HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/16/1987Tuesday, June 16, 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,
June 16, 1987, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Margaret C.
Bowman, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and
Gary C. Wheeler. Absent was Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr., who
was attending a meeting of the American Water Works Association
in Kansas City. Also present were Charles P. Balczun, County
Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of
County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
Vice Chairman Bowman took over the meeting in the Chairman's
absence and called the meeting to order.
Administrator Balczun led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Bird requested that a discussion in regard to
routing of traffic when replacement of the bridge at Country Club
Pointe is taking place be added to the agenda.
Commissioner Eggert asked that Items 16 D. 1 and 2 re the
Fellsmere and Sebastian Library Lease be deleted from today's
agenda as staff is in the process of redoing the lease.
Administrator Balczun requested that Item 10 in regard to
widening of CR 512 be removed from today's agenda also.
County Attorney Vitunac wished to add as Item 11A. under
Utilities matters a Resolution adopting the Final Engineering
Report for the Rockridge Sewer Project as this is needed to speed
up the grant application, and he also wished to add under his
matters discussion of a proposal re the Housing Authority and
also a discussion of jail funding for Phase III in relation to
the new sales tax option.
JUN 16 1987 aooK FacE 5 4
L
900K 8 F,�F54
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, Chairman Scurlock being absent,
the Board unanimously (4-0) added and deleted
items from today's agenda as set out above.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Vice Chairman Bowman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 26,
1987. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 26, 1987,
as written.
Vice Chairman Bowman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 2,
1987. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 2, 1987,
as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Bird asked that Item H be removed from the
Consent Agenda for discussion.
A. Appointment of Deputy Sheriff
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the appointment of Deputy Sheriff Jeffery S.
Thacker by Sheriff Dobeck.
B. & C. - Reports
The following were received and placed on file in the office
of Clerk to the Board:
Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund,
Month of May, 1987'- $46,294.68
Month to date report by last name, Month of May, 1987
Report of Convictions, Month of May, 1987
D. Final Plat Approval - Old Sugar Mill Estates, Unit 4
The Board reviewed memo of Stan Boling, Chief, Current
Development:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: June 5, 1987 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
Robert M. Kea in ICP SUBJECT: FOR OLD SUGAR MILL
Planning & Development Director ESTATES UNIT 4
Stan Boling -/d 6• old sugar mill
FROM: Chief, Current DevelopmeBEFERENCES: STAN4
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of June 16, 1987.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITION:
The Old Sugar Mill Estates Unit 4 plat consists of a six lot
addition to the existing and platted phases of Old Sugar Mill
Estates, located north of 12th Street, west of 43rd Avenue. The
Planning & Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval for
the Unit 4 addition on November 11, 1984. The subdivision
improvements have subsequently been constructed and inspected and
approved.
The trustees/owners, John Tripson, Ralph Waldo Sexton, and Charles
Randolph Sexton, through their agent, James Beindorf, are now
requesting final plat approval and have submitted:
1. a final plat that conforms to the approved preliminary plat;
2. an executed warranty -maintenance agreement covering all
improvements to be dedicated to the County (roads and ease-
ments); and
3. a maintenance bond representing at least 250 of the cost of
the improvements.
ANALYSIS:
The Public Works and Utilities Departments have inspected and
deemed acceptable all required improvements. The County Attor-
L_ JUS! 16 X0,'87
3 BOOK F'A�E 54
JUN 161987
BOOK 68 PAGE 546
ney's office has approved for form and legal sufficiency the
submitted maintenance agreement and the maintenance bond. All
applicable County regulations for final plat approval have been
satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval for Old Sugar Mill Estates Unit 4, and accept
the submitted maintenance bond and the warranty -maintenance
agreement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0) granted
Final Plat Approval for Old Sugar Mill Estates, Unit 4,
and accepted the maintenance bond and the warranty -
maintenance agreement.
(Copies of said bond and agreement are on file in Office of
Clerk to the Board.
E. Resolution - Staggered Terms for Members of Marine Advisory
Commissioner
The Board reviewed memo of Assistant County Attorney
Barkett:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
DATE: June 5, 1987
SUBJECT: Marine Advisory Board Resolution
FROM: Bruce Barkett`
Assistant County Attorney
At Commissioner Wheeler's request, it is suggested that
Resolution No. 87-22 be repealed and amended by the attached
Resolution which provides that the members of the Marine
Advisory Board shall serve staggered terms.
It is recommended that the Board adopt the attached
Resolution and authorize Commissioner Wheeler to return to
the Board with a recommendation as to which of the present
members of the Marine Advisory Board shall have terms which
expire one year from the date of appointment and which shall -
have terms `that expire two years from the date of
appointment. Thereafter new appointees shall serve two-year
terms.
4
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0)
adopted Resolution 87-53, establishing that members
of the Marine Advisory Board shall serve staggered
terms.
RESOLUTION NO. 87- 53
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, REESTABLISHING AND STAGGERING
THE TERMS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY MARINE ADVISORY BOARD AND
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 87-22.
WHEREAS, Indian River County is greatly affected
by, dependent upon and served by the Indian .River Lagoon;
and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the
citizens of Indian River County to maintain, preserve and
enhance the natural beauty, water quality and usefulness of
the Indian River Lagoon as an irreplaceable natural
resource; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County to stagger the terms of
the Marine Advisory Board members by repealing Resolution
No. 87-22 to revise it to accomplish the above -stated
objectives;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida:
1. Indian River County Resolution No. 87-22 is
hereby repealed.
2. The Indian River County Marine Advisory Board
is hereby established to consist of the following members
who will be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners:
a. A County Commissioner, who will serve as
Chairman of the Marine Advisory Board.
5 Boos E{uc 547
� JUN 16 1987
Bou 68 Fr+cE548
b. A representative of a local environmental
organization, such as, but not limited to, the Audubon
Society, the Sierra Club, or the Florida Defenders of the
Environment.
c. A representative of commercial fishermen,
preferably a person affiliated with a commercial fishing
organization.
d. A representative of recreational
fishermen, preferably a person affiliated with a
recreational fishing organization.
e. A representative of recreational boaters,
preferably a person affiliated with a recreational boating
organization.
f. Two persons not necessarily affiliated
with a particular user -group of the Indian River Lagoon, but
who have expressed an interest in the objectives stated
herein.
3. The terms of the Marine Advisory Board members
shall be two years, staggered, and a member may serve no
more than three terms in succession. Members serve at the
pleasure of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County and may be removed by a majority vote of the
Board. Vacancies in the Marine Advisory Board membership
shall be filled by a majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County.
4. The Marine Advisory Board shall have advisory
powers only. The Marine Advisory Board shall prepare and
recommend policies and, where possible, specific plans
relating to:
a. Preservation and enhancement of
recreational uses in the Indian River Lagoon.
b. Protection and improvement of water
quality and marine habitat in the Indian River Lagoon.
C. Minimization of adverse impacts on the
Indian River Lagoon from all forms; of pollution,
development, and over -fishing.
d. Utilization of the Indian River Lagoon and
its renewable resources in ways proven not to degrade water
quality, marine habitat, recreational utility and natural
beauty.
The foregoing resolution was offered by
Commissioner Eggert and seconded by Commissioner
Wheeler and, being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Absent
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this 16th day of June 1987.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By C -
Don C. Scurloc r.
LAY
Chairman
F. Marine Advisory Committee - Terms of Office
The Board reviewed memo from Commissioner Wheeler, Chairman
of the Marine Advisory Committee:
7 BOOK � F'r�uE
WUN 16 �
QUN 16 1987 -7
BOOK 68 f,a.a 55e
TO: County Commission DATE: June 10, 1987 FILE:
SUBJECT: Marine Advisory Committee
Terms of office
FROM: Gary C. Wheeler REFERENCES:
Chairman
Marine Advisory Committee
The Board of County Commissioners is being asked to adopt a
Resolution establishing staggered terms for the members of
the Marine Advisory Committee. I would request that the
terms be staggered as follows:
Gary C. Wheeler 2 years
R. Grant Gilmore 2 years
E. E. "Ned" Potter 2 years
Oren K. Deacon 2 years
John "Jack" E. Jackson 1 year
George Phreaner 1 year
Tim Adams 1 year
After the initial term, all subsequent terms will be for a
period of 2 years.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved staggered terms for the members of the
Marine Advisory Committee as set out above.
G. Approval of Voting Alternate to TPC For Sebastian
The Board reviewed memo from the City Clerk of the City of
Sebastian:
8
L. Gene Halls
Mayor
June 4, 1987
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 780127 O SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978-0127
TELEPHONE (305) 589-5330
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Sirs:
Kathryn M. Benjamin
City Clerk
As per your request, this is to inform that the City Council
of Sebastian, during their Workshop Meeting of June 3, 1987,
appointed Councilman George Metcalf as alternate to the
Transportation Committee.
If you should require more information, please feel free to
contact my office.
Sincerely,
Rathr i M Benj a�
City Clerk
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the appointment of Councilman George
Metcalf as voting alternate to the Transportation
Planning Committee as recommended by the City of
Sebastian.
H. Change_Order No. 4, County Jail, Phase It
The Board reviewed the following memo:
9BiJGF. P�Ur 551JUJU 16 198
JUN 16 M7 . BOOK 68 PAGE 552 1
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: JUNE 1, 1987
VIA: CHARLES P.-BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
JOE BAIRD
DIRECTOR OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM: H. T. "SONNY" DE
OWNERS AUTHORIZE P SENTATIVE
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL - PHASE II
CHANGE ORDER NO. 4
The subject Change Order is a summary of items that are required on
Phase II of the Jail Project.
Item 1. The second floor drains are required to eliminate water
running down stairs of the dormitory. The owner requested
the drains after the contract was awarded but refused design
cost due to having informed the architect of a similar
problem that existed in Phase I.
Item 2. The architect did not modify the door frame after submittal
of a change to the interior of this section. This work will
be at no cost to the owner.
Item 3. This is an eleven (11) day extension of the contract due to
rain days and additional work the contractor was asked to
perform.
Staff has reviewed these changes with both the architect and
contractor. It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners
approved the Change Order and authorized) the Chairman to sign all
documents.
Commissioner Bird noted that the contractor requested a lot
of rain days that the architect did not approve, which makes him
question a bit the integrity of the contractor in trying to get
credit for rain days that apparently aren't there according to
the log. He felt this also tends to make you wonder whether he
might bear close watching in other areas.
Owners Representative, "Sonny" Dean explained that the
architect's representative on site keeps a daily log of the
workers on site, weather conditions, etc. When the contractor
made his request, they checked the log to see what the conditions
were, and on some of the dates, he worked part of the day and
some of the work at that time could have been done inside. Mr.
Dean believed the contractor was trying to get as much extension
as he could to avoid going into the penalty period.
10
Commissioner Eggert wished to know if Mr. Dean was recom-
mending the 11 days, and he confirmed that he was.
Further discussion ensued regarding just how the records are
kept,,with Commissioner Eggert inquiring whether anyone besides
the architect's representative keeps these records.
Mr. Dean stated that the only record is just what the repre-
sentative on the job site keeps and we have that documented; he
assured the Board that a careful record has been kept.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved I.R.C.Jail, Phase 11 - Change #4 with
Schopke Const. for $2,738.
1878
FRIZZELL ARCHITECTS OWNER 0
ARCHITECT ❑
CHANGE ORDER CONTRACTOR ❑
FIELD ❑
OTHER
PROJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL - CHANGE ORDER NO: Four ( 4 )
(name, address) PHASE II
OWNER: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
TO: (Contractor)
n SCHOPKE CONST. & ENG., INC. -1
1620 Tangerine Street
Melbourne, F1. 32901
L
DATE: May 22, 1987
ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 1878
CONTRACT FOR: General Construction
CONTRACT DATED: May 2 8 ,19 8 6
J
YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHOVIZED TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES IN THE SUBJECT JOB:
1. Add thru-wall drains at second floor Rooms 137, 138,
139, 140, 141 in accordance with Proposal Request
Two (2), Item 10 dated March 24,1987. (See Schopke
April 13, 1987 (modified) and April 24, 1.987)
2. Modify door frame #15 due to concrete slab being
lower than anticipated on plans. (Cost of $954.00
deferred and paid by Architect).
3. Extend contract time 2 days for weather occuring
12/23/86 & 12/27/86 (See WRF 2/26/87, 2/27/87
and IRCO 3/5/87). Extend contract time 2 days
for weather occuring 3/7/87 & 3/28/87 (See
WRF 4/2/87, 4/2/87 and IRCO 4/8/87. Extend
Contract time for additional work, seven (7) days.
11
JUN 16 1987
TOTAL
nrmirm
BOOR
t��U
Fr -
,UN 16 1987
BOX 68 F,AiL,)E 554
The Contract Time will be 6 3
ncressed)M 1f6Ef�}�41=i{�=110 e T ?mien Days.
The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Changs Order therefore Is
Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect.
Signature of the Contractor Indicates his agreement herewith. Including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Tims.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT ................................... s 1,903x286.00
FORMER CHANGE ORDERS RI.Z113.............. $ 2.688.16 5 1,905 974.16
THIS CHANGE ORDER..................................................................................(ADD....$ 20738-00
REVISED CONTRACT PRICE ... S1, 10A,712 16
SIGNED:
W. R. NRLL/ARCHIT S, INP
ASSt
BY
APPROVED:
SCHOPKE CONSTRUCTION &
ENG R'iNG C
p `CO 'ACT
BY to ,%'R A
DATE -7/ y 1
PAGE !! OF PAGES
ACCEPTED:
BOARD OF COUNTY CONVISSIONERS",.
IND IAN RIM
,
BY ;��OWNER
C.
DATE
v
DISCONTINUE ACCEPTANCE OF NEW APPLICATIONS FOR PISTOL PERMITS
The Board reviewed letter received from the Clerk and from
Firearms Instructor Bill Stegkemper:
FREDA WRIGHT
CLERK, CIRCUIT COURT AND RECORDER
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
P. O. BOX 1028
VERO BEACH • FLORIDA
32960
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman June 8, 1987
Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida
Dear Chairman Scurlock: I
Assistant County Attorney Sharon Brennan has advised me
that several counties in Florida have contacted the Criminal
Justice Legislative Committee for advice re the newly adopted
gun law. In those counties, the Clerks have requested per-
mission from their Board of County Commissioners to discontinue
accepting new applications for gun permits immediately, and
with the Board's approval are now no longer accepting new
applications.
I accordingly would like to request the Board's permission
to cease accepting new applications for gun permits at this time.
The renewal permits would continue to be processed up until October
1st when it is. -'anticipated the state will take over.
FREDA WRIGHT, CL OF COURTS
)101�/ Ow el,
YRRDEE Xpomm—
M;1L=Fj1W=&_tfT#1=U
REALTOR
Since 1960
OFFICE (305) 567-3900
RES. (305) 569-3458
Post Office Box 699
Vero Beach, Florida 32961-0699
June 9, 1987
Mr. Doug Scurlock, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: COUNTY PISTOL PERMITS
Dear Doug:
BILL F. STEGKEMPER, G.R.I.
GRADUATE OF REALTOR INSTITUTE
DESIGNATED APPRAISER
LICENSED BROKER — SALESMAN
MEMBER OF MILLION DOLLAR SALES CLUB
We face two problems concerning issuance of county con-
cealed weapons permits.
1) The current backinghbf unprocessed permits, because
of fingerprint check delay.
2) The new statewide pistol permit law going into effect
October 1, 1987.
Because of the existing backlog, it is very unlikely any
more new applications will complete official processing (because
of the fingerprint check delay) before October 1, 1987. Renewals
do not face this handicap.
I did discuss this with Sheriff Dobeck and we both concur
with the Clerk's request to cease accepting new. applications.
Sheriff Dobeck will continue to sponsor a free Firearms
Safety and Handling Class for civilians, monthly, as a public
service. Completion of this class will satisfy the new State
Pistol Permit requirements.
Sincerely,
J�7y, 7
Bill F.-Stegl6emper
Certified Firearms Instructor
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, to authorize the Clerk to discontinue
the acceptance of new applications for concealed weapons
permits as of today.
13
JUN 1619%
BOOK
rs �9�i
JUN 1 BOOK 68 I'
11,E 556
Commissioner Eggert commented that a letter received from
Florida Secretary of State George Firestone states that "Counties
may issue and renew permits through September 30, 1987." She
wondered if we are penalizing our people by stopping this
process.
Attorney Vitunac advised that our staff says it takes 60-90
days to process the fingerprints, etc., and by then it would be
October.
Deputy Clerk Virginia Hargreaves confirmed that the problem
with continuing to accept new applications is that the FBI
fingerprint check has been taking such a very long time (in some
cases five months or longer) that it is very likely that
applications we accept from this point on would not be checked
out and ready for approval by October 1st. We would continue the
processing of renewal applications up until October 1st.
THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0).
COUNTY INITIATED REZONING OF 5 ACRES FROM OCR & RM -t0 TO PRO (S.
OF 17TH ST.)
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:
III
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter of k*le �-2�_;60 P/44
In the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of �' d
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 t)?is .r, day of A.D.
Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
(SEAL)
`" e';; NOtICH - P{iBUt: FII?Atilirti-� .
Notice Di hearsng Initiated by ltullan '
County to consider the adoptiar o a County oro
dinance rezoningg land from: RM -10, Multiple;
Family Reaidentlal District and OCR.- Office,
Commercial and Residential District to PRO,
Professional office ��etttuuth of Street a subject Property
U S
Highway
1.
The subject property is described as: ' ,;•,
The North half of the East half of Lot 6 of
Block 2, of Dr. Richard E. Sullington
subdivision, which plat was filed May 25,
1912, and recorded in Plat Book 2, page
5, public records of St. Lucie County.
Florida, said land now'lyi W and being in
Indian River County, Florida; except the
right-of-way over the North 50 test of the
above described property conveyed to
the City of Vero Beach for a street; and
except street right-of-way
as
i Official
cl
Record Book 73, page
records of Indian River County,, Florida.
LESS AND EXCEPT the last 3'l'fa�
thereof
The North 160.5 feet of the West half of `.
Lot 6, Block 2, Dr. Richard E. Bullington
Subdivision, according to plat filed May
25, 1912, and recorded in Plat Book 2,
page 5, public records of St. Lucie t
County, Florida; said land now lying and
being in Indian River County, Florida.
EXCEPT HOWEVER, the West 100 fee"/,'
of the above described property and el[
sept the North 50 feet of the above . _,
scribed property conveyed to the Ci of
Vero Beach for road right of-waYoriI to '
Being in Indian River oun FI
wit: .
The East 371/ feet of the following de- _
scribed properly: Commencing at the
Southeast comer of the West half of Lot
6, Block 2, according to Map or Plat of
Dr. Richard E. Bullington's Subdivision,
according to plat filed In Plat Book 2,
page 5, St., Lucie County Florida,
records and running North 325 feet to ,
the point of beginning. From said point
of beginning, run North 165 feet and
from thence run West 149.75 feet, and
from thence run South 165 feet, and
from thence run East 149.75 feet, to said
point of beginning; said land lying and
being in Indian River County, Florida;
Dr. Richard E. Builington Subdivision re-
corded in Plat Book 2, page 5, public
records of St. Lucie County, Florida,
said land now lying and being in Indian
River County,Florida; the South 14.5
feet of the North 175 feet of the East
149.75 fast of the West one-half of Lot 6,.
Block 2;
Lots 1 and 18, Block S. and Lots 1 and
18, Block U, Rockridge Subdivision Unit
6, as recorded in Plat Book 5, page 67,
public records of Indian River County,
Florida;
Lots 1 and 18, Block W, Rockridge Sub-
division Unit 7, as recorded in plat book
5, paga 81, public records of Indian
River Ccunty, Florida;)
Lots 1 and 18, Block Y, and Lots 1 and
18, Block Z. Rockridge Subdivision Unit
8, as recorded in plat book 6, page 53,
public records of Indian River County,
Florida; Beginning at the northwest Cor-
ner of Lot 6, Block 2 of Dr. Richard E. I
Bullington's Subdivision, according to
the plat recorded in plat book 2 at page
5, public records of St. Lucie County, j,
Florida; from said point run east 100
feet; thence run south 154 feet; thence
run west 100 feet; thence run north
along the west side of Lot 6 a distance
of 154 feet to the point of beginning;
said land now lying and being in Indian
River County, Florida.
The Board of County Commissioners will con --
duct a public hearing regarding the appeal by'
the applicant of the decision by the Planning and
Zoning Commission to deny the rezoning re-
quest. The public hearing, at which parties in in-,
terest and citizens shall have an opportunity to:
be heard, will be held by the Board of County
Com\ountyCommissionrs of Indian River County, Florida,
in thty Commission Chambers of the.
Counistration Building, located at 1840
25thVero Beach, Florida on Tuesday,
Junet 9:05 a.m.
Ao a wish to appeal any decision.
whice me at this meeting will need to
ensuverba record of the proceedings
is m,h includ testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal IS based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
May 27,1987
Staff Planner Nearing made the staff presentation, as
follows:
15 BOOS. fA,UE 551
JUN 16.19.87
JUN 16 1987 BOOK 68 PAGE
TO:The Honorable Members of DATE: June 3, 1987 FILE:
the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
2
SUBJECT:
R ert M. Keating, AICP
Director, Communi Dev opment
Division
FROM: David C. Nearing
Staff Planner (j�`L//1
COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST
TO REZONE 5 ACRES FROM
OCR, OFFICE, COMMERCIAL,
AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
AND RM -10, MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO
PRO, PROFESSIONAL OFFICE
DISTRICT
REFERENCES: OCR/PRO
JEFF
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of June 16, 1987.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The'County Planning Department is requesting to rezone 5 acres of
land along the south side of 17th Street between 3rd Court and a
point 600 feet east of U.S. 1, from OCR, Office, Commercial, and
Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), and RM -10, Multifamily
Residential District (up to 10 units/acre), to PRO, Professional
Office District (up to 6 units/acre).
On March 26, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-1
with one abstension to deny this request based on the
incompatibility of the proposed rezoning with the existing types
of land uses.
Historically, there has been considerable interest in developing
this area for commercial uses. In 1983, the County Commission
rezoned .3 acres of property now occupied by the Causeway Rouge
office building from R-2, Multiple Family Residential District, to
C-lA, Restricted Commercial District. In 1986, the County adopted
a zoning conversion ordinance affecting all non-residential
properties in the County; that action rezoned this property to
OCR, Office, Commercial and Residential District.
In July of 1986, a request was submitted to amend the
Comprehensive Plan, and to rezone a 2.5 acre parcel of land
located on the southwest corner of the intersection of 17th Street
and 6th Avenue from RM -10 to CL, Limited Commercial. Because of
traffic and drainage considerations, the Board voted 4-1 to deny
both requests. However, the Board then voted unanimously to
direct staff to look at the possibility of rezoning this property
along with other property in this area to the Professional Office
zoning district.
On April 14, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners voted 2 -to -3
denying a motion to transmit to the State for review, a request to
amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate 13 acres from
residential to commercial use, the property being situated north
of the subject property and west of Indian River Boulevard.
Failure to transmit the request also caused an automatic denial of
a request to rezone the 13 acres from RM -10, Multi -Family District
to CG, General Commercial District.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
In this section,.,an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will' be presented. The analysis will include a
description of the current and future land uses of the site and
surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on
environmental quality.
16
EXISTING LAND USE PATTERNS:
The area proposed to be rezoned currently contains one office
building zoned OCR, Office, Commercial, and Residential District
(up to 6 units/acre), a 2.5 acre parcel of vacant land and 10
single family lots of the Rockridge Subdivision, zoned RM -10,
Multiple Family Residential District (up to 10 units/acre). To
the west of the area proposed for rezoning is a now vacant
building zoned CG, General Commercial District, which currently
has an approved site plan to change the use from an automobile
dealership to retail. To the south are single family lots of the
Rockridge Subdivision zoned RM -10. To the east is the Seventeenth
Street Office Plaza within the City of Vero Beach zoned POI,
Professional Office and Institutional District. North of the
subject property, across 17th Street, are the Plantation Apart-
ments, Marlo Apartments, single family homes, and vacant land
currently zoned RM -10.
FUTURE LAND USE PATTERN:
Currently, the office building located within the area proposed
for rezoning has a land use
designation of U.S. 1
Commercial
Corridor. The remainder of
the five acres has a land
use
designation of MD -2, Medium
Density' Residential 2
(up to
10
units/acre). The land west of
the subject property is
part of
the
U.S. 1 Commercial Corridor.
The land to the south and
north
is
designated as MD -2, Medium Density
Residential. The
land to
the
east is located in the City
of Vero Beach and has
a land
use
designation of Medium Density
(up to 10 units/acre).
As was previously mentioned, a request was made to change the
Comprehensive Plan for a 13 acre parcel northeast of this area.
This request in combination with other requests previously
mentioned for this area, shows the interest and pressures for uses
other than residential along the 17th Street Corridor. Staff is
concerned that these pressures could lead to strip commercial-
ization along this arterial road. Staff is opposed to any strip
commercial development, especially along arterial roadways. Strip
commercial development damages the effectiveness of an arterial
street in moving traffic due to increases in turning, movements.
The effects of strip development can best be seen on U.S. 1, south
of State Road 60. The uses which are permitted in the PRO
District will cause considerably less traffic than commercial
uses. The PRO district will also have the effect of buffering the
residential area to the south from the intense traffic on 17th
Street.
The intent of the PRO District is to permit redevelopment of areas
generally deemed to be inappropriate for continued single family
use but which are not considered appropriate for the full range of
commercial uses. Because of the future anticipated intensity of
motor vehicle use for 17th Street,this area will steadily decline
in attractiveness for single family residences; however, as
already stated, it is not considered appropriate for commercial
use. The placement of the PRO District in this area will provide
for an alternate use to single family residences, and discourge
strip commercial development along the 17th Street Corridor.
A good example of the effect of a professional office district is
the S.R. 60 corridor through the west half of the City of Vero
Beach. Prior to the establishment of the POI, Professional Office
Institutional District along this corridor, the area was beginning
to decay, and commercial uses were beginning to expand west from
the downtown area. Since the establishment of the POI district,
the corridor has experienced considerable redevelopment with
little impact on traffic. The POI district has further created a
buffer between S.R. 60 and the residential areas to the north and
south.
17 BOOK 6- ;�A'UE 559
L_'JUN 16 11981
JUN 1 '1987
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM:
BOOK 68 [MUE 5 C�
All of the properties within the area proposed for rezoning have
frontage on 17th Street (classified as an arterial street on the
Thoroughfare Plan). In analyzing the impacts of the PRO District
upon this portion of 17th Street, staff estimated the number of
Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT) which could be expected for the
three most intensive uses considered for the 17th St. corridor,
those being residential, professional offices, and retail
activities. The results of those estimates for the entire 5 acres
are as follows:
a) Multi -Family 368 AADT
b) Professional Office 725 AADT
C) Retail 3,941 AADT
The current Level of Service for this portion of 17th Street is
LOS "A" carrying 22,700 AADT at peak season. The LOS would be
downgraded to LOS "B" once traffic surpasses 24,000 AADT. Neither
multi -family nor PRO zoning would trigger this figure; however,
commercial zoning would. Rezoning this 5 acre area to PRO would
still allow the Level of Service to remain at A, while providing
an alternate use to residential for the properties involved.
ENVIRONMENT:
No properties within this area are designated as environmentally
sensitive. It is, however, within the 100 year floodplain. Any
development within this area will require added engineering to
comply with the County's Stormwater Management Ordinance.
UTILITIES:
Public water service provided by the County is available within
this area. Currently there is no public sewer service available
to the subiect property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis performed, and fully respecting the opinion
and abilities of the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff
recommends that the Board. of County Commissioners approve the
requested rezoning.
4 Q
M M M
Commissioner Eggert wished to know if staff hadn't been
looking for five acres, especially in view of their statement
that we don't want strip zoning, whether they would have run a
strip down 17th Street the way it is proposed.
Planner Nearing explained that PRO requires that the
properties have frontage on an arterial. On the north side there
are lots that are really too small to do anything with because of
the required setbacks. The area itself is currently fairly
stable; however, because of the increased traffic, staff does
anticipate there will be a decline in the quality of the area.
Director Keating stated that ideally he would like to see a
little more depth to the lots. That was the major consideration
by the Planning 8 Zoning Commission in their action to deny this
request, and one of the points brought out at that time was that
there is nothing to preclude someone owning a lot on the frontage
from acquiring a lot behind him and trying to extend the PRO.
Director Keating continued to explain in detail how the district
was developed and staff was directed to find appropriate areas
for such a district. He believed the PRO District was created
with the 17th St. corridor in mind, as well as a couple of other
limited areas in the county. Currently there is only one other
property in the county that has the PRO designation and that is
west on SR60. He stated that staff would hope that if the PRO is
approved, that some of the abutting lots would be joined together
with those on 17th St. to provide more depth.
Commissioner Eggert wished to know how much land is in OCR
presently, and Planner Nearing advised that it is approximately
2.8 acres.
Commissioner Bird asked if this rezoning was initiated at
the Commission's direction, and Planner Nearing stated that the
Commission directed staff to look at the 2.8 acre parcel and any
other parcels along 17th St. staff felt would be appropriate.
The PRO requires a minimum of 5 acres.
JUN 16 ' 9 J 0.
F`'� 800K J101
IJUN
1
1987
BOOK
68 PAGE 562
Commissioner Wheeler
commented that what he was
thinking of
when staff was given that direction was increasing the depth of
that land which already fronts next to the office building
between 6th Avenue and U.S.I. and considering including the
property in back of it extending to the next street south.
Planner Nearing pointed out that every property involved in
a PRO district must have frontage on an arterial, and the lots
behind the office building all have frontage on a local street
and would not qualify.
Commissioner Eggert questioned whether we would serve the
community well with the ordinance the way it now stands where we
have to look for five acres to put together.
Vice Chairman Bowman pointed out that we have no guaranty
that anyone will be able to purchase the second tier of houses.
Staff agreed, but noted that there is also nothing to
preclude anyone from continuing to use their residential property
as it is even if it were rezoned PRO.
Commissioner Bird expressed concern about having a house
back up to an office, and Planner Nearing noted that the ordi-
nance has requirements for buffering when you abut single and
multi family residential districts.
Board members in general expressed concern about buffering,
etc., especially as the lots are 80' lots.
Vice Chairman Bowman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard.
John Brenner, 1691 4th Court, advised that his residence is
one of those in question. Mr. Brenner argued that this area
cannot stay residential forever; it will decline in attractive-
ness for single family as stated by staff, and it needs
redevelopment, which the PRO District was designed for. Mr.
Brenner noted that when the P&Z turned the PRO down, they gave no
direction to staff, and at this point he would like the Board at
least to give staff some direction so the residents are not
living in limbo. He agreed the lots are too small and the
20
ordinance requires arterial frontage, but it is simply a question
of unity of title, which could be worked out very easily if two
lots were combined. He felt there are two alternatives - either
rezone now to encourage property owners to combine or rewrite the
ordinance giving the district a specific depth and restrict
individual site plans to abut developed property with frontage.
As to the problems of traffic and drainage, he contended that PRO
would increase traffic only 1.50, which can be taken care of
easily by the extension of Indian River Boulevard, and while
there are drainage problems in RockRidge proper, his survey shows
that the R/W near 17th Street drains north, and his 4th Court
frontage falls nearly 5" to the north. The ordinance also
requires 10 of stormwater retained on site, and staff has said
development would improve the drainage problem. As to lack of
need, Mr. Brenner believed 17th St. has more tourists on it than
any other county road, and with the decline in aesthetics along
17th St., he felt redevelopment must occur.
Mr. Brenner noted that the degradation of the property along
this street is coming about slowly, and the people along 17th St.
are loath to fix up their property. He presented slides showing
views of properties along 17th St., stressing one in particular
that has been in a severe state of neglect for some years, which
happens to be located across from him, and emphasized that Code
Enforcement has not done anything about it.
Bill Nelson, 230 14th Street, spoke out strongly against the
proposed rezoning. He could not understand why when the north
side of 17th has all the vacant land, we have to take 10 homes on
the south side and rezone them to PRO, and then if the land is
not deep enough, possibly involve 20 homes. He pointed out that
the office plaza located on 17th St. is half empty. Mr. Nelson
further pointed out that Mr. Brenner, an architect, is married to
Debbie Schlitt, an interior decorator and daughter of local
realtor Frank Schlitt, and they want to turn their house into an
21 BOOK PAGE
JUN 161987
JUN 16 1987
office.
BOOK 68 F -4,E564
He suggested that they rent an office in the 17th Street
Office Plaza.
Mr. Nelson pointed that at the P&Z meeting many more people
were present objecting, but they were not notified about the
hearing today. He noted that Mr. Brenner is on the Planning S
Zoning Board and did not vote, although he did make his pitch in
favor of the rezoning to the Board members, but they turned it
down unanimously. (He was informed that the vote was R to 1.)
Mr. Nelson continued that the old VW building on 17th Street was
just torn down, and we will get more stores or business in that
area. He felt the business area ended at 6th Avenue, but now it
appears they want to move the commercial down the street which
will add more traffic, and this was one of the reasons the
Promenade project was turned down. Mr. Nelson felt to line this
street with offices again will definitely add more traffic and
the exits and entrances to these buildings would be added onto
17th St. and present more traffic hazards.
William Koolage, 815 26th Ave., felt some of the problems go
all back to when you create an arterial because when you create
one, you are asking for commercial to be along it, and it would
be appropriate because of the volume of traffic it carries. He
mentioned the slides shown of the redevelopment on SR60 and felt
SR60 has been a terrible degradation since he moved here in 1971,
and although some of the homes have deteriorated in that period
of time, he felt the office buildings that have gone in are no
credit to that area. He then went on to express concern about
the lots behind and abutting those that are made commercial and
subsequently increase so much in value. Mr. Koolage emphasized
that consideration must be given to the owners of these abutting
lots, and possibly the one who gets the tremendous price on his
land because of the rezoning should have some kind of penalty
that he pays those who abut his property. He also felt that just
a barrier of some kind is not enough to prevent a bad effect on
the abutting owner.
4A
Director Keating clarified that this would not be a rezoning
to commercial, and one of the reasons this ordinance was put into
effect was because of the big differences between office uses and
commercial uses. Commercial has business with hours at night and
early morning deliveries, heavier traffic etc., and a much more
negative impact while office uses generally are not so
incompatible, particularly when you have sufficient buffer. He
agreed there is a problem when you take an existing area and put
in a higher intensity type of roadway, which is necessary to
serve a growing population, and what the PRO zoning district in
particular reflects is a sort of compromise position to deal with
the added pressure for non-residential development and to
facilitate redevelopment of a deteriorating area.
Mr. Koolage felt the same problems hold true with PRO as
opposed to commercial but less drastically,.
Betty Reeves, owner of an office building on 17th Street,
advised that she was present to speak in favor of her property
remaining commercial instead of being downzoned to PRO. At the
time she came into this area, it was necessary to apply for the
commercial zoning in order to develop her office building, and
she now is concerned that if her building were to be damaged 50%
or more, she would be precluded from putting it back into its
present condition. As to PRO having a negative impact on a
neighborhood, Mrs. Reeves informed the Board that one of the
suites of offices in her building overlooks something similar to
the very neglected property shown in the slides, and this has had
a definite negative impact on her office building. She stated
that she tries to get along with her neighbors, but the day she
loses a tenant because of this situation, she will turn them into
the Code Enforcement Board. Mrs. Reeves concurred with the
earlier statement that the day the 17th Street Bridge went in was
the day that road became the appropriate place for PRO and
commercial development - where else should it be?
JUN 16 1987 23 BOOK
'JUN 16
1987
BOOK
68
PAGE566
Vice Chairman Bowman asked
if Mrs. Reeves' property
is
within the commercial node.
Director Keating advised that it is within the U.S.1
commercial corridor, and it is currently zoned OCR which is the
least intensive commercial district we have. Her property is
non -conforming now because when the zoning conversions were
adopted, new setbacks were required.
Discussion continued about Mrs. Reeves' uses, etc., and it
was noted that PRO would permit her to continue her current uses.
Mr. Nelson debated the need for redevelopment of the area.
He agreed there are a few places that need to be cleaned up, but
Code Enforcement Officers Bette Davis and Charlie Heath are
working hard with them to take care of the problem areas.
Vice Chairman Bowman read into the record a letter from
Martha and Charles Engle, residents of the area, opposing the
proposed change in zoning.
Nancy Offutt, 6860 Date Palm Road, spoke as an individual.
She noted that she and her husband have a property interest
across the street in the 17th Street project which was applied
for as the Indian River Promenade; so, they obviously feel the
area is not suitable for single family residential. She and her
husband formerly owned a parcel across the street from the 17th
Street Office Plaza, and that area is certainly in transition.
Many homes in the area are being rented, and in renting
situations there is no pride of ownership, and things depreciate.
Mrs. Offutt felt the PRO district could not be more appropriately
located than on this corridor.
It was determined that no one further wished to be heard,
and the Vice Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bird stated that he did not have a problem with
the PRO for the large property on the southwest corner of 17th
St. and 6th Avenue, and while he did feel that 17th St. is in
transition, he had a problem with the narrowness of the strip to
24
the east of 6th Avenue but did not know how to deal with it to
expand it.
Commissioner Eggert asked if there is any way the PRO
ordinance could be changed, possibly with a special exception for
something surrounded on three sides by streets where we could
have less acreage.
Attorney Vitunac confirmed that the ordinance could be
amended to change the acreage, but he would not like to see
acreage used as a special exception. That is not what they are
for.
In ensuing discussion, it was generally agreed the problem
is with the property to the east of 6th Avenue.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, to deny the proposed rezoning
of the subject property to PRO because of the narrow
strip.
Commissioner Wheeler also expressed concern about the small
lots and the depth. He further noted that he has been hearing
about the need for low cost housing, and the housing in this area
is affordable housing in the $20,000 to $40,000 range. As to the
argument about deterioration of the neighborhood, he believed you
can find property that has not been kept up as it should be in
practically any neighborhood except those with strict deed
restrictions. He did agree that the one particular residence on
17th Street is deplorable and something should be done about it.
Vice Chairman Bowman was concerned about the domino effect,
and stated that she would like to see the PRO ordinance changed
so we don't necessarily require PRO to be on arterials.
THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0)
25U 7
Boa o, 5
JUN 16 198-1
Fr
jum 16197
BOOK 68 ou, 56S
Commissioner Bird discussed having another Motion in regard
to changing the PRO ordinance as he felt we may very well run
into other situations where we can't stick to the five acres. He
was particularly concerned about the property on the corner which
he did not feel is residentially suited and preferably should be
either PRO or commercial.
Director Keating agreed that it definitely would be possible
to change the minimum district requirements in PRO; that is a
policy decision, but staff would recommend against it because of
the problems that could arise.
Commissioner Eggert proposed a Motion to authorize staff to
look at the PRO District again, but Commissioner Wheeler noted
that he was happy with the five acre requirement. If you start
dropping the acreage down, then where do you stop. You can't
continue to rewrite the ordinance for every situation.
In further discussion, it was agreed a Motion was not
necessary, and it could be considered just direction to staff to
look further at the PRO District and come up with several
alternatives.
PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PAVING OF 5 ROADS
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
In the matter of
In the Court, was
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant furtiter 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 las 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 in this day of. A.D.
Business Manager)
n i °
4L -
(Clerk of the Circuit CcV, Indian River County, Florida)
(SEAL)
2%
L- JUN 16 1987
EA88 TAxa:l�c Oe that the 90W of County Commissioners Of Indian Nva County, FWA%
y hold a put►BO seting at 0'06 AM on Tuesday. June 18, 119117 M the Commlaatan Millibars lo-
Wted at 1840 2b81. Vero Bach:froof t
rlda, to ooWda adoption he fallowing proposed rte
r f a _
I��l'4`aa` •RESOLUTION Ntj. 87: 'r' • e
c -A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COON-
' ,FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO
AND SOUTH TROPICANA DRIVE EAST OF US 1; 22ND AVENUE FROM IST • ,
STREET•13W TO 2ND STREET; 33RD AVENUE SW FROM 13TH STREET SW TO 11TH
STREET SW; 128TH STREET FROM ROSELAND ROAD TO ELAINE STREET; AND 37TH
AVENUE FROM 12TH STREET TO 14TH STREET: PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED d
COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALL-.'
MENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIALLY BENEFITED.
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Deppters of prpahrrtetm�Beontt has recelveed public Ifor some of the gmprovement petitionsstreets In Me .
signed by more than 2/3 of
pecially
benefited, requesting p�ng�and others have been and drainage Improvements rd of to NORty TH AND OUTH be
ANA
DRIVE EAST OF US 1; 22ND AVENUE FROM 1ST STREET SW TO 2ND STREET; 33RD AVENUE
SW FROM 13TH STREET SW TO 11TH STREET SW;126TH STREET FROM ROSELAND ROAD TO
ELAINE STREET; AND 37TH AVENUE FROM 12TH STREET TO 14TH STREET. and
WHEREAS, the petitions have been verified and meet the requirements of Section 11-23, Indian
River County Code of Laws and Ordinances; and cost estimates have been completed by the Public
Works Division; and
WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the proposed Improvements is TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-
FIVE THOUSAND, NINE HUNDRED TEN DOLLARS ($255,910): and
WHEREAS, the special assessments presided hereunder shall, for any given record owner of
property within the area specially benefited, be In an amount equal to that proportion of seventy-five
percent (76%) of the total cost of the project as follows:
(a) If the assessment Is calculated by the front footage method, the numbs of lineal feet of road
frontage owned by the given owner in relation to the total numbar,of lineal feet of road frontage
within the area
ed , special) benefited, and
othet`iidtwhich are
eotnnfasiheaaI�i ned:y ro miopanarepf-
an
WHEREAS, the special assessment shall become due and payable at the Office of to Tax Col-
lector of Indian River County ninety (90) days after the final determination of the special assessment
pursuant to Section 1134, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County shall pay the remaining twenty-five percent (25%) of the total
cost of the prof and
WHEREAS any special assessment not paid within said ninety (90)) day ppeeriod shall bear Inter-
est beyond the due date at a rate established by the Board of County Commissioners at the time of
preparation.of the final assessment roll, and shall be payable in two (2) equal installments, the first
to be made twelve (12) months from the due date and to second to be made twenty -tour (24)
months from the due date; and
WHEREAS, after examination of to nature and anticipated uWa of the proposed Improve-
ments, to Board of County Commissioners has determined that the following described properties
shall receive a direct and special benefit from these Improvements, to wit:
NORTH AND SOUTH TROPICANA DRIVE EAST OF US 1
Lot 1, 3 though S. Block A, Lot 1, Lots 3 trough 11, Lot 13, Block B, Lots 2 through 8, Block C,
less north 10 feet, Tropicana Homesites as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 20 of the Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida; and
Land Only, less Buildings 6, 8, 7A, 7B,15B,16A, BA, 88, 11 A. 12A. 129,19A, 19B, 20A, 20B,
21 A. 218, 22A, 22B, 23A, 23B, 24A, 248, 30A, and 31 A, Pelican Point of Sebastian. Unit 18
11; and
The South 120 feet of North 130 fest of East 150 feet of West 685.12 feet of South one half of
Lot as in Record Book 62 Page 318 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida;
and
The South 120 feet of North 130 feet of West 160 feet of East 300 feet of West 685.12 feet of
South one -halt of Lot 2 as In Record Book 192 Page 678 of the Public Records of Indian
River County, Florida
22ND AVENUE FROM 1 ST STREET SW TO 2ND STREET
Lots 17 through 32, Block B, Lots 1 through 16, Block C. Indian River Heights Subdivision
Unit 2 as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 25 of the Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida
33RD AVENUE SggW FROM 13TH STREET SW TO 11TH STREET SW through
through B.Block 22; Q oBlock venor EstatesuNo. 2, as recordBlock ed n Plats 9 Book5 16,
Block
el18 d ffftthe Pub-
lic Records of Indian River County, Florida -
37TH AVENUE FROM 12TH STREET TO 14TH STREET
Lots 1 through 8; Block 1; Lots 1 through 8, Block 2; Lots 1 through 8, Block 3; Lots 1
trough 8, Block 4; Rosedale Boulevrird Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 90 of
to Public Records of Indian River County, Florida
126TH STREET FROM ROSELAND ROAD TO ELAINE STREET
Lots 1 through 13, Haven View Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 5 Page 81; Lam 1
trough 18, Haven View Addition No. 1 as recorded In Plat Book 7 Page 35; and Lots 1
through 11, Roseland Lake Subdivision No. 1 as recorded in Plat Book 7 Page 62 of the
Public Records of Indian River County, Florida
Tract A, Gervals Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 9 Page 33 of the Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida
Northeastiy 120 feet of Nortwestly 136 feet of Lot 40 lying Southeastiy of Roseland Road
less Northwesdy 5 feet for road right-of-way, A.A. Berrys Subdivision as recorded in Plat
Book 2 Page 14 of the Public Records of SL Lucie County, now being situate in Indian River
County, Florida
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IN
DIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recltala are affirmed and re6fl0 In Weir entirety.
2. A project providing for paving and drainages Improvements to NORTH AND
SOUTH TROP
CANA DRIVE EAST OF U31; 22ND AVENUE FROM 1ST STREET SW TO 2ND STREET; 33RD AVE
NUE SY4 FROM 13TH STREET SW TO 11TH STREET SW; 126TH STREET FROM ROSELAN.
ROAD TO ELAINE STREET; AND 37TH AVENUE FROM 12TH STREET TO 14TH STREET; hereto
fore designated es Public Works Projects No's 8542, 8804, 8815, 8830, and 8808, respectively, ,
hereby approved subject to the terms outlined above and ail applicable requirements of Section 1
34, Indlen River County Code of Leese and Ordinances.
The foregoing resolution was offered by commissioner who moved its adoption. The me
tion was seconded byy Commissioner and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Vice -Chairman Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler
The Chairman thereupon declare the resolution duly passed and adopted this day of -
1987.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
8y DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
Chairman
APPROVED BY:
BY:-s-JamesW. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
Attest:
FREDA WRIGHT. Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
By -e -Shawn Phillipa Brennan
County Attorney's Office i
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that at the game public hearing, the Board of County Commit
sloners shall also hear all Interested persona regarding the proposed roll for the Improvements d
scribed In the.above resolution. The Preliminary Assessment Roll and Petition Is currently on f
with the Public Works Division and is open for Inspection between the hours of 8:30 AM and W
PM, Monday through Friday.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Commission with respect to any matter cc
sldered at this hearing, he will need a tabard of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he In
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which record Includes tiro in
many and evidence upon which the appeal Is to be based.
Indian River County
Charles P. Balczun,
county Administrator
June 2,1987 B U K � E A L 58 •
r JUN 16 1987
Staff reviewed the following memo:
BOOK 68 PA' 4 17
TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE: June 3, 1987 FILE:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
Charles P. Balczun
Coun in' ator - Public Hearing to consider
SUBJECT: resolution providing for the
a ph N. Brescia, P.E. paving of 5 roads (See
County Engineer description below)
FROM:
eichelleA. Terry
Civil Engineer REFERENCES:
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Valid petitions have been received from the abutting property owners for
the paving of the following streets:
1) 22nd Ave. from 1st Street SW to 2nd St. (Preliminary Cost $48,810.00)
2) 33rd Avenue S.W. from 13th St. SW to 11th St. S.W. (Preliminary Cost
$39,240.00)
3) 126th Street from Roseland Road to Elaine Street (Preliminary Cost
$62,970.00)
4) 37th Avenue from 12th to 14th St. (Preliminary Cost $39,390.00)
It is further recommended by the Board of County Commissioners that the
following streets be paved:
5) North and South Tropicana Drive East of U.S. 1 (Preliminary Cost
$55,500.00)
Preliminary assessment rolls have been prepared for the paving and
drainage improvements. The total cost of these projects is
approximately $245,910.00. There is approximately $118,279.63 in the
FY86-87 budget for Petition Paving, Account No. 703-214-541-035.39. As
money from other roads is replenished to the Petition Paving Account,
these roads will be paved.
Also, advertisement of the public hearing and notification to the
property owners has been performed.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
After consideration of the public input provided at the public hearing,
it is recommended that motions be made to:
1) Adopt resolution providing for the paving and drainage improvements
for each project, subject to the terms outlined in the resolution.
The applicable interest rate shall be 12% at the time the final
assessment roll is approved.
2) Approve preliminary assessment rolls including any changes made as
a result of the public hearing.
3) Allocate $245,910 from the Petition Paving Acct. to fund this work.
4) Roads will be paved as surveys and plans are completed. Road &
Bridge will do some paving and others possibly by outside sources
through Invitation to Bid.
Vice Chairman Bowman opened the public hearing on the peti-
tion paving of 22nd Avenue from 1st St. SW to 2nd Street, and
asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
28
Kenneth Brady, 171 22nd Avenue, stated that he just bought
a new home on 22nd Avenue and was not there when the petition was
signed, but he and his wife are definitely in favor of the
paving.
It was determined that no one further wished to be heard,
and the Vice Chairman declared the hearing closed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved the preliminary assessment roll for the
paving and drainage improvements on 22nd Avenue
from 1st St. SW to 2nd St., in the amount of
$48,810.
Vice Chairman Bowman opened the public hearing on the peti-
tion paving of 33rd Avenue SW from 13th St. SW to 11th St. SW and
asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Roger Butler, 1236 33rd Ave. SW, advised that he was very
much in favor of the proposed paving project because the traffic
is heavy and the dust is bad.
It was determined that no one further wished to be heard,
and the Vice Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
ON UOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
the preliminary assessment roll for the paving and
drainage improvements on 33rd Avenue from 13th St. SW
to 11th St. SW, in the amount of 39,240.
Vice Chairman Bowman opened the public hearing on the peti-
tion paving of 126th Street from Roseland Road to Elaine Street,
and asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Robert Musante, 126th St., believed there are a lot of
people here in favor of the proposed paving, but he has a
29
JUN 16 1987 boa
JUN
16 1987
BOOK
68 FAcr572
question.
He noted that the street that goes to the
landfill
transfer station was paved by the county at no cost to the
taxpayers and also a couple of other streets in the area. Their
street is going to be paved at the expense of the people who live
there, and'it well could turn into a direct route to the landfill
transfer station. Since the owners are paying for the paving, he
wished to know if the county can give some guarantee that it does
not become a direct route to the landfill or could they at least
install some signs saying "Local Traffic Only."
Attorney Vitunac believed this would require study by our
Engineering Department, and the Board can ask them to took into
this.
Vice Chairman Bowman felt Mr. Musante fears this will be a
main artery to the landfill and that he has a concern about
litter from the trucks, etc.
Mr. Musante stated that he is mainly concerned about traffic
and would ask the Board to look into the possibility of restrict-
ing the use of the road in some way.
Attorney Vitunac believed it might be possible to restrict
the type of vehicles that use the road, and Vice Chairman Bowman
stated that this will be referred to the Traffic Engineering
Department.
It was determined that no one further wished to be heard,
and the Vice Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
the preliminary assessment roll for the paving and
drainage improvements on 126th Street from Roseland
Road to Elaine Street in the amount of $62,970 and
instructed the Traffic Engineering Department to look
into Mr. Musante's request.
30
r r �
Vice Chairman Bowman opened the public hearing on the peti-
tion paving of 37th Avenue from 12th to 14th Street and asked if
anyone present wished to be heard.
Maxine Orndorff, 1376 37th Avenue, informed the Board that
she signed a petition almost two years ago to have this road
paved, and at the same time, they were asking that 14th Street
between 36th and 38th Avenues be paved. However, it appeared
there was a problem at that time because part of this belonged to
the City, and they were advised they could not include that on
the petition. Ms. Orndorff stated that this now belongs to the
county, and she, therefore, would recommend the county include
the two block area of 14th Street between 36th and 38th Avenues
to be done at the same time as the paving of 37th Avenue.
She lives on the two lots on the corner of 14th St. and 37th
Avenue, and if both are not paved, there will be no advantage to
her.
County Engineer Brescia advised that staff would agree with
that request, and Civil Engineer Terry concurred and pointed out
that this would require preparation of a second assessment.
Harold Fletcher, 1275 37th Avenue, wished to have another
street considered for paving at the same time - a small street,
13th Street between 36th Avenue and what you might say is 37th
and a half. Their driveway accesses onto 13th St. They would
like to pave their driveway, and several other neighbors on 13th
Street are interested in the same thing. They do not want to
hold up the paving of 37th Avenue, but it seems it would be very
practical to do the paving at the same time.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if there isn't another section
going towards 43rd Avenue where there is a block and a half or
more of dirt road also, and Mrs. Orndorff advised that 14th
Street from 36th to 43rd Avenue is not paved except for a two
block area, and there are two blocks of dirt road on each side of
the paved section, which is ridiculous.
The street mentioned by
31
JUN 16 1987 BOOK � F��E���
r-JUN16 197
BooK 68 F'nuE574
Mr. Fletcher, 13th Street, is also a block and a half of dirt
road, and those are the only two dirt roads in the area.
Commissioner Wheeler felt that both these streets need to be
looked at and should be paved.
It was determined that no one further wished to be heard,
and the Vice Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved
the preliminary assessment roll for the paving and
drainage improvements on 37th Avenue from 12th to 14th
St., in the amount of $39,390., and directed staff to
fast track looking at the paving of 13th and 14th
Streets as discussed.
Vice Chairman Bowman opened the public hearing on the
petition paving of North and South Tropicana Drive east of U.S.1
and asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Caldwell Cheek, came before the Board representing Pelican
Pointe Corporation, and objected to their being assessed for the
paving of Palmetto Ave., which he noted was not mentioned in
staff's memo. He noted that Pelican Pointe is being assessed for
the paving of this street, and there is no way that Pelican
Pointe can ever use this particular street.
The area to be paved is shown on the following chart:
32
ASSSEESQSED �o /21h1--311-/39
TROPOl\!JNA
HO NMI
SU®DOV
eal 4.20
-VI Its
—
Ac. A
GOV. LOT 2
1780•
3. R.o ITCH R/W
8.
A• 160• 100' - �° g
r
7n � s.si
8 _. W_ . .
}� _ • A
7pTAL.
os
c000 m
V 0
/f/ETL^4it/O.S �
5a. is 14C . liq
C5.
1vc i
707-A l
21 q�
31
39 o i
I
:U
It was noted that Palmetto Avenue connects the other two
streets, and Engineer Terry explained that the reason the county
wishes to pave (North and South Tropicana Drive and Palmetto Ave.
is to eliminate the grader route up at the north end of the
county.
Vice Chairman Bowman asked why Pelican Pointe was assessed
and Engineer Terry explained that it was because they own
frontage on Palmetto Avenue.
Mr. Cheek confirmed that they were assessed.over $7,000 for
the frontage they own on Palmetto, and there is absolutely no way
they can ever use this property as building lots because it has
been developed for a golf course. There are property owners on
the other side of the street who will use the road, but Pelican
Pointe would not use it at all.
Commissioner Bird believed we have run into this in other
situations where we have had lots with dual frontage that were
assessed even though they don't use the particular street we are
paving as their access point, and he did not know how we differ-
entiate.
JUN 16 1987 33 BOOS fX6.E51"D
L_
JUN 16 1987 BOOK F'aGE l
Vice Chairman Bowman felt there is always an advantage in
not having a dirt road, but Mr. Cheek did not agree because the
golf course is there. He advised that the property is not
subdivided as shown on staff's map.
Engineer Terry confirmed that the Pelican Pointe property
abutting Palmetto Ave. is not subdivided, but they marked it out
on the chart as if it were subdivided in order to show the
approximate size of lots so they could assess them accordingly,
and this is stated in the Resolution.
Commissioner Eggert believed every other time we have had
this situation whoever is along the road is assessed, and County
Attorney Vitunac agreed. He explained the test is does the
property owner have a legal right to use the road, even if he
chooses not to, and does that right and the improvement of the
road increase the value of his property at least as much as the
cost of his assessment.
Vincent Ventimiglia, 1350 32nd Ave., informed the Board that
he owns five lots on Tropicana Drive, and he is strictly against
the paving as he does not feel it will benefit him or the three
homes down at the end of the street. He did not feel that just
eliminating a grader route can be the only reason for having this
paved.
Discussion ensued about the grader route, and Commissioner
Wheeler asked if this is similar to the situation we had last
week with the grader going across U.S.1, and Engineer Ralph
Brescia stated that it is. Basically we are looking to save some
time and money on our grader operation, and this was recommended
by the Board.
Clifford Rice, 5745 S. Tropicana Drive., noted that there
are only two houses on this street, and he did not believe there
are five cars a day that go by. He, therefore, could not justify
the expense to the property owners to pave the street and was
very much aga i ns -t it.
34
Commissioner Eggert inquired about the condition of the
street, and Mr. Rice stated that it is graded and in good shape.
Commissioner Wheeler wished to know whether, in a situation
such as this, there is some way the county could undedicate the
dirt street and let the property owners be responsible for
maintaining it if they don't want to pay to have it paved.
Attorney Vitunac explained that the problem is that if they
don't take care of the street and there is an accident because of
a bad road, we are responsible. The only other alternative would
be to go through the abandonment procedure and abandon the road
as a public road. That is possible, but he did not know whether
it is practical or not.
Commissioner Wheeler did believe paving increases the value
of lots, even if they are vacant, but if a majority of the owners
don't want their road paved, he would like to have the option to
say let's abandon it, and you can take care of your own road.
Commissioner Bird asked just how far we have to go out of
our way to grade these lots.
Mr. Rice believed the county is grading several roads in
Wabasso by the First Baptist Church; it is a matter of 1.7 miles
further to North Tropicana Drive and they must be going right by
there to get to Roseland and grade streets in that area.
Civil Engineer Terry advised we have several roads in the
North County, but these are the only two or three left along
U.S.1 in the northern area. The other roads we do grade are in
the Roseland area, and we are making efforts to eliminate those
roads also.
Commissioner Bird wished to see the petition paving kept on
more of a voluntary basis, and stated he would not want to force
this on someone unless the area was totally isolated, in which
situation possibly the county could assume the cost of paving to
save on the expense of grading. He personally was convinced the
paving would add more than $1,200 to the value of the lot, but
that is an economic decision the owner has to make.
35
JUN 16 1937 bioK
JUN 16 1987 BOOK E S
Discussion continued in regard to the grader route and the
cost of maintaining these roads, which are the only two roads on
the route on the east side of U.S.I., and Administrator Balczun
believed it should be pointed out that over a period of time as
we pave more roads, it is likely we may not want to run a grader
up there and the grading cycle may become less and less frequent.
Mr. Rice did not object to the paving of the roads, but to
the cost to the property owner, which he did not feel they can
justify.
Commissioner Eggert inquired over what period the assessment
is required to be paid and was informed two years.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if we can table action on this
matter and give the people an option of having the road abandoned
or having it paved.
Attorney Vitunac stated that the hearing can be postponed to
a time certain, and we could have the Engineering Department
review this.
Administrator Balczun believed the abandonment could get
quite complex, and he felt every property owner should know up
front what it will cost them to maintain the road as it is quite
likely over a period of time, the grading will cost them a lot
more than paving.
Commissioner Eggert stated that she would like to table and
have Public Works meet with the owners, explain the difference in
costs, etc.
Engineer Brescia advised that staff has met with the owners,
but will be glad to do so again.
Commissioner Wheeler felt the area will develop, and Commis-
sioner Bird believed the map shows that there are about 25 lots
on these roads.
Mrs. Rice stated that they cannot grow because Pelican
Pointe is all around them, and she also believed you must have
two lots in order to build.
36
Commissioner Wheeler wondered in the future if we could
start a program in situations where we have very few roads to
grade, that we could charge if someone wants grading, and
Administrator Balczun felt that could happen.
Commissioner Eggert noted that the subdivision has been
platted and recorded, and even though these are smaller lots,
they can be built on.
Attorney Vitunac confirmed that any legal lot of record may
be built on.
MOTION MADE by Commissioner Bird to take no action and
continue to grade the roads as we have in the past died for lack
of a second.
Commissioner Bird did not feel we can simply abandon these
people and not grade.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, Commissioner Bird voting in opposition
and Chairman Scurlock being absent, the Board by a 3 to
1 vote agreed that North and South Tropicana Drives and
Palmetto Ave., east of U.S.1, should be paved; approved
the preliminary assessment roll in the amount of
$55,500; and instructed staff to make every effort to
work with those assessed to see that the assessments
can be paid over as long a time as possible.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if the owners can petition to
have the road abandoned, and County Attorney Vitunac confirmed
there is a procedure by which that can be done, but they would
need to have a Homeowners Association or some organization so
they could all be in accord on it.
37 BOOK FfU 7U
JUN 16 1987
/ JUN 16 193
BOOK 68 FAcE 580
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted
Resolution 87-54 providing for the paving and
drainage improvements for each project just acted
upon, at an interest rate of 12%, and agreed to
allocate $245,910 from the Petition Paving Account
to fund this work.
RESOLUTION NO. 87- 54
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN PAVING.
AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO NORTH AND
SOUTH TROPICANA DRIVE EAST OF US 1; 22ND
AVENUE FROM 1ST STREET SW TO 2ND STREET;
33RD AVENUE SW FROM 13TH STREET SW TO
11TH STREET SW; 126TH STREET FROM
ROSELAND ROAD TO ELAINE STREET; AND 37TH
AVENUE FROM 12TH STREET TO 14TH STREET;
PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST,
METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER
OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIALLY
BENEFITED.
ti
Wf1ERE',AS, the County Public Works Department has received public
improvement petitions, signed by more than 2/3 of the owners of property for
some of the following streets in the herein areas and others have been
recommended by the Board of County Commissioners, to be specially benefited,
requesting paving and drainage improvements to NORTH AMID SOUTH TROPICANA DRIVE
EAST OF US 1; 22ND AVENUE FROM 1ST STREET SW TO 2ND STREET; 33RD AVENUE SW FROM
13TH STREET SW TO 11TH STREET SW; 126TH STREET FROM ROSELAND ROAD TO ELAINE
STREET; AND 37TH AVENUE FROM 12TH STREET TO 14TH STREET; and
WHEREAS, the petitions have been verified and meet the require-
ments of Section 11-23, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances; and
cost estimates have been completed by the Public Works Division; and
WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the proposed improvements is
TWO HUNDRED FORTY --FIVE THOUSAND, NINE HUNDRED '= DOLLARS ($245,910); and
WHEREAS, the special assessments provided hereunder shall, for
any given record owner of property within the area specially benefited, be in an
amount equal to that proportion of seventy-five percent (75%) of the total cost
of the project as follows:
(a) if the assessment is calculated by the front footage method,
the number of lineal feet of road frontage owned by the given owner
in relation:to the total number of lineal feet of road frontage within
the area specially benefited, and
38
_ M M
(b) if the assessment is calculated per parcel, the potential nuiuber of
buildable lots which are owned by the given owner in relation to the
total number of parcels within the area specially benefited, and
WfEMM, the special assessment shall become due and
payable at the Office of the Tax Collector of Indian River County ninety (90)
days after the final determination of the special assessment pursuant to Section
11-34, Indian River County Code of Laws and 'Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County shall pay the remaining twenty-five
percent(25%) of the total cost of the project; and
WHEREAS, any special assessment not paid within said ninety (90)
day period shall bear interest beyond the due date at a rate established by the
Board of County Commissioners at the time of preparation of the final assessment
roll, and shall be payable in two (2) equal installments, the first to be made
twelve (12) months from the due date and the second to be made twenty-four (24)
months from the dud &tA-t and
WHEREP,.S, after examination of the nature and anticipated usage of
the proposed improvements, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
the following described properties shall receive a direct and special benefit
from these improvements, to wit:
NORTH AND SOUTH TROPICANA DRIVE EAST OF US 1
Lot 1, 3 through 5, Block A, Lot 1, Lots 3 through 11, Lot
13, Block B, Lots 2 through 8, Block C, less north 10 feet,
Tropicana Homesites as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 20 of
the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; and
Land Only, less Buildings 5, 6, 7A, 7B, 15B, 15A, 8A, 8B,
11A, 12A, 12B, 19A, 19B, 20A, 20B, 21A, 21B, 22A, 22B, 23A,
23B, 24A, 24B, 30A, and 31A, Pelican Point of Sebastian,
Unit T..& II; and
The South 120 feet of North 130 feet of East 150 feet of
West 685.12 feet of South one half of Lot as in Record Book
52 Page 316 of the Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida; and
The South 120 feet of North 130 feet of West 150 feet of
East 300 feet of West 685.12 feet of South one-half of Lot 2
as in Record Book 192 Page 578 of the Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida
22ND AVENUE FRCM 1ST STREET SW TO 2ND STREET
Lots 17 through 32, Block B, Lots 1 through 16, Block C,
Indian River Heights Subdivision Unit 2 as recorded in Plat
Book 6, Page 25 of the Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida
331D AVENUE SW FROM 13TH STREET SW TO 11TH STREET SW
Lots 1 through 8, Block 9; Lots 9 through 16, Block 10; Lots
9 through 16, Block 21; Lots 1 through 8, Block 22; Grovenor
Estates No. 2, as recorded in Plat Book 5 Page 18 of the
Public Records of Indian River County, Florida
37TH AVENUE FROM 12TH STREET TO 14TH STREET
Lots 1 through 8, Block 1; Lots 1 through 8, Block 2; Lots 1
39
JUN 16 1987
B00F,
BooK 68 rA,UE 5,82
through 8, Block 3; Lots 1 through 8, Block 4; Rosedale
Boulevard Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 90 of
the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida
•� •• -•.� a ••�� • �+ � � i •�
Lots 1 through 13, Haven View Subdivision as recorded in
Plat Book 5 Page 61; Lots 1 through 16, Haven View Addition
No. 1 as recorded in Plat Book 7 Page 35; and Lots 1 through
11, Roseland Dake Subdivision No. 1 as recorded in Plat Book
7 Page 62 of the Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida
Tract A, Gervais Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 9 Page
33 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida
Northeastly 120 feet of Northwestly 136 feet of Lot 40 lying
Southeastly of Roseland Road less Northwestly 5 feet for
road right -of --way, A.A. Berrys Subdivision as recorded in
Plat Book 2 Page 14 of the Public Records of St. Lucie
County, now being situate in Indian River County, Florida
NOW TMWVRE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1._ The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in
their entirety.
2. A project providing for paving and drainage improve-
ments to NORTH AND SOUTH TROPICANA DRIVE EAST OF US 1; 22ND AVENUE
FROM 1ST STREET SW TO 2ND STREET; 33RD AVENUE SW Fri 13TH STREET SW
TO 11TH STREET SW; 126TH STREET FROM ROSELAND ROAD TO ELAINE STREET; AND
37TH AVENUE FROM 12TH STREET TO 14TH STREET; heretofore designated as
Public Works Projects No.'s 8542, 8604, 8615, 8630 and 8608, respectively,
is hereby approved subject to the terms outlined above and all applicable
requirements of Section 11-34, Indian River County Code of Laws and
Ordinances.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Cmmissioner Eggert
who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the vote
was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Absent
Vice -Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 16th day of June , 1987.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY , G
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINAL ENGINEERING REPORT - ROCKRIDGE SEWER
PROJECT
The Board reviewed memo from Utilities Director Terry Pinto:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
DATE: June 12, 1987
SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting Final Engineering Report
for Rockridge Sewer Project
FROM: Terry Pinto, Director - Utilities 4z-::Y_P
respectfully request that the attached Resolution be added
to the June 16 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners
for adoption. The Resolution would accept a final
engineering report prepared by Camp Dresser E McKee Inc.
relating to the sewering of Rockridge, and the acceptance of
this report is a prerequisite to receiving grant funding
from the Federal Government through DER.
Our project grant application has recently been advanced on
the funding list to fiscal year 1987 instead of fiscal year
1988, and prompt adoption of this Resolution will facilitate
our receipt of this grant.
Utility Engineer Jeff Boone advised that this is simply the
final report, which is an expansion of the preliminary report
that was brought to the Board. There are no significant differ-
ences of which he is aware, and it does outline the total
anticipated cost of the project and cost to the property owners.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved Resolution 87-55 adopting the Engineering
Study prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee required by
the DER as a prerequisite for receiving grant funding.
JUN 16 1987 41
EOOK + UE5��
JUN 1b yj l
RESOLUTION NO. 87- 55
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ADOPTING AN ENGINEERING STUDY
REQUIRED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION AS A
PREREQUISITE FOR RECEIVING GRANT FUNDING
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ROCKRIDGE AREA, A
COPY OF WHICH ENGINEERING STUDY IS
ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "A".
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, has determined that the
interests of the citizens and residents of Indian River
County, Florida, would best be served by constructing public
sewers in Rockridge; and
WHEREAS, to receive a grant to fund part of the
cost, it is necessary to adopt an Engineering Study required
by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT:
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, hereby adopts the Engineering Study
prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. which report is
required by the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation as a prerequisite for receiving grant funding for
construction of sanitary sewer improvements in the Rockridge
Area. A copy of the Engineering Study is attached hereto
and identified as Exhibit "A".
The
Commissioner
Wheeler
follows:
foregoing resolution was offered by
Eggert and seconded by Commissioner
and, being put to a vote, the vote was as
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler
R,
Absent
Aye
Aye _
Aye y
Aye
r
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this 16thday of June , 1987.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By G
Don C. Scur oc T9
Chairman
COPY OF SAID REPORT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
BOARD.
SECURE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - CLASSIFICATION & COMPENSATION PLAN
The Board reviewed memo of the County Administrator:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 12, 1987 - FILE:
SUBJECT: CLASSIFICATION AND
COMPENSATION PLAN -
PROPOSAL TO SECURE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
FROM: Charles P. Balczun REFERENCES:
County Administrator
An in-depth 'review and analysis of our current classification system as well
as our compensation plan reveals serious deficiencies.
It is apparent that our classification system is inappropriate and,in fact,
virtually worthless in terms of establishing the relative 'worth' between a
position and all other positions. Such circumstances permeate the entire classi-
fication system.
Additionally, it is apparent that our compensation plan is seriously deficient
not only in terms of relative 'worth' but in terms of its actual structure.
It is my opinion that the compensation plan has significant structural deficien-
cies which render it valueless as a plan.
As a result, our compensation plan actually acts as a deterrent to recruitment
and retention of competent personnel.
I recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that we proceed to secure the
services of a recognized professional or firm for the purpose of designing our
classification system and compensation plan. The cost of such a project can
only be determined as a result of reviewing PROPOSALS submitted in response
to a REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS.
We will proceed to develop such an RFP.
Please call me in the event you have any questions.
43
J U N 16 1987
BOOK 68 ['b,EE 585"
0
JUN 16 1987
BOOK 68 Fx E 58 6
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously ( 4-0) auth-
orized staff to proceed to secure the services of
a professional for the purpose of designing our
classification system and compensation plan.
DISCUSSION HOUSING AUTHORITY
County Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that he had
received a call from Representative Patchett. The good news is
that the extension for the Housing Authority loan has been
approved, but the other aspect was the Legislature was interested
in inquiring whether the County would consider taking over the
Housing Authority entirely and making it a county department.
Commissioner Wheeler stated that he would like to see staff
do a feasibility study of this.
Administrator Balczun respectfully requested that we at
least have some discussion with Representative Patchett on this
subject. He believed this is a proposal that is far reaching and
has great consequences.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0) in-
structed staff to investigate in depth whether or
not the county should take over the Housing Author-
ity and report back.
DISCUSSION RE JAIL FUNDING
County Attorney Vitunac noted that he has sent to each
Commissioner a copy of a Motion to hold the county in contempt
for not complying with the Order we had with the D.O.C.
concerning overpopulation of the old jail. Our Consent Order
said we would build a new jail and it would solve the problem,
but the new jail has not solved the problem and, in fact, is
overcrowded all ready. The D.O.C. has been very nice about this
matter, and they say they are suing us because if they didn't, we
would be the subject of a federal lawsuit by private attorneys
trying to get triple damages. They are giving us every
opportunity to remedy the situation.
Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that we are going to
court in the middle of July, and he hoped Commissioner Wheeler
will be our witness and testify concerning the Fast Track
Committee, Phases I, II and III, and everything else we are
doing. In the meantime, Tallahassee has given counties an
opportunity to pass an additional 1% sales tax for capital
structures, and if we are to pursue this, we must act before next
March. Attorney Vitunac explained that he is bringing this up
now because when we go to court it would be nice to say we are
using every means available to us under law to pay for this new
jail, and he would like the Board to authorize staff to do a
fiscal analysis of how much money we could raise so he could show
the Judge we have a valid plan for funding Phase Ill.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to authorize staff to do a fiscal
analysis of money that could be raised from the addi-
tional tax, as requested by the County Attorney.
Commissioner Bird asked if this tax, which can be put into
effect for 15 years, doesn't have a potential to fund capital
improvements other than just the jail.
Attorney Vitunac agreed there is the option of limiting it
to only the jail for the number of years that would be required
to pay for the jail, or we could go for the maximum years and use
it for other capital improvements, i.e., the Courthouse,
park improvements, etc.
THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0).
JUN 16 198-1 45 BOOK 6 8 r�t 587
JUN 16 1987 BOOK 68 r,A.,U-L 588
DISCUSSION AS TO REROUTING OF TRAFFIC WHEN BRIDGE IS REPLACED IN
COUNTRY_ CLUB_ POINTE
Commissioner Bird noted that it has come to his attention
that we are getting ready to start replacement of the bridge in
the Country Club Pointe area, and he is concerned about rerouting
of the traffic for both the people using the country club and
those residing in Country Club Pointe. He believed the construc-
tion will take 60 to 90 days.
Vice Chairman Bowman stated that she would like to see a
temporary light there, and Commissioner Bird brought up the
possibility of a temporary bridge.
Traffic Engineer Michael Orr had no definite answer for the
problem today, but did believe the cost to rent a bridge for a
few months would be pretty high, and the DOT says it is not their
practice to install temporary lights unless there is enough
volume to warrant the signal. He noted that even if they did
agree, it would take three to six months for engineering and
construction and it would cost about $30,000 to install. From
what he heard, the starting date for the construction is July
15th.
Commissioner Eggert commented that with the construction on
U.S. 1, the emergency vehicles have been using a back road to get
over to the hospital, and that would give people a way to get
around to 37th Street and get to a light.
Commissioner Bird believed we are really creating a
hazardous situation for those people going out to U.S.I and
crossing the northbound traffic to go south.
Engineer Orr advised that they are thinking of routing the.
westbound traffic up to 31st Street on the north side of Marvin
Gardens. They will have to work with the City on this as these
are City streets.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would like to have staff
request the DOT in'writing for installation of.a temporary
traffic signal if it can be done in conjunction in the project.
46
L_
_J
Discussion continued abouta portable signal, and Engineer
Orr doubted the DOT would permit one on a highway. The
possibility of a full time deputy was brought up.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0)
requested staff to study the traffic routing problem
described above and bring a report back to the
Board as soon as possible on how they plan to handle
the traffic.
FELLSMERE LIBRARY LEASE
Commissioner Eggert simply wished to inform the Board that
we do not have an exact tease agreement yet, but Fellsmere is
going to lease the building from the Women's Club and then we are
going to lease it from them, and that is being put together now.
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD
Resolution 87-49 authorizing and endorsing submittal of
comments to the Department of Interior re proposed modifications
to the existing coastal barrier resource system and attached
letter are hereby made a part of the Minutes as approved at the
Regular Meeting of June 2, 1987.
47
JUN 16 1987 BOOK Feu
JUN 16 187
BOOK 68 i',�GE 590
RESOLUTION NO. 87-49
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO
SUBMIT COMMENTS TO COASTAL BARRIER STUDY
GROUP, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, REGARDING
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCE SYSTEM AND
ENDORSING SAID COMMENTS.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the 1982 Coastal Barrier
Resources Act (CBRA) two Coastal Barrier Resources System
Units have been designated partially or fully within Indian
River County; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CBRA, the Department of
Interior is proposing to submit a report to Congress to
include recommendations for additions or deletions to the
Coastal Barrier Resources System; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Interior's report
recommends substantial increases to the existing P-10 Unit,
which Coastal Barrier Resources Unit is within Indian River
County; and
WHEREAS, the recommended increases in the P-10
Unit would conflict with existing Indian River County plans
for low density, controlled residential development on the
North Barrier Island; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County has recently embarked
upon a program to" ensure that low density, controlled
residential growth on the North Barrier Island would meet
the County's environmental protection objectives, and said
program has included adoption of a tree protection ordinance
which also protects mangroves and dunes; adoption of
stringent stormwater criteria for systems discharging to
outstanding Florida waters; preparation for adoption of a
natural vegetation protection ordinance for the North
Barrier Island; and initiation of utility infrastructure
planning for the North Barrier Island; and
48
WHEREAS, in addition, the proposed increases to
the P-10 Unit could have substantial adverse impacts on the
extensive agricultural use in the area, including adverse
impacts on world famous Orchid Island citrus;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida hereby resolves that the
Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County is authorized to submit to Mr. Frank B.
McGilvrey, Coastal Barriers Coordinator, the attached letter
which contains the concerns and comments of, and which is
hereby fully endorsed by, the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County.
The foregoing resolution was offered by
Commissioner Eggert and seconded by Commissioner Wheeler,
and, being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr, aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman nay
Commissioner Richard N. Bird aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this 2nd day of June, 1987.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By �� o�n �. G
Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Freda Wright
Clerk of Court
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY:
Bruce Barkett
Assistant County Attorney
JUN 16 I987 49 BOOK
L-
Fr
jUN 16 1987
Telephone: (305) 567-8000
June 2, 1987
BOOK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1340 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Mr. Frank B. McGilvrey, Coastal
Barriers Coordinator
Coastal Barriers Study Group
National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
P.O. Box 37127
Washington, D.C. 20013-7127
Dear Mr. McGilvrey:
68 FIvjE 592
Suncom Telephone: 424-1011
Please be advised that the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida wishes to comment on the Department
of Interior's proposed modifications to the existing Coastal
Barriers Resource System. The primary concern of the Commission
is Unit P-10, located on the barrier island in north Indian
River County. For the reasons listed below, it is the Com-
mission's feeling that the existing P-10 Unit was incorrectly
designated as an undeveloped coastal barrier and that the
proposed additions to P-10 are inappropriate and inconsistent
with the intent of the Act.
When designated in 1982, the existing P-10 Unit comprised a 1.7
mile long portion of the barrier island. The northern point of
the existing P-10 Unit is located approximately two miles south
of the Sebastian Inlet. The Department of the Interior in
Report To Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System, Volume 14,
Florida (East Coast), described this unit as follows, "The only
apparent alteration of the habitat other than the highway is
that of mosquito control ditches throughout the southern half of
the mangrove swamp".
That statement, however, is not an accurate description of the
existing P-10 Unit now nor its condition in 1982. More than
half of the existing P-10 Unit consists of an 84 unit subdivi-
sion of river to ocean lots which was platted in 1924. In 1983,
there were 28 dwelling units on these lots within the area
designated as Unit P-10. Since 1983, at least eight more houses
have been constructed or are presently being constructed on lots
in this subdivision within P-10. Not only did the 1983 develop-
ment pattern conflict with the Department of Interior's descrip-
tion of the P-10 Unit; but when applying the Department's 1 unit
per 5 upland acres, completed infrastructure, or one quarter
mile of undeveloped shoreline criteria to determine whether the
area is considered developed, the P-10 Unit would be considered
developed. Therefore, it is the County's position that the
existing P-10 Unit was incorrectly designated and should now be
deleted from the CBRS.
Regarding the proposed additions to the P-10 Unit, please be
advised that the Board of County Commissioners feels that the
new areas proposed for inclusion should not be designated as
part of the CBRS. Although most of the area proposed to be
added to the P-10 Unit is not characterized by urban develop-
ment, much of it is developed as agriculture and is presently
50
supporting citrus groves. Other areas
P-10, particularly those areas south
terized by urban development, much of
last three years.
proposed for addition to
of C.R. 510, are charac-
which has occurred in the
Indian River County has an adopted land use plan which provides
for low density residential development of the north barrier
island, including the area proposed to be added to P-10. To
accommodate the planned land use for this area, the County has
programmed improvements for this part of the barrier island. In
addition, the County has enacted and is developing specific
environmental safeguards to protect sensitive natural resources
in this area.
For the following reasons, the Board of County Commissioners
feels that the areas proposed for addition to the P-10 Unit be
removed from consideration:
°Extensive recent development in the area between C.R. 510
and the proposed southern limits of P-10, including:
0320 room hotel under'construction
0720 unit condominium project 20% complete
°221 unit condominium project 10% complete; proposed
second phase of additional 221 units
°68 unit subdivision on Pine Island with
infrastructure complete
*several other developments under construction
*central water system in place developed with private
capital
°central wastewater system developed with private
capital serving 1,000 existing or planned units
°Extensive agricultural development and two recently
approved subdivisions in the area proposed to be added
north of 510.
°Adopted land use plan proposing low density residential
development
*Recent (March, 1987) resetting by the state of the
County's Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL); line
was relocated substantially landward.
°County & state acquisition of several beachfront parcels
(comprising more than 4,000 linear feet) in proposed
P-10 Unit for recreation purposes.
°County adoption of tree protection and dune protection
ordinances.
*County plans for new mainland - island bridge and for
extension of existing central water system to barrier
island north of C.R. 510; traffic impact fees for new
bridge currently being collected.
°Native vegetation protection ordinance for north barrier
island in draft form.
The County has several specific concerns regarding any expansion
of the P-10 unit. First, the County is concerned that the
prohibition of providing federal funds or federal assistance to
areas in the CBRS would adversely affect the extensive agricul-
tural use in the area. Second, the County is concerned that the
long-range planning and infrastructure programming for the north
barrier island will be adversely affected by the unavailability
of flood insurance for the area. Third, the County is concerned
that the proposed additions to P-10 are not consistent with the
three major purposes of the Act, and that the existing P-10 and
the proposed additions to it are part of a developed barrier
island as defined by the criteria established by the Department
JUN 16 1997 51
BOOK 68 P,kl_E 593
BOOK 0[,A,u
of Interior. Finally, the County is concerned that extending
the P-10 Unit will have the opposite effect from that intended,
putting increased pressure on the existing agricultural land to
be converted to urban development.
In conclusion, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida would strongly'recommend that the existing P-10
unit be deleted from the CBRS and that the proposed additions to
P-10 be withdrawn. If any questions arise regarding this
matter, please do not hesitate to contact Bob Keating, Planning
Director for Indian River County.
Sincerely,
2�)ey, G
"'�A
Don C. Scurlock, Jr. VChairman
Indian River County Board of Commissioners
/rj
cc: Senator Lawton Chiles
Representative Bill Nelson
Secretary of the Interior Donald Hodel
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Governor Bob Martinez
Representative Tom Lewis
Representative Dale Patchett
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment,
the Board would reconvene acting as the District Board of Fire
Commissioners of the South County Fire District. Those Minutes
are being prepared separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:02 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
` Clerk
52
Chairman