HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/3/1987Tuesday, February 3, 1987
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,
February 3, 1987, 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; L. S.
"Tommy"Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph
Baird, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend Elmer Vogelsong, Immanuel Baptist Church, gave the
invocation, and Commissioner Eggert led the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Bird advised that he has written the Commission
a memo re having a workshop on the Gifford Community Center
project, and he would like to have this added to the agenda for
discussion It was felt this could be discussed under Committee
Reports.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the addition of the above item to today's agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Pistol Permit
The Board reviewed memo of Administrator Balczun:
M -i
BOOK
FEB 3 M7
-7
FEB 3 1987 BOOK 6 " F � «��
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: January 20, 1987 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT'. PISTOL PERMIT -
NEW APPLICANT
FROM: Charles P. Balczun REFERENCES:
County Administrator
The following person has applied through the Clerk's Office for a new pistol
permit:
Mara Marie Conway
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the application for a permit to carry a concealed
firearm for Mara Marie Conway.
B. & C. Reports
The following were received and placed on file in the Office
of Clerk to the Board:
Florida Department of Transportation Five -Year Transportation
Plan - July 1, 1986 - June 30, 1991
The Shellfish Harvesting Area Atlas - describing such areas
within our Judicial Circuit (from the DNR)
C. Reappointment to Housing Finance Authority
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the reappointment of Don C. Scurlock, Jr. to the
Housing Finance Authority for another 4 year term
to expire February, 1991.
2
E. Final Plat Approval - Empty Pockets Subdivision
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Boling:
rO: The Honorable Members of DATE: January 22, 1987 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, .IAICP SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR
Planning & Development Director EMPTY POCKETS SUBDIVISION
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller
Chief, Current Development MY`�
FROM: Stan Boling 4.5. REFERENCES: empty pockets
Staff Planner STAN2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of February 3, 1987.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Empty Pockets is a private three lot subdivision of a ±3.37 acre
parcel located on the north side of 65th Street, east of 66th
Avenue. At their regular meeting of September 11, 1986) the
Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval
for Empty Pockets. The owner/applicant, Mr. J.P. Wilson, has
submitted a final plat that is in conformance with the approved
preliminary plat and is now requesting final plat approval.
ANALYSIS:
All required improvements, to be owned and maintained by a private
property owners' association, have been constructed and approved
by Public Works. All county requirements regarding final plat
approval have been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval for Empty Pockets Subdivision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted
Final Plat Approval for Empty Pockets Subdivision.
F. Budget Amendment - Computer_ Equipment for Budget Office
The Board reviewed memo of OMB Director Baird:
3 �,
FEB 3 198? BOOK � � f,v-184
Pte,)
FEB 31987 BOOK 67 o E185
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: January 28, 1987
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment
to Purchase
Computer Equip-
ment for Budget
Office
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
The Office of Management and Budget would like permission
to purchase a personal computer and printer at a cost of ap-
proximately $6,750. The following budget amendment is
necessary to facilitate the purchase. -
Increase Decrease
102-229-513-066.41 Office Furn & Equipment 6,750
102-199-581-099.91 Reserve for Contingency 6,750
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the above budget amendment for a personal computer
and printer for the Budget Office.
G. Budget Amendment - Quilt Award
The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director:
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: January 28, 1987
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment
for Quilt Reward
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
In the 1985/86 fiscal year, the Board of County Com-
missioners authorized a $1,000 reward for the return of the
County quilt. The reward was not issued until the 1986/87
fiscal year which will require the Board to do the following
budget amendment to appropriate funds.
Increase Decrease
001-101-511-033.49 Other Contractural Srvs 1,000
001-199-581-099.91 Reserve for Contingency
4
1,000
E.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the above budget amendment appropriating funds
for the reward for return of the County quilt.
H. Budget Amendment - Roseland Volunteer Fire Department
The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director:
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: January 28, 1987
Commissioners
THROUGH: Sonny Dea SUBJECT: Budget Amendment
General vices Director Roseland Volunteer
Fire Department
FROM: Josep A. Baird
OMB Director
The North County Fire District Board is requesting that
the Board of County Commissioners appropriate funds for the
Roseland Volunteer Fire Department to purchase a set of "Jaws
of Life" at a cost not to exceed $7,000.
If the Board of County Commissioners approve the purchase
of a "Jaws of Life", the following budget amendment is
necessary:
Tnnrc��n Tci.roa�e
115-122-522-066.49 Other Machines & Equip 71000
115-104-581-099.91 Reserve for Contingency 7,000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the above budget amendment appropriating funds for
"Jaws of Life" for the Roseland Volunteer Fire Dept.
I._ Budget_ Amendment __ Disaster _Preparedness
The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director:
>T
5 BOOK l
FES 1987
FEB 3 19B7
HOOK 67 F'"' is %
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: January 28, 1987
Commissioners
THROUGH: Sonny Dea ( SUBJECT: Budget Amendment
Doug WrigYit ( for Disaster
Preparedness
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
Explanation
Indian River County negotiates a grant from FPL every
year. At budget time the final negotiations for grant funds
had not been finalized, therefore, the prior year's annual
estimate of $21,426 was bu-dgeted. Doug Wright was able to
obtain $31,949 for the 1986/87 fiscal year, an increase of
$10,523. The budget amendment below appropriates the ex-
penditures.
001-208-525-037.02
001-208-525-037.11
001-208-525-037.14
001-208-525-037.19
001-208-525-037.21
001-208-525-037.31
001-208-525-037.49
(3,345)-525-037.99
001-208-525-066.41
Revenue
001-000-342-041.00
Expense
001-208-525-037.02
001-208-525-037.11
001-208-525-037.14
001-208-525-037.19
001-208-525-037.21
001-208-525-037.31
001-208-525-037.49
001-208-525-037.99
001-208-525-066.41
Recommendation
ANALYSIS OF
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
EXPENDITURES
FPL EST.
ANNUAL FPL GRANT ADJUST -
GRANT AT BUDGET MENT
All Travel
1,000
11980
(980)
Telephone
360
321
39
Administrative Chgs
8,431
-0-
8,431
Professional Services
19,208
13,560
5,648
Office Supplies
1,300
1,120
180
Electric Services
700
733
(33)
Other Contract Srvcs
250,
3,595
Other Charges-Oblig
-
117
(117)
Office Furn & Equip
700
-
700
31,949
211426
10,523
BUDGET AMENDMENT
Increase Decrease
Disaster Preparedness 10,523
All Travel
980
Telephone
39
Administrative
8,431
Professional Services
5,648
Office Supplies
180
Electric Services
33
Other Contract Services
3,345
Other Charges-Oblig
117
Office Furn & Equip
700
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the above budget amendment.
6
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the foregoing budget amendment for Disaster Pre-
paredness as recommended by the OMB Director.
J. Agreement _ State Aid to Libraries
The Board reviewed memo of Library Director Mary Kiser:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: 1/26/1987 FILE:
THRU : L. S. "Tommy" Thomas
Intergovernmental lations
,
SUBJECT: Libraries' State Aid
87/88
FROM: Mary D. Kiser REFERENCES: Attached - 2 ori
Lzbr�ary-Director - _ original contracts
Please add to agenda the "State Aid to Libraries" agreement to be signed
by Chairman Scurlock and returned to me.
The sooner these are signed (2 orginial signatures), the sooner the State
will start processing our paper work.
The amount this year is $28,148.00 to be dispersed (as in prior arrangements),
2/3 to Indian River County Library, $18,765.34; and 1/3 to Sebastian,
$9,382.66.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Agreement with the State Division of Library
and Information Services for State Aid to Libraries
and authorized the signature of the Chairman.
SAID AGREEMENT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD WHEN FULLY
EXECUTED AND RECEIVED.
K. Bid #328 - Two Vehicles (Engineering)_ One Vehicle (Clerk)
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Goodrich:
7
�' B � JU
BOOK 67 F,q,i l 88
-7
FEB 3 1987
BOOK 67 F4GE. ��w��
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: January 27, 1987 FILE:
THRU: Joseph _Baird SUBJECT: IRC BID #328 -Two (2) New 1987
Director, Budget Office Mid Size 4 Door Automobiles
FROM: a, �,6t e -1)
REFERENCES:
Carol
yp'Goodrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received Monday, December 29, 1986 at 11:00 A.M.
for IRC #328 -Two (2) New 1987 Mid -Size 4 Door Automobiles
for the Engineering Department.
18 Bid Proposals were sent out. Of the 5 Bids received,
I was a "No Bid."
2. Alternatives and Analysis
The low bid, with trade-in was submitted by Janie Dean
Chevrolet in the amount of $9687.68 each for a Celebrity
4 Door.
The State Contract price for a mid-size 4 Door sedan with a
2.5L 4 cylinder engine is $9004.00. A 6 cylinder engine
is not available in a mid-size on the State Contract.
The State Contract price for a 1/2 Ton Pickup is $8684.57.
After discussion with the Engineering Staff they feel one
4 cylinder automobile and one 1/2 Ton Pickup Truck will meet
their needs.
3. Recommendation and Funding
Staff recommends that IRC #328 be rejected and One Mid -Size
4 Door Automobile and One 1/2 Ton Pickup Truck be pufchased
_ from the Florida State Contract.
The Clerks office also has funds budgeted for an automobile.
Staff requests authorization to order the Clerks vehicle from
the State Contract at the same time.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously rejected
Bid #328 as recommended by staff and authorized
the purchase of one mid-size 4 -door automobile and
one 1/2 Ton Pickup Truck for the Engineering Depart-
ment and an automobile for the Clerk's Office from
the Florida State Contract.
8
L. Bid #334 - 1/2 Ton Pickup Trucks (Road C Bridge.- Building
Det—.- 5out- irounty`F a—Tsi trict
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Goodrich:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: January 26, 1987 FILE:
THRU• Joseph A. Baird
SUBJECT: ECT IRC BID #334 -Two (2) New 1937
Director, Budget Office Full Size 1/2 Ton Pickup Trucks
FROM: C,�-:�-� REFERENCES:
Carolyn Goodrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
Description and Conditions
Bids were received Thursday, January 22, 1987 at 11:00 A.M. for
IRC #334 -Two (2) New 1987 Full Size 1/2 Ton Pickup Trucks for the
Road and Bridge Department.
13 Bid Proposals were sent out, 2 Bids were received.
Alternatives and Analysis
The low bid was submitted by Ross Chevrolet, St. Petersburg, F1.,
in the amount of $8821.42 each, less the trade-in of $300.00.
The equivalent vehicle is available on the State Contract for $8684.57.
Recommendation and Funding
Staff recommends that IRC #334 be rejected and the 1/2 Ton Pickup
Trucks be purchased from the -State Contract.
Funds are budgeted in Account #111=214-541-066.42.
In addition, 1/2 Ton Pickup Trucks have been approved i -n the budgets
of the Building Department (4) and South County Fire District (1). If
- the Board so wishes we can purchase these vehicles at the same time.
Funds have been budgeted to purchase these vehicles.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously rejected
Bid #334 as recommended by staff and authorized
the purchase of two 1987 Full Size 1/2 Ton Pickup
Trucks. for Road & Bridge, four 1/2 Ton Pickups for
the Building Department, and one 1/2 Ton Pickup for
the South County Fire District, all to be purchased
from State Contract as recommended by staff.
9
BOOK 6 7 FAGF
FEB 3 1937 BOOK 67 F' ,,191
M. Partial Release of ERUs SR60 Water &_Wastewater_- (Sixty Oaks
ana -_0u_Ft idi 6U MT
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Partial Releases of Wastewater and Water Reserva-
tion and Assessment Liens for SR60 Sewer & Water
Project, as follows:
Sixty Oaks
Avis Bonk
Robert McKnight
Nancy Diamond
Countryside South
ReaTcor=aero each Assoc.
(Lot 62S)
Sewer Water
1 ERU 1 ERU
1 ERU 1 ERU
1 ERU 1 ERU
1 ERU
COPIES OF SAID RELEASES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO
THE BOARD.
N. Antenna Site Lease Hobart Park (DNR)
The Board reviewed memo of General Services Director Dean:
TO: The Honorable Members
- of the Board of County
Commissioners
DATE: January 20, 1987 FILE:
THRU: Charles P. Balczun SUBJECT: Antenna Site Lease
County Administrator- Department Natural Resources/
Indian River County
FROM: H. T. DZA REFERENCES:
Director
General Services
The Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR)'has maintained a
lease on antenna space at the County -owned tower at Hobart Park for a
number of years. The lease agreement is for two year intervals with
an option to renew at expiration.
In the spring of 1986, DNR legal staff along with County legal staff
decided to change the lease agreement form for standardization
purposes. At that time, we were using two different agreements.
This process has caused the lease to be passed back and forth between
both legal departments.
Staff recommends approval of the attached lease, and request
_ authorization to invoice the DNR effective June 16, 1986.
10
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Antenna Site Lease with the Department of Natural
Resources, FLorida Marine Patrol and authorized
invoicing the DNR effective June 16, 1986 as re-
quested by staff.
SAID LEASE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE, CREATING RS -2 DISTRICT
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:
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 1,�-Ta
-in the matter of
r '
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of e
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. ---�
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of A. D.����
r
'(Business Manager)
J,,
t . �
NOTICE-f'1BLIC NUTIM I
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River Co ntj,;
Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which pat ;
ties In interest, and citizens shall,hgMan upper.,
tunny to be heard, in the County Commssk-
Chambers of the County Administration Bund=
ing, located at 1840 25th St, Vero Beach. Frw
ida, on Tuesday. February 3, 1987, at 9:65
to consider the adoption of an' Qrdinance
fled:
9
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN"' RNER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING AP-
PENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES, . KNOWN AS THE ZON-
ING CODE, BY: 1) CREATING SECTION
5.1 RS -2, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDEN-
TIAL DISTRICT, 2) AMENDING SECTION
25.1, "REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC
LAND USES AND PROVIDING FOR
REPEAL OF. CONFLICTING PROM- ,e;
SIONS AS WELL AS CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE
A copy of the proposed Ordinance is avagable
at the Planning Department office on the setons]
floor of the County Administration Buldirtg.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any dechsich
Which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record"ofthe praceecr:,V
Is made which includes the testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal will be based..
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By -s- Don S. Scurlock, Chairman I
January 13. 11987. I
1 1 8119
FEB �� Boos Ia ��
FEB 6 1937 -_
BOOK dC. r tj
Chief Planner Richard Shearer made the staff presentation
recommending approval:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: January 22, 1987 FILE: ..
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
`'---1 .. SUBJECT: COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST
Robert M. Keatin AI -CP! TO AMEND THE ZONING ORD -
Planning & Devel9pment Director INANCE TO CREATE THE
RS -2, SINGLE-FAMILY RES-
IDENTIAL DISTRICT
FROM:Ric�lyd M, shearer, - REFERENCES:
Chief, Long -Range Planning
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of February 3, 1987.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
On December 2, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners approved
the down -zoning of 122 acres located north of 16th Street, west
of 43rd Avenue, and east of 58th Avenue from RS -6, Single -Family
Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to RS -3, Single -Family
Residential District (up to 3 units/acre). At the public
hearing, a number of property owners in the area indicated that
they felt the RS -3 district allowed a density too high for this
area and that future development should be limited to one or two
units per acre consistent with the existing development in this
area.
After the public hearing, the Board did rezone the area to RS -3.
However, the Board instructed the staff to prepare a new zoning
district which would allow up to 2 units per acre which might be
utilized in this area.
On January 8, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The proposed RS -2 district is designed to allow up to two
dwelling units per acre. The proposed RS -2 district is very
similar to the RS -3 zoning district except that it has a larger
minimum lot size and a larger required minimum lot width.
Moreover, the RS -2 district was specifically designed to be more
restrictive than the existing RS -3 district but not as
restrictive as the existing RS -1, Single -Family Residential
District (up to 1 unit/acre). If adopted, the RS -2 district
could be utilized not only along 16th Street, but also in other
areas of the County which have very low density development
patterns. '
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the
Commission's
proposed RS -2
above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
recommendation, staff recommends approval of the
district.
12
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none, and the Chairman thereupon declared the public
hearing closed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 87-14 amending the Zoning Code by creating
Section 5.1 RS -2, Single -Family Residential District.
13 BOOK F.uE. I�
F E B � 1937
BOOK
FEE
12/10/86
rich2
LR -Planning
RS/vh
ORDINANCE NO. 87- 14
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, KNOWN AS
THE ZONING CODE, BY: 1) CREATING SECTION 5.1. RS -2,
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; 2) AMENDING SECTION
25.1, "REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES"; AND
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS AS WELL
AS CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida that:
SECTION 1
A new Section 5.1, entitled "RS -2, Single -Family Residential
District", is hereby adopted and shall read as follows:
SECTION 5.1 RS -2z SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
A. Purpose and Intent
The RS -2, Single -Family Residential District, is designed for
low-density developments of up to two single-family dwelling
units per acre. The RS -2 district is intended to be
consistent with the LD -1 Comprehensive Plan land use
designation and may also be utilized in areas designated as
LD -2 on the Comprehensive Plan when such areas have an
existing development pattern consistent with the RS -2
district.
B. Permitted Uses
In the RS -2, Single -Family Residential District no building
or structure shall be erected, altered or used, except for
one or more of the following. Site plan review shall be
required for all uses except single-family dwellings,
pursuant to the provisions of Section 23.1.
(1) Residential Uses
- Single-family dwellings
(2) Institutional•Uses
- Foster care facilities
(3) Community Service Uses
Emergency Services
C. Uses Requiring Administrative Permits
The following uses shall be permitted in the RS -2,
Single -Family Residential District subject to the specific
use criteria established in Section 25.1, Regulations for
Specific Land Uses, and review procedures established in
Section 25.2, Review of Uses Requiring Administrative
Permits.
(1) Agricultural Uses (Section 25.1 (a))
- Noncommercial kennels and animal boarding places
(2) Recreational Uses (Section 25.1(o))
- Parks and playgrounds, open to the public
r
ORDINANCE NO. 87-
D. Special Exception Uses
The following uses may be permitted in the RS -2,
Single -Family Residential District subject to the specific
use criteria established in Section 25.1, Regulations for
Specific Land Uses, and review procedures established in
Section 25.3, Regulation of Special Exception Uses.
(1) Agricultural Uses (Section 25.1(a))
- Nurseries and greenhouses, noncommercial
Stables, noncommercial
(2) Residential Uses (Section 25.1 (c))
- Guest Cottages
- Planned residential developments
(3) Institutional Uses (Section 25.1 (f))
- Child care or adult care facilities
- Places of worship
(4) Community Service Uses.(Section 25.1 (g))
- Schools, primary and secondary
- Government Administration buildings
(5) Recreation Uses (Section 25.1(0))
- Country Clubs
- Golf courses _
(6) Utility uses (Section 25.1 (s))
- Public and private utilities (limited)
E. Accessory Uses and Structures
As provided in Section 25 (g), accessory -uses and structures.
F. Dimensional Regulations
As provided in Table 5.1, herein, and Section 3.1,
Application of District Regulations.
G. Permitted Signage
As provided in Section 25 (o), Signs.
H. Walls and Fences
As provided in Section 25 (i), Walls and Fences.
I. Minimum Off -Street Parking Requirements
-As provided in Section 24, Off -Street Parking and Loading
Regulations.
J. Required Improvements
All future subdivision and site plans for developments within
the RS -2 zoning district shall provide the following
improvements, designed and constructed to the requirements
and specifications in the Code of Laws and Ordinances of
Indian River County and the State of Florida:
(1) Bikeways (as specified in the County's sidewalk and
bikeway plan.)
(2) Sidewalks (as specified in the County's sidewalk and
bikeway plan).
BOOK
b `
FEE e s
FEB 2 1937
BOOK 19
ORDINANCE NO. 87 -
TABLE 5.1 SIZE & DIMENSION CRITERIA
RS -2 ZONING DISTRICT
ZONING DISTRICT
RS -2
REGULATION
UNIT OF MEASURE
MAXIMUM DENSITY
2.0
D.U. per gross acre
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
16,0001
Square Feet
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
100
Feet
MINIMUM YARD `
- Front
- Side
- Rear
25
15
25
Feet
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA
1,600
Square Feet
MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE
35
Percent of Lot
MINIMUM OPEN SPACE
40
Percent of Lot
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
35
Feet
MINIMUM DISTRICT SIZE
20
Acres
1. In no case shall the density exceed two (2) dwelling
units per acre.
ORDINANCE NO. 87 -
SECTION 2
Section 25.1 (a), entitled "Regulations for Specific Land
Uses, Agricultural Uses", is hereby amended and shall read as
follows:
25.1 (a) Agricultural Uses
6. Kennels and animal boarding places, noncommercial
(Administrative Permit)
a. Districts requiring administrative permit:
Noncommercial kennels and animal boarding places shall
be allowed in the RFD, RS -1, RS72 and RS -3 Districts
upon receiving approval for an administrative permit
as provided in Section 25.2 and after meeting the
requirements defined below. -
7. Nurseries and greenhouses, noncommercial (Administrative
Permit and Special Exception).
b. Districts requiring special exception: Noncommercial
nurseries and greenhouses may be permitted in the RS -1,
RS -2, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6, RM -8, RM -10
and RM -14 Districts upon receiving approval as a
special exception as provided in Section 25.3 and
after meeting the requirements defined below.
9. Stables, noncommercial (Administrative Permit and Special
Exception).
b. Districts requiring special exception: Noncommercial
stables may be allowed in the RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -6,
RT -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6, RM -8 RM -10 and RM -14 Districts
upon receiving approval as a special exception as
provided in Section 25.3 and after meeting the
requirements defined below.
SECTION 3
Section 25.1 (c), entitled "Regulations for Specific Land
Uses, Residential Uses", is hereby amended and shall read as
follows:
25.1 (c) Residential Uses
1. Guest cottages (Special Exception)
Districts requiring special ex-ception: Guest cottages may
be allowed in the A-1, RFD, RS -1, RS -2, RS -3 and RS -6
Districts upon receiving approval as a special exception
as provided in Section 25.3 and after meeting the
requirements defined below.
-6. Planned residential development (Special Exception).
a. Districts requiring special exception: Planned
residential developments may be allowed in the A-1,
RFD, RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6,
RM -8, RM -10, RM -14, OCR, MED, CN, CL, CG and CH
districts upon approval of a special exception as
provided in Section 25.3 and after meeting the
requirements defined below.
SECTION 4
Section 25.1 (f), entitled "Regulation for Specific Land
Uses, Institutional Uses", is hereby amended and shall read as
follows:
CODING: Words in WAOXl tX" type are deletions from existing
law; words underlined are additions.
FEB BOOK
F E 3 1937
ORDINANCE NO. 87-
25.1 (f) Institutional Uses
(fes %v
BOOK J, F.
1. Child Care or Adult Care Facilities. (Administrative
Permit, Special Exception)
a. Districts Requiring Administrative Permit:
Child care or adult care facilities shall be allowed in -
the A-1, RFD, RM -8, RM -10, RM -14, RMH-6, RMH-8, ROSE -4,
OCR and CN districts upon approval for an
administrative permit as provided in Section 25.2 and
after meeting the requirements defined below.
b. Districts Requiring Special Exception:
Child care or adult care facilities may be allowed in
the RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3, RM -4 and RM -6
zoning districts upon approval as a special exception
as -provided in Section 25.3 and after meeting the
requirements defined below.
2. Places of Worship. (Administrative Permit, Special
Exception)
b. Districts Requiring Special Exception:
Places of worship may be allowed in the RS -1, RS -2,
RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6, RMH-6, RMH-8, and
ROSE -4 districts upon approval as a special exception
as provided in Section 25.3 and after meeting the
requirements defined below.
SRrTTnN R
Section 25.1 (g), entitled "Regulations for Specific Land
Uses, Community Service Uses", is hereby amended and shall read as
follows:
25.1 (g) COMMUNITY SERVICE USES
3. Schools, Primary and Secondary. (Special Exception)
a. Districts Requiring Special Exception:
Primary and secondary schools may be allowed in the
A-1, RFD, RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3, RM -4,
RM -6, RM -8, RM -10, RM -14, RMH-6, RMH-8, ROSE -4, OCR,
MED, CN, CL CG and CH zoning districts upon receiving
approval as a special exception as provided in Section
25.3 and after meeting the requirements defined below.
4. Governmental Administration building. (Administrative
Permit and Special Exception)
b. Districts Requiring Special Exception:
Governmental administration building may be allowed.in
the A-1, RFD, RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3, RM -4,
RM -6, RM -8, RM -10, RM -14, RMH-6, RMH-8, ROSE -4 and CRVP
districts upon receiving approval as a special
exception as provided in Section 25.3 and after meeting
the requirements defined below.
SECTION 6
Section 25.1 (o), entitled "Regulations for Specific Land
Uses, Recreation Uses", is hereby amended and shall read as
follows:
CODING: Words in WYi¢1iW4 type are deletions from existing law;
words underlined are additions.
0
ORDINANCE NO. 87-
25.1 (g) Recreation Uses
1. Country Clubs (Administrative Permit and Special
Exception)
b. Districts Requiring Special Exception:
Country Clubs may be allowed in the RFD, RS -1, RS -2,
RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6, RM -8, RM -10, and
RM -14 districts upon receiving approval as a special
exception as provided in Section 25.3 and after meeting --
the requirements defined below.
2. Golf Courses and Accessory Facilities. (Administrative
Permit and Special Exception)
a. District Requiring Special Exception:
Golf courses and accessory facilities may be allowed in
the RFD, RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3, RM -4,
RM -6, RM -8, RM -10, RM -14, RMH-6, RMH-8 and ROSE -4 upon _
receiving approval as a special exception use as -
provided in Section 25.3 and after meeting the
requirements defined below.
4. Parks and Playgrounds Open to the Public. (Administrative
Permit)
a. Districts Requiring Administrative Permit:
Public parks and playgrounds shall be allowed within
the RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RMH-6, RMH-8 and
ROSE -4 zoning districts upon receiving approval for an
administrative permit as provided in Section 25.2 and
after meeting the requirements defined below.
SECTION 7
Section 25.1 (s), entitled "Regulations for Specific Land
Uses, Utility Uses", is hereby amended and shall read as follows:
25.1 (s) Utility Uses
3. Public and Private Utilities, Limited. (Administrative
Permit)
a. Districts Requiring Administrative Permit:
Limited public and private utilities may be allowed
within the RFD, RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3,
RM -4, RM -6, -RM -8, RM -10, RM --14, RMH-6, RMH-8, ROSE -4,
CRVP, OCR, MED, CN, CL, CG, and CH districts upon
receiving approval as a special exception as provided
in Section 25.2 and after meeting the requirements
defined below.
SECTION 8
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida
which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of
CODING: words in 4441WtAt A type are deletions from existing
law; words underlined are additions.
BOOK _ P f'viiE��
ORDINANCE NO. 87- 14
the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of
Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such
conflict.
SECTION 9
INCORPORATION IN CODE
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code 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 intentions.
SECTION 10
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or
word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not
affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed
to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance
without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 11
SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon
receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official
acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the
Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida on this 3rd day of February1987.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: /02n
DON C. SCURL CK, JR. IfAIRMAN
ATTEST BY: -�)
` FREDA W GHT, CLE
a- e
ORDINANCE NO. 87- 14
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of. the State of
Florida this 9th day of February , 1987
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 13th day of February , 1987 at
10:00 A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of
the Board ofCountyCommissioners of Indian River County,
Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY.
BRUCE BARKETT, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT MATTERS.
�%
Richard M. Shearer, A CP
Chief, Long -Range Planning
Land Use Ord.
rich2
BOOK (6
FEB 3 1987
r �
FEB 3 1987 BOOK
FDOT - PRESENTATION OF 5 -YEAR PLAN
The Board reviewed memo of Public Works Director Davis:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: January 28, 1987 FILE:
Board of County Cor¢nissioners
THROUGH:
Charles P. Balczun,
County Administrator SUBJECT:
1987 Florida DOT Five Year
Construction Plan
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. , REFERENCES:
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTI0r7 AND CONDITIONS
The Florida DOT District IV Office has transmitted a copy of the FY87
Adopted Five Year Construction Plan to the County along with a letter
requesting to appear before the Board to present the proposed FY88
Tentative Five Year Transportation Plan and Annual Program Budget. Since
the County staff has not received the FY88 plan, no comments or analysis is
presented herewith.
In reviewing the adopted FY87 plan, staff notes that the following projects
were deleted from or added to the proposed FY87 plan as described below:
Projects Deleted
Project 4115413 SR60 Median Revisions 87 Const, cost $$549,000
74th Avenue to I-95
Project 4115402 Betterment of the Rockridge 16th St. Canal
Projects Added
Project 4115377 US 1 at St Lucie Co. line - Betterment
Project 5114381 US 1 - South of Main Canal - Road Reconstruction
Project 4115406 SR60 at FEC Railroad - Resurfacing
Since Jan. 22, 1986, when the DOT appeared before the Board, positive steps
have been taken including
1) SR60 mowing has improved.
2) Plans to pave shoulders and resurface SR60 west of I-95 (12 miles)
have been received for comment.
3) A consultant has been hired to study the Merrill Barber Bridge
Replacement.
The following items were discussed last year with no action taken that
staff is aware of:
1) SR60 Twin Pairs hopefully has been programmed, but nothing in writing
has been received.
2) The Rockridge Drainage Canal (16th Street) has not been reprogramTted.
3) No progress report has been received on the US 1 Corridor Capacity
Study.
RECONME NDATION
It is recommended that the above items be reconsidered.
14
William Fowler, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the 4th
District, Department of Transportation, came before the Board to
discuss the update on the Department's five-year program, which
is revised yearly. He emphasized that this plan deals with the
future, and that they are working with estimates both of the
revenues to be received as well as costs. Mr. Fowler introduced
Don Henderson, who is in charge of planning activities in this
District, to review the plan for Indian River County.
Chairman Scurlock noted that our staff has prepared a pretty
concise memo about projects which have been added to or deleted
from the 5 -year plan. The projects in which we are most inter-
ested, aside from the Merrill Barber Bridge, are the betterment
of the Rockridge 16th Street Canal, which appears to have been
deleted, and the Twin Pairs project.
Mr. Fowler advised that they did clean the canal out once,
but their studies show the canal is under capacity and needs to
be redesigned and reconstructed, and that is the reason they
deleted it. It is their intent to pursue that project when they
can get the engineering done, but it will require significant
engineering work and the money programmed does not fit the
project now.
Chairman Scurlock brought up the possibility of joint
participation to expedite this project. He believed with our
Indian River Boulevard project, the County will be taking some
action itself and this might be a better time to address this
problem than wait till later. He inquired about the status of
the Twin Pairs project.
"Mr. Fowler stated that they are in the process of updating
those plans, but right now they do not see a way to fund that
construction 'in the five year period. However, they do have
several projects around the District in this status, and they
want to get them all ready and then go to the Legislature and say
everything is ready except to go except they need the money for
construction. He did not believe that will happen this session
15 BOOK
FEB 19-11N
FEB, 31987 BOOK 6 7 F-,
and felt doing the engineering and getting the right-of-way is
the priority between now and the next session.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the Twin Pairs involves not
only road improvement but drainage, and Mr. Fowler stated that
what they got hung up on before was the drainage and the
permitting required for it.
The Chairman reported that the City of Tallahassee has a
significant problem addressing their drainage because a lot of
their buildings are government buildings and don't pay taxes, and
our consultants, Camp, Dresser & McKee, came up with setting up a
drainage program as a utility, which allowed them to charge a fee
which did not come under the millage cap. He felt strongly that
we must work with the DOT on a more and more cooperative basis to
get these projects set on as high a priority as we would like.
Commissioner Bird asked if there is some way we could work
out some joint participation so that Rockridge could be put back
on the list, certainly within the five year period.
Mr. Fowler felt that this definitely could be worked on
together and hopefully reprogrammed much more quickly than that.
Commissioner Bowman inquired about the consultant study of
U.S.I throughout the county that was expected to be completed in
18 months, and Mr. Fowler advised that they still are in the
process of getting those consultants on board. They want a
separate one for each county, and he was not sure of the status
for one in Indian River County.
Commissioner Bowman then brought up the possibility of
improving SR60 and making it a toll road as she felt it is a very
dangerous road. She asked what we can do to get this moving.
Mr. Fowler informed the Board that the Department is looking
more and more to user charges to satisfy needs, but to get
something like this moving requires some local support as tolls
generally are unpopular.
16
Discussion continued in regard to improving just the portion
of SR60 between 1-95 and Yeehaw Junction as this actually is the
western entrance to Indian River County.
Mr. Fowler stressed the need to do a master plan for SR60,
and it was noted that the DOT does the master plan.
Chairman Scurlock believed that actually the only road in
our county where flow exceeds capacity is 6th Avenue. This was
confirmed by Engineer Ralph Brescia, but he believed the exten-
sion of Indian River Boulevard will help relieve that situation.
Commissioner Eggert expressed interest in the DOT's policy
re median cuts. As a former Chairman of the P6Z Commission, she
saw many developments come in where we would try to restrict
turning, access, etc., only to be told that "the DOT gave us a
median cut." She believed we need to coordinate on this and
wished to know if the DOT is getting any stricter about allowing
median cuts.
Mr. Fowler stated that they wish to be cooperative with the
county regarding access control, but they do attempt to maintain
that control themselves.
Donald Henderson, District Planning Engineer, confirmed that
when they develop a master plan, they look at the median itself
and the points of access.
Chairman Scurlock noted that we have been very aggressive in
this county in master planning for utilities, etc., and he felt
we need a master plan as soon as possible to give us an overall
plan of action.
Commissioner Bird felt one area where we can work together
is on the quality way we develop the U.S.1 corridor. He felt we
must work together on frontage roads, acquire the R/W, etc., and
therefore avoid looking like the counties to the south.
Mr. Fowler agreed that since some counties didn't do a good
job of planning, they now are facing fixing some of the situa-
tions that have occurred.
17 g00K YJ PK
FEB3 1907
,J
a
FEB � ."!:; �
BOOK P f'A E 207
Commissioner Bowman believed we are included in with Broward
County and felt we may suffer because of this. She suggested
redrawing of the district lines.
Mr. Fowler commented that he hears this same complaint from
all counties because there are just so many more needs than there
are revenues that the Department cannot take care of all the
needs. He noted that because of population and taxes generated,
the large counties more often have been donor counties and the
smaller counties recipient counties so that it actually is more
likely the large counties would get shortchanged.
Chairman Scurlock expressed the hope that the DOT could get
into more contracting with local governments.
Commissioner Bird asked Planning Director Keating how we are
handling the site plans for development on South U.S.1, which
area is growing at a rapid rate. Director Keating advised that
in the last six months we have been working much closer with the
DOT and have had much better cooperation. We have had a DOT
representative attend the Transportation Planning Committee
meetings so they can give us their permitting information up
front, and this is very helpful. He continued that the county
has its Thorofare and Land Use Plan and is establishing a system
of marginal access roads through development parking lots and
limiting the number of curb.cuts, and we have been acquiring a
good deal of U.S.1, SR60, and A -1-A right-of-way as development
proceeds.
Commissioner Bird inquired about a master plan for South
U.S.1 re median cuts and marginal access, and Director Keating
advised that while there is not a median cut plan, the county is
working with DOT in that regard. Marginal access is dealt with
on a piecemeal basis, but he felt that is the fairest way. The
idea is that the marginal access roads acquired incrementally
will all be put together eventually. In doing it this way, the
county allows a lot of temporary curb cuts, but when there are
` connections on both ends of the comb,ined marginal access so there
18
is access to all sites, those cuts will be closed. Also, we do
have marginal access easements recorded that will allow us
perpetual use.
Chairman Scurlock asked what we can do about the flea market
on South U.S.1, and Director Keating noted that existing
development poses a problem and all we can do is just hope it
redevelops.
Commissioner Bowman asked Mr. Fowler what happened to the
light promised for Barber Avenue. The people there seem to
believe they didn't get the light and Fort Lauderdale did. She
realized this is not our concern but that of the City of
Sebastian, but hoped the DOT would look into it.
Mr. Fowler reported that the Mayor had called him, and he
assured the Mayor that the DOT will follow up on their commitment
and this should be worked out in the next month or two.
Mr. Fowler wished to mention that in the area of functional
reclassification, they are adding a piece of the connector for
SR60 east of U.S.1 to the state system.
Mr. Henderson advised that is 20th Place over to 6th Avenue
and 6th back up to SR60. They are trying to schedule the public
hearing on this for March 4th and probably within 30-60 days
after that will transfer that portion onto the state system prior
to June 30th so they can resurface it with some of this year's
resurfacing money.
Commissioner Bird brought up the resurfacing being done on
North U.S.1. He felt we have a very dangerous situation at the
27th Street railroad crossing by Scotty's with the barricades and
the limiting of the traffic lanes.
Mr. Fowler advised that the DOT is supposed to see that the
contractor maintains traffic properly and safely, and they will
check into this.
Commissioner Wheeler spoke of the dangerous U-turns required
to get off U.S.1 into and out of the Royal Gardens Plaza south of
Vista Royale where Perkins Restaurant is located and asked if
=ate 19 BOOK 67 FKF �
FEB�, L -v
FEB �NF ,
+, C , � i/ BOOK
there are any plans to solve this problem. He believed there
have been several accidents and wondered if this could be posted
prohibiting U-turns.
Mr. Henderson believed it would be necessary to have a
physical barrier to prevent U-turns, and Mr. Fowler stated that
they will look at this.
Director Keating noted that when this was going through site
plan, staff tried to get a connection between Vista Royale and
the shopping center which he felt would have resolved a lot of
problems, but it did not work out.
The Chairman thanked the DOT representatives for their
presentation and their cooperation.
APPROVAL OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BARRIER ISLAND ANALYSIS
Planning Director Keating reviewed the following memo:
TO: The Honorable Members p/tTEJanuary 22, 1987 FILE:
_of the Board of
County Commissioners
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY BARRIER ISLAND
ANALYSIS
Robert M. Keating, AICP"ee P4K Barrier Isl. Memo
FROM: planning & Development REFERENCES: IMBIRD
Director
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of February 3, 1987.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan, approved by the
Governor and cabinet in December, 1983, required that all local
governments within the Hutchinson Island planning area under-
take certain actions. One such mandate was preparation and
adoption of a traffic impact study to ensure that road improve-
ments necessary to support planned barrier island development
would be programmed and implemented concurrent with that
development.
To comply with the mandate, Indian River County joined with the
barrier island municipalities in the County and incorporated
much of the required traffic analysis in the work program of
the consultant preparing -the County's traffic impact fee pro-
gram. Once the traffic study was prepared by the consultant,
there was a substantial delay prior to County receipt of the
consultant's supporting data and documentation. Then, the
County staff had to make substantial revisions to the consul-
tant's report, incorporating buildout data, expanding descrip-
20
tions, analysis, and conclusions, and developing an evacuation
component.
The final Barrier Island Analysis is consistent with the County
wide traffic study prepared as part of the traffic impact fee
ordinance study. As with the traffic impact fee study, the
Barrier Island analysis included the assumption that existing
land use plan densities on the island would be retained and
that the transportation system would be designed to accommodate
those densities rather than lowering densities to lessen the
need for future transportation system improvements.
Based upon the County's adopted minimum roadway level -of -
service standards of "C" on an average annual basis and "D" in
the peak season as well as the twenty year and buildout popula-
tion projections for the island based on adopted comprehensive
plans, the Barrier Island Analysis identifies roadway improve-
ments needed within the next twenty years and at buildout, and
it provides a twenty year capital improvement program for those
improvements. The CIP reflected in the Barrier Island Analysis
is consistent with the countywide CIP approved by the Board of
County Commissioners and local governments in conjunction with
adoption of the Indian River County Fair Share Traffic Impact
Fee ordinance.
As proposed, the Barrier Island Analysis will serve to meet the
transportation plan requirements of the Hutchinson Island
Resource Management Plan. In fact, the Department of Community
Affairs reviewed the draft Barrier Island Analysis and notified
the County that the study as submitted was acceptable. DCA did
specify, however, that because the Barrier Island Analysis
represented a joint study by the County and the barrier island
municipalities there would need to be more specific agreements
among the local governments and their method of funding.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The Barrier Island Analysis constitutes a transportation plan
for the barrier island of Indian River County. As an assess-
ment of both current and projected transportation and evacua-
tion needs for the island, this plan identifies potential
problems, outlines projected system deficiencies, and identi-
fies needed capital projects. The roadway improvements needed
by the year 2005, according to the Barrier Island Analysis,
include widening of AlA in certain locations, improving major
intersections, and adding four lanes of bridge capacity. For
buildout, the study identifies the need for the widening of all
of AlA, for improving intersections, and for adding another
four lanes of bridge capacity.
The Barrier Island Analysis constitutes one of two major
alternatives for complying with the Hutchinson Island Resource
Management Plan's requirement that infrastructure needed -to
serve barrier island development be programmed for installation
concurrent with development. The other alternative would be to
reduce allowable densities on the barrier island to such an
extent that major roadway improvements would be unnecessary.
That alternative, however, was rejected previously by the Board
of County Commissioners.
Since the Board of County Commissioners had previously approved
retaining the existing low densities planned for the barrier
island and because the Barrier Island Analysis is consistent
with results of the traffic impact fee study, the Barrier
Island Analysis does not constitute a change from existing
County policy. If the Barrier Island Analysis is approved by
the Board, the principal implications will be a formal accep-
tance of a transportation plan and capital improvements program
21
FCD 3 1937
Boor U� �c21
FESS
BOOK
for the barrier island and an agreement to jointly work with
the barrier island municipalities to ensure low density deve-
lopment of the barrier island and provision of transportation
improvements as necessary. Approval of the attached resolution
by the Board of County Commissioners and the barrier island
municipalities will provide the formal assurance required by...
DCA that each of the, -local governments on the barrier island
approves the traffic plan, agrees to financially participate in
necessary transportation improvements for the island, and con-
curs with a timetable and funding -plan for necessary transporta-
tion improvements.
It is staff's position that the attached resolution, if approved
by the Board of County Commissioners and the barrier island
-municipalities, will meet DCA's requirements for interlocal
agreements on transportation improvements, timing, and funding.
The County' -will then be in compliance with Hutchinson Island
Plan transportation requirements. Because the County had
previously satisfied all other requirements of the Hutchinson
Island Plan, compliance with the transportation requirements
will bring Indian River County in complete compliance with
Hutchinson Island Plan implementation requirements and will
remove the threat of area of critical state concern designation
for Indian River County.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the draft Barrier Island Analysis and endorse the
attached resolution.
Director Keating noted that the Board has seen almost all
the information in the report before. The basic conclusions and
most of the data for the report come from the Traffic Impact Fee
Study which was prepared as one of the requirements for the
Hutchinson Island Management Plan. This is the last requirement
that has to be met by the County, and if it is satisfactory, the
Governor and Cabinet will sign off on this county being desig-
nated an area of critical concern. The Resolution is just to
give them more confirmation that this report will be implemented.
Commissioner Eggert inquired about reference to a North
County bridge and wished to know if that is being considered as
opposed to the Merrill Barber Bridge replacement.
Director Keating stated it is not. He advised one of the
things we are looking at and have been working on with the DOT is
whether there is the possibility that the county can contribute
to making the Barber Bridge a four -lane facility which probably
would suffice for the lane needs identified. Also, a need has
been referenced for an additional two lanes of bridge capacity in
22
addition to a North County bridge, and that need can be accommo-
dated by restriping the 17th Street Bridge.
Commissioner Bird could not imagine the DOT replacing a two
lane bridge with a two lane bridge, and discussion continued re
the unknowns, how this would be funded, the impact fees, how the
county could contribute in cooperation with the DOT, etc.
Commissioner Bowman felt a much easier alternative would be
to cut down density on the barrier island.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the island density was an issue
that was battled over for seven years; he felt we did a good job
with the Comprehensive Plan and did not wish to talk about that
density any further.
Commissioner Bowman noted that we have a different Commis-
sion now and she still felt lower densities are the solution.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird', SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 87-16 approving the Indian River County
Barrier Island Analysis and agreeing to implement
its share.
FEB � 198-1
23
BOOK 61 - �;
RESOLUTION NO. 87-16
BOOK
6 F FI
f' s
p r r �Yyy �[ t� p
WHEREAS, Governor Graham in October, 1982 established a
Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Management Committee with
the objective of resolving existing and preventing future growth
related problems in the Hutchinson Island area; and
WHEREAS, the barrier island area of Indian River County, the
City of Vero Beach, the Town of Indian River Shores, and the Town
of Orchid was included in the study area for the Hutchinson
Island Resource Planning & Management Committee; and
WHEREAS, in November, 1983, the Governor and Cabinet approv-
ed the Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Manage-
ment Plan, as approved by the Governor and Cabinet, requires that
each local government having jurisdiction within the study area
prepare and submit to the State Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) a traffic impact study for its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County and the municipalities in the
County joined together to prepare a countywide traffic impact
analysis in order to meet the requirements necessary for prepar-
ing a traffic impact fee ordinance and to meet the Hutchinson
Island Plan's requirements; and
WHEREAS, a Barrier Island Study, meeting the Hutchinson
Island Plan's requirement, has been prepared for the entire
barrier island area of Indian River County, has been submitted to
DCA, and has been approved by DCA;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT
1. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
approves the Indian River County Barrier Island Analy-
sis; and
2. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
accepts responsibility for its proportional share of
those identified roadway improvements necessary to
accommodate new growth on the barrier island and agrees
to participate in the funding of the improvements
24
RESOLUTION NO. 87-16 (Cont'd.)
identified in the Barrier Island Analysis through the
use of traffic impact fee funds as well as gas tax
monies and other revenue funds, if necessary; and
3. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
agrees that road and bridge improvements to serve the
barrier island will be made consistent with the
timetable identified in the Barrier Island Analysis and
more specifically detailed in Indian River County's
transportation capital improvement program.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Bird , seconded by Commissioner
Eggert , and adopted on the 3rd
day of
February , 1987, by the following vote:
Commissioner Scurlock Aye_
Commissioner Bowman Ay
Commissioner Bird Aye
Commissioner Eggert Aye
Commissioner Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this 3rd day of February
1987.
FEB S 1981
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By /
Don C. Scur ock, Jr.
Chairman
Attest By����
Freda Wright
Clerk -.14Y
Q
25 Boor. Pi
FEB 3 1937
BOOKJr F'
AWARD BID - AIR CURTAIN INCINERATOR
Utilities Director Terry Pinto reviewed the following memo:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: JANUARY 26, 1987
THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
VIA: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVI
4
FROM: JEFFREY K. BARTON
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID - AIR CURTAIN INCINERATOR REPLACEMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LANDFILL
BACKGROUND AND INFORMATION
On December 12, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners authorized the
Division of Utility Services to advertise for bids to replace the air
curtain incinerator at the Landfill. _(Copy of original memo and Board
action attached.) The item and specifications were advertised and
bids were opened on January 21, 1987 at 2:00 P.M. Only one of three
possible bidders presented a bid to the County for this equipment;
two of the three possible bidders purchased the bid specifications
for $100.00 each and all three were aware of the County's requeste
for bids. A summary of the bids is attached.
RECOMMENDATION `
The staff of the Division of Utility Services recommends to the Board
of County Commissioners that they approve the following:
1. Award the bid to Ryan Sales and Services in the amount of
$184,249.00.
2. Authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to
sign the contract with Ryan Sales and Services.
3. Approve funding from the Landfill Renewal & Replacement Account.
Director Pinto informed the Board that one of the possible
bidders went out of business, and the other firm that could bid
the product is the Coutry firm that supplied our original product
using small brick as the fire brick. Our experience with this
brick showed it would deteriorate far in advance of the expected
life. We went back to the supplier, and they took a hard line
stand and would not help us replace the brick.
Director Pinto advised that staff is satisfied with the bid
received, which is $20,000 less than the estimate, and would ask
that it be awarded.
26
The Chairman asked about the potential of finding other
suppliers if we did rebid, and Director Pinto did not know of
anyone else.
Commissioners had further questions as to whether Director
Pinto felt comfortable with the bid received, the size of the
equipment, etc., and he confirmed that they do - the estimates
were higher, and also Palm Beach County just bought two of them
which were larger and cost more but were in the same price range.
As to the size, he hoped to get ten years plus out of this equip-
ment which has 8 x 12 bricks as large panels rather than small
bricks so you can replace one large panel, if necessary.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded the
bid for the air curtain incinerator to Ryan Sales
and Services i.n the amount of $184,249, authorized
the Chairman to sign the contract, and approved
funding from the Landfill R&R account.
CONTRACT WITH RYAN SALES & SERVICES WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE
RECORD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED.
PROPOSED PROJECT & ASSESSMENT ROLL SOUTH U.S.1 (WEST SIDE)
Utilities Director Pinto reviewed the following memo,
clarifying that staff's recommendation would authorize staff to
design and create the assessment roll and then go to the public
hearing process:
27Boor. u7 f'DGE21.6
FE 09 1207
FEB
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: JANUARY 21, 1987
THRU: CHARLES BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
VIA: TERRANCE G. PINTO I V1ifil C -
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
FROM:,-) JEFFREY K. BARTON
,-1 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: PROPOSED PROJECT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL
` SOUTH U.S. #1 (WEST SIDE)
BACKGROUND
The increased commercial construction on the west side of South U.S.
#1 between Oslo Road and the Grove Isle Development makes it
necessary for a parallel water line to be constructed on the west
side of U.S. #1 rather than getting permits for each development from
DOT to jack and bore U.S. #1 to reach the water line on the east side
of U.S. #1. The special requirements of DOT and the cost of a jack
and bore costs between $3,000 and $5,000 each time a road crossing is
done. The proposed project will make water available to all property
owners on the west side of U.S. #1.
The enclosed materials from Masteller.& Moler Associates, Inc. show a
proposed construction cost of $89,000.00, plus engineering fees of
$8,550.00, for a total proposed project cost of $97,550.00.
This cost would be recovered by an assessment roll of the
properties fronting on the west side of South U.S. #1.
RECOMMENDATION
The Division of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the following:
_ A. Authorize the Division of Utility Services staff to proceed with
an involuntary assessment roll of benefitted owners on South
U.S. #1.
B. Approve Work Authorization #11 with Masteller & Moler
Associates, Inc. to proceed with the engineering for the
proposed South U.S. #1 project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to proceed with an involuntary assessment roll
of benefited owners and approved Work Authorization
#11 for Masteller & Moler to proceed with the en-
gineering for the project.
28
3J
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Date: December 11, 1966
Work Authorization No. 1for Consulting Services
Project No. 11 (County) (MASTELLER & MQLRR ASSOCTATES, INC.)
( Water.)
i. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Titles West Side of U.S. 01 South of Oslo Road Water Main Extension
Consulting engineering services relative to design services for construction
of an 8" diameter water main from the intersection of Oslo Road and U.S. Highway #1
along the west side of U.S. 01 South to match the end of the existing water main on
east aide of U.S. N1 and bore and jack under U.S. N1 to interconnect the south,
water main endo. _ Construction shall include
approximately 4,000 lineal feet of watbr mains with valves and fire hydrants
at an estimated cost of $89,000.00. Services includes 16 hours of "General Servicer
During Construction" per "Agreement" Article 5, Paragraph 5a and 5b.
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND LUMP SUM FEE FOR SERVICES
Reference is made to the "Agreement for Professional Services" dated
July 2, 1986 and sp6cific Article numbers and paragraph numbers
which are listed hereinafter to describe the scope of services in-
cluded on this project:
A. Project Design Services per Article -4, paragraph 4a. and 4b.
B. General Services During Construction per Article 59 paragraph
5a. and 5b.
C. Supplementary and Special Services per Article 6, paragraph 6c.,
6d., 6e., 6f., and 6g. In addition, our services shall include
field surveys necessary for design and preparation of construc-
tion plans and assistance to the County in obtaining various per -
mite and approvals for construction (permit fees to be paid by
the County).
D. Payment for Services per Article 8, paragraph 8b., the lump sum
fee for A, B and C above is 38,550.00 • Payment shall be per
paragraph 8d.
APPROVED BY:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS •
By .... G
Don Co Scur ock, Jr.
Chairman
Data a..-
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
Charles Vitunac
County Attorney
FES a'C r`
29
SUBMITTED BY:
MASTELLER & MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC.
60
l.r
By
E a r17 H. Ka- a tl 11e , .E.
President
Date 12/11/86
FEB J 'k_ -J/
BOOK
RIVER RUN FRANCHISE - OUTSTANDING ESCROW IMPACT FEES
Franchise Manager Lisa Abernethy made the following
presentation recommending levy of a fine:
7 F ut
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: JANUARY 23, 1987
THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOWEVICES VIA: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILIT
FROM: LISA M. ABERNETHY .,}�
FRANCHISE MANAGTi A
DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: RIVER RUN FRANCHISE
OUTSTANDING ESCROW IMPACT FEES
BACKGROUND
On May 7, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners reviewed several
franchises which were delinquent in their escrow impact fee accounts.
At that time, the franchises were instructed to:
A) Pay at once all due escrow amounts under County Ordinances 80-21,
80-22, and 84-18, or all amounts under those ordinances would be
escalated to the current County Ordinance 85-3.
B) File a plan of action showing the .date
85-3 to be paid within 60 days for
with an irrevocable letter of credit
Ordinance 85-3 with the understanding
is not followed, the County will call
ANALYSIS
and amount under Ordinance
Commission approval, along
for the amount due under
that, if the plan of action
the letter of credit.
Attached hereto, as Exhibit I, is an inter -office memorandum outlining
the status of each franchise which appeared before the Board of County
Commissioners on May 7, 1987. As the memorandum depicts, all
franchises, with the exception of the River Run franchise, have made
efforts to correct the deficiencies. Attached hereto as Exhibit II
are several letters sent to Mr. Henry Muller of Purowater Utilities,
Inc., requesting payment of the outstanding impact fees. To date,
this matter has not been resolved..
Franchise Resolution 84-4, Section XXII, Default of Franchise, states,
"If the Utility fails or refuses to promptly faithfully keep, perform
and abide by each and all of the terms and conditions of this
franchise, then the Board shall give the Utility written notice of
such deficiencies or defaults and a reasonable time within which the
Utility shall remedy_ the same, which notice shall specify the
deficiency or default. If the Utility fails to remedy such deficiency
or default within a reasonable time, the Board may thereafter schedule
a hearing concerning the same ..., the Board may levy liquidated
damages of no less than .fifty dollars ($50) per day that said
deficiency or default exists from the date of said hearing ..., the
Board may further limit or restrict this franchise or franchise
-territory or may terminate and cancel the same in whole or in part if
proper reasons thereby are found by the Board. If the Board enters an
order pursuant to such hearing and the Utility feels aggrieved by any
such order, the Utility may seek review of the Board's action by
filing a petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Circuit Court of the
County."
30
RECOMMENDATION
The outstanding escrow impact fees due total $31,070.00.
The staff of the Division of Utility Services requests that the Board
of County Commissioners give written notice to the River Run Utility
of the deficiencies, hold a public hearing, and levy liquidated
damages of no less than fifty dollars ($50.00) per day that said
deficiencies exist.
Henry Muller, developer of River Run, emphasized that he is
not against compliance; he does support reasonable impact fees;
and he is paying them now, but his project has gone slowly. Mr.
Muller claimed the present situation is one that developed due to
an oversight of the Utility Department some time back. He
explained that when he applied for a permit to build a clubhouse
at River Run, it resulted in the discovery that impact fees were
not being collected from any of the developments in accordance
with the franchise agreements. He argued that some of these
developments like Pelican Pointe, which has hundreds of units,
were paying no impact fees whatsoever', and this put River Run,
which is much smaller, in an unfair competitive position.
Apparently since then they have worked out some agreement, but
Mr. Muller argued that because of their size, they were more out
of kilter than he was.
Mr. Muller stressed that River Run had a prior agreement
with the Utility Department which they have lived up to from the
beginning. He noted there is only one building in question.
This building has 24 units, nine of which have been sold, and it
was agreed they would pay the fees for each unit on its closing.
This is not in compliance with the terms of the franchise, but
this was arranged earlier; they have been living up to that
agreement and would like to continue to live up to it on the
remaining 13 units.
Chairman Scurlock asked why the County should finance Mr.
Muller's project, and Mr. Muller stated that the County is not;
they now are paying the impact fees in advance on all new
construction.
31 BOOK 67
11 = i
FEB
BOOK
The Chairman asked Director Pinto if the Utility Department
had an agreement with Mr. Muller as he claims, and Director Pinto
noted that the franchise is very.clear and he did not know how
the practice of Mr. Muller making payments based on closings got
started. He believed a misunderstanding took place between C.O.
for the unit and closing on the unit. Director Pinto still felt
payment should take place when the unit receives its C.O. and can
be occupied rather than when the unit is sold, which is what Mr.
Muller is talking about. He further pointed out that it has been
a year since all this was brought to light, and staff was
directed to straighten it out and give everyone time to get their
franchise in order. Everyone who had the problem, except River
Run, has either made arrangements to pay or has paid, as set out
in the following update:
An update for franchises which was taken before the Board of County
Commissioners. -
FRANCHISE
BEG. BALANCE:
1-22-87 BAL:
COMMENTS
Baytree
41,912.48
-0-
Paid in full on 12/15/86
Marsh Island
10,695.62 :'
-0-
Paid in full on 07/11/86
Pelican Pointe:
415,410.00
209,978.55 :
Making bi-monthly
:
installments of $41,995.71
Reflections
233,762.20
159,672.20 :
Negotiating sale of plant
:
.
to the County
River Run
31,070.00
31,070.00 :
No terms agreed to as of
:
12/24/86
Sea Oaks
159,057.08
-0-
Paid in full, 7/17/86
Director Pinto advised that Pelican Pointe was the last to
come in and make arrangement to make their payments, and they
have since paid what they were in arrears.
Chairman Scurlock inquired if Pelican Pointe was extended
the option of waiting to pay until they sold a unit, and also
wished to know why impact fees weren't being monitored as they
should have been.
Director Pinto stated that no one was extended that option,
and in defense of personnel, he felt when you allow someone a
franchise to go in business that you should not have to run after
32
these people every week and tell them they are not abiding by the
regulations. There is a yearly report that is reviewed.
Chairman Scurlock noted there apparently is no dispute as to
the fact that the money is owed; Mr. Muller just wants to pay
when the units are sold.
Mr. Muller confirmed that he will pay. He wished to
clarify, however, that Pelican Pointe is not paid in full for all
the buildings they have built - they have an arrangement to pay
over a period of time.
Franchise Manager Abernethy agreed that they do, but pointed
out that they have posted an irrevocable letter of credit for the
total amount.
Chairman Scurlock asked if Mr. Muller is willing to post an
irrevocable letter of credit, and Mr. Muller said he was not -
because his credit is being used to build and to pay the impact
fees for the new buildings. What he Would like to propose is an
agreement to bring all the fees they are delinquent in relative
to the maintenance escrow account and the insurance, etc., up to
date immediately. He would propose to continue to pay on the
basis they have been doing but with the proviso that they would
pay $2,390, which is the fee for one unit, every month regardless
of whether they sold a unit or not so that in a 12 month period
this would all be liquidated. If they don't make their payment
of $2,390 each month, then they will pay up the whole amount at
once or just stop building. Mr. Muller felt this is no different
than what the others have been doing. He also wished to point
out that he is not in the business of providing sewage facilities
and the only reason they have the facility is of necessity
because the county hasn't provided service in that area. They
actually are the forerunner and providing the base for the county
to come in and render service in the future.
Debate continued at length with Franchise Manager Abernethy
stressing that all the other franchises which were in the same
position last May have complied with the Board's direction to pay
33
FFD a Boole
FEB 3 1997
Bt70K 67
up the outstanding escrow fees,.file a plan of action, and issue
a letter of credit, and Director Pinto pointed out that those
other franchises could argue they have done what was asked and
now we are letting this franchise not comply. He felt if Mr.
Muller wishes to issue an irrevocable letter of credit and pay up
within six months in equal installments, that would be satisfac-
tory.
Discussion ensued regarding Reflections negotiating sale of
their plant to the county, and Chairman Scurlock explained that
this also involves plant capacity Reflections has purchased from
General Development Corporation.
Director Pinto noted that amount owed to us by Reflections
is $159,000, and the amount we are receiving from GDC in
assignment of that capacity is $215,000.
Mr. Muller continued to protest that all he wants is to be
treated the same as others and argued that he has lived up to the
agreement. He asked that the Board just forget the letter of
credit and let him pay by installments the same as Pelican
Pointe.
Director Pinto stated that if Mr. Muller wants to handle
this the same as Pelican Pointe, that involved a letter of
credit; so, let's get the letter of credit and allow six months
to pay.
Mr. Muller noted that Pelican Pointe got 12 months, and
Director Pinto pointed out that Mr. Muller already has used up 8
months.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, to allow Mr. Muller to put up an
irrevocable letter of credit and have six months to pay
or else face a $50 a day penalty plus the restriction of
the River Run franchise down to what we are serving now.
34
It was noted any change of the franchise would require a
public hearing, and Commissioner Wheeler asked if the fine could
be retroactive.
Attorney Vitunac advised that we could say it would be
retroactive to this date, which would be the first public
hearing. He noted that we also need a date for the letter of
credit to be provided.
Administrator Balczun stated that he would appreciate it if
the Motion could be amended to require that the irrevocable
letter of credit be in such form as may be approved by the
Administrator, Attorney Vitunac, and Director Pinto.
Commissioner Eggert and Commissioner Wheeler agreed to
reword their Motion as suggested by Administrator Balczun
and include that Mr. Muller would be allowed five working
days to present the letter of credit.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION as amended.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
SELF-INSURANCE TRUST FUND PARTICIPATION BY NON -COUNTY AGENCIES
The Board reviewed memo of Administrator Balczun:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: January 7, 1987 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: SELF-INSURANCE TRUST FUND
PARTICIPATION BY NON -COUNTY
AGENCIES
FROM: Charles P. Balczun REFERENCES:
County Administrator
Indian River County maintains a self-insurance trust fund for
the purpose of underwriting costs incidental to medical -surgical
exposures incurred by its employees.
35
FEB 3 1987
BooK
FEB 3 1987 BOOK UY1i d0
In addition to underwriting cost exposures for county employees,
the trust fund is utilized by two non -county agencies for medical -
surgical 'insurance' for their employees. Those agencies are:
.. Indian River County Mosquito Control District
.. Indian River County Water Management District
Those agencies pay amounts into the trust fund on a per employee
basis notwithstanding the county's ultimate exposure. Those pay-
ments for FY85-86 were:
Indian River County Mosquito Control District
Premium Per Emploee
Single Plan 70.00 per month
Married Plan 167.50 per month
Annual Premium Collected
Single Plan 8,120.00
Married Plan 29,647.50
TOTAL 37,767.50
Average Number of Employees - 21
Indian River County Water Management District
Premium Per Employee
Single Plan 70.00 per month
Married Plan 167.50 per month
Annual Premium Collected
Single Plan 2,450.00
Married Plan 18,257.50
TOTAL 20,707.50_
Average Number of Employees - 10
TOTAL BOTH DISTRICTS 58 475
Please note that the aggregate sum of $58,475 is not based on
actuarially derived data. Notwithstanding what the county's actual
costs incurred for these agencies were, the sum determined is
to be collected, and in fact collected, was $58,475.
Such an arrangement amounts to the county functioning as a medical -
surgical insurance 'company' underwriting a program of insurance.
We are not licensed to do so.
Additionally, means do not exist whereby we would be able to re-
cover costs incurred by these districts in excess of the determined
'premium' amount.
Of greater concern to me however is the fact that neither of these
districts are coterminous with the county boundaries yet the county
general fund remains exposed to costs incurred for these districts
above the 'premium' amount. As a result, the county's taxpayers
would have been liable for costs beyond the $58,475 in FY 85-
86. Such additional costs should be incurred by either the dis-
tricts or a licensed insurance company.
36
r
RECOMMENDATION
The Board of County Commissioners should serve notice on both
districts that they will no longer be able to participate in the
self-insurance trust fund.
Due to the nature of the insurance market, I suggest that the
effective date of your decision bE July 1, 1987.
Commissioner Eggert inquired exactly what the extent of our
liability is on this.
Administrator Balczun advised from reviewing our contract
documents and the lack of an in-depth agreement with the
participating agencies, it appears we have unlimited liability.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would like to have this
handled in a more diplomatic way and say we are considering
dropping coverage as of a certain date.
Administrator Balczun informed the Board that he already has
done that. Actually there is no nice way to do this. The
Administrator explained that we operate a self-funded insurance
trust that essentially is funded by the.taxpayers of the county,
and the county has no business providing this service or func-
tioning as an insurance company. We can help these agencies find
insurance and try to guide them, but we can't provide them
insurance. He emphasized that if any employee of these districts
goes out and incurs $100,000 of medical expenses this year, we
just "ate" that.
Chairman Scurlock did believe several of the agency em-
ployees have had some major problems. He continued that one of
his major concerns is that we have had pretty good relationships
with both of these agencies, and there is a great need, especi-
ally with the Water Management District, to continue to cooperate
as we have to address rights-of-way, easements, etc., for our
utilities.
Commissioner Bird asked if the Water Management District
referred to is the Indian River Farms District, St. John's or
just what specific entity, and it was noted that it is the Indian
River Farms District headed by John Amos.
37 tel.
FEB3 1987 BOOK
F E B
3
1987
Boor
I -'
F'
?'?7 0�1F
?'d 7
Commissioner Eggert wished.to
know if the reason
those
agencies came to us was that it was so difficult for them to find
insurance.
Chairman Scurlock advised that they came here because the
premiums would be less, and Administrator Balczun agreed premiums
elsewhere would be far more expensive, and the reason is that we
really don't charge a premium, we eat the cost.
Commissioner Wheeler believed that we are providing insur-
ance for a fee to someone outside the County employ, but we are
not licensed to provide insurance.
Chairman Scurlock noted that actually there is an adminis-
trative charge; everything else is set up as a self-insurance
program.
Commissioner Bird believed the situation has changed in that
when they first came to us we had a group insurance plan and they
joined that which gave us a larger base and spread the risk, and
now we have become more self-insuring and they are still a part
of the plan.
Administrator Balczun advised that you really only spread
the risk in merging groups if both groups have a fairly uniform
distribution of employees in terms of age, health, sex, nature of
work and terms of exposure, and they don't.
Chairman Scurlock felt the Commission has the ability to do
this if the boundaries were co -terminus, but what we are doing is
taking ad valorem taxes which are collected countywide and using
those potentially to subsidize the program when each of these
entities has its own political boundaries and can levy its own
millage rate. He felt that is where the problem is and that it
probably is illegal to do it.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
the Administrator to serve notice on both districts
that they will no longer be able to participate in the
38
r FEB 3 1987
LW
M � 5 i19
B00F.
FULL AND FINAL RELEASE AND ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS
x
In consideration of 9� g,5,0• { dollars, and of er good and
valuable considerations, receipt of whichs ac nowledged, ,�,a.,.G •,D
("The Owner") executes this Full and Final Release and Assignment o Rig ts, in favor of -
Koppers Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("The Manufacturer") for all claims, both
known and unknown, present or future, in any manner arising out of the installation of
Koppers -rpofing products at the CC, . ,�L-�.�. ("The Building") located at
� ,&—Q �i° . �' which were instal 5during -Z 9y/ , with the intent
to be bound by the -following terms:
1. The Owner and its assigns or successors, do each remise, release and forever
discharge the Manufacturer, its subsidiaries and affiliates, employees, officers,
directors, agents, successors and assigns from all claims, right of contribution an
indemnification it has now or may have or which may arise out of the roofing of the
Building. This Release by the Owner is to compromise and terminate all claims for
both known and unknown damages and damages which may subsequently arise to include
all damages of any kind whether direct, incidental or consequential. The Owner
agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the Manufacturer free and harmless from any ar
all claims brought against the Manufacturer by a third party who is not a party to
this Release arising out of the roofing of the Building.
2. The parties mutually agree that the Manufacturer's Guarantee Number 8/ --KM ns-Jy o 3
shall be and is hereby rescinded, terminated, and cancelled as of the date o his
Release. The Manufacturer shall bear no further responsibility or liability in
connection with the Building or the performance of its products.
3. The Owner assigns to the Manufacturer any and all legal rights, claims, and remedie
regarding the roofing of the Building which it may have against any party not
subject to this Release to include the roofing contractor and general contractor,
architect, consultant, or other manufacturer.
4.
T13e -Owner-agrees-not--to-diselase=tine--teFms -of=thi& •settlement -to- any -other- per-sorl ,
grotrpl,--Orgamiz-atiOrr-or-,enti-ty-. It is further understood that the cause of the
roofing problem, damages, and responsibilities are disputed by all parties and
denied by the Manufacturer.
5. This Release is an integrated document and contains the entire agreement between th
parties, and wholly cancels, terminates and supersedes any and all previous and/or
contemporaneous oral agreements,. negotiations, commitments and writings between the
parties hereto with respect to such subject matter. No change, modification,
extension, termination, discharge, abandonment or waiver of this Release or any of
the provisions hereof, nor any representation, promise or condition relating to thi
Release, shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless made in writing and signed
by the parties hereto.
6. If, once this work commences,• problems are discovered which require
repair/replacement of the insulation Koppers agrees to be responsible
for this damage provided thev are given the opnortunity to inspect
and determine it was caused by roof and the repair/renlacement is
necessary.
Approve=d as t ' 1b) -til
and le'sal sul4fci cncpi
P-y�' i
is a �: P. �•Jison
Assi. County Attorw�y
40
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
Firm: RIVER COUNTY
Name �G
Title: ChaiFn—
Date: 4_ - —f 7
self-insurance trust fund effective July 1, 1987, and
asked that he do everything possible to help them find
other insurance.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ROOF
Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following memo recommending
acceptance of the offer to settle our claim for replacement of
the Administration Building roof:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
DATE: January 28, 1987
SUBJECT: Cgimty Administration Building Roof
FROM: J P. Wilson
nt County Attorney
Dolores Cranston, Adjustor for Travelers Insurance Company,
has tendered an offer to settle our claim for replacement of
the County Administration Building roof. Travelers has
offered to pay $96,850.00 for replacement of the roof, said
figure representing 650 of the $149,000.00 estimate
submitted by Lucas Waterproofing for replacement of the
roof. Travelers has also offered to pay 65% of the cost of.
replacing any materials damaged by the leaking roof, if and
when such damage is discovered upon replacing the roof. The
65% reimbursement figure is based upon 3.5 years
depreciation of the roof over the 5 -year warranty period and
is the same amount paid by Travelers for replacement of the
Courthouse roof after a lawsuit was filed in that matter.
am requesting that the Board consider this settlement
offer and, if it is unsuitable, authorize this office to -
file a lawsuit immediately, e
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously accepted the
above settlement offer and authorized the Chairman to
sign the Final Release.
39
FEB 3 197 BOOK ,�%p
.2
AGREEMENT WITH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION RE COUNTY FAIR
The Board reviewed memo of Assistant County Attorney
Barkett:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
DATE: January 28, 1987
SUBJECT: Indian River County Agreement With Vero Beach
Firefighters Association Concerning County Fair
FROM: Bruce Barke t
Assistant Coun y Attorney
Pursuant to the Board's direction and the advice and consent
of the appropriate state officials, the Indian River County
Fair Association has been dissolved. The Board of County
Commissioners passed Resolution No. 86-101 to authorize the
Vero Beach Firefighters Association to operate the Indian
River County Fair in accordance with the appropriate state
statutes for calendar year 1987. Although Indian River
County will be the applicant for a fair permit from the
State of Florida Department of Agriculture by the resolution
mentioned previously, the Board of County Commissioners has
agreed to "hire" the Vero Beach Firefighters Association to
manage the fair for the Board.
A proposed agreement with the Firefighters Association to
manage the fair for the County is attached for consideration
by the Board. The agreement speaks for itself, however the
basic scheme is that the Firefighters will conduct the fair
in accordance with the appropriate Florida Statutes and pay
all the expenses, fees, management considerations and other
costs associated with the fair. Subsequently the
Firefighters will submit all net proceeds of the fair to the
County along with all books, records and other accounts of
costs, expenditures, receipts and/or proceeds. The County
will review the records and disapprove any expenses or
payments which are illegal or clearly unreasonable. The
County will then return to the Firefighters a portion of the
net proceeds which has not been determined but which will
leave the County with at .least $5,000.00 in cash or
improvements to the fairgrounds according to Resolution No.
86-101.
Upon execution of the contract by the County and the
Firefighters, the application for a fair permit will be
submitted to the State, along with a required affidavit
attesting to the -identity of the entity with whom the County
has^a contract.
Also attached for the Board's perusal is the summary of
expenses and proceeds from the 1986 fair submitted by the
Firefighters.
FEB 3 1987 41 BOCK G �,,E ?30
r -
FEB 8 1987
BOOK 6 7 ����,�. .�_.
7
Chairman Scurlock stated that his only question was re the
amount to be paid back to the Firefighters. If we should convey
back a smaller amount than they expected under this agreement,
there will be nothing to go by but the discretion of the Board.
Attorney Barkett agreed that it would have to be a
negotiated figure that would be paid back to them.
Discussion ensued re the wording in the memo, and Commis-
sioner Eggert believed this is dealt with in Paragraph 9 of the
proposed agreement which states that "The County will then return
to the Firefighters all net proceeds less at least a $5,000
guaranteed amount......."
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
agreement with the Vero Beach Firefighters Associa-
tion and authorized the signature of the Chairman.
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, dated this 3rd day of February,
1987, between Indian River County (the County), a
subdivision of the State of Florida., whose mailing address
is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, and the Vero
Beach Firefighters Association Local 2201, IAFF, Inc.
(Firefighters), whose mailing address is
P. 0. Box 1974, Vero Beach, Florida 32961,
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the County desires to conduct a public
fair or exposition in accordance with Chapter 616, Florida
Statutes, in 1987 for the.benefit and development of the
agricultural, horticultural, livestock and other resources
of the State and of the County; and
WHEREAS, the County wishes to contract with
someone to operate the fair; and
42
M M M
WHEREAS, the Firefighters have demonstrated their
competence to conduct such a fair or exposition for the
benefit of the County for the past two years;
NOW, THEREFORE, the County and the Firefighters
agree as follows:
1. The County will apply to -the State of Florida,
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of
Fairs and Expositions for a fair permit to conduct a County
fair for calendar year 1987.
2. Ifa permit for a County fair is issued by the
State to the County, the Firefighters shall manage the fair
in 1987 for the County in accordance with Chapter 616,
Florida Statutes, and the terms and conditions set forth in
this agreement, and the Firefighters may include their name
with the County fair.
3. The Firefighters will arrange all contracts
for amusements, entertainment and exhibits.
4. The Firefighters will provide temporary
structures and shelters for the fair and provide volunteer
and other help to man the fair.
5. The Firefighters will provide electricity and
pay all electric and other utilities bills for the fair.
6. The Firefighters will provide adequate
security for the fair and will provide sufficient volunteers
or paid security guards to maintain crowd control at all
times while the fair is underway.
7. The Firefighters will pay all fees and costs
necessary to conduct the fair and will maintain records in
accordance with sound accounting practices and procedures
showing all costs, expenses, as well as all receipts and
proceeds from the fair.
8. The Firefighters will provide, in addition to
fire insurance, liability insurance coverage in an amount of
not less than $200,000.00 per individual injury, and
43
FEB 3
/� 1 p jam®
�� r 7 Bou. FAUC 2oFvo
FEB 3 'V�'u7
BOOK r,1.5J
$500,000.00 per occurrence during the term of the fair. The
County shall be named a co-insured and copies of the policy
shall be submitted to the County at least two weeks prior to
the start of the fair.
9. All net proceeds of the fair shall be
submitted by the Firefighters to the County along with
books, records or other accounts of all costs, expenditures,
receipts and/or proceeds. The County reserves the right to
disapprove any expenses or payments which are illegal or
clearly unreasonable. The County will then return to the
Firefighters all net proceeds less at least a $5,000.00
guaranteed amount according to Resolution No. 86-101 passed
by the Board of County Commissioners on November 18, 1986,
after ensuring that all accounts and books are balanced and
that there are no outstanding debts associated with the
fair. The Firefighters may keep 100% of the profits of any
food concessions and hold exclusive rights to food
concessions, although proper reporting shall still be made.
10. The County will provide trash containers,
garbage collection, and sewage pickup following the fair.
11. Firefighters will provide sanitation and
adequate restroom facilities for persons attending the fair.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
Agreement on the day and year first above mentioned.
WITNESSES:
VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS
ASSOCIATION LOCAL 2201, IAFF,
INC.
�arrme aL B y
iWi I .. . - ..
et I den t
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF
ATTEST: COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LC/
C. By
Cie Chairman
Circuit Court
44
SEBASTIAN UTILITY FRANCHISE 8 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed memo of County Attorney Vitunac:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
•a
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: January 28, 1987
RE: AGENDA - BCC MEETING 2/3/87
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S MATTERS
SEBASTIAN UTILITY FRANCHISE AND
EXECUTION OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
At its last city council meeting, the City of Sebastian
executed a franchise agreement with Indian River County
which gives the County the exclusive right to provide water
and sewer service to the City of Sebastian which is not
presently covered by other franchises. In addition the City
authorized the execution of an intergovernmental agreement
required by the County's bond counsel as a condition
precedent to the sale of bonds to be secured by fees in lieu
of impact fee.
For the franchise to be effective it is necessary for the
County to accept the franchise and execute the inter-
governmental agreement.
Chairman Scurlock felt this is absolutely historic and could
not say enough about Sebastian and their effort to cooperate with
the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted the
franchise described -above, adopted Resolution 87-17
approving the intergovernmental agreement with the
City of Sebastian and authorized the Chairman to
execute same.
45
FE B 3 1907
FEB 6,
BOOK
RESOLUTION 87-17
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BY
AND BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF
SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE PROVISION
OF WATER AND/OR SEWER SERVICES TO THE CITY BY
THE COUNTY; APPROVING THE FORM THEREOF;
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION THEREOF;
AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND
SEWER SERVICES FRANCHISE GRANTED BY THE CITY
OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, acting for and on behalf of Indian
River County, Florida (the "County"), as follows:
1. Approval. The County hereby approves the form and
substance of the Intergovernmental Agreement by and between the
County and the City of Sebastian, Florida (the "City"), a copy of
which is attached hereto, relating to the provision of water
and/or sewer services to the City by the County.
2. The County hereby approves the acceptance -of the
Water and Sewer Services Franchise granted by the City pursuant
to Resolution R_87-6 of the City.
3. Execution. The Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners of the County is hereby authorized to execute the
Intergovernmental Agreement and the acceptance of the Franchise
for and on behalf of the County.
4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect
immediately upon its adoption.
v
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ATTEST: By:
County r Don . Sc c
rloc , Jr
4�6
Q.7e% C� Chairman
,C
(SEAL)
46
DISCUSSION RE GIFFORD COMMUNITY CENTER
Commissioner Bird reviewed his memo, as follows:
TO: County Commissioners DATE: February 2, 1987 FILE:
SUBJECT:
Gifford Community
Center
FROM: Richard N. Bird REFERENCES:
Commissioner
Last week a meeting was held to discuss the proposed Gifford
Community Center project. Present at the meeting were Dr. Burns
and Sam Hunter from the School Board; Charles Block's
representative; Flip Lloyd and one of his associates; Charles
Balczun and Dick Bird.
The project and its estimated cost were reviewed, as well as
receiving an update on monies available through the $250,000
State allocation, and approximately $57,000 that has been raised
through local fund raising efforts.
It appeared that the cost estimates for the total project were
exceeding the amount of monies available, and that some
consideration should be given to scale down the project in an
attempt to meet budget constraints. It appears that it would be
worthwhile at this point in the project to have a joint workshop
meeting between the Board of County Commissioners, the School
Board, and representatives of the Gifford Progressive League to
further define each organization's role in the project, and try
to reach final decisions regarding the scope of the project, the
overall cost, and funding sources available.
Since the School Board has taken the lead on this project, I am
expecting Jim Burns to coordinate -this workshop meeting with
Charles Balczun and Ralph Lundy at the earliest convenient time.
Commissioner Bird recommended having the workshop meeting
and withholding any comments until we have an opportunity to
study the overall proposal.
Commissioner Eggert found it hard to look at this without
asking what new came up.
Commissioner Bird believed a part of this relates to the
fact that because of the PECO funds, the construction require-
ments fall under the State School Department and the building
will have to be built a little bit differently and probably more
47
FEB d
BOOK Pq�r.
F'",
FEB 31987 BOOK 6 71A'Ur?a_,�
expensively. The architect's services were donated originally
but because of the extra requirements, there will be some fees
for the architect and some engineering fees, as well as impact
fees from the County.
Commissioner Eggert felt it would be possible to do at least
a first phase for $250,000.
Commissioner Bird felt that way also, but advised the archi-
tect said that based on today's construction costs, it would be
about $48 a foot to build the original building. He felt the
workshop is needed to decide whether the building could be scaled
down further and still be functional and provide the facilities
they need.
Chairman Scurlock believed that is inconsistent with the
action of this Board. He felt the Commission Minutes of
December 16th reflect very clearly that the majority of the Board
voted in favor of conveying the deed to the School Board and made
it plain that we do not want that deed back. These are PECO
funds which are conveyed to the school system; it is their
building project; and they should be involved in setting the
budget and identifying the cost. As to the role to be played by
the Board of County Commissioners, the Chairman believed that we
indicated willingness to participate at some level not only in an
annual budget, but in some of the potential initial construction
cost, and this is what he felt needs to be conveyed to the School
Board rather than have an open agenda meeting.
Commissioner Bird agreed it has been the Commission's
position to deed the land to the School Board, and it is their
land to build this building, but he informed the Board that
Superintendent Burns apparently is going to recommend that once
this is built, they would offer it back to the county.
The Chairman and Commissioner Eggert both stressed that this
already has been discussed and the county has indicated what we
would do. The Chairman agreed the County does have a responsi-
48
bility to work with the community, and as one Commissioner, he
would be willing to participate and do site work, possibly about
$50,000 worth, and the first year participate probably $10-15,000
for operating expenses and then each year at budget session
review our participation level for that year. He felt we must
make it plain we are not going to accept the deed back and there
is no need to discuss it any further.
Commissioner Bird believed the workshop was to look over the
building, take the shortfall into consideration, and decide what
needs to be built and what can be cut back. He stressed the
fact that there is a time frame within which to use the funds.
The Chairman continued to emphasize that it is not our
building, and while he felt we would be willing to participate in
the site work, he believed the School. Board has much more ability
to fund this project than the county.
Commissioner Wheeler stated that'he needed someone to edu-
cate him as to why we should be funding this, even as to doing
site work. What happens if Winter Beach Progressive League wants
to do this also, and the Oslo Road Progressive League or the
Vista Civic Association, Village Green, etc.?
Commissioner Eggert noted that Vista and Village Green are
not designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a redevelopment area.
The Gifford area is so designated, and she felt that is the key
factor and makes a big difference.
Chairman Scurlock advised one factor that has made him will-
ing to participate to some degree is the fact that the Gifford
community has agreed to pay their fair share of the 9.2 million
sewer and water project that will provide paved roads to their
area, and that is going to do more for the economic redevelopment
of the Gifford community than anything we could think of.
Because of their efforts and willingness to help themselves,
because of the drug problems in the area, because of the
redevelopment we want to have take place, he believed the
Commission could feel comfortable with possibly $50,000 partici-
49 �•
FEB S 1937 Boos
FEB �S81 BOOK
pation in the site work portion, plus a commitment to use the
facility and participate in its annual budget. He believed we
must define just how we are willing to participate, but he did
not want to become involved in any future power struggles as to
who runs that center.
Commissioner Bird noted that he could cite at length the
reasons as to why he feels the project is worthwhile; Gifford is
a unique part of the county and it was an unbelievable under-
taking for that community to raise $57,000 cash.
Commissioner Wheeler stated that he was not opposed to the
project, but in order to vote funds, he still felt he needed more
education.
Commissioner Bird continued to argue the need for a work-
shop, but Chairman Scurlock felt strongly that the Commission
should clearly define its position as to the level of participa-
tion we would anticipate; reaffirm that we will not accept the
deed to this property back; and convey this information to the
School Board so they can have their workshop and make their own
decisions.
Commissioner Bird stated the only area where he disagreed
with the Chairman was on the deed as he did feel this facility is
more in keeping with the county's functions than the School
Board's.
Commissioner Eggert stated she would agree except for the
fact that the funding is being obtained through the School Board.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to authorize the Chairman to write
Superintendent Burns advising that the County is willing
to contribute up to $50,000. site work for the center, to
contribute $10-$15:,000 for the first year operating ex-
penses and thereafter to consider an appropriation each
year at budget sessions, and reaffirm that the County
` does not wish to take back title to the property.
50
Commissioner Bird stated that he would vote for the Motion
because he does feel it is a positive step forward, but he has
reservations that possibly we are not going far enough as he
still was concerned about taking back the deed.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Wheeler voting in opposition.
The following letter was sent to the School District:
February 6, 1987
HAND DELIVERED
Dr. James A. Burns
Superintendent
Indian River County School District
1900 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Re: Gifford Community Center
Dear Dr. Burns:
This letter is to inform you that on February 3, 1987 the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County made
the following decisions by formal vote with regard to the
Gifford Community Center.
First, the County donated the property to the School
District for construction.of the Center, and the County does
not wish to take back title to the property.
Second, the County is willing to contribute, by
participation or otherwise, site work worth up to $50,000.00
for the Center.
Third, the County would be willing to contribute between
$10,000.00 to $15,000.00 for expenses for the first year of
operation of the Center; however, the County will not commit
to a specific annual appropriation at this time. Rather,
the County will constder an appropriation each year a
request is made during the County's annual review of its O&M
budget.
I hope this clarifies the Board's position with regard to
the Gifford Community Center, and I am confident the efforts
of the School District and the County's participation as
outlined above will result in a facility which admirably
serves the community's needs.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
G
Don C. S urlock, J .
Chairman
FEBv �, � 51 600K 7 240
L
IF -
FEB
FE 3 1987
BOOK 67 F,vuru 241
Some discussion ensued about the timetable and the sitework
being in next year's budget. Chairman Scurlock noted there may
be a shortfall in the Douglas School program and we may have to
assist them with site work also.
Commissioner Bird expressed concern about the cost of ex-
tending utilities to the site, but the Chairman did not see this -
as a significant problem.
Commissioner Wheeler asked why we couldn't create a special
taxing district for the area and let them be self-sufficient.
The Chairman noted
that
for
a long time Gifford
has
wanted
to incorporate, but the
State
has
not gone along with
it.
He
believed they have failed to look at a special taxing district as
a vehicle by which they could approach that end.
Discussion continued re the County creating such a district
for then, and Commissioner Bird felt that would take a lot of
soul searching. He personally felt incorporation would be the
worst thing for them.
Commissioner Wheeler stated that he liked paying for what
you get and he believed the leaders in Gifford feel the same way.
Chairman Scurlock noted that portion of our community was
neglected for a long time, and the Commission gave them a
commitment about six years ago to start doing some positive
things. He believed the Commission has been dedicated to that
and that we have accomplished a great deal. He agreed the
community is not looking for a hand-out, but the problem is that
they have limited ability to pay the freight.
There being no further business to come before the meeting,
on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at
11:15 o'clock AN.
ATTEST:
CL, oLI
Clerk
52
�� 6, Oe�/_J_
Chairman