HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/9/1986Tuesday, December 9, 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,
December 9, 1986, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman;
Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Gary C. Wheeler. Also
present were Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator; Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; L. S.
"Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; Joseph
Baird, OMB Director; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called -the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Eggert led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Scurlock requested the addition of a retroactive
approval of an admission to Holley State Hospital as Item N under
the Consent Agenda. He recommended that in the future the
Chairman be given a blanket authorization to sign these admission
petitions when necessary.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added
the above item to today's Consent Agenda.
BOOK
E
C 9 196
-7
BOOK f' k
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 11/18/86.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 11/18/86, as
written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Wheeler requested that Items C, D 8 G be
removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
A. Renewal Application for a Permit to Carry a Concealed Firearm
The Board reviewed the following memo dated.11/24/86:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 24, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMIT - RENEWAL
FROM: Charles P. Balczun REFERENCES:
County Administrator
The following person has applied through the Clerk's Office for
renewal of a pistol permit:
Brett Graham Wallace
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order.
2
� � r
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the renewal application to carry a concealed firearm
for Brett G. Wallace.
B. Approval of Appointment of Deputy Sheriff
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert,. -SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the appointment of Deputy Sheriff Joseph R. Brown by
Sheriff Dobeck.
C. DER/Army Corps/DNR Permit Application - Anthony A.
Buford, Jr.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/2/86:
TO: The Honorable Members DATEmecember 2, ` 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
��C'� , D . E . R. , ARMY CORPS
SUBJECT: AND D.N.R. PERMIT
Robert M. Keat'ng, P APPLICATIONS
Planning & Development Director
FROM Roland erloip BuforREFERENCES: -TM#87-125
•Staff Planner
Environment Planning Section DIS:IBMIRD
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of December 9, 1986.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION FILE NO.
31-127591-4
- Applicant: Anthony A. Buford, Jr.
C/O 1835 20th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the Indian
River in John's Island Subdivision, Plat 40, adjacent to
Lot 3, Section 13, Township 32 South, Range 39 East,
Indian River County, Florida.- The upland property associa-
ted with the project is on Stingaree Point, located in the
Town of Indian River Shores.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct a
private residential T-shaped dock with a 6' X 40' main
access pier and a 10' X 36' terminal platform (total
square footage: 6001). No sewage pump -out or fueling
facilities are proposed. No dredging or filling will be
performed.
3
BOOK 66 r,�,H 5 u
L��DEG 9 1" 6
r
DEC 0«,
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
BOOK
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
i - The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances
Chapter 16Q-20, Florida Administrative Code
The project as proposed is located within the Town of Indian
River Shores and therefore is not subject to County Code
requirements.
Section 16Q-20.04(5) of the Florida Administrative Code sets
forth specific standards and criteria for private residential
single docks constructed within the Indian River Aquatic
Preserve, among which are the following criteria:
Any main access dock shall be limited to a maximum width
of four (4) feet (Sec. 16Q -20.04(5)(b)(1), F.A.C).
Terminal platform size shall be no more than 160 square
feet (Sec. 16Q-20.04 (5) (b) (6) , F.A.C.) .
Staff have not determined if the project is to be located in
the Indian River Aquatic Preserve or on privately owned bottom -
lands. If the project is located within the Aquatic Preserve,
it does not satisfy the above cited criteria.
The extent to which the submerged bottomlands of the proposed
project area will be impacted has not been determined; the
effect of Indian River development on ecologically valuable
seagrass beds should be considered.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to forward the following comments regarding
this project to the Florida Department of Environmental Regu-
lation:
1) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should coordinate with the D.N.R., to
determine if the project as proposed is located in the
Indian River Aquatic Preserve and therefore subject to
requirements of Chapter 16Q-20, Florida Administrative
Code.
2) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should consider the potential cumu-
lative impacts of dockage projects upon the Florida
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.
4
Commissioner Wheeler wished to have some background on these
applications, and Planning & Development Director Robert Keating
explained that this process involves the Board approving the
forwarding of comments on permit applications to the DER, Army
Corps, and DNR. This particular application is to construct a
dock for a single-family residence located in the Town of Indian
River Shores and, therefore, is not subject -to County code
requirements.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to forward the comments as set out in the above
memo to the DER.
D. DER/Army Corps/DNR_Permit Applications
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/26/86:
TO: The Honorable Members ®ATENovember 26; 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R., ARMY CORPS AND
7 D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICA-
SUBJECT: TIONS
Robdrt M. Kea ig,
Planning & nevef0_.i&.dt Director
TM# 87-116
Roland M. DeBlois rjoAt> DIS:IBMIRD
FROM: Environmental Planning SeRtRENCES:
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their"
regular meeting of December 9,'1986.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION FILE NO. S
31-127426-4, 31-127427-4 and 31-127022-4
- APPLICATION DESCRIPTIONS:
1) Application No. 31-127426-4
Applicant: R. J. Ogelthorpe
C/0 1835 20th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
5
L_ DEC 9 Z-36
Bou 6 6 `,�li�_ 582
DEC J" 1036
BOOK 66 o')-. 5,S�Q 7
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the Indian
River, adjacent to Lots 8 and 8A,-Riomar Bay Subdivision, Unit
2, Section 5, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River
County, Florida. The upland property associated with the
project is on Lake Drive, located within the city limits of
Vero Beach.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct an L-shaped
single family private dock, having a 4' X 30' main access dock
with a 6' X 30' terminal platform (total area: 300 square
feet). The propose dock is to extend 26 feet waterward, to
where -water depth equals minus 5.8 feet. No dredging or
filling is to occur.
2) Application No. 31-127427-4
Applicant: Harvey Phipard Jr.
C/O 1835 20th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the Indian
River, adjacent to Lots 15 and 15A Riomar Bay Subdivision, Unit
2, Section 5, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River
County Florida. The upland property associated with the
project is on Lake Drive, located in the City of Vero Beach.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct a T-shaped
single private residential dock, having a 4' X 30' main access
dock with a 4' X 40' terminal platform (total area: 280 square
feet). The proposed dock is to extend 24 feet waterward, to
where water depth equals -minus six (-6) feet. No dredging or
filling is to occur.
3) Application No. 31-127022-4
Applicant: Ralph J. Oltman
C/O 1835 20th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Waterway & Location: The project is located in the Indian
River, adjacent to lots 18 and 18A, Riomar Bay Subdivision,
Unit 2, Section 5, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian
River County Florida. The upland property associated with the
project is on Lake Drive, located in the City of Vero Beach.
Work & Purpose: The applicant proposes to construct an L-shaped
private residential dock, having a 4' X 30' main access dock
with a 4' X 30' terminal platform (total area: 240 square
feet). The proposed dock is to extend 24 feet waterward, to
where water depth_equals minus five (-5) feet. No dredging or
filling is to occur.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The planning and Development Division reviews and submits
comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting
agencies based upon the following:
The Conservation & Costal Zone Management Element of the
Indian River Comprehensive Plan
- Costal Zone Management, Interim Goals
Policies for the Treasure Coast Reaion
6
Objectives &
The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Management Plan
The Code of Laws & Ordinances of Indian River County
Chapter 16Q-20, Florida Administrative Code
The proposed dockage projects are to be located within the city
of Vero Beach and are not subject to County Code requirements.
The docks are not to be located in the Indian River Aquatic
Preserve and, therefore, are not subject to chapter 16Q,
Florida Administrative Code requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
staff to transmit a letter to the D.E. R. with the following
comments:
1) The proposed dockage projects are to be located within the
city limits of Vero Beach and therefore are not subject to
County Code Requirements.
2) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should evaluate the potential impact
of the projects on ecologically significant submerged
bottomlands such as seagrass beds in the Indian River.
3) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other
appropriate agencies should consider the potential cumu-
lative impacts of dockage projects upon the Florida
Manatee.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if there are any recent studies
that indicate in any way that docks and boats that use docks hurt
the manatees, and Director Keating explained that substantial
deaths have resulted from boat propeller injuries.
Planner Roland DeBlois advised that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service has set forth a jeopardy letter regarding manatees which
focuses mostly on multiple family dock projects. Most of the
studies he has seen have focused on various size boats vs.
shallow and deepwater.
Chairman Scurlock explained that the agencies will review
these items in any event, but we forward our comments to show our
continuing concerns for the environment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to forward the comments as set out in the above
memo to the DER.
7
EC 1986 BOOK F,a'
- i -
DEC � IS86
BOCK 66 u,U,E 595
E. Approval of Proposed Holiday Schedule for Calendar Year 1987
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/25/86:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 25, 1986 F1
the Board of County Commissionerswa
,��
0*1
- 01.6 %
SUBJECT: PROPOSED HOLIDAY SCHEDULE -
CALENDAR YEAR 1987
FROM: Charles P. Balczun REFERENCES:
County Administrator
The following proposed holiday schedule for 1987 is sub-
mitted for your approval:
oM
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the above holiday schedule for 1987, as recommended
by Administrator Balczun.
F. Budget Amendment, North County Fire District
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/24/86:
8
Holiday
Dates
Dates
Offices Closed
1.
Good Friday
April
17,
1987
Fri.,
April 17th
2.
Memorial Day
May 25,
1987
Mon.,
May 25th
3.
Independence Day
July
4,
1987
Fri.,
July 3rd
4.
Labor Day
Sept.
7,
1987
Mon.,
Sept. 7th
5.
Veterans Day
Nov.
11,
1987
Wed.,
Nov. 11th
6.
Thanksgiving Day
Nov.
26,
1987
Thurs.,•Nov. 26th
7.
Day after
Thanksgiving Day
Nov.
27,
1987
Fri.,
Nov. 27th
8.
Christmas Eve (� day)
Dec.
24,
1987
Thurs.,
Dec. 24th (qday)
9.
Christmas Day
Dec.
25,
1987
Fri.,
Dec. 25th
10.
New Years Day
Jan.
1,
1988
Fri.,
Jan. 1, 1988
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the above holiday schedule for 1987, as recommended
by Administrator Balczun.
F. Budget Amendment, North County Fire District
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/24/86:
8
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: November 24, 1986
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment
North County Fire pistri,ct
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
The North County Fire District Advisory Board requests
the Honorable Board of County Commissioners approve the fol-
lowing budget amendment.
SEBASTIAN INCREASE DECREASE
Revenue
115-000-389-040.00 Cash Forward-Oct.l 2,395
Expense
115-123-522-066.49 Oth Mach & Equip 2,395
EXPLANATION:
An auxiliary generator at a Sebastian fire house was
inoperable.
T1T1T T loll T1T\Tt
Revenue
115-000-389-040.00 Cash Forward-Oct.l 3,000
Expense
115-121-522-034.61 Maint-Bldgs 3,000
EXPLANATION:
Fellsmere Volunteer Fire Department replaced the
station doors in 1985/86 fiscal year. The vendor has
not been paid.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB
Director Baird.
G. IRC Bid #322 - Two (2) New 1986 or 1987 Refuse Container
Trucks
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/26/86:
9
BOOK 6 x F�Gt
DEC 0
BOCK u,F 5 S7
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Nov. 26, 1986 FILE:
THRU: Joseph A. Baird
Director, Budget Office
SUBJECT: IRC BID #322 -Two (2)
New 1986 or 1987 Refuse Container Trucks
FROM:��. REFERENCES:
Carolyn -/Goodrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received Thursday, November 20, 1986 at 11:00 A.M.
for IRC #322 -Two (2) New 1986 or 1987 Refuse Container Trucks
for the Refuse Department.
27 Bids were sent out. 24 Bids were -received.
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The low bid was submitted by Jim Hardee Equipment Co., Inc.,
Tampa, F1. in the amount of $61,520.00 each or $123,040.00 for
2 trucks.
The roll -off unit does not meet specifications. The specs call
for a 7/8" cable, the Galbreath U4 unit has a 3/4" cable.
The low bid meeting specifications was submitted by Heintzelmans
Truck center, Orlando, Fl. in the amount of $62,850.00 each or
$125,700.00 for 2 trucks.
3. Recommendation and Funding
Staff recommends that IRC #322 be awarded to Heintzelmans Truck
Center, Orlando, F1. in the amount of $125,700.00.
There is $150,000.00 budgeted in Account #411-217-534-066.22.
OMB Director Joe Baird recommended that this item be tabled
until next week's meeting.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously tabled
the above item until the meeting of 12/16/86.
H. IRC Bid #324 - Road Striping__ Edgeline
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/26/86:
10
L/
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Nov. 26, 1986 FILE:
\ui
THRU: Joseph A. Baird SUBJECT: IRC BID #324 -Road Striping-Edgel i ne
Director, Budget Office
FROM: REFERENCES:
Carolyn oodrich, Manager
Purchas'ng Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received Thursday, November 20, 1986 at 11:00 A.M.
for IRC #324 -Road Striping-Edgelines for the Traffic Engineering
Department.
9 Bid Proposals were sent out, 5 Bids -were received.
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The low bid was received from Premier Striping, Naples, F1., in
the amount of $12,195.46 or 3.4 cents per lineal foot. Premier
was awarded the road striping bid last year and provided good
services.
3. Recommendation and Funding
Staff recommends that IRC #324 be awarded to the low bidder,
Premier Striping, in the amount -of $12,195.46.
There is $16,000.00 budgeted in Account #111-245-541-035.35.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the above budget amendment, as recommended by
Purchasing Manager Goodrich.
E C 0 1936 11 aooK DO fUF. 5 S
d' -
r- ____ -
DEC 0 1966
BOOK 66'
fd�'t
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
�P • ell, QC
BID TABULATION N m� y `� yE �,; Qgo.
BID NO.GrFr ��a ~ o F` y� ti m
BID X324 DNoE.O20 OPENING
BID TITLE m ' 0 � o �� - `Da V4 ok
ROAD STRIPING-EDGELINES a �` �Q1 = v
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE
NO.
UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT
1. CR512 (US I to 195) 62,770LF
LF
3. o es land d CR 0
1000' W of US 1
4. 20th Avenue Oslo Rd to 12st
24,970 L
5. 66th Ave SR60 to Sebastian
rIty Ilmits-) 83.400 LE
6- 43rd (21 St SW to
aye/rg6ll
51,890 L
. Old Dixie H St. Lucie Co.
Line to 16th St.) 53,160 L
8. 8th Ave CR 0 A 6 St to
St.) 10,4801
77
Price Per Lineal Foot .07 .04
.055 .034
.12
Earliest Date to Start Work 30 days lwk
Dec. As re
.
1/5/ 8
Total 26901 75 16141
OS 119727 95 12195
46
43042 80
1
MM 5 Wry
I. Historic Preservation Planning Assistance Grant Application
TO The Honorable Members DATE: December 1, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PLANNING ASSISTANCE
, SUBJECT: GRANT APPLICATION
Robert M. Keats g, P
Director, Plann.ng Development
h5 THROUGH: Richard Shearer, AICP
h Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Jeffrey A. Goulet REFERENCES:
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of December 9, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Florida Department of State is soliciting applications for
Federal grants-in-aid for historic preservation projects. The
Bureau of Historic Preservation is particularly encouraging
12
applications which propose to develop preservation elements (or
preservation components of coastal management, future land use,
and housing elements) of Local Government Comprehensive Plans.
The Bureau is also giving priority to projects which cover
relatively large, poorly surveyed geographic areas, such as
Indian River County.
As a result of the recent planning legislation enacted by the
State, Indian River County must incorporate historic and
archaeological concerns in its required comprehensive plan.
Chapter 9J-5 of the Florida Administrative Code, entitled
"Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive
Plans and Determination of Compliance," requires that the
County address identification, designation, and protection of
historically significant properties in various elements of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The funds available from the subject grant program would enable
the County to undertake required historic preservation
activities. As such, these funds would complement grant funds
being provided to the County from the Department of Community
Affairs for comprehensive planning activities.
ANALYSIS & ALTERNATIVES
Indian River County has never had a formal -historic sites
survey conducted, and only two or three sites have been recorded
on the Florida Master Site File.
In order to meet the requirements as outlined in Chapter 9J-5,
the Minimum Criteria Rule for Local Government Comprehensive
Plans, it will be necessary to conduct a cursory site survey of
the County in order to estimate the number of historical and
archaeological sites the County may have, and it will be
necessary to record the most readily identifiable sites on the
Florida Master Site File. Analysis of the identified sites may
also be utilized by the Planning Department to develop goals,
objectives, and strategies addressing historic preservation in
the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Since the referenced grant program is competitive, there is no
assurance that the County will receive the required funds. In
order to have an approvable application, the staff has
developed a project consistent with the grant program's primary
objectives and consistent with the County's planning
requirements. As proposed, the project will focus on
developing preservation components within elements of the
Comprehensive Plan. This will involve an area survey of the
County and development of historic preservation policies as
part of several plan elements.
The subject grant requires 50% matching funds. These matching
funds can be in the form of in-kind services. The Indian River
County and Sebastian Historical Societies have also offered
their services in conducting the proposed historic sites survey
and assisting in recording these resources on the Florida
Master Site File. Volunteer services may also be used in
calculating the in-kind match.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the submission of the appli-
cation for a $10,000.00 federal grant-in-aid for the proposed
historic preservation project. Staff also recommends that the
50% match ($5,000.00) be in the form of in-kind services of the
Planning and Development Division and the Indian River County
Historical Society, and that the designated project supervisor
be the Director of the Planning and Development Division.
13 B601V 66 PF&S'
D E D S 1996
900K 66Im-591 7
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 86-107, authorizing staff to submit an
application for federal grant-in-aid for an historic
preservation planning project, designating the
Director of the Planning and Development Division as
the Project Supervisor, and confirming that the
required matching funds shall be in the form of in-kind
services.
RESOLUTION 86-107 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
J. Partial Release of Assessment Liens - Water 8 Sewer - Pine
Creek Condo II
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
partial release of assessment lien for (1) ERU each on
the SR -60 Water and Wastewater projects for Pine Creek
Condominium II, Unit 101 (Lynnlee Development Corp.)
RELEASES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
K. Partial Release of Assessment Lien - SR -60 Wastewater Proiect
- Central Assembly of God
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
partial release of assessment lien on the SR -60 Sewer
project in the amount of $1,250 per ERU reserved for
Central Assembly of God.
RELEASE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
L. Release of Assessment Liens_- SR -60 Wastewater Project -
Indian River Citrus
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Release of Assessment Lien in the amount of
$3,316.50 to Indian River Citrus for the SR -60
Wastewater project.
RELEASE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
M. Authorization to Schedule a Public Hearing to Establish a
MSTU for Street Lighting in Vero Shores
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/1/86:
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: December 1, 1986
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Establishment of
Vero Shores Street
Lighting District
FROM: Jose A. Baird
OMB Director
Vero Shores Homeowners Association is requesting the Hon-
orable Board of County Commissioners establish a.street light-
ing district.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Staff worked with FPL to develop the following project
budget and yearly cost estimate:
33 - 9500L HPSV Lumen lights on existing poles 2,938
9 - 9500L HPSV Lumen lights on existing poles 1,090
G & A Charge 300
Contingency - 100 403
330 - First Year Charge 1,329
Commissions and Fees 200
6,260
The cost equates to $30.00 per year per lot for the first
year and $24.00 per year per lot thereafter. (Approximately
210 lots in Vero Shores).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Honorable Board of County Commission-
ers authorize the scheduling of a public hearing to establish
an MSTU for street lighting in Vero Shores.
15
�� BOOK 66 2
DEC 0, X986Boos
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to schedule a Public Hearing to establish a
MSTU for street lighting in Vero Shores.
N. Retroactive Approval of Petition for Admission to A. G.
Holley State Hospital
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously granted
retroactive approval of petition for admission to
A. G. Holley State Hospital for RobeYt J. Parker,and
authorized the Chairman to approve these petitions
of admission in the future without bringing them
before the Board.
(PETITION IS ONE FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD)
PUBLIC HEARING - GRAND HARBOR SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION DEVELOPMENT
ORDER AMENDMENT
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
16
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter of
In the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspgper in the issues of �� and
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal Is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver.
tisernent for publication in the said newspaper. '
3-
Swom to and subscribed before me this day of
1 Y
IX I till
jBusiness Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Cou !Indian River County, Florida)
(SEAU
OIMAN RIVER CQUNrY
NO
TICE 0r PUBLtC HE 0
The Board of County CoaanleslotIOrs of Indian Rider County Wneby pfvea fiottca of a PUBLIC
HEARING to be tneM a ff f s.m, on December 8,1986, N tM County Commission Chambers of the
County Administration IS . located at 1940 25th Sir ee4 Vero Beach. Florida.
The eubleci OI thetiesfing ia conaamatnon of ■ Wbstaflael deviatlorn request fora DeUaiGpRtent d
Regional Impact known as Grarw Harbor. The PaUllener is Brand Harbor, Ine.
Gerimal Location:
amthcalOd nth W4ms North Retial Qanal S.:Sh t= BaslVISbYn and 53rd Sbeat located eestthe Indian River, an the east �
U.S. Highway 81. `• ` I to u` `1 1
D
rs`
r
MBES
' :r ...•rye' 1 1 � \ � `/
It
r \
\ M 0-
I
Ii
1
The Substantial deviation request is tw an amendimud In tIO asbtlnq lgo oo ole m do ry
on October 23. ISM and amended February 5. 1989 by the Indian RI
A0 documents, penam" to Me development request are filed In BIO Men R*w County Pennhq
aid Development r>iyisior, 2nd Som of the County AOministrsdan Building, located at 1940 �S�i
arJn. FImWa. oocumems may be reviewed by members of the public during normal
!ate h I
A9 members of the public are invited to attend and Bpaoanrtcd�pate in the public hearing.SIC
This _
County. Florida. that publicatthe Bo ihereby ntends totm by mconduct a PAM hewing u= lof County Commisauchime of eo i4nepter
380.0%X.8'bXexd) and 380.09(19Xb) and Florida Standes and 06.15.23 W me Fonda Adminiff.
trativa Goodie, dor the auDeandal deviation request for the Development of Regional Impact known as ;
Grand Harbor. proposed request UK
add approximately 175.4 acres of go course mid emgk family development to the existing
D.R.I. protect area and to allow for an additional 72 restricted boat slips w" ON pro)OOL
TRIS nodes ia WIn9 puotWrod at team alxtY days kl advance of me ouD1 to any
oy pro Board '
oI County Cenmiealoners all Counour . River county, FloridaeM Is m addisan IO required public I
notice(9) of local publicto be n;otMueted by Bre Beed of County Cornmfesloners pursuant
to notice and puDac hear.. InoNeions of the Code of Law and Ordinatneea of tndian Rim County. 1
Th�b"otiwhere
sis applicable.
etr� oraged to me Division of Local Resects• Management, Department of Com-
munity
tate of rtthet�eCoast tagdaniD��Rwter Management DietrichDepartment Environmental Regulation; 'Ont W Johns,
IR
,
RRwWer Shm� me City of of FloridaViten, thefTownTransportation; O.W. taw Tam of ids sI" Town of and to Coun�aW
Stevens and SL Lucia.
a airy person decides to appeal any decision made on the above matter. W/she will need a record
ct Me proceedings and for such purposes, he/aid may meed to ensurs Inata verbatim record of Me
prdeeedino is made. which Includes testimony and evidences upon which tat appeal in Weed. The
Camly does fiat provide lir prepare Such record.
ocL 3. 1989
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/24/86:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 24, 1986 FILE:
the Board of County_Commissioners
DIVISION 'HEAD CONCURRENCE:
GRAND HARBOR SUBSTANTIAL
Robert _M. Keati g AISUBJECT: DEVIATION DEVELOPMENT
Planning & Devel men erector ORDER AMENDMENT
r
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Stan Boeing REFERENCES: BCC
Staff Planner /O`e HARBOR
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of December 9, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On October 23, 1985 the Board of County Commissioners adopted the
development order (D.O.) that approved the Grand Harbor
development of regional impact (D.R.I.). Since that time, the
D.O. has been amended twice, as follows:
17
DE6 9 1986 BOCK Ft�E59
DEC � 1986
o
BOOK
1. Resolution 86-4 (February, 1986) adopted pursuant to request
by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to add
conditions relating to boat slip leasing, off-site runoff
discharge, and shallow acquifer use;
2. Resolution 86-89 (October, 1986) adopted pursuant to request
by the applicant, (Grand Harbor, Inc.) to allow specified.
amounts of fill in certain wetlands.
These two amendment requests did not constitute substantial
deviations. Substantial deviations are major modifications or
additions to a D.R.I. project that require re -review by federal
and state agencies as well as formal review and recommendations
from the regional planning council.
In August of 1986, the applicant applied through T.C.R.P.C. for a
s substantial deviation D.O. amendment. Pursuant to substantial
deviation procedures and regulations, the T.C.R.P.C. has reviewed
and formally recommended that certain amendments to the Grand
Harbor D.O. be adopted pursuant to the applicant's request. The
County is now responsible for making the final (though appealable)
decision regarding the request.
County staff has reviewed and analyzed the T.C.R.P.C. report and
recommendations (attachment #2) and has drafted a resolution to
amend the D.O.
ANALYSIS
County staff's proposed resolution conforms to the Planning
Council's recommendations and adds three items:
1. the October 1986 D.O. amendment (Resolution 86-89) is
referenced;
2. the two conditions relating to additional boat slips are tied
to local site plan approval; and
3. language is added to the sailboat definition condition that
establishes what the definition must describe.
With these three additions the proposed amendments grant two
requests with conditions.
1. The "River Club" area (see attachment #3) totaling ±178.4
acres located immediately west of the existing marina basin,
would be added to the D.R.I. project. The River Club is to
consist of an 18 -hole golf course, golf club, and 71 single
family homes.
a) Condition: 53rd Street east of Indian River Boulevard
must be paved to the River Club project entrance.
2. An additional 72 boat slips would be added to the approved 72
boat slips (total to be 144).
a. Condition: the 72 slips would be restricted to use by
sailboats.
b. Condition: the developer shall define "sailboat" to
describe a craft that does not threaten the manatee.
The definition would need to be approved by the D.N.R.,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the County (in
consultation with the T.C.R.P.C.) prior to site plan
approval for the marina.
C. Condition: the developer will have to provide legal
assurances (including the method of enforcement) that
the 72 restricted slips will in fact be restricted to
use by sailboats only.
18
M_, M M
Based upon the Planning Council's report and recommendations and
staff's own analysis, the request to add the River Club area to
the D.R.I. project and the request to add 72 sailboat slips to the
project marina warrant approval with the conditions described
above.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
attached resolution, amending the Grand Harbor development order
to conditionally add the "River Club" area to the D.R.I. project
and to conditionally allow 72 additional sailboat slips in the
project marina.
FIRE PROTECTION MATTERS:
At the time that the D.O. was adopted in October of 1985, analysis
by the Planning Council staff, County staff, and Chief Forrest
Smith (South County Fire District) indicated that fire protection
services would not be adversely impacted by the project, and that
the ad valorem taxes generated by the project (for the fire
district's MSTU portion) would exceed costs of service .demands.
Furthermore, Chief Smith verified that response- time to the
project, from existing facilities, would be adequate (3 minutes
and 5 minutes). This analysis, along with previous comments, were
provided for in the initial D.R.I. review. Subsequent needs
analysis can only be applied to new or modified project areas (in
this case, the River Club and marina areas) or to new taxing/ser
vice districts or impact fee districts.
Recently Chief John Allen of the South County Fire District met
with staff and expressed concerns that the District's previous
analysis did not consider protection during construction (prior to
receipt of generated taxes) and did not include the District's
recent policy of responding to calls with two engines and a Chief
Officer. Staff has informed Chief Allen that the review of fire
protection services for the project (minus the River Club and
additional 72 slips) was considered in 1985; re -review is after -
the -fact. However, staff is including all correspondence with
Chief Allen for informational purposes.
Chairman Scurlock felt there would be sufficient tax monies
generated from the expansion of the project to provide sufficient
fire protection services, but Commissioner Eggert was concerned
about protection during construction time.
Commissioner Bird noted that there is a fire station right
across the street from the development.
Commissioner Bowman was concerned about the addition of the -Ir-
72
72 boat slips, and Planner Stan Boling explained that the permit
anticipated the addition of these slips under certain conditions
and staff is recommending that these 72 slips be used for
sailboats only.
Chairman Scurlock felt it was ridiculous to limit the slips
to just sailboats and believed that a lot more protection can be
given to the river by better educating those boaters who come to
Florida, have never operated a boat before, and don't seem to
9
DEC
9 1966 Boaz 66 ; jcL
EG
BOOK 66 o,J,-M7
understand the harm they are doing to the river by taking their
small 19 ft. craft up and down the grass flats. He firmly
believed that more effort should be given to educating the
boaters who put their small boats in the river from various
launching sites, as opposed to trying to concentrate on these
type of marinas.
Planning & Development Director Robert Keating felt that is
the reason why the Board sent a Resolution to the State last year
asking that these problems be addressed on a state level rather
than dealing with them on a project to project basis, which may
not even be effective, and seems to place an undue burden on
certain developers.
Commissioner Wheeler agreed that the damage to the grass
beds and the manatees is being done by small boats, not the large
boats that dock in marinas. The large boats must stay in deep
water and when they are going slow the bow generally sets lower
in the water than the propeller and they make more noise. It
seems that the larger boats are being penalized for the damage
done by smaller boats.
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that sailboats must use an
auxiliary motor to come in and dock, and wanted to see a better
definition of "sailboats".
Commissioner Bird asked if the sailboat restriction was
something that the developer voluntarily put in as a condition of
approval or whether it was something that was changed from the
Regional Planning Council's review of it.
Richard Shaub, developer of Grand Harbor, stated it was not
exactly volunteered; it was actually requested by the DNR and the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Commission. They have agreed to conduct
studies on the boat traffic and sea grass areas, and after 2-1/2
years they can come in and ask that the "sailboat only"
restriction be lifted.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none.
20
M ,_ M
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 86-108, providing for a substantial
deviation to the Development Order approving the
Grand Harbor Development of Regional Impact.
2,
BOOK Us Fn't 598
•r
r -
6E C 9 1936 Boor Pi59
J.
RESOLUTION 86 - 108
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION TO THE
DEVELOPMENT ORDER APPROVING THE GRAND HARBOR DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions in Chapter 380, Florida
Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County
has adopted Resolution 85-128 establishing the Development Order
approving the Grand Harbor Development of Regional Impact; has
adopted Resolution 86-4 amending the adopted Development Order;''
and has adopted Resolution 86-89 amending the adopted Development
Order as amended; and
WHEREAS, the project developer aas requested to add to the
project 178.4 acres to consist of 71 dwelling units and an 18 -hole
golf course, and to add another 72 boatslips to the project
marina; and
WHEREAS, the request has been reviewed by the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council and the State Department of Community
Affairs and has been determined to constitute a substantial
deviation pursuant to Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the Development Order is being amended to allow the
substantial deviation request:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the adopted
Development Order approving the Grand Harbor Development of
Regional Impact as amended is hereby amended and conditions for
said amendments are hereby established as follows:
CONDITIONS
A. Application for Development Approval
1. The Grand Harbor Substantial Deviation Application for
Development Approval is incorporated herein by reference
and relied upon *by the parties in discharging their
statutory duties under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes.
Substantial compliance with the representations
contained in the Substantial Deviation Application for
Development Approval is a condition for approval unless
waived or modified by agreement among the parties, as
defined in Subsection 380.07(2), Florida Statutes.
For the purpose of this condition, the Substantial
Deviation Application for Development Approval shall
include the following item:
Substantial Deviation Application for Development
Approval dated August 13, 1986.
B. Effectiveness of Development Order.
1. Except as specifically amended herein, all conditions
specified in the Development Order (Resolution 86-128),
Amendment to the Development Order (Resolution 86-4),
and Amendment to the Development Order (Resolution
86-89) for Grand Harbor shall remain in full force and
effect and shall apply to and be binding upon the 178.4
acre tract (River Club parcel) being added to the
original DRI property through the substantial deviation.
AMENDMENTS
Section 1
Under "HABITAT, VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE" item 17 shall be amended
to read as follows:
17. Marina Development shall be restricted to existing marina
Basin 1, as identified on page 12-20 of the ADA. Marinas 2,
3 and 4 shall not be constructed. The maximum number of
slips to be accommodated within Basin 1 shall be a total of
7� 144 (72 of which are restricted to use by sailboats)at
this time. It is recognized that the basis for this re-
striction is concern for potential boating impacts upon the
West Indian manatee and negative impacts on wetlands. The
developer is studying methods to address and mitigate those
impacts. Should the developer subsequently demonstrate
reasonable assurance that additional slips would not have a
significant adverse effect upon the manatee species, or
should the marina siting plan approved by Council identify
Grand Harbor as a suitable site for additional slips of the
size and type proposed in the Grand Harbor ADA, then the
developer shall be presumed to be entitled to construct such
additional slips. However, should additional slips (more
than 72Y 144 total or more than 72 slips unrestricted in use)
be proposed for the site, such slips shall be considered a
substantial deviation pursuant to Section 380.06(19), F.S.
and, therefore, shall require a review by the regional
planning council.
Pursuant to substantial deviation review, 72 additional
boatslips (total project slips being 144 at this time) are
permitted within Basin 1 subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to site plan approval for the marina area the
developer shall provide assurance(s) that the additional
72 slips proposed will be guaranteed to be limited for
use by sailboats only. Said assurance(s) shall be in
the form of legally binding agreements providing for
o
continual enforcement f slip use. This limitation does
not preclude the developer from seeking relief from such
restrictions consistent with Indian River County
Resolution 86-128 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
December 6, 1986 Interinlet Biological Opinion as
Amended April 11, 1986 and May 6, 1986.
2. Prior to site plan approval for the marina area and the
additional 72 slips proposed the developer shall provide
a definition of the sailboat types that will be allowed
to occupy such additional slips. This definition shall
be approved by the Florida Department of Natural
Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Indian
River County, in consultation with the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council. Said definition shall
describe a craft whose operation does not appear to pose
a mortal threat to West Indian manatees and therefore
has no adverse effect upon the survival of the manatee.
Development of docks in other locations (areas outside of Marina$
1) AMI/44 or development of boat ramps or dry storage facilities
shall be prohibited other than as necessary to provide recrea-
tional fishing access for project residents to the internal
estuarine/waterway system. Access shall be limited to no more
than two access points. No anchorage shall be permitted.
CODING:
Words in type are deletions from existing
law; words underlined are additions. �y
BOOK
DEC 9 1980-
55. The following improvements shall be implemented in
conjunction with the four -lane construction of Indian River
Boulevard:
a) Construction of 53rd Street as a four -lane road median
divided between U.S. 1 and Indian River Boulevard, and
construction of 53rd Street as a two-lane road between
Indian River Boulevard and the project entrance.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED in a public
hearing held on this the 9th day of December , 1986.
c
Don C. Scurlock,'Jr., airman
Board of County Commi sioners
ATTEST:
:
tAp
County C1 r
SANDRIDGE GOLF CLUB - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FUNDING RAISING
LETTER TO LOCAL BUSINESSES
The Board reviewed the following drafted letter:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Telephone: (305) 567-8000
December 10, 1986
Dear
J
Suncom Telephone: 424-1011
Approximately 24 months ago, the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County appointed a committee to study the
feasibility of the County building and operating a public golf
course. The committee's recommendation, along with a very
positive feasibility study conducted by the National Golf
Foundation, indicated that it was feasible for the County to
proceed to design and construct 18 holes of what was to be
eventually a 27 -hole championship golf course to be located at
Kiwanis-Hobart Park.
Some $2.4 million was allocated for the project through the sale
of Revenue Bonds and a contribution from the Indian River County
Utilities Department. From funds raised, the County is currently
constructing! an 18 -hole championship golf course, which was
24
- M
"designed by Ron Garl to fit the needs of the County, including a
two-way driving range and practice facility, club house with.pro
shop, golf cart storage building, and a maintenance building. We
are also planning on installing cart paths to enhance the course
along with rest station shelters on both the front and back
nines.
Unfortunately, when you near the end of completion, funds seem to
get a little tight. It looks like we are going to need
approximately $140,000 in order to complete the project in it's
entirety.
As a business person in our community, you are probably always
bothered for donations, but this is .a little different. Let me
explain how you can get a lot of mileage out of it. We expect to
play on the average of 50,000 to 70,000 rounds of golf annually;
that is a lot of potential advertisement exposure and for a very
worthwhile cause.
We have listed the types. of advertisement available, along with
prices and the period of time they will be for.
We sincerely hope that you can assist us in this particular type
of fund raiser, and it will also benefit you, the people of
Indian River County. Sandridge Golf Club will soon become one of
our finest recreational assets. We need your help to make this
long awaited dream a reality. A committee member will contact
you in a few days to answer any additional questions.
Sincerely yours,
Bob Komarinetz
Director of Golf
Platinum Sponsors Name of Business or Individual
Tee Signs ----- 18 sponsors @ $1000.00 each $18,000
2 Full Years (after 2 years, $200.00 renewal)
Score Cards (100,000) 4 sponsors @ $1000.00 each
1 Year Supply
Rain Shelter (2) 10 sponsors @ $1000.00 each
10 sponsors @ $1000.00 each
2 Full Years (after 2 years, $200.00 renewal)
Range and Starter Station - 10 sponsors @ $1000.00
2 Full Years (after 2 years, $200.00 renewal)
Sponsor
Plaque in
Clubhouse
(1)
Gold
$500.00 each
(1)
Silver
$250.00 each
(1)
Patron
$100.00 each
25
BOOK
$ 4,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
DEC ci d
BOOK 66 F1111F. JPS
Administrator Balczun presented the proposed format for a
fund-raising letter to be sent out to local businesses, and noted
that the primary thrust will be for contributions for equipment.
Chairman Scurlock reported that the contractor of Indian
River Estates is willing to recommend to the owner to donate
their temporary sales facility to the County Commission for
whatever purpose we desire. Staff is in the process of tying
that down and ascertaining the expense of moving it to the golf
s.
course as a temporary clubhouse. The Chairman believed the cost
of moving the facility and the remodeling probably would run
under $20,000. That figure includes the septic tank, but the
pumps for the irrigation will be given to us.
Director Thomas advised that he is meeting with Grover
Fletcher tomorrow to discuss moving the facility to the golf
course.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
approved the format of the proposed fund raising
letter for Sandridge Golf Club .
Under discussion, Attorney Balczun reiterated that the main
thrust will be for equipment and they don't want to mention a
specific figure because they don't want people to stop
contributing when they reach that figure.
Attorney Vitunac recommended that the contract for the
clubhouse should be rebid. After looking at all the specifi-
cations, he felt that there is no way to separate out the club-
house and still get a valid number without renegotiation. He
advised that Administrator Balczun and Director Thomas agree it
would be a fair way to go.
Commissioner Bird wished to move ahead on it so that we can
get the electric cart building in place, as well as the paving of
the parking lot.
26
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to proceed diligently in this matter.
GIFFORD PARK - BASEBALL FIELD LIGHTING BID
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/2/86:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 2, 1986 FILE:
THRU: L.S. "Tommy" Thomas
Intergovernmental Coordinator
SUBJECT: Gifford Park Baseball/Softball
Field Lighting Bid
FROM: Carolyn- Goodrich REFERENCES:
Manager, Purchasing Department
Description and Conditions
Bids were received Tuesday, October 28; 1986 at 2 P.M. for Gifford Park
Baseball/Softball Field Lighting.
One Bid was received.
Alternatives and Analysis
This is a re -bid in an attempt to get additional and lower bids.
There was only 1 bid, C. R. Dunn, Inc.,*West Palm Beach, Fl., in the
amount of $48,192.00 plus the cost of the bond, $722.88, for a total
of $489914.88, which was the low bid the first time it was bid.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board award the Gifford Park'Baseball/Softball
Field Lighting Bid to the only bidder, C. R. Dunn, in the amount of
$48,914.88.
Intergovernmental Services Director Tommy Thomas explained
that there are just a limited number of people who are willing to
tackle this type of job.
27
BOOK 6 r, G 69
F,7"-
DEC
Boor 66
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded
the bid for field lighting at Gifford Park to the
only bidder, C.R. Dunn, in the amount of $48,914.88.
REQUEST FROM ABRAMS AERIAL SURVEY CORP. FOR ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION --BARRIER ISLAND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/24/86:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: November 241 1986 FILE:
Board of County Catmissioners
THROUGH:
Charles Balczun
County Administrator SUBJECT:
Request from Abrams Aerial
Survey Corp. for Additional
Campensation - Barrier Island
Topographic Surveys
,
FROM: �
James W. Davis, P.E. , REFERENCES: James F. Lim, Abram
Public Works Director Aerial Survey, to
Abrams Aerial Survey Corporation is requesting $5,246 for additional
cattpensation due to alleged control problems associated with the Barrier
Island topographic mapping. The mapping is a component of the Beach
Management Study that Cubit Engineering is performing.
The aerial mapping contract was negotiated on Feb, 26, 1986. Cubit
Engineering recommended that Abrams Aerial Surveys perform the work. At
that time, the scope of work involved mapping only the Atlantic Ocean
coastline. The contractural cost to perform the it -field control surveys
was $8,500. The County Administrator and the Beach Preservation and
Restoration Cammittee inquired as to whether the County survey crews could
perform the survey work and thereby save the County $8,500. It was
determined that this work could be performed by County crews.
Later, the Board and staff decided to expand the scope of work to include
the entire barrier island north of CR 510, as well as Round Island Park.
This basically doubled the scope of work and necessary survey work to
approximately $17,000 of in -field survey. The mapping contract with Abrams
was approximately $50,285.
Usually, aerial control points are first located in the field and targeted
Prior to flying the photography. However, Abrams decided to fly the aerial
Photography first, then select control points to be located in the field
from photo identifiable points.
When the photos were given to our survey crews, same points, such as real
estate signs, trees, etc., were relocated or removed after the photography
was flown. The survey crews could not find these points. There were also
some points which the survey crews made minor computational errors.
28
The County's Contract with Abrams does not contain language which covers
this situation, does not contain a time of completion, nor liquidated
damages.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Staff and Abrams have discussed this request for additional compensation.
Basically, both parties are somewhat guilty for lack of early communi-
cation. The Public Works Department did not participate in negotiating the
contract nor did we get to review it prior to execution.
RECOMMATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Board authorize additional compensation in the
amount of $2,623 (50% of that requested) to cover the alleged control
problems. Funding to be transferred from Federal Revenue Sharing
Contingency (102-199-581-099.91) to 102-110-515-033.19.
Public Works Director Jim Davis felt that after hearing
further discussion on this matter, the County should not agree to
any additional compensation for the work. Basically, the
contract between Abrams and the County does not contain any
language stating that the County has'to complete its survey by a
particular point in time. It has not been determined who is
responsible for the alleged problems, but staff feels fairly
confident that if no additional compensation is given, Abrams
probably would drop the issue.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously denied
a request for additional funds from Abrams
Aerial Survey Corp.
J
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - 14TH STREET BETWEEN U.S. #1 AND 6TH
AVENUE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/3/86:
29
1
BooK '6 P,4 r 66
Fr --
0 1986
BOOK -rv, , 6017
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: December 3, 1986 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Charles P. Balczun,
County Administrator
s FR®M.Jam:ies W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
SUBJECT: Right -of -Way Acquisition -
14th Street between US 1 and
6th Avenue
REFERENCES:
In 1982, the County received a petition to pave a portion of 14th Street
between 6th Avenue and the Council on Aging building. To extend the
pavement further westward to USI, staff attempted to acquire a donation of
25' of road right-of-way along 14th Street between the Council on Aging and
US 1. Staff was unsuccessful to acquire the right-of-way, so this section
was left unimproved. Mrs. Grace Lacava, owner of a single family home on
14th Street, retains ownership of the south 25' along 14th Street in this
area. As a result of inadequate right-of-way, the Road and Bridge Depart-
ment has not maintained this unpaved section of 14th Street. Large holes
in the unimproved dirt road have been exposing County water and sewer lines
and manholes. Recently, a car was badly damaged when it hit -a County sewer
manhole.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The County Public Works Department and Utilities Department are concerned
that if this section of 14th Street remains open to traffic between US 1
and the Council on Aging, utility lines and manholes will be damaged unless
the County begins to properly maintain the road. The alternatives present-
ed by staff include:
1) Close the road to traffic just east of the Clock Restaurant. Various
residents may object to this alternative.
2) Authorize the County Road and Bridge Department to maintain the road,
regardless of right-of-way availability. This road has been in
existence for the past 20 years and serves a number of property
owners. After four years of continued maintenance, the County could
file a maintenance map as authorized in Florida Statutes. Mrs. Lacava
may contest this action.
3) Authorize staff - to once again, communicate with Mrs. Lacava and
request donation or sale of the right-of-way. If this effort is not
successful, proceed to have an appraisal obtained and condemn the
right-of-way. Once right-of-way is acquired, the road should be
Properly paved via special assessment.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative #3 so that the right-of-way acquisition and
paving can be initiated. Funding to be from Gas Tax Revenue and Petition
Paving Fund 703.
30
r
Commissioner Eggert asked if the County was doing something
right now to correct the situation of the exposed water and sewer
lines, and Public Works Director Jim Davis stated that the County
will cover exposed lines and fill the pot holes.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation of Alternative #3 with the
provision that the County will continue to maintain it
while proceeding with Alternative #3.
RESOLUTION STATING OPPOSITION TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BEING
REMOVED FROM TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
Attorney Vitunac advised that if the proposed resolution is
adopted, he and the County Administrator will drive to
Tallahassee on Sunday and present it -to the State on Monday
morning.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 86-109, a resolution to the Substate
Boundaries Committee of the Senate of the State of
Florida expressing opposition to removing Indian River
County from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council.
31
L_ pEC 9 1986 eooK 608
r-7 12/86(Reso)LEGAL(Vk)
DEC 9 1986 BOOK �J
RESOLUTION NO. 86- 109
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO THE SUBSTATE
BOUNDARIES COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF
FLORIDA IN OPPOSITION TO REMOVING INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY FROM THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING
COUNCIL.
WHEREAS, historically Indian River County has developed
as an integral part of the Treasure Coast region; and
WHEREAS, until 1925 Indian River County was a part of
St. Lucie County; and
I- WHEREAS, Indian River County is geographically
connected to the rest of the Treasure Coast region by
highways A -I -A, U.S. #1, 1-95, and the Florida Turnpike and
is thus oriented to the counties to the south rather than
the counties to the north; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County is also allied with the
rest of the Treasure Coast by reason of newspapers and
television and radio stations, since Indian River County is
in the market area of these communication industries; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County is part of the Fourth
District Court of Appeal, which is headquartered in West
Palm Beach; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County has for many years been an
integral part of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council and is affected more so by what happens in the
counties to the south than by those in any other regional
planning council area;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Indian River County officially records its opposition
to any change which would remove Indian River County from
the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, and that this
opposition be delivered in person to the Substate Boundaries
Committee of the Florida Senate, meeting in Tallahassee on
December 15, 1986.
1
The foregoing resolution (No. 86-109 ) was offered by
Commissioner Eggert who moved its adoption. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Wheeler and,
upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice -Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Gary Wheeler Aye
4
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 9th day of December, 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Attest 'Do -Tr C. S ur ock, r.
Chairman
Freda Wriaht,
DISCUSSION RE AMENDING THE AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH TRI -COUNTY
COUNCIL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/3/86:
TO: mrd of County Commissioners
FROM: �s P ilson, Assistant County Attorney
DATE: ;Ile c emb e r 3, 1986
RE: AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH TRI -COUNTY COUNCIL OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS - BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 9, 1986
Attached hereto is a proposed resolution amending the
above -referenced agreement to prevent the Council from
maintaining any action to force members to pay assessments
for the cost of operating the Council.
This resolution must be approved by all members of the
Council. If the Board approves this resolution, I will
immediately present it to all the other members of the
Council for their approval.
33 BOOK `vj'r
D E D 9 1986
F77- 1. �i
DEC 9 1986 BOOK 6 PMJE, 11
Commissioner Eggert felt this still was not the language she
was thinking of and understood that staff was to eliminate
J_
Section 6 - Finance 6 Administration.
Chairman Scurlock felt that we want to send the message to
the State that we don't want to establish another agency for
which we must pay administrative expenses. At present the
Council is a voluntary effort with everybody using their
resources on a non -cost basis back to the counties.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
instructed the Legal Dept. to redraft the agreement
by delet;:: Section 6 and bring it back to the
Board for approval at next week's meeting.
In addition to the agreement, Commissioner Bowman
recommended that a -letter be written to the Tri -County Council
Chairman explaining our concern.
DISCUSSION REGARDING GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/19/86:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: November 19, 1986
- RE: AGENDA - BCC MEETING 1.2/9/86
GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE
In resonse to the Grand Jury report concerning the City of
Vero Beach and the Civic Association, I would recommend that
our office provide a copy of the Attorney General's book
entitled "Government - in -the -Sunshine Manual" to each member
of the Board of County Commissioners and to each member of
the County's boards and committees, including advisory
boards, and have each recipient sign the attached form.
I respectfully request approval of this process from the
Board of County Commissioners.
34
County Attorney Vitunac emphasized that because of the
seriousness of violating the Sunshine Law, he is recommending
that people sign the acknowledgement that they have read and
understand "Government in the Sunshine Manual."
Chairman Scurlock emphasized that the State Attorney's
Office met in secret and decided that the City of Vero Beach has
a problem and somehow the County got included without their doing
any research into how we appoint or how we approach this. He
wondered why Sebastian, Indian River Shores and the Town of
Orchid were not given the message.
Commissioner Bowman did not believe the intent of the
Sunshine Law was to prohibit the exchange of ideas or
information, but rather to prohibit the people sitting on the -
same boards to lobby each other and cut deals.
Attorney Vitunac advised that ideas can be exchanged by
written correspondence through the Clerk's Office, but the law
does prohibit telephone calls or conversations between any two
members of the same board, even if they are not lobbying or
twisting arms. The intent of the law is that the decision making
process must occur here on this dais in these Chambers.
Chairman Scurlock recalled that when the State conducted a
survey two years ago on whether or not public officials
understood the Sunshine Law, the result, basically, was "NO", and
out of that study came recommendations that the law be modified
to some extent. One modification is the change in the County
Attorney's relationship with the Board and being able to caucus
re negotiations with labor unions.
Commissioner Eggert inquired about members standing in the
halls talking to each other and attending seminars together.
Attorney Vitunac stated that conversation in the hall or
during travel to conventions or seminars must be limited to other
topics such as sports or the weather.
35
BOOK. �r��r. 1°
®EC 9 1986
DEC 9 1986
BOOK 6
Chairman Scurlock noted that some counties publish workshops
to be held before the public hearing so that County Commissioners
can discuss matters before they come to the Board for approval.
Commissioner Wheeler agreed that the effects of the law are
far more reaching than was the original intent.
Commissioner Bird felt that members of the boards and
committees should not be requested to sign the acknowledgement
because he believed that they were all conscientious enough to
• 1
follow the law.
Attorney Vitunac pointed out that the people who wrote this
law met in "smoke-filled back rooms," and Commissioner Bowman
wished to see the new Attorney General review the Sunshine Law.
Chairman Scurlock understood that the consensus of the
Commission is that members of this Board, the Property Adjustment
Board, the Planning & Zoning Commission and all other advisory
boards be given a copy of the manual to read, and Attorney
Vitunac advised that his staff will meet with them to further
explain the Sunshine Law.
APPOINTMENT TO THE 19TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CONFLICT COMMITTEE
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 11/25/86:
LAW OFFICES OF
ELTON H. SCHWARZ
NIARTM COUNTY OFFICE: PUBLIC D DIRECT l.(1FS TO MAW OFFICE;
WAW OFFICE) CAM 287.2966 (sTUART)
SUITE 21% COURTHOUSE ANNEX NINETEENTH A=c AL ctRcurr OF FLORIDA MW 464SS64 (FORT PIERCE)
P.O. BOX 2314
STUART. FLORIDA 33495-2314 ROAN W. FAtERSON
COSI 2838760, EXT. 380 / DERUTV PUBLIC DEFENDER
ELIZABETH M. VYILNINSON StuartB Mw
Mw REPLY TOt u
November 259 1986
The Honorable C. Pfeiffer Trowbridge
Chief Judge
19th Judicial Circuit
Martin County Courthouse
Stuart, FL 33494
Re: Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Conflict Committee
Dear Judge Trowbridge:
Chapter 86-167, Laws of Florida (The General Appropriations
Act) aigain established a Circuit Conflict Committee consisting of
the Chief Judge of the Judicial Circuit or his designated repre-
__sentative; one representative of each Board of County Commission -
36
ers located within the circuit and myself as Public Defender. It
has been several years. since there was any necessity for this
committee to meet, and many of the original members designated
in 1982 are no longer available. I will, therefore, appreciate
your advising as to whether or not you wish to serve on this com-
mittee or whether you prefer to designate a representative.
By copy of this letter, I am also requesting each of the _
Boards of County Commissioners.to adopt a current resolution <
designating'a representative to serve on this committee.
Since I am required by Chapter 86-167 to submit a report
to the legislature no later than February 28, 1987, I antici-
pate calling a meeting of this committee during the early part
of January.
I have enclosed a copy of the pertinent portions of the
General Appropriations Act which reflect the two million dol-
lars allocated for reimbursement to the counties for conflict
cases. The "Letter of Intent" allocated $50,800.00 to the
Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, and it is my recommendation that
this again be allocated between the -counties on the basis of
current population estimates, the same as in the past
I, also, respectfully request your permission to invite
our Court Administrator, Mr. Douglas, to attend the meeting
as an ex -officio member unless you should designate him as your
representative. He attended our previous meeting and was -ex-
tremely helpful in collecting the necessary information needed
by my office.
Commissioner Wheeler volunteered to serve as the committee's
representative from Indian River County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously appointed
Commissioner Wheeler to serve as Indian River County's
representative on the 19th Judicial Circuit Conflict
Committee.
PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING
DESIGNATION OF POLLING _PLACES (postponed_ from 12/2/86)
The hour of 10:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
37
Boa 66 614
r-
r
9 1996
J-
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter of
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of z& 1,tk :57/?A,'_
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tiserrent; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed b re this day o ld"s A.D.
– (Business Manager)
BOOK 6
NOTICE — PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which par-
ties in interest and citizensshall have
an oppor-
tunity to be heard, in the County
ission
Chambers of the County Administration Build-
ing, located at 1840 25thSt. Vero 9, 19886,aat 101'00
Ida, on Tuesday. D®ce tlon of an Ordinance
a.m. to consider the edop
entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER.. _
COUNTY. FLORIDA, AMENDING SEC-
TION 23.3 SITE PLAN REVIEW STAND• .-
ARDS OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE,
nc i ewR AND ORDINANCES,_KNOWN
ING PLAGtS:v r^""`
PEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS,
CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
A copy Of the propos Ordinance Is available
at the Planning Department office on the second
floor of the County Administration Building.
This public hearing was originally scheduled
on December 2. 1986. at 9:15 a.m. At that time,
the Board of County Commissioners tabled ac-
tion on the request until December 9. 1986, at
10:00 a.m. any decision
Anyone who M wish to appeal
ewhich nsue that 9 verbatim record 18 at this of the proceeding
isis trade which includes the testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal will be based
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Don C. Scurlock. Jr.. Chairman
Dec. 5,1986
The Board reviewed the following memo and list of county
polling places:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 17, 1986 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
na• SUBJECT:
Ro ert M. Keat n , A
Planning & Development Director
FROM. Richard Shearer,
Chief, Long -Range
ZONING ORDINANCE AMEND-
MENT CONCERNING DESIG-
NATION OF POLLING PLACES
REFERENCES:
Planning Zoning Memo pnot2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their -
regular meeting of December 2, 1986.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Ann Robinson, the Supervisor of Elections, has requested that the
Planning Department require future large residential developments
to furnish a location on site, such as a clubhouse, for polling
38
� s �
places. This request was based on the facts that the County's
population and number of registered voters is increasing rapidly
and that the elections office has had difficulty in finding
appropriate facilities to serve as polling places in some areas.
On August 28, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this -ordinance.
On September 30, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners tabled
action on this ordinance until December 2nd and instructed the
staff to conduct a workshop on the proposed ordinance.
On November 5th, a workshop was held on the proposed ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In reviewing this request, the planning staff has determined that
the appropriate time to require that space be designated for
polling places is when developments receive site plan approval.
Moreover, the staff feels that not only should large developments
with common meeting facilities be required to designate areas for
polling places, but that all residential developments which
require site plan approval and propose common meeting facilities
and all churches which contain common meeting facilities should
be required to designate such areas. These areas would. be
available so that if the need arose in the future; the necessary
polling places would be available.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval of the
attached ordinance.
Revised 5/15/86; INDIAN RIVER COUNTY POLLING PLACES
.r
•PRECINCT #
LOCATION
ADDRESS
/3u 96
10
93�
ROSELAND COMMUNITY CENTER .......BAY.
S.TREET..
11
8Is
FELLSMERE COMMUNITY. CENTER ..... ...BROADWAY
.
12
SEBASTIAN COMMUNITY. CENTER .........18.0.5. .NORTH .CXXTRAL AV, -.-SEBASTIAN
/
13
GRACE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH .....
.50.t.h .AV, WAB.ASSO
i, CZ?
_
15
SEBASTIAN LAKES CLUB HO.U.S.E ... ....
110'1 F.ELLS.MERE RD, SEBASTIAN
09
16
CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH... ... ...123
THUNDERBIRD DR, SEBASTIAN
20
OUR SAVIOR LUTHERAN CHURCH ...
.....1850
.6.th .AV... ....... .
21
ELKS CLUB . . ..... ....1350
.2.6t4 ST. r.
33�
22
BAPTIST RETIREMENT CENTER
1006..3.3.rd.ST...
33$
... .....
23
GIFFORD MIDDLE SCHOOL SEV.EN......
ST
Y6
..2.7.26
.45th
24
INDIAN RIVER SHORES. .COMM. .C.EXT.ER
6001 N AlA
/ Py o
25
79F
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH,WINTER BEACH
WINTER BEACH
30
/ 3e9
VERO BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER
2266.14th.AV
31
/ bzY
TREASURE COAST CATHEDRAL
3.660..16t.h ST
32
ybz
CENTRAL ASSEMBLY OF GOD
6767 20th ST
L3 3)
z y3
DODGERTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
4 3 5 0. 43rd AV
ASBURY UNITED METHODIST. CHURCH
.1708 .43rd AV...
35
CENTRAL ASSEMBLY OF GOD ....
67.6.7..20.th ST.. .
�i 7
36�
VILLAGE GREEN E CLUB HOUSE
7300 20th ST
�
40
*3
VERO MASONIC TEMPLE
1959 14th Av
41
GLENDALE BAPTIST CHURCH
790 27th AV
z 's9 39
DEC 9 1986 BOOK 6 F.��
r-7
BOOK 66' U,Or
617
'4 2
2
c9?
CITRUS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2771 4th ST
43
S �S
VERO HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CENTER
HIGHLANDS BLVD
MOOSE LODGE OF VERO BEACH #1822
226 43rd AV
457S5
VERO MASONIC TEMPLE -
1959 14th Av.
46
�JG
THOMPSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1110 SW 18th AV
50
X05
BETHEL CREEK HOUSE
4500 N AlA
51
BEACH FIREHOUSE STATION 2
5 BEACHLAND BLVD
792
52
ROCKRIDGE COMMUNITY CENTER
ROCKRIDGE BLVD
D87
53
S?7
TABERNACLE BAPTIST CHURCH
100 S OLD DIXIE
54
�sg
ROYAL PALM CLUB HOUSE(VIS.TA ROYALE).4.00 WOODLAND DR
55
ST EDWARDS UPPER SCHOOL
246 S. AlA
7i2,
. .....
- l
32
PRECINCTS
�"►--t-c.�'.,"a' �'�-°�.�..�-ate
a --LJ `-�.0 7� .."r`"U`'L"`' �".L�t---'-C..0 �--•1�-oCa..t.crt.�a. .
Chairman Scurlock felt the main thing here is that the
proposed ordinance would be used only after all other efforts to
get voluntary participation have been exhausted.
Ann Robinson, Supervisor of Elections, stre-ssed that we have
4 polling places at present that are not in the boundaries of the
precincts and we are beginning to receive requests that we move
from other polling places, such as the Mueller Center. She
stated that she is bringing this matter to the Board's attention
because with the rapid growth in registered voters, the problem
just will continue to grow. Supervisor Robinson felt that the
developers of larger residential areas would like to provide a
polling place that is convenient to the residents, and believed
that the time to consider where people will vote is when a
developer of a large residential project comes in for site plan
approval.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if the proposed ordinance would
affect residential projects with less than 200 units, and Planner
Richard Shearer stated that the actual number was not specified
in the ordinance; however, any number would be arbitrary.
Generally, whenever you have 500 units or more there are some
general facilities available. The minimum for a Development of
40
Regional Impact is 750 units. He noted that the ordinance is not
set up to be retroactive.
Chairman Scurlock felt that the proposed ordinance is a
first step in resolving the problem, and then other remedies can
be considered if we cannot get a sufficient number of voting
places in the future.
Commissioner Bird did not want to get -into the area where we
tell a developer that he has to build a larger facility than he
planned to build just because it has to accommodate a polling
place. He preferred that we either accept the facility that is
available or turn it down.
Supervisor Robinson stated that Collier County has had a
similar ordinance since 1982 and it.has worked very well.
Commissioner Bird asked if churches were included in the
ordinance, and Mrs. Robinson stated that she feels that churches
should not be included because that way there is a separation of
church and government; however, we are using many churches for
polling places.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Nancy Offutt, representing the Vero Beach -Indian River
County Board of Realtors, stated that they are strongly opposed
to an ordinance which would force private property owners to give
their property for a public use such as voting, no matter how
laudable the request would be. Frankly, they feel that it is a
violation of a person's private property rights, and in some
cases, would be forcing an added liability issue on a private
property owner. As an organization, they find it difficult to
understand why an individual or private developer would not
willingly offer their facilities inasmuch as it would provide a
convenience to their residents. The irony is that if someone
says that they don't want to do it, then what the Board is doing
is taking away their freedom of their choice, which is what
voting is all about to begin with. Mrs. Offutt noted that in the
41
DEC 9 1986 BOOK FY.3 ��
DEC ���� 8001( Ftp - 619
workshop that was held they offered to help Supervisor Robinson
in any way they could to encourage a public awareness campaign on
this issue, but they believe that to commandeer private
facilities for government purposes, no matter how laudable, is
rather frightening and wonder where does it stop. Therefore, the
Board of Realtors is urging the Board not to adopt the proposed
ordinance. Instead, they urge the community to rally around the
issue that prompts it and see if we can come up with some
voluntary places that would be suitable for polling places.
Attorney Vitunac believed there would be some increased
liability to the property owner for these private facilities if
they are used as polling places, and Supervisor Robinson recalled
that when OMB Director Joe Baird looked into this last year, he
found that the county has a blanket insurance policy which covers
the purpose of government and pointed out that elections
certainly are the most basic purpose of free government.
Commissioner Eggert was concerned because when an ordinance
.is passed, it is for many, many years to come, and would be under
different Commissioners and Supervisors of Election, and Supervisor
Robinson's Policy of only using facilities willingly given might then
,change into forced use.
Commissioner Wheeler wanted to see the ordinance encompass public
buildings and school buildings, but Supervisor Robinson believed that
public buildings were already covered under the laws.
Reverend Bruce Haven of Community Church was just concerned about
-churches being required to provide a polling place, but after hearing
the discussion this morning, understood that Mrs. Robinson has scratched
churches from the proposed ordinance.
Nancy Offutt emphasized that this ordinance is written for those
cases when someone says no, and did not feel that this ordinance is
needed because most of the developers would want the convenience of a
nearby polling place for their residents. She assured the Board that
the Realtors would be very glad to encourage developers to provide
polling places at site time approval on a voluntary basis.
42
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the Public Hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board adopt the
proposed ordinance requiring that -churches and
buildings in residential developments that serve as
common recreational facilities be designated as polling
places.
Under discussion, Commissioner Eggert felt that rather than
forcing people to provide voting facilities, it would be more -
appropriate to discuss the possibility of a polling place with
the developer at site plan approval.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
failed by a vote of 1-4, Commissioners Bird, Bowman,
Eggert, and Scurlock dissenting.
DISCUSSION REGARDING ELECTION COSTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/21/86:
CA
G' a •�
�n h;
ANN ROBINSON
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIO
1840 25TH STREET, SUITE N-1
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-3..
TELEPHONES: (305) 567-8187 or 567
November 21, 1986
22324 6
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Cor; �misS.40nCrs
Z
NAV wt, �
Administrator
a
Attorney
RMOVEM `�'
Personnel -r-
ROARD Opus /1-4
PouMISSIONERS
Public Works
Community
�c�
Uev.
O,�o%
�t 62 L
Utilities
Finance
Other
TO: HON. DON C. SCURLOCK, JR., CHAIRMAN, BCC
FROM: ANN ROBINSON, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS Q/KM/
RE: RESPONSE TO YOUR MEMO OF NOV. 17 ABOUT ELECTIONS COSTS
In the past there has not been a specific cost allocation for
municipalities for those elections held by the County that are
concurrent with City elections insofar as all costs are concerned,
i.e:, pollworkers, absentee ballots, ballots, sample ballots,
legal advertising, transportation, supplies, signs, etc.
LIN
BOCK 6 6F'�JE [d�
J
BOCK 66 F'+`ur ?.l
A comparable election for you to look at if the BCC decides to
hold a special county -wide election on March 10, 1987, would be
the Presidential Preference Election held in March, 1984. Mrs.
Richey's costs were $14,384; she didn't list the supplies costs;
the transportation costs were about $4,000. So the cost of a
medium size election using the old machines was about $19,000.
At that time there were 29 precincts with 33,354 registered
voters, and a turnout of 40% (13,300 voters).
Not long after I took office in January, 1985, the School Board
held a Special Bond Referendum Election on February 19, 1985. The
election cost the School Board $20,142 plus their required legal
ads for a special election. There were 29 precincts with 39,736
registered voters, and a turnout of 9% (3,773 voters).
Because of the new voting equipment, I think we can hold a county-
wide election on March 10, 1987 for about $15,000 if you authorize
the use of the remaining general election ballot cards. There are
32 precincts now; by March there will probably be about 44,000
registered voters. Vero Beach, Sebastian, Indian River Shores, and
Fellsmere have elections scheduled at that time.
It would seem t}- i proper allocation for the municipalities for
their election:: conjunction with the County's election
would be a charge u_ egistered voter. Thus Vero Beach would
pay about $2,600 insteau nut $4,000 for a city election alone;
Sebastian would pay about $83.. i.-nstead of about $2,000 for a city
election alone; Indian River Shores would pjay about $375 as compared
to a same cost four years ago; Fellsmere would pay about $160 instead
of about $300 for a city election alone.
There are four regularly scheduled elections coming up in 1988 --in
March, September, October, and November.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board approve
a proper cost allocation to the municipalities for
their elections held in conjunction with the County's
elections, as recommended by Supervisor Robinson.
Under discussion Commissioner Bird asked if this allocation
relates to the present charges because he did not want to vote
for something that the municipalities might construe to be an
unreasonable cost.
Supervisor Robinson stressed that we can't force the cities
to do anything, and explained that this was her attempt to more
or less assess a reasonable appropriate charge that would
encourage them to cooperate. This is in response to the
44
Chairman's request for specific costs compared to arbitrary
costs.
Commissioner Bowman asked if the March 10th election would
be a county -wide election, and Mrs. Robinson informed the Board
that no county -wide election has been scheduled as yet.
Commissioner Wheeler anticipated that we will be able to get
the tourist tax on a referendum for the March 10th election, and
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that the North County Fire
District would like to place a millage referendum on a
county -wide election and hoped there would be one schedule for
March 10th.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The
Motion was voted on and carried unanimously.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION RE CCD SYSTEM FOR SHERIFF
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/8/86:
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: December 8, 1986
Commissioners
SUBJECT:. CCD System for
Sheriff
FROM: Josep A. Baird
OMB Director
Staff has compiled the costs for the CCD and 911 system.
Listed below is the total capital cost, interim
operating
costs, and estimated annual operating costs.
'
CAPITAL COSTS
Console and Furnishings - 911
122,610
(Memo dated 9-18-86)
Microwave Tower
67,440
(Memo dated 9-24-86)
Interim Central Dispatch
129,328
(Memo dated 10-1-86)
Computer Equipment for C.A.D. System
586,359
(Memo dated 10-1-86)
Staff Training
8,800
U.P.S. Uninterrupted Power Source
60,000
- —-ESTIMATEII TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
974,537
45
D EC 9 1986
BOOK �rq,�C •� *°
BOOK fi?3
The cost of the control room, estimated at approximately
$200,000, is not included in the above numbers since the dis-
patch center would be built regardless of whether the CCD and
911 system is approved.
INTERIM OPERATING
COSTS - CURRENT YEAR
6 POSITIONS
January February March
Salary 20,325 18,067 15,808
Social Security, 7.15% 1,453 1,292 1,130
s Retirement, 13.09% 2,661 2,365 2,069
Medical Insurance, $155 Monthly 2,790 2,480 2,170
Life Insurance, $.56M 106 85 63 72,864
Total by Phase -In -Date 27,335 24,289 21,240
ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
dumber of Positions 17
Salary 247,038
Social Security, 7.15% 17,663
Retirement, 13.09% 32,337
Medical Insurance, $155 Monthly 31,620
life Insurance, $.56M 1,667
TOTAL 300,325
+umber of Positions 6
Salary 85,800
Social Security, 7.15% 6,135
Retirement, 13.09% 11,230
Medical Insurance, $155 Monthly 11,160
life Insurance, $.56M 605
TOTAL 114,930 415,255
If the Honorable Board of County Commissioners approve
the CCD and 911 system as presented, it will require a
572,864 budget amendment from contingencies for interim
operating costs.
Sheriff Dobeck asked for a decision from the Board on
the $974,537 for capital costs for equipment and the expenditure
of $72,864 for phasing in 6 additional dispatchers by March. He.
noted that the Board already has approved $129,623 for salaries.
Discussion took place on the tremendous cost of the Uninter-
rupted Power Source at $60,000 and the necessity of having it
installed.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if the CAD system is part of the
original bond issue, and Chairman Scurlock emphasized that it is
46
not. There is a shortfall on the original bond issue, and this
will be part of the additional bond.
OMB Director Joe Baird explained that a portion of the cost
will come from the 911 one-half cent surcharge and the other
portion will come from proceeds of the existing bond issue and
the new bond issue that will be going out.
Commissioner Bird asked where the $72,564 was coming from,
and Director Baird said that it will be coming from the general
fund contingencies funds and not the Sheriff's $23,000
contingencies because Florida law prohibits the Sheriff from
spending contingencies on salaries.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
$974,537 for capital costs for the CCD and 911 system,
and $72,864 for interim operating costs for 6
additional dispatchers with the necessary funds coming
out of the Board's general contingency fund.
PUBLIC HEARING - ESTABLISHMENT OF STREET LIGHTING TAXING
DISTRICTS FOR IXORA PARK AND EASTVIEW GARDENS
The hour of 10:30 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
47
•
BOOK 66 F''r 6,'l
F-77-
DEC 9 1986
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a Q -0
in the matter of and Eo, -Y \gle(,.?
1. _Cn,cArdin ,�i
in the Court, was
1 pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of i q C)N e.Y'Y� o ICig(1)
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County Florida, weekly and has been entered
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount. rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper.
+h
,December
Sworn to and subscribed before me this _�1y of_ A.D.
�1—
(Business Manager)
Boos
The Board Otff County (Commissioners of Indlari
River Hearing on Tuesday, Florida,
1886 at 10-30
a.m. In the Commission Chamber; at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960, to consider the
adoption of an ordinance entitled;
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER,
COUNTY, FLORIDA CREATING THE
t IY[]rae oe ev -
OF THE TAXING UNIT; PURpp E
DETERMINATION OF COST OF STREET
LIGHTING SERVICE OR OTHER AP,
PROVED SERVICE; LEVY OF ASSESS_i
MENTS, ADOPTION OF BUDGET; EX-
EMPTION FROM TAXATION OR i,
SESSCE DSE ENFOR FOR
ION91STRICT OR
STREET LIGHTING OR OTHER RUR -
POSES; INCORPORATION IN CODE;'' • -
SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. ,
any
f ado on the nabove d atter, hes to e/she willdneed decisioa
record of the proceedings, and for such put.
poses. he/she may need to Insure that a verba
tlm record of the Proceedings is made, which
irecord Includes the testimony -In evidence on
Lo.v.
h the appeal is based.
INDIANRIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DON C..SCURLOCK, JR.. CHAIRMAN{17 11986
The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed
the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 86-81, creating the Ixora Park and Eastview
Gardens Municipal Service Taxing Unit for street
lighting service.
48
12/3186(.14)LE m).
ORDINANCE NO. 86- 81
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CREATING THE IXORA PARK AND
EASTVIEW GARDENS MUNICIPAL SERVICE
TAXING UNIT; PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION
OF THE TAXING UNIT; PURPOSE
DETERMINATION OF COST OF STREET LIGHTING
SERVICE OR OTHER APPROVED SERVICE; LEVY
OF ASSESSMENTS, ADOPTION OF BUDGET;
EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION OR ASSESSMENTS;
DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS FOR THE DISTRICT
FOR STREET LIGHTING OR OTHER PURPOSES;
INCORPORATION IN CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the residents of Ixora Park and Eastview
Gardens Subdivisions have requested that th"P— County
establish a mechanism for providing street lighting se'rv1ce
at crucial locations throughout the subdivisions; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the creation of a
municipal service taxing unit to raise funds through the
equitable assessment of property owners throughout the
subdivisions is the best available means of accomplishing
the desired goal;.and
WHEREAS, provision of street lighting of the area
will further the safety, health and well-being of all those
residing and owning property within the boundaries of the
district;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by Indian River
County, Florida, through its Board of County Commissioners,
that:
Section 1.
Title:
Creation of Municipal Service Taxing Unit:
There is hereby established in Indian River County
the Ixora Park and Eastview Gardens municipal service taxing
unit under the authority of, and with all those powers
conferred by, the Constitution of the State of Florida, and
Sections 125.01(q) and 125.01(r), Florida Statutes. The
real property included within the boundaries of this
1
BOOK
1 c �Y
DEC 9 i9�
F77. -
®EC � `u� 6
Bm 66
ORDINANCE NO. 86 -
municipal service taxing unit and subject to all provisions
hereof is described as follows:
All of the land as shown and described
on the Plats of Ixora Park Units 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6 and the Plat of Eastview
Gardens as recorded in, respectively,
Plat Book 6, Page 8, Plat Book 6, Page
39, Plat Book 6, Page 63, Plat Book 6,
Page 68, Plat Book 6, Page 83, Plat Book
7, Page 27 and P l a t Book 8, Page t all
as recorded in the Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida.
SECTION 11.
Purpose:
a. This municipal service taxing unit is created
for the purpose of providing street lighting at reasonable,
efficient, and proper locations', within the boundaries of
the unit, including the cost- of engineering, construction,
maintenance, easement acquisition, and any necessary
supporting service or function related thereto, as may be
determined by the Board of County Commissioners, and for the
provision of such further services as may be Lawfully
authorized and determined by the Board from time to time.
b. This municipal service taxing unit may fund
all or any of the aforementioned services or improvements
through either current year funding, tax anticipation or
multi-year notes or bonds, provided any debt instrument or
obligation made must be repayable solely from the revenues
collected by the municipal service taxing unit pursuant to
the authority and means provided by this ordinance.
SECTION III.
Determination of Cost of Service:
The Board of County Commissioners shall determine
each year the estimated costs of providing street lighting
and such other services as the County Commission may
provide, including capital and equipment improvements,
rentals and acquisitions, and operating and maintenance
costs and expenses, for the ensuing County fiscal year for
that area which is or shall be receiving street lighting or
2
ORDINANCE NO. 8
other benefits provided by this unit within the boundaries
of the unit.
SECTION IV.
Levy of Assessment, Adoption of Budget:
The Board of County Commissioners hereby
authorizes the levy of an assessment upon each tract,
parcel, or unit, whether owned in conjunction with land or
not, otherwise subject to taxation, within that area which
is or shall be receiving street lighting services or
benefits within the municipal service taxing unit created
hereby, with such exceptions as are set forth in Section V
below. The assessment shall be equal and uniform upon each
platted lot in the lxora Park and Eastview -Gardens
Subdivisions. The assessment shall be Ievied and a budget
prepared and adopted by the Board at the same time and in
the same manner as the Board prepares and adopts its County
annual budget and levies taxes as provided by taw. Said
assessment shall be levied, collected, remitted to and
accounted for at the time and manner as for the assessment,
levy, collection, remittance and accounting of taxes by the
Board as provided by law. The budget shall contain all or
such portion of t -he estimated cost of providing street
lighting and other services within the boundaries of the
unit, as determined under the provisions of Section III
hereof, as the Board shall determine to be necessary to
provide such services.
SECTION V. r.
Exemptions from Assessment:
The following lands are exempted from the
provisions of this section for the purposes of assessments
for street lighting benefits:
a. Those parts of any platted and recorded
subdivision which lie within the corporate limits of any
mun't_cipaLity existing or hereafter created.
3
DEC 9 1986
BOOK 66 FF�FUE6 __
r`:7- .- .
DEC � 198
BOOK
ORDINANCE NO. 86-
b. All lands owned and occupied by buildings
owned and operated by the Indian River County School
District for the purposes of operating a school for the
education of the citizens of Indian River County to the
extent state law requires this exemption.
SECTION VI.
Disposition of Proceeds from Levy of Taxes:
Those funds obtained from the levy of an
assessment on all the taxable real property within the
boundary.of said unit shall be maintained in a separate
account and used solely for the purpose of providing street
lighting and such other benefits as determined by the Board
of County Commissioners within the boundaries of said unit
only.
S17 --l-IN-VI 1.
This ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code
of Ordinances of Indian River County and the word
"ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other
appropriate word and the sections of this ordinance may be
renumbered or relettered to accomplish such purposes.
SECTION Vi 1 1 .
Severability:
If any section or if any sentence, paragraph,
phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to
be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holding shall
not affect remaining portions of this _ordinance; and it
shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to
pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or
inoperative part.
SECTION IX.
Effective Date. ,
This ordinance shall become effective upon receipt
fram the -Secretary of Statement of the State of Florida of
official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed
with the Department of State.
C
_ ORDINANCE NO. 86- 81
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 9th
day of December 1986.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press -Journal commencing on the 17th day of November 11
1986, for a public hearing to be held on the 9th day of
December 1986, at which time it was moved for adoption
by Commissioner Eggert I seconded by Commissioner
Bird and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye_
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert - Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Awe _
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By.. / :G.
Don C. curlock, Jr.
Chairman -
Attest:
By
'ire a Wr i g� . nn
Clerk
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of
Florida, this 16th day of December , 1986.
Effective date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 19th day of December , 1986, at 10:00
a.m./p.m. and filed in the Ofif ce ofrthe Clerk of the 9oard
of County Commissioners of Indian River CDunty, Florida.
ED ASFORM AND
L UFF 10 F�iQCY :_
J e5 G. VY I I son
a A sistant County Attorney
APPROVED FOR l - Q - ' AGENDA
-
REGULAR
-� q^ , -P
COUNTY ATTM, NEY
E
de
DEC D 1986 �. BOOK
��,,;� �P®
-r
i
DEC 0 19,6 BOOK F9' E _111
PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FROM THE STATE FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO
SITE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT DORMITORY NEXT TO INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY
COLLEGE
The hour of 10:45 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following statement with Proof of Publication
attached, to wit:
J- VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach. Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach
h�in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
`
a /yci-L ZC
in the matter of
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of 2&6L14
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and.has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
(Clerk of the Circuit
(SEAL)
D. 19 r&
Lsiness Man er)
L j,G�r'Cbort'ty`, Florida)
54
NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING
Node of Public Fearing to consider the
pprenting of spedsl exception approval for a real-
dsntlal center. The subject property lo presently
owner bbyy OeparbrMnt of General Services. State
If Florida, and N located at 5820 Lundberg -
Road.
The subject proh cribed ae
THE EAST 5.0 ACRESdesOF TRACT 15,
LYING NORTH OF THE MAIN CANAL IN
SECTION 5. TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST. THE SAME DESIG-
NATED ON THE LAST GENERAL PLAT
OF LANDS OF THE INDIAN RIVER
FARMS COMPANY, FILED IN THE OF-
FICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY. FLOR-
IDA, IN PLAT BOOK 2. PAGE 25, SAID
LANDS NOW SITUATE IN INDIAN RIVER
A public hearing at which parties In Interest
and eNlsens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, wNl be held by the Board of County Conn
missionMa of Indian River County, Florida. In the
Commission Chambers of the County Adminis-
tration Building. located at 1840 25th SL, Vero
Beach, Florida. an Tussdsy, December 9. 199
at 1030 a m.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any deCloion
which may be mads at this meeting vela need to
ensure that a verbatim rscwd of the ptoesedings
Is mads which Includes the testlmony and evl-
rencaupon whldr : appeal will be based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY: -s -Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
Nov. 17. 19M _
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/24/86:
TC): The Honorable Members of ®ATE: November 24, 1986
FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Bober M. Keats g, 4 P
Planning &Development Direi
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL
OF
SUBJECT: REQUESTS FORTATE SPECIALFLORIDA
for EXCEPTION APPROVAL AND
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT'S
APPEAL OF PLANNING AND
ZO14ING COMMISSION APPROVAL
OF THE SITE PLAN TO CON-
FROM:Michael K. Miller rA`v UI REFERENc RUCT A DORMITORY
Chief, Current Development
It is recommended that the following information be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
meeting of December 9, 1986.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Department of General. Services hz
application as part of a request for
a residential center (Dormitory) in
idential District. The subject p
Lundberg Road (16th Street) and i
Community College. Although resit
considered to be a large group home c
residential center may also be cc
facility.
s submitted a major site plan
special exception approval of
the RM -6, Multi -family Res
-operty is located at 5820
s adjacent to Indian River
ential centers are usually
r congregate care facility, a
nsidered to be a dormitory
The proposed residential center will be 12,026 sq. ft. in size and
include 36 bedrooms with 2 beds per room. At full occupancy, the
dormitory will accommodate 72 students. The center will serve as
a residence for students attending the Correctional Officers
training program at Indian River Community College.
Pursuant to Section 25.3 of the Zoning Code, Regulation of Special
Exception Uses, the Board of County Commissioners is to consider
the appropriateness of the requested use based on the submitted
site plan and, the suitability of the site for that use. The
Planning Commission concurrently makes a recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners regarding the special exception use
and acts on the submitted site plan. The County.may attach any
conditions and safeguards necessary to assure compatibility of the
use with the surrounding area.
On November 13, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to
recommend approval of the Special Exception Use to the Board of
County Commissioners. The Planning & Zoning Commission also
conditionally approved the site plan noting special exception
approval by the Board of County Commissioners and the deletion of
a second phase of the dormitory as conditions for site plan
approval. In addition, although the staff had recommended that 80
feet of R.O.W. be dedicated, as is required by County Code for a
secondary collector, the Planning and Zoning Commission declined
to require any right-of-way dedication as a condition of approval.
Special Exception Analysis
Section 25.1 of the Zoning Code, Regulations for Specific Land
Uses, details specific criteria to be considered when reviewing a
residential center group home for approval as a special exception
use. As in all residential uses, density is an important consid-
eration. For group homes, however, a density bonus provision was
55
x�
F 77
incorporated in the zoning code to allow group homes to have more
units than would normally be allowed by zoning district regu-
lations. This provision was established to reflect the lower
intensity of group homes, e.g. smaller units, fewer vehicle trips,
and fewer persons per unit. The units were anticipated- to be
small and the clientele dependent on the facility.
According to the residential center group home density provision,
the five acres proposed for the dormitory use could accommodate
the following number of students [Sec. 25.1(F)(d)(3)].
6 units per acre (RM -6) x 2.0 persons per dwelling unit x 11
the normal density = 18 people per acre.
18 people x 5 acres = 90 people.
.
The maximum number of students for the proposed dormitory
therefore totals ninety.
The site plan submittal identifies two phases, each consisting of
an identical dormitory structure that provides accommodations for
72 students. Since the special exception density provision
permits a maximum of 90. people on the subject 5 acre tract and the
inclusion of the second phase provides for total site development
to serve 144 students, the second phase must be deleted from the
site plan so that the plan provides for no more than 90 people.
Although the special exception process allows the Board of County
Commissioners to impose any additional conditions to ensure
compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding property, the
staff does not recommend the imposition of any special conditions
in this case.
Appeal of Site Plan Approval
The Planning and Development Division is appealing the action of
the Planning and Zoning Commission to the Board of County Commis-
sioners for the following reasons:
1. The Indian River County Thoroughfare Plan identifies this
segment of 16th Street (Lundberg --Road) as a secondary collec-
- tor. The Indian River County Thoroughfare Plan is the
official standard for determining R.O.W. dedication [Sec.
23.3(d)(1)1;
2. The minimum R.O.W. width for a secondary collector is 80 feet
[Sec. 23.3 (d) (1) c] ;
3. The Indian River Farms Drainage District main relief canal
abuts the subject property to the south and the drainage
district, although willing to cooperate with the County, is
not willing to dedicate any of the existing width of canal
R.O.W. to the County for roadway purposes [Conversation
between drainage district engineer, Marvin Carter and staff
on November 24, 1986];
4. The applicant is compensated for R.O.W. dedication through
either applying to the County for credit against traffic
impact fees or transferring the density from the strip of
R.O.W. to the remainder of the property;
5. In 1976 the Indian River Community College obtained a strip
of land 61.7 feet wide by 1330 feet long that connects the
present campus and dormitory site to Kings Highway. The
strip of land abuts the north edge of the canal R.O.W. and is
in alignment with the 80 feet of R.O.W. that County code
requires be dedicated;
56
6. None of the proposed improvements to the dormitory site are
located within 200 feet of the present south property line or
north edge of main relief canal R.O.W. line.
Site Plan Appeal Alternatives and Analysis:
This County, like many other counties, requires dedication of
additional right-of-way at the time property is developed, if
right-of-way widths abutting or included in the proposed develop-
ment do not meet locally adopted standards. The dedication of
additional right-of-way in association with new development
implements the Board's policy of new development "paying its way".
The Thoroughfare Plan specifically identifies primary or secondary
collector corridors at half mile increments throughout much of the
County: The designation of roadway classification is based on
standard traffic engineering practice. Examples of secondary
collector corridors include 16th Street, 8th Street, and 1st
Street S.W. while examples of primary collectors include 12th
Street and 4th Street.. The State mandated comprehensive plan
revisions which will be adopted by the County by 1989 will
probably include much higher residential densities east of I-95
due to public water and wastewater availability, and the need for
a planned and developed roadway network will soon become readily
apparent.
The rationale for an 80 foot wide R.O.W. is clear. The 80 foot
wide R.O.W. required for secondary collectors is based on an
ultimate pavement width of 36 feet, six foot wide stabilized
shoulders on each side of the pavement, and a 16 foot wide area
for drainage swales, sidewalks or bikeways and utilities on each
side of the pavement and shoulders (see attachment).
Three alternatives are available to the Commission. The first
option is to approve the site plan conditioned on the dedication
of 80 feet of R.O.W. as required by County Code and as identified
on the adopted Thoroughfare Plan map. The second option is to
table the applicant's request and initiate a study of present
R.O.W. acquisition policy. The present policy of R.O.W. acquisi-
tion has been reviewed frequently during the last several years
and the present policy is a reflection of past investigations.
The County planning staff has recently submitted a grant proposal
to the State that would fund a comprehensive and detailed study of
the problems associated with acquiring County road R.O.W. along
drainage district canal R.O.W. If the County is successful in
obtaining the grant, the resulting study may identify other
options for implementing the Thoroughfare Plan. The focus of the
study will be to identify alternatives for implementation of road
right-of-way acquisition where such road right-of-way abuts canal
right-of-way. The study will not be concerned with modification
of right-of-way width standards amendments to the Thoroughfare
Plan. The third alternative concerns dedication of the 80 feet of
R.O.W. with a reverter clause that would permit all or part of
the right-of-way to revert back to the present owner whenever it
was determined that the right-of-way was not necessary for the
establishment of permanent public access for properties in the
vicinity along the north side of the main relief canal.
Usually, developments are required to make up half of any
right-of-way deficiency through dedication. Dedication of R.O.W
57
DEC 9 1986 BOOK Pi- 634
f.. r n
DEC V� Boos �', , ba
along canals involves right-of-way acquisition only along property
opposite the canal side of the developed roadway. Although this
may place a substantial burden on property owners who have proper-
ty opposite the canal, the owners who have property along the
canal have a substantial cost when installing large culverts or
bridges over the canal to afford access to their property. Also,
density transfers or impact fee credits compensate applicants.
dedicating R.O.W. for roads on the County's 20 year capital
improvement program.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that: (1) the request for special exception
approval to construct a dormitory be approved, and (2) the action
of the Planning and Zoning Commission be overturned by including
an 80 foot right-of-way dedication as a condition of site plan
approval.
Commissioner Eggert understood that because the road is on
the canal right-of-way, staff is afraid the drainage district may
take it away some day and therefore, are looking for dedication
of an easement along the college right-of-way.
Chairman Scurlock felt that we should have some right for
that road to exist seeing that road has been paved for a number
of years, but Attorney Vitunac believed that we would not get
that right-of-way against another public agency. We are there at
their sufferance, and their attorney, Michael O'Haire has made it
very clear that they can take it away at any time.
Chairman Scurlock asked what the objection is to dedicating
80 ft., and Commissioner Eggert asked why 80 ft. is being re-
quested if only 61.7 feet is going in there.
Planning & Development Director Keating explained that
Public Works has done cross sections which indicate that 80 feet
is needed to accommodate a secondary roadway and that we would be
looking at acquiring.the remainder of the right-of-way to make it
a full 80 ft. when those parcels to the east of the dormitory
came in for approval. He emphasized that there are two other
forms of compensation for right-of-way: 1) A developer can take
a credit against his impact fee liability for the value of that
right-of-way, or 2) he can choose to transfer the densities to
the rest of his parcel for the allowable units which are
"" attributable to that right-of-way.
Commissioner Bird asked what the college's preference is
because he wished to be cooperative in this matter.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Ed Massey, Dean of Instructional Services at IRCC, recalled
that back in 1979 when they built Mueller Center they did not
have access to this site and they purchased -a 30.8 ft, strip
running from Kings Highway to the college site. In addition, Sid
Banack agreed to donate another 30.8 feet adjacent to that which
gave them a total of 61.7 feet through that area. The Board of
Trustees of the college agreed to transfer that land to the
County for the purpose of a roadway for the area. They have a
signed deed where that took place, but they cannot find where the
land was actually accepted by the County at that time. If it was
not accepted, the college is willing to make that same proposal
again for the 61.7 ft. However, they would really like to see 40
feet come off the college property and 40 feet off the drainage
district. They feel that they have done their fair share in
getting a road to the Mueller Center, but if they have to, they
will rededicate the entire 61.7 feet. If 80 ft. is required,
they would suggest that the County approach the Drainage District
and get the additional 17 feet.
Chairman Scurlock understood that the Drainage District has
turned down every request.
Public Works Director Jim Davis felt that it was safe to
assume that if the Main Relief Canal is widened in the future or
if the Drainage District has to do anything in their 300 feet of
right-of-way, there would be an access road along the south of
16th Street. However, he did not think that the Drainage
District would give us any formal easements or title to that.
Director Davis felt that the District wants to have the
flexibility in the future to do what they want to do, but we
would be in pretty good shape if we can use 19 feet of that just
as a shoulder area or something -- just so they don't take the
BODS
J
canal right up to that line. He felt they could work with the
61.7 ft., but was rather concerned that while this was an unique
experience, it might set a precedent on our thoroughfare map.
Planning & Development Director Robert Keating felt that if
we went this route, there would be many appeals to the Planning &
Zoning Commission for unique circumstances.
Mr. Massey reiterated that if it is found that the County
did not accept that donation back in 1979, the DOC may own that
61.7 ft. from Kings Highway up to the dormitory.
Murdock Shaw, architectural supervisor with the DOC, stated
that they were not even aware until recently that an attempt had
been made to dedicate that 61.7 ft.to the County. He stressed
that the State is agreeable to working with the County, as far as
providing an access road in that area is concerned; however, they
would like something more definite that involves all the
landowners to the east and west and also the Drainage District
before they just arbitrarily agree to give 80 ft. or 61.7 ft.
Chairman Scurlock felt we need to get the issue resolved and
personally he would like to have 61.7 feet from Kings Highway all
the way up to 16th Street.
Commissioner Bird wanted to see that also, and if we find
that the right-of-way has been conveyed to the DOC, we need to
get it back.
Director Keating advised that all that can be required at
this point is the dedication of the portion of the right-of-way
on the dormitory site prior to site plan approval, and then when
the actual proposal for the Mueller Center comes in for
development, we can require the other 61.7 ft.
Commissioner Bird believed that since there wasn't any money
exchanged between the State and the college, that the State
should not have any concerns about dedicating the 61.7 ft. back
to the County.
60
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed
the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted
a special exemption to site plan approval for the
DOC dormitory, that being the dedication to the County
of 61.7 feet of road right-of-way from Kings Highway to
the dormitory site.
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD
The following Proclamation is hereby made a part of the -
Minutes:
61
BOOK 66 AU 6113
F7__ - -
DEC
cqz�l 1981s
BOCK °;1. ba
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol or
controlled substances contributes significantly to fatalities and
injuries each year on Indian River County's highways; and
WHEREAS, the State of Florida is providing assistance to
local governments in development of community-based traffic
safety programs with DUI emphasis; and
WHEREAS, citizen advocacy groups, such as Mothers Against
Drunk Driving (MADD), Students Against Driving Drunk (SADD),
Remove Intoxicated Drivers (RID), and Boost Alcohol Consciousness
Concerning the Health of University Students (BACCHUS) are
increasing their efforts to reduce the incidence of driving under
the influence in Florida; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary that each citizen becomes more
keenly aware of and knowledgeable concerning the problem of
driving under the influence and the penalties that are imposed
under Florida's DUI law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the week of
December 14-20, 1986, shall be designated as
S
DRUNK AND DRUGGED DRIVING AWARENESS WEEK
in Indian River County, and all citizens are urged to become more
cognizant of the intoxicated driver problem and to support
efforts within the County to reduce the incidence of driving
under the influence.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR., A N
Dated this 11th day of December, 1986
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried,,the Board adjourned at 11:30 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
--=-�-- ----- -� G ---�
Clerk Chairman
62