents -and plans relating to the estuarine
-_-plan.
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 and
Policies for the Treasure Coast Region
- The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan
- The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
- Chapter 16Q-20, Florida Administrative Code
In addition to the above referenced documents planning staff is
reviewing this application as it relates to the Grand Harbor DRI
development order approved by the Board of County Commissioners
on October 23, 1985 (Resolution 85-128).
Condition number 8(d), Habitat, Vegetation and Wildlife, states
that the estuarine system must meet the following performance
standards:
It (estuarine plan) may include proposals to excavate or
fill any wetlands designated as exempted wetlands in
Exhibit -9 of this report. Excavation or fill proposals in
other wetlands (non-exempt wetlands) shall be limited to
those which are necessary to provide for the following
management objectives:
KVA
I
II
III
IV
V
restoration of tidal exchange between marsh habitat
and the Indian River Lagoon;
restoration of mosquito control functions and public
health values;
restoration of water quality;
development of adequate nursery habitat for fish; and
provisions for adequate flushing.
Currently, the plan contains approximately ten acres of
non-exempt wetlands proposed to be filled for golf course holes
and commercial areas. The applicant proposes mitigation by
restoring or creating an equal or greater amount of wetlands in
the exempt wetlands and upland areas. This proposal, however,
is not consistent with the adopted development order and there-
fore, requires that the development order be amended by the
Board of County Commissioners.
In reviewing the Corps application, staff has also found that
the latest estuarine plan proposal by the developer does not
coincide with the drawings on the Corps permit application,
therefore, it is difficult to adequately review this particular. --
application submittal. It is staff's understanding that the =
Corps will forward the most current plans to all the reviewing
agencies in the near future.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners autho - -
rize staff to forward the following comments regarding this -
project to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
1) The public notice sent to Indian River County on August.15,
1986 does not coincide with the latest plans submitted to
the County by the applicant. Indian River County will
forward its comments and recommendations upon receipt of
finalized drawings by the applicant.
2) The Grand Harbor project is currently under- review by
Indian River County and the Treasure Coast Regional Plan-
ning Council as a development of regional impact with
approval subject to conditions established in its develop-
ment order (Resolution 85-128). Based upon the application
drawings, the developer must obtain an amendment to the
development order from the County and Regional Planning
Council as well as approval of the final estuarine plan.
Chairman Scurlock asked why the Board was even considering
this plan since.it appears it must be modified, and Art
Challacombe, Chief of Environmental Planning, explained that he
wants the Army Corps to understand that we have our own
restrictions in the form of a Planned Residential Development
review and that the project is also under review by the Treasure
Coast Regional Council. Further, he wanted to reintroduce this
matter to the Board because the applic-atat is working towards
getting a number of approvals to the Planning & Zoning Commission
on September 25th before bringing them to this Board in October.
33
L- SEP 2 1906 BOOK 65 FACE 571
FF'_
BOOP( 65 PAGE 572
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board
authorize staff to forward the comments as set out
in the above memo to the DER.
Under discussion, Commissioner Lyons wanted to be sure that
this development does not get away from us as it seems to be
going into different directions at once. He believed we must
make sure that the site plan does not come in for approval before
all the other approvals have been obtained.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION RE GIFFORD COMMUNITY CENTER
Chairman Scurlock reported that School Board Superintendent
James Burns has said that there are no strings attached to the
grant monies available to build the community center, and that
_after the School Board builds the center, they will turn the keys
over to the County, and it will be up to us to own, operate, and
maintain it.
Assistant County Attorney Bruce Barkett advised that the
specific appropriation in the bill signed by the Governor states
that these PECO funds are to be used by the School Board of
Indian River County for a capital outlay at Gifford High School.
Not knowing what that meant, he wrote to Russ Peterson, the
attorney for the School Board, and asked him some particular
questions, but has not received any answers as yet. He
emphasized that traditionally PECO funds are used or designated
for high schools and never used for community centers.
Chairman Scurlock did not intend to vote for acceptance of
the building, since the County is not looking to be in the
community center business.
34
M r M
Commissioner Bowman realized that we can certainly use
additional educational facilities in this county, but did not
feel that a community center is up to the the County Commission.
Attorney Barkett stated that when Indian River Shores
donated the property to the County, they stipulated that it was
to be used for a community center within 3-4 years. Because of
that, we can control it and structure the lease any way we want
to.
Commissioner Bird noted that he has been on vacation since
he was appointed liaison on this matter and hasn't had a chance
to find out what.requirements are tied to using PECO funds to
build this structure. `-
Chairman Scurlock wanted to tell the School Board right up
front that we want them to own it, operate it, and maintain it,
but that if we can be of some assistance, then we will consider
it at that time.
Commissioner Bird believed that sometimes we have to be a
little flexible because there are some areas of the county where
the needs are different. He noted this will be brought back to
the Board before any commitment is made on accepting the funds to
build this community building. These people have had a -dream for
years about having this community center, and if there is a
possibility of receiving $250,000 in State funds, he felt that we
must pursue that and see if we can live with that.
Chairman Scurlock just did not want the dream to turn into a
nightmare, and Commissioner Lyons believed that we are going to
be handed a mickey by the School Board and did not find it very
palatable.
Discussion ensued regarding having the building deeded
directly to the Gifford Community or leasing it to them on a 99
year lease, and Attorney Barkett advised that since we own the
land, they cannot build anything without obtaining a building
permit.
35
BOOK P�gGEe�
SEP 2 1986 BOOK b 5FB,cE5 s
Commissioner Lyons questioned that also because it seems
they go right ahead and build schools without site plan approval.
Attorney Barkett stated he would be glad to take that one to
court.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, Commissioners Wodtke and Bird
dissenting, the Board by a 3-2 vote authorized the
Chairman to communicate with the School Board and
indicate that we want to know particulars about what
they intend to do with the property and building
before we authorize them to place a building there.
The Board indicated their willingness for Commissioner Bird
to continue to act as -liaison on this matter and bring
information back to the Board.
MANGROVE ALTERATION VIOLATION - VISTA ROYALE
- The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/25/86:
TO: The Honorable MembersDATE: August 25, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
SUBJECT: MANGROVE ALTERATION
Robert M. Kea i g, P VIOLATION: VISTA ROYALE
Planning & Dev lopm�,c',ft Director CV -86-08-615
THROUGH: Art Chall c� ombe
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois R0 REFERENCES:
Staff Planner, Environmental Planning Section
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on September 2, 1986.
DESCRIPTION &-CONDITIONS:
On August 15, 1986, County staff observed that one (1) black
mangrove and five (5) red mangroves had been cut or killed prior
to the issuance of a mangrove alteration permit. The location at
which this occurred is the Lakeview Clubhouse within the Vista
Royale residential development, on Woodland Drive, Section 19,
Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida.
36
On August 15, 1986, staff met with Mr. Don McNeil, General Manager
for Vista Royale. He explained that the mangroves were damaged in
their (Vista Royale .Associates) effort to stabilize a drainage
canal embankment, which was eroding to a point of potential damage
to a swimming pool located behind the Lakeview Clubhouse. He
indicated that he was not aware that a mangrove alteration permit
was required. Mr. McNeil also stated that he would obtain cord -
grass (Spartina patens) and approximately thirty (30) red man-
groves (Riz02hora mangle) from Otto Bundy of Horticultural
Systems, Inc., to revegetate the embankment. An inspection of the
site on August 21, 1986, revealed that, in fact, the embankment
was being revegetated, as Mr. McNeil had indicated.
If Vista Royale Associates had applied for a mangrove alteration
permit prior to the damaging and/or destruction of the six, (6)
mangroves., it is staff's position that a permit would not have
been issued; stabilization of the east canal embankment could have
been performed without necessitating alteration of the six (6)
mangroves (which were located on the west bank of the canal).
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
Section 23#-6(a), Tree Protection, of the Code of Laws and Ordi-_ _
nances of Indian River County, Flor-ida prohibits the performance
of any mangrove alteration unless a permit has first been issued
by the County. The ordinance further specifies that a violation
of this provision shall be punishable upon conviction by a fine
not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) for each tree or by
imprisonment in the County jail for up to sixty (60) days, or
both. -
Based upon the number of mangroves that have been illegally-, cut,
the property owner faces a maximum monetary fine of $3,000
dollars. In effectuating a settlement, the Board of County
Commissioners has the ability to consider any voluntary payment
and/or restoration offer from the owner as restitution.
STAFF RECOMDIENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider
obtaining a voluntary payment of $3,000 dollars, in addition to
completed restoration of the area by the property owner- In the
event that any such agreement is not forth -coming, staff recom-
mends that the Board of County Commissioners grant staff the
authorization to pursue available remedies in County Court.
Commissioner Bowman noted that the mangroves that were
destroyed and damaged were not even on the same bank of the canal
that was being stabilized.
Mary Kennelly, President of the Vista Royale Association,
Inc., pointed out that this is the first time they have been in
violation on any of the improvements, and it comes as sort of a
shock to them.
Don McNeil, General Manager of Vista Royale, presented a
site plan showing the location of the canal and why it was
necessary to prop up the concrete around the pool area. In their
37
L_ SEP 2 1986 BOOK 65 1'}AGE 5 753
BOOK 6 F,qr
efforts to stabilize the area, the equipment went off into the
culvert area and this is when the damage occurred. He passed out
a blown -up aerial view of the area and stated that this damage
was not intentional. The need for a permit was not necessary
because their intention was not to go anywhere near the
mangroves. He admitted that they did cut off the limb of the
black mangrove because it hung over the water, but they did treat
the cut afterwards.
Art Challacombe, Chief of Environmental Planning, believed
that 5 red mangroves were broken to a point where they will not
survive; however, he felt the black mangroves will survive.
Mr. McNeil stated they would be glad to add to the number of
mangroves.being replaced, and Chairman Scurlock could not see
fining someone for damage due to an accident.
MOTION�WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board accept the
mitigation and ask for additional mitigation and
to insure their growth for 5 years.
Under discussion, Mr. Challacombe confirmed that it would
not take that much of staff's time to monitor the mitigation and
the maintenance.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
PRESENTATION ON COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCHING & THE CAD CONSORTIUM
The Board reviewed the following brochure pages:
38
r � r
CAD Consortium Projected Time Line
Start to Develop Fire Module MDT Module
Contracts Programming Specifications Completed Completed
Signed — Start to Develop April '86 April '87 July '87 Aug. '87
I I I I I Boa.
Feb. B6 Start Detailed
System Design
March '86
The
Bottom
Line
1. What You Get
The CAD Consortium is going to
produce a tried CAD system that:
■ Will operate on three different
families of computers —
AT&T,1�1 Data GeneralO and
DEC.@
■ Is designed for and by Police.
Fire and EMS personnel and
managers.
■ Will have continued support by
members of the CAD Consor-
tium — as each agency, makes
an improvement it will be
shared with other members at
no cost.
■ Will use a relational database
— Oracle@
s Is the best ever written.
Z. How Much It Costs
There will be a maximum ex-
pense for the development of the
CAD system. Each member of
the Consortium will pay an equal
share. For example, if the total
development cost is $600,000
with 20 members, each member
pays $30.000 — a benefit of joint
cooperation.
The potential exists to license the
final product to other agencies
who are not members of the Con-
sortium. Fees charged for licens-
ing to nonmembers could pay
back the original cost.
There are many reasons why Po-
lice, Fire and Emergency Medical
Service agencies should consider
CAD. Simply stated, it runs on a
computer system that is affordable,
manageable and easy to use,
regardless of any agency's size. It
also allows specific benefits to be
derived:
Mttgaated
TThose aren't railroad tracks above—
they are a common means of
moving a complaint card from a call
I I
Police Module EMS Module
Completed Completed
Feb. '87 June '87
Test
Period
t6 mus.I
CA® Consortium
Executive Committee
JULIUS TURNER SANFORD SMITH MARK G. MARTORANO
Project Director President Chairman of Review
314-889-2826 919-373-2478 -12-255-935
How to Get Involved
CALL OR CALL.
Mr. Mark G. Martoranu Mr. Jack Rupert, Director
Assis4uu Chid' ul Administr;cion Department of Public Satcty
City of Pittsburgh lN.coming County. Pennsyl%ama
Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania Williamsport. Pcnnsyhania
412-255-2935 717-327-2-47
Call lNow! !
A PARTIAL 1IENIBERSHIP LISTING INCLUDES:
• Alachua County,' Floridd • lNeoniing County. Pennsvlyani;i
• Chester County. Pennsylvania • Minneapolis. Minnesota
• Denver, Colorado • Pittsburgh. Pcnnsyhania=
• Greensbtxo, North Carolina •-St: Louis Countv.Ali..suur_i_
• Hamilton County. Tennessee • Topeka, Kansas
• Volusia County. Florida
Why CA®?
■ Faster call processing and dis-
patching
■ Eliminates paperwork
■ Provides the information
needed to make decisions at a
glance
■ Eliminates antiquated call and
unit status systems (The
pigeon -hole method)
How it works
taker to a dispatcher. They are
symbolic of the manual and mechanical
dispatching systems throughout the
U.S. today.
CAD revolutionized call processing and
dispatching. Based on the streets and
addresses in a city, the call taker types
the needed information into a terminal
as the caller provides it.
The information is then electronically
transferred to the screen of the
dispatcher along with the ussignment of
the appropriate police unit or fire
station or ambulance, plus pre -selected
alternate units. The current status of all
39
a Encourages a clean, quiet and
professional looking dispatch
area -
■ Provides built-in training
facilities
■ Makes management informa-
tion available immediately —
not just at the end of a month
■ Saves you money
calls and units is displayed. A record
of each event is electronically created
in the computerized files.
BOOK 5 FAH 577
SEp 2 1966
BOOK 65 ;;'.,_ 5 9
Special CAD Consortium Design Features
The CAD system developed by Consortium members not only includes all
standard features of the available top-of-the-line vendor CAD systems, but
also includes the fi lowing special features:
i ■ Police, Fire, EMS Call ■ Redundant System Capabilities
Processing Capabilities
■ On -Line Help
■ Flexible Event Data Entry
■ Operates on a Family of Coni-
■ MDT Interfacing paters from 3 Vendors
■ 911 (ANI/ALI) and Alarm ■ 5th Generation Software
Interfaces
is Multiple State and Local Coin -
8 Dual Display Work Areas puter System Interlaces
Is User Defined Management Reports
CAD CONSORTIUM
(.AU FUN(. IIt A 1l
DLs1(A 'MU IN Ana w
• EMS
• EIRE
• POLICE
Completed dt atadahle lis a lIl daY ret iew
This is What Governmental and
Public safety Agency Leaders are saying
The Honorable Gene McNary,
St. Louis County Executive,
states, "The Consortium's purpose
is to produce a superior CAD
product (at a minimal cost) that can be shared with
any public safety agency. Our County Police
Dlipartment has banded together with Police, Fire and
Emergency Medical agencies from across the nation to
share expertise and resources, and jointly develop the
new computer programs required to successfully
accomplish this goal:'
G. H. Kleinknei
Superintendent,
St. Louis County Police Deparintent,
was the first Public Safety Official
responsible for formally supporting and initiating the
CAD Consortiums many ellims. Colonel Kleinknechi
states, "The Consortium is the vehicle necessary tood
produce effective and efficient delivery of call
processing functions to )1)ur citizens. The collective
and dedicated eftbris of Fire. EMS and Police
professionals have not only served as the Ibundation
for the Consortiums present achievements, but has
,list) proven to he the lint step towards successful,
future results:'
'K
Jahn J. Norton.
Director of Public Salct_v.
City of Pittsburgh.
states, "The CAD Consortium
often public safety agencies a unique oppoirturiaN' to
collectively share knowledge and experience to
produce a product specific to public safety
applications. The Consottium also represents a prudent
approach to the expenditure of tax dollars:'
John Leahy,
Fire Chief, Department of
Public Safety. City of Pittsburgh,
states, "The CAD Consortium
offers fire safety professionals control over their own
destiny. The current CAD system was specifically
designed for police use and modified to handle tire.
The Consortium gives fire professionals the
opportunity to design their own system and aft6rdably
adjust the system to meet the changing needs of the
fire department:'
40
Joseph Nasser,
Director of kimergency
Management l C AIIIIIIIII1Uialion',
Volusia County, Horida. states.
"The loss of public safety grant fund sources,
din)inished federal revenue sharing programs and
I:ailurc of sonic vendors 10 provide continued
maintenance of sone older generation CAD y.Ienvs
have made it virtually impossible for manv local
governments 10 either realize the increased efficiency
of CAD or to modify or expand their existing systems.
The CAD Consortium ot)en the opportunity for these
agencies t) obtain a CAD system at a traction tit the
development cost of vendor-proviCILd systems. Further.
it ensures continued software support, cost elle, tive
expansion (through its modular design), and Mortis
the end user a Choice of hardware."
L—�
F1
Sheriff Tim Dobeck introduced Mark G. Martorano, Assistant
Chief of Administration of the City of Pittsburgh, who gave a
presentation on the abilities of the CAD System. He noted that
there are enough members under signature right now to fund the
project.
Chairman Scurlock asked what our cost would be if we decided
to go with this, and Mr. Martorano stated that it would be
$32,000 -- $2,000 for specifications and $30,000 for the
software, which is the total cost of the software to interface
with the 911 system and the FCIC.
Chairman Scurlock was very impressed with Manatee County's
system, but Sheriff Dobeck stated that even with their
sophisticated system, they are way behind the CAD consortium.
Commissioner Lyons asked why they need an additional GEO
base, and Mr. Martorano explained that because once the call
comes into the Sheriff's office and the call is identified, -the
ball stops there. We need the second computerized stage, which
identifies who will respond.
Commissioner Lyons understood that the consortium wants our
money, but they don't have anything we can look at except various
counties and cities who belong. He felt the question is whether
we want to pay $32,000. He realized that with a membership we
will get a break on vendors hardware, and Mr. Martorano pointed
out that the Sheriff and General Services Director Sonny Dean
visited St. Louis County, Missouri, to see how the system works.
He announced that after October 1st, the membership cost will be
$40,000. He admitted there was some risk, but stressed that very
creditable people are involved in this consortium.
Commissioner Bird asked how we can set up some comparisons
with regard to other software and hardware, and Sheriff Dobeck
advised that they have already dorea lot of it already. They
have been romanced by NCR, AT&T, and IBM, and they are looking at
one to one and a half year's development time. He felt that by
going in this direction, we have the ability to do a lot of the
41
S E P 2
BOOK 65 F'a r. 579
I
FF,- -7
BOOK 65 pAf"
SEP 2 1986
program ourselves and not have to employ an additional number
of people.
The Board requested that more comparison figures be brought
back next week by Sheriff Dobeck, Director Dean, and Data
Processing Manager Don Hylton.
SANDRIDGE GOLF CLUB TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/26/86:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: August 26, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
SUBJECT: SANDRIDGE GOLF COURSE
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICD REFERENCES: Sandridge Golf
Planning & Development DIS•BOB
Director
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of September 2, 1986.
DESCRIPTION &'CONDITIONS:
On August 22, 1986, Acting County Administrator Tommy Thomas
directed the Planning Department to prepare the necessary
information for the Board of County Commissioners to address
several issues relating 'to the Sandridge Golf Course traffic -
impact fee determination at their regular meeting of September
2, 1986. The four issues referenced in the August 22 memo are
as follows: -
(1) Describe procedures followed which resulted in two
different fees for the golf course.
(2) Explain why necessary procedures were not followed in
establishing the proper criteria for golf course
impact fees.
(3) Check with consultants to determine why golf courses
were overlooked and determine how other counties have
addressed impact fee charges for golf courses.
(4) Explain why no procedure was established for charging
impact fees for mining operations.
Prior to addressing each of the above -referenced issues, it is
necessary to review the history of this issue. As depicted on
the attached sequence of events, a number of questions have
arisen since the adoption of the County's fair share traffic
impact fee ordinance. These questions, reflected in memos from
Tommy Thomas to the Planning Department, ranged from whether a
traffic impact fee should apply to the County golf course, how
the fee for the golf course was established, and whether proper
procedures were followed in this matter.
Some of these questions were addressed in -a July 14, 1986 memo
from the planning staff to Mr. Thomas. Supplementing -that memo
and attached to this memo are highlighted copies of excerpts
from the adopted traffic impact fee ordinance, minutes of the
January 8 and January 22, 1986 public hearings on adoption of
42
the traffic impact ordinance, and the adopted administrative
guidelines and procedures for implementing the traffic impact
fee ordinance.
Basically, the attached documentation establishes that all new
development even public entities will have to pay road impact
fees for any increased traffic that necessitates road mprove-
ments (p. 7 January 22, 1986 minutes). The documentation also
clearly defines the responsible entity for determination of the
traffic impact fee whether the determination is based upon the
fee schedule, administrative determination, or independent
calculation, this entity being the Planning & Development
Division (p. 1 Administrative Guidelines for implementation of
the traffic impact fee program). Contrary to a July 31, 1986
memo alleging improper action by the Planning Department by
making an administrative determination without consulting the
Acting County Administrator or the Board of County
Commissioners, the attached documentation clearly supports
staff action (Ordinance p. 15 & 16; Administrative guidelines
p. 1 and 5).
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The four issues referenced in the August 22, 1986 memo are
addressed as follows: -
1) The procedures followed in establishing the golf
course impact fee are outlined in the July 14, 1986
planning staff memo to Tommy Thomas and more specifi-
cally detailed in the attached August 26, 1986 memo
from Richard Shearer to Robert Keating. Basically,
the staff followed the procedure outlined in the,
impact fee ordinance Sections VII. B. and V.C.(a)_-_
(c). In so doing, the staff had to use ITE --trip
generation rates and make interpretations of trip
rates applicable to -this project. From the range of
rates presented in ITE research, the staff chose the
most appropriate rate and applied it.- After further
analysis, the staff reassessed its initial deter-
mination, used a lower rate, -and' reduced its fee
determination.
2) When the impact fee ordinance was being drafted, it
was recognized that not all land development activi-
ties were listed in the fee schedule. This
recognition is reflected in p. 5_ of the January 8,
1986 minutes of the BCC public hearing on traffic
impact fees; in Section VII. B. (1) of the impact fee
ordinance; and on pages 1, 2, and 5 of the admini-
strative procedures for implementing the impact fee
ordinance.
During the development of the traffic impact fee
ordinance, it was decided by the consultant and the
staff to limit the number of land use categories in
the fee schedule. Consequently, no specific rate was
set for golf course uses, other recreational uses,
mining operations, used car lots, drive-in theaters,
and probably a number =of other uses. Recognizing
that all uses could not be incorporated into the fee
schedule, the ordinance made provisions for an
administrative determination for those uses not
specified on the fee schedule.
3) Consultants agreed that golf courses were not listed
on the fee schedule for the reasons listed above.
Other counties address golf course impact fees in a
variety of ways. Some are as follows:
°Orange County - golf courses not listed in fee
schedule; individual assessment required.
43
Sp ^986
BOOK 65 FADE 581
10
S E P 2 1986
BOOK 65 582
°Manatee County - golf courses charged fee based on
number of parking spaces; fee ranges from $152 to
$198 per space.
*Lee County - golf courses not listed in fee
schedule; individual assessment required.
'Monroe County - golf courses not listed in fee
schedule; individual assessment required.
*Martin County - golf courses listed on fee schedule;
fee $900 per hole.
4) No procedure was established for charging impact fees
for mining operations because of the reasons outlined
in number 2 above. In addition, mining is a transi-
ent, not permanent, use of property. Therefore, it
is questionable as to how a mining operation would be
assessed in terms of impact fees.
CONCLUSION:
It is the staff -Is opinion that all applicable procedures were
followed in establishing the Sandridge Golf Course impact fee.
Because the golf course site plan was reviewed prior to the
effective date of the impact fee ordinance, a tentative impact
fee estimate was not provided at that time, compounding the
issue. All staff actions, however, conformed to established
procedures.
The basic facts are that the golf course site plan was approved
after the effective date of the impact fee ordinance; it is a
land development activity generating traffic; and an impact fee
is due. Since there is 4o exemption for public projects in the
impact fee ordinance, the golf course must pay a fee. The fee,
itself, however could be changed if an individual assessment is
submitted justifying different characteristics, use patterns,
trip rates or other characteristics used to develop the fee.
If an individual assessment is submitted, the staff will review
it in accordance with the criteria established in the impact
fee ordinance.
Chairman Scurlock explained that we went with the consultant
that did Palm Beach County's traffic impact fee ordinance because
it had been tested in court and we wanted to have as few bumps as
possible in implementing traffic impact fees. He understood that
Palm Beach County charges an impact fee for all recreational
activities on a per parking space basis, which is approximately
$80, and wondered why we are trying to recreate the wheel when we
could use their approach.
Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that our county is
a little different in that we have 9 road districts and Palm
Beach County has only one. In order to apply the number of
parking spaces as the independent variable, we need to use the
44
impact fee for that particular district, and the Planning
Department has a computer program that can easily do that.
Another option would be to use the number of acres on the golf
course, but that gets into a very gray area.
Commissioner Lyons stressed that we are interested in what
is going over the road, and Director Davis explained that if we
use parking spaces., the traffic generation manual points out the
number of trips generated by each parking space and gives a range
from 1.8 trips per parking space to 5.3 with respect to golf
courses. Staff feels this course would be in the 1.8 category
due to the small clubhouse, and they figure the parking spaces -__-
would be used about twice a day.
Acting Administrator Tommy Thomas asked for an estimation of
the traffic fees based on 1.8 trips per parking space, and
Director Davis felt the fees would be approximately $140 per
parking space and that multiplied by -82 parking spaces would
amount to $11,000-$12,000.
Planning 8 Development Director Robert Keating noted that -
staff would have to run it through the computer model to get the
final figure.
The Commissioners indicated that they could live with these
estimated impacted charges, and Administrator Thomas emphasized
that since these costs were not included in the cost of the golf
course, they will have to come back to the Board for final
approval.
Director Keating advised that staff would have the final
costs at the next meeting.
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE SAVIN MODEL V-35 COPIER
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/2/86:
45 BOOK 65 583
S E P 2 190
SEP 2 198
BOOK 6 5 F,� �,r. S 1 -7
TO: Honorable Board of County
Commissioners
r
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DATE: September 2, 1986 FI LE:
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment to
Purchase Savin Model
V-35 Copier
REFERENCES:
Account Number Account Name Increase Decrease
001-902-516-066.41 Office Furniture Equip. $3,588
001-902-516-035.11 Office Supplies $2,500
001-902-516-034.02 All Travel 1,000
001-902-516-034.64 Maintenance -Equipment 88
EXPLANATION:
Judge Kilbride would like permission to purchase a new Savin Model V-35 copier
to replace his present one which has become a maintenance problem. The copier he
wishes to purchase is through state contract at a cost of $3,950. The County Court
Judges department currently has $362 in the furniture and equipment account and
would like to transfer the remaining .$3,588 from the accounts shown above.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved
the above budget amendment, as recommended by
OMB Director Baird.
PERMISSION TO OBTAIN A QUOTE FROM THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES ON
COUNTY INSURANCE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/2/86:
46
TO: Honorable Board of County
Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
0MB Director
DATE: September 2, 1986
FILE.-
SUBJECT:
ILE:
SUBJECT: Permission to Obtain a Quote
from the Florida League of
Cities on County Insurance
REFERENCES:
The majority of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners insurance
policies expire October 1,.1986. The County's multi -peril, excess liability, public =
officials and employees liability, boiler and machinery, and builder's risk fnsurance-_ -_
on the jail are all purchased through the Arden -Waddell insurance agency. Air. Arden
has informed me in writfng that they will not be providing a renewal proposal for
the above lfsted insurance policies.
I have contacted the Florida League of Cities and they are interested in quoting
all the expired insurance with the exception of the boiler and machinery policy. In-
view of the insurance market, I am requesting permission from the Honorable Board of
County Commissioners to obtain a proposal from the Florida League of Cities as soon
as possible.
The machinery and boiler insurance can still be obtained through the Hartford
Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company, we will just have to go through a
different agent.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized OMB Director Baird to obtain a _
quote from the Florida League of Cities on
County insurance and an additional agent for the
machinery and boiler insurance.
CONTRACT WITH COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized the Chairman to sign the 1986-87 contract
with the Communications Workers of America.
CONTRACT WILL BE PUT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK WHEN
FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
47
SEP M6 BOOP( I5 Fb,rF 58'5
SEP
2 1936
BOOK 65 FA4,�586
DISCUSSION ABOUT SCHOOL BOARD'S
NONCOMPLIANCE IN SUBMITTING
SITE
PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SCHOOLS
Attorney Vitunac requested permission to file suit against
the School Board for their failure to obtain site plan approval
before beginning construction on several new schools. He felt
the issue has to be solved on whether the School Board has to
comply with the requirements of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Although the State has said that all School Boards throughout the
state are trying to cooperate, our School Board has not. The
Planning Department has offered to review the site plan without
charge, offered fast track scheduling, and waived many other
requirements, but we have received absolutely no cooperation.
Litigation is the last resort, because otherwise, we are going to
sit by and watch schools go up without any review by the County
planning staff.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board authorize the
- County Attorney to pursue negotiations with the School
Board, and if it becomes necessary, proceed with
litigation in this matter.
Chairman Scurlock believed the County has done everything we
can -to cooperate with the School Board. He noted that there has
been significant offsite drainage problems at the Thompson
School, along with ingress and egress problems at practically all
of the schools, and felt that there are major impacts on adjacent
property owners which should be under the scrutiny of the County.
Commissioner Bird was concerned because Dr. Burns had
indicated to him that he was willing to sit down and discuss
this. He felt that suing the School Board is Like filing suit
against your sister and would be reluctant to do so.
Ken Evitt, Administrative Assistant of the School Board,
stated that after Attorney Vitunac called the School Board last
48
Friday, he had trouble finding anyone to attend today's meeting.
He emphasized that today is election day, and that their attorney
is ill. He would appreciate the County not voting on this matter
until School Board Chairman Dorothy Talbert arrives, as he
expected her shortly.
Commissioner Lyons felt that there wasn't any reason to hold
up the vote, because the Board is merely saying that the Board of
County Commissioners is in charge of land use in this county and
that the School Board must follow our procedures.
Chairman Scurlock felt that basically the Motion gives us
the ability to go ahead and discuss this, but does indicate to
the School Board that we are serious about this matter.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the law states that School
Boards do not have to pay impact taxes.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION RE COUNTY GOLF COURSE PERSONNEL
Chairman Scurlock explained that he asked for this item to
be placed on today's Agenda because last week, while Commissioner
Bird was on vacation, he learned that an offer had been made to a
golf professional for managing the golf course without the other
Commissioners having seen any resumes or holding any interviews.
Commissioner Bird stated it was his understanding that at a
recent meeting the Board had authorized him to work with staff to
come up with a selection and hire a manager of the golf course,
who would be reporting to the County Administrator. After that
meeting, Personnel worked up a brief job description, advertised
the position, and send out questionnaires to several public golf
courses throughout the state regarding salaries received by
managers and golf professionals. He narrowed the selection down
to three after screening resumes from individuals all over the
country. After extensive interviewing, the final selection for
49
S E P ' `1036 Booz 6 5 Fa:F 58 7
S E P 2 1956 BOOK 65 PDGF 588
the position was that of Bob Komarinetz, who presently lives in
Palm Beach Gardens and has 20 years experience, 11 of which were
with General Electric in managing two of their golf courses. He
is very close to becoming a Master Professional with PGA. AFter
discussing salary, he came up with a recommendation to Personnel
that this individual be paid a base salary of $30,000, in
addition to a percentage of revenues received through green fees,
pro shop sales, and golf lessons. If he had proceeded in a way
that was contrary to the direction that he was given by the
Board, he apologized, but pointed out that he has spent a great
deal of time and effort on this matter and relied on his
experience in the business.
Chairman Scurlock believed all along that the manager of the
golf course would report through the Division head to the County
Administrator just like any other department head, and
Commissioner Bird i-ndicated that might work out.
After lengthy discussion regarding the amount of base salary
and revenues received from sales and lessons, Commissioner Bird
-.-felt it was important to get this person on board as soon as
possible to work with the architect on the final interior design
of the clubhouse, furnishings, carpeting, etc., and work with the
greens superintendent on some decisions that have to be made on
-.the final touches of getting the golf course ready for play. He
emphasized that Mr. Komarinetz' first step will be to sit down
with the greens superintendent and come up with a line item
budget of how they are going to spend the money that we have to
plug into the budget for the next fiscal year. On the other
side, they will come up with a proposed budget of how they are
going to generate the revenue that will be need to meet that
operating budget. In addition, they will write job descriptions
for all personnel at the golf course.
Commissioner Lyons just want to make sure that we have
someone on board who is a good manager and worries about the
s0
books, and Commissioner Bird guaranteed that Mr. Komarinetz is an
excellent bookkeeper.
The Commissioners indicated their agreement to having
Commissioner Bird offer Mr. Komarinetz a base salary of $30,000
plus one-half of the revenues received from golf lessons, and
bring the matter back to the Board for final approval.
REQUEST FROM JUDGE GEIGER FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY OF 4 ADDITIONAL
MODULAR TRAILERS AT THE OLD JAIL
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 8127/86:
S4.eriff
P. O. BOX 608
PHONE 569-6700
Pat Lyons, Indian River
County Commissioner
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3394
Ref: Fast Track meeting
August 26, 1986
Dear Pat:
R•T•��T1 ' DOB ECK • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
VERO I313 M I. FLbRII)A :31961-U(i0 8 =
August 27, 1986 .._ _.-
Judge Geiger, in the Fast Track Committee Meeting on -Tues-
day August 26, 1986, requested that a feasibility study be com-
pleted by Tuesday, September 2, 1986.
This study would be used to deterime if there should be
four (4) more modular trailers added to the existing jail site. <"-
The reason for his request is that the average number of
prisoners for the last week would indicate that Phase I Project
would be at maximum capacity on the opening date.
I feel that the first step would be the approval of the
Commission to fund this project including the necessary staffing. -
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Capt. Bill Baird, Administrator
Indian River County Jail
51
SEP 2 1986 BOOK 589
SEP 2 IS86
BOOK 65 FA,r590
Commissioner Lyons reported that we are over capacity again
at the old Jail, but would recommend that we not add the extra
mobiles at this time because we don't have the kind of prisoners
who could be housed in these minimum -security facilities, plus
the fact that we do not have the personnel to run it. He felt
that we need to wait until the new Jail opens on October 4th;
however, he was concerned that the Jail might not be finished by
that time.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded, and carried, the Board adjourned at 1:10 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
52
/ 1 A4 Z 62
Cha i ll