Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/16/1988Tuesday, February 16, 1988 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, February 16, 1988, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and Carolyn K. Eggert. Also present were Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS The Chairman wished to add under the Administrator's matters approval of a contract for State Aid to Libraries. Commissioner Eggert wished to move Item 9.(1) under the Administrator's items over to Item 13. E. (2) under her matters as it ties in with the Library discussion. She also requested that the Board allow the introduction of the new Medical Director to be taken up before moving on to other Agenda items. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the addition to the agenda of the contract for State Aid to Libraries, and also approved the moving of Item 9. (1) to Item 13. E. as requested by Commissioner Eggert and the introduction of the new Medical Director. FEB 161988 BooK 70 F E 819 FEB 1 1988 Introduction of new Medical Director BOOK 70 P,GGE 820 Indian River Memorial Hospital President Michael O'Grady came before the Board and introduced Dr. Thomas Moore, who has been named Medical Director for the Hospital Emergency Medical Services Program replacing Dr. Dudley Teel. The Board welcomed Dr. Moore, who expressed his pleasure in being able to work with the county. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc- tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5, 1988. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5, 1988, as written. The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc- tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 19, 1988. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 19, 1988, as written. CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Scurlock asked that Item G be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. 2 A. Appointment of Deputy Sheriff ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the appointment of Deputy Sheriff Randall F. Shepherd by Sheriff Dobeck. B. & C. Reports The following were received and placed on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board: Report No. 10966, Audit of the District School Board, I.R.C., for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1987. Copies of FY 86/87 Auditor's Report for: 1) Indian 2) Indian 3) Indian Indian River River River River Memorial Hospital, Inc. Co. Hospital District Memorial Hospital, Inc., and Co. Hospital District combined Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund, Month of January, 1988 - $42,699.41 Month to Date Report by Last Name, Month of January, 1988 D. Report of Occupational License Taxes The following report was received from Tax Collector Morris setting out the amount collected in occupational license for the month of January, 1988: MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Board of County Commissioners Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector February 8, 1988 Occupational Licenses taxes Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be informed that $3,703.03 was collected in occupational license taxes duringthe month of January 1988, representing the issuance of 150 licenses. Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector FEB 16 1988 3 GOOK 70 PAGE 821 FEB 161988 BOOK 70 PAGE 822 E. Release of County Utility Liens The Board reviewed memo of County Attorney Vitunac: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney DATE: February 5, 1988 RE.: CONSENT AGENDA -BCC MEETING 2/16/88 RELEASE OF COUNTY UTILITY LIENS This office has processed the following matters and requests permission for the Chairman to execute the standard release forms: RELEASE of 1 sewer ERU paid by KINGSWOOD ESTATES SUBDIVISION for Lot 14 in (Map C #4). The back-up information for the above is on file in the County Attorney's Office. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Partial Release of ERU Water Reservation and Assessment Lien for Lot 14,Kingswood Estates Subdv. 4 'State Road 60 WATER Project Map #C-4 (52 ERUs Reserved) Release of One ERU (Studstill) PARTIAL RELEASE OF EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT 'WATER RESERVATION AND ASSESSMENT LIEN FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of $864.49 from KINGSWOOD WEST, INC., the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY hereby releases the property hereinafter described from that certain Certificate of Water Reservation recorded in O. R. Book 700, Page 1887, public records of Indian River County, Florida, and from that certain Special Assessment Roll included in Resolution No. 84-47 recorded in O. R. Book 691, Page 74, public records of Indian River County, Florida, which is more particularly described as: Lot 14 of KINGSWOOD ESTATES SUBDIVISION, PHASES 2 & 3, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 12, Page 39, of the Public Recordsof Indian River County, Florida. EXECUTED by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, and attested and countersigned by the Clerk of such Board this 16th day of February, 1988. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Bye^�J.. F. Purchase of Video Camera for Code Enforcement (Line Transfer) The Board reviewed memo of Budget Analyst Leila Miller: TO: Members of the Board DATE: February 8, 1988 of County Commissioners THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director FROM: Leila Miller Budget Analyst SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF VIDEO CAMERA FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT - LINE TRANSFER 204 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Staff requests that the Board of County Commisioners consider the purchase of a video camera for use in evaluating Code Enforcement violations. It is felt that the camera - in conjunction with a new television purchased by the health department - will not only improve the Code Enforcement Department's presentations to the Board, but will allow for more successful prosecution of violators. FEB 16 1988 5 BOOK 70 823 Fr - FEB 16 1988 BOOK 70 priE824 It is important to note that the purchase of this equipment will not require the expenditure of additional funds. Instead, staff asks that the Board consider a line transfer of existing budgeted funds of $1,300.00 from Automobile (004=207-524-066.42) to Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (004-207-524-066.41). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the aforementioned line transfer. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the following line transfer for purchase of a video camera for Code Enforcement as recommended by staff: TO: ,Rick Stephenson Assistant -Director of Finance THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director FROM: Leila Miller Budget Analyst SUBJECT: LINE TRANSFER NUMBER: 204 DATE: February 8, 1988 Entry Number Fund/Department/Account Name Code Account Number Increase Decrease 1. MSTU/Enforcement/Automobiles 004-207-524-066.42 0 1,300 Code Furniture, MSTU/Enforcerrent/Fixtures &Eq. 004-207-524-066.41 1,300 0 G. Budget Amendment #021 - Jail Phase 11, Utility Impact Fees The Board reviewed memo of Budget Analyst Miller: 6 TO: Members of the Board DATE: February 15, 1988 of County Commissioners THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director FROM: Leila Miller Budget Analyst SUBJECT: JAIL PHASE II - UTILITY IMPACT FEES - BUDGET AMENDMENT 021 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS When the Utilities Department assessed the new jail for water and sewer impact fees about a year ago, they based their calculations on the usage typically experienced by a hotel of similar size, as no prior history of water consumption for jails was available. It has since been discovered that water consumption at the new jail is 125 gallons per day per person, a rate that is much higher than anticipated. As a result, additional impact fees will need to be assessed. The County has already paid $60,000 and will need to pay approximately $199,000 more (for a total of $259,000) to correct the under assessment of the Utilities impact fee. A budget amendment will be required for this item. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the aforementioned budget amendment. Chairman Scurlock noted that his only question related to the payment of that $199,000 out of contingencies and the amount that would remain in Phase 11 Jail Contingencies after that. OMB Director Baird advised that he has replaced his original backup material and is now proposing that the $199,000 come out of cash forward. The reason he moved it to cash forward is because the jail fell behind schedule, and we didn't have the expenses in the project that we had anticipated we would have through October 1st. He, therefore, will increase the revenue side cash forward at the beginning of the year and increase our expense side, which is construction in progress. At this point there is an estimated $288,000 left in Phase 11 between contin- gency and cash carry forward, and that would be reduced by the $199,000. Chairman Scurlock noted that there then will be about $88,000 left between cash forward and contingency, and Director Baird commented that while there are a lot of factors that can 7 FEB 161988 eoow 70 F ,C. 825 FEB 16 `Wti BOOK 70 F'AGE 826 enter in, the construction project is almost over with and he believed we will come in within the budget. Commissioner Bird questioned the water consumption figure of 125 gpd per person and wished to know if we have operated long enough and assessed this accurately enough. Utilities Director Pinto advised that an average household uses about 350 gpd. He continued that the jail actually was using more than our numbers here were calculated to, and they have reduced some of their use. We also double checked with other jails in the state, and their usage per capita was comparable to our figures. Commissioner Bowman asked if they are using water inhibitors in the. showers, and Director Pinto confirmed that they do have them. He believed the jail is one of the biggest burdens you can have on your utility system, not only the water use, but the wastewater, in which everything from candy wrappers to towels turns up. He confirmed that they are fairly comfortable with the numbers presented. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved Budget Amendment #021 to cover the additional impact fees for the Jail Phase 11, as follows: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Leila B. Miller Budget Analysis THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 021 DATE: February 15, 1988 Entry Number Fund/Department/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease REVENUE Cash Forward 391-000-389-040.00 199,000 0 EXPENSE Construction Jail Phase II -in Progress 391-906-523-066.51 199,000 0 8 AUDITOR'S PRESENTATION OF COUNTY FINANCIAL STATEMENT Finance Director Ed Fry introduced Christine Hill of Coopers & Lybrand, partner in charge of the audit, and Dan O'Keefe, Manager, commenting that he felt they did an excellent job and that the changeover from the auditing firm of May Zima went very smoothly. Finance Director Fry then proceeded to give highlights from the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the FY 1987, which report includes not only the Board of County Commissioners, but also the Constitutional Officers, the Fire Districts, and the Housing Authority. Director Fry referred to the following in particular: Pages iv. and v. of the Introductory Letter show the increase in general governmental revenues and in expenditures and include an explanation as to why these increased. GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS Total revenues for the General, Special Revenue, .Debt Service and Capital Projects Funds were $44,351,509 an increase of $9,268,114 over the 1986 fiscal year. Revenues for -the 1987 fiscal year and the change from the previous year are as follows: INCREASE PERCENT (DECREASE) REVENUES AMOUNT OF TOTAL OVER 1986 Taxes $ 24,807,101 55.9 % $ 2,557,943 Licenses and permits 219,902 .5 81 Intergovernmental 9,252,713 20.9 2,887,433 Charges for services 3,675,834 8.3 1,484,310 Fines and forfeitures 474,244 1.1 (84,037) Miscellaneous 5,921 715 13.3 2,422,384 TOTAL REVENUES $ 44,351,509 100.0 % $ 9,268,114 The increase in taxes was due to an increase of the millage rate, first year collections of the local option resort tax, first year collections of the telephone 911 fee, and an increase in the local option gas tax from two cents to six cents. Increases in intergovernmental revenues were due to the receipt of a $2,490,683.00 State Grant for land purchases, an increase in the Section 8 Rental Assistance Grant, and more funds received from state Revenue Sharing, the 1/24 sales tax, and gas taxes. The first full year of road impact fees accounted for the increase'in charges for services. Fines and forfeitures decreased due to changes in State Statutes setting fines and less' funds received from confiscated property proceeds. Miscellaneous revenues increased due to higher interest. earnings, greater special assessment collec- tions, more rental income, and increases in the general and administrative charges to the County's enterprise funds. FEB 16 1988 9 bow, 70 fAuE 6,;;„'7 E31 11S38 BOOK `70 F�, -898 Total expenditures for The General, Special Revenue, Debt Service and Capital Projects Funds were $46,757,296, an increase of $9,244,229 from the 1986 fiscal year. Expenditures for the 1987 fiscal year and the change from the previous year are as follows: INCREASE PERCENT (DECREASE) EXPENDITURES AMOUNT OF TOTAL OVER 1986 Current: General Government Public Safety Physical Environment Transportation Economic Environment Human Services Culture/Recreation Debt Service: Principal Interest TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 7,503,480 17,726,261 691,168 9,428,021 71,175 1,770,528 4,562,676 3,356,745 1,647,242 $ 46,757,296 16.1 % $ 117,899 37.9 3,506,671 1.5 (3,387,321) 20.2 3,849,783 .1 (431,853) 3.8 415,166 9.7 3,494,082 7.21 3.5 100.00 % 1,780,501 (100,699) $ 9,244,229 Public safety expenditures increased due to the cost of constructing the Sheriff's Administration Building and Emergency Communications Center, additional operating costs associated with the new County jail and more funds being provided for law enforcement. Physical environment expenditures decreased due to the fact that the costs of constructing the Route 60 Sewer Line were in the 1986 fiscal year.°Transportation expenditures increased due to the costs of constructing the Indian River Boulevard south extension. Economic environment expenditures decreased due to reclassifying the Housing Authority as an enterprise fund' instead of a special revenue fund. Human services expenditures increased due to an increase in the number of units provided by the Section 8 Rental Assistance program and an increase in State mandated funding for the mental health center. Culture/recreation expendi- tures increased due to the purchase of additional beach front property and costs associated with the improvements of County parks. Principal expendi- tures increased due to the reclassification of the special assessment funds as debt service funds. In previous years, principal payments on special assessment bonds were recorded as a reduction of liabilities instead of an expenditure. 11111111 Page xii. - Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Presented to Indian River County, • Florida For its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 1986 A Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting is presented by the Govemment Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada to governmental units and public, employee retirement systems whose comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFR's) are judged to substantially conform to program standards. President Executive Director Director Fry informed the Board that this is the fourth year in a row we have received this award. Of all the eligible governments in the entire U.S.A only 1% have received this certificate, and he felt this is a recognition of the excellence of our financial reporting. Pages 4. and 5 of the report show the combined balance sheet of all fund types and account groups of the county as a whole. As of September 30, 1987, we had $132,691,000 total assets and a total fund equity of $85,830,000. FEB 16 We 11 BOOK 70 Fp;E 829 Pr - FEB 161988 BOOK 70 DU 8:30 Pages 8, 9 and 10 - Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL ' ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES Year Ended September 30,. 1987 Revenues: Taxes Licenses and. permits Intergovernmental Charges for services Fines and forfeitures Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures: Current: General Government Public Safety Physical Environment Transportation Economic Environment Human Services Culture/Recreation Debt Service: Principal Interest Capital Projects Total expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures. Other Financing Sources (Uses): Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Lease -purchase proceeds Debt proceeds Total other financial sources (uses) Excess of Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under) Expenditures and Other Uses GENERAL BUDGET $ 18,664,029 198,200 6,038,168 1,810,026 444,000 1,309,406 28,463,829 8,441,960 9,226,765 777,420 64,477 76,098 961,445 4,580,316 200,644 39,016 24,368,141 4,095,688 VARIANCE FAVORABLE ACTUAL (UNFAVORABLE) $ 17,731,109 217,756 6,094,461 1,791,254 392,605 1,810,704 28,037,889 7,248,421 8,652,217 691,168 64,477 71,175 913,016 4,453,692 229,430 39,128 • (932,920) 19,556 56,293 (18,772) (51,395) 501,298 (425,940) 1,193,539 574,548 86,252 4,923 48,429 126,624 (28,786) (112) 22,362,724 2,005,417 5,675,165 1,579,477 4,221,916 4,153,949 (7,942,706) (7,942,857) 191,815 191,815 (3,528,975) 566,713 Fund Balances, as Restated, at Beginning of Year Residual Fund Equity Transfers Fund Balances at End of Year (3,597,093) (67, 967) (151) (68,118) 2,078,072 $ 1,511,359, 4,417,246 (300,000) $ 6,195,318 Revenues: Taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental Charges for services Fines and forfeitures Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures: Current: General Government Public Safety Physical Environment Transportation Economic Environment Human Services Culture/RecreatiorL Debt Service: Principal Interest Capital Projects Total expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) SPECIAL REVENUE BUDGET 6,312,230 1,500 2,140,795 369,885 150,600 898,306 9,873,316 321,911 4,064,863 6,828,147 800,341 132,300 11,521 2,000 12,161,083 Expenditures. • (2,287,767) Other Financing Sources (Uses): Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Lease -purchase proceeds Debt proceeds Total other financial sources (uses) Excess of Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under) Expenditures and Other Uses 4,180,576 (4,785,789) (605,213) $ (2,892,980) Fund Balances, as Restated, at Beginning of Year Residual Fund Equity Transfers Fund Balances at End of Year ACTUAL $ 5,647,655 2,146 2,093,755 1,884,580 81,639 1,088,808 10,798,583 255,059 3,975,537 . 5,752,077 752,492 108,984 7,315 1,067 10,852,531 (53,948) 3,919,197 (3,398,719) 86,232 606,710 552,762 8,969,583 6,756 $ 9,529,101 VARIANCE FAVORABLE (UNFAVORABLE) $ (664,575) 646 (47,040)' 1,514,695 (68,961Y ' 190,592' 925,267 66,852 89,326 1,076,070 47,849 23,316 4,206 933 DEBT SERVICE BUDGET $ 1,230,155 VARIANCE FAVORABLE ACTUAL (UNFAVORABLE) 1,169,315 $ (60,840) 1,064,497 1,064,497 1,378,008 . 3,672,660 3,120,000 2,239,595 1,308,552 5,359,595 2,857,052 1,479,044 5 090,864 1,418,204 IMMO 3,120,000 1,607,047 4,727,047 632,548 632,548 2,233,819 (1,686,935) 363,817 2,050,752 (261,379) 1,387,070 86,232 1,211,923 $ 3,445,742 (53,922) 362,196 (39,728) (53,922).. 322,468 362,196 14,194_ 376,390 (1,740,857) 686,285 $ 2,427,142 1,546,418 2,232,703 FEB 'IC 1930 EzooK 70 FGF 8:32 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL - CONTINUED ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES Year Ended September 30, 1987 Revenues: Taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental Charges for services • Fines and forfeitures Miscellaneous Total revenues Expenditures: Current: General Government Public Safety Physical Environment Transportation Economic Environment Human Services Culture/Recreation Debt Service: Principal ' Interest Capital Projects Total expenditures Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures Other Financing Sources (Uses): Operating transfers in Operating transfers out Lease -purchase proceeds Debt proceeds Total other financial sources (uses) Excess of Revenues and Other Sources Over (Under) Expenditures and Other Uses CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET ACTUAL 183,799 183,799 GEM 11,190,466 11,190,466 (11,006,667) 4,393,000 (692,196) 3,200,000 6,900,804 $ (4,105,863) Fund Balances, as Restated, at Beginning of Year Residual Fund Equity Transfers Fund Balances at End of Year $ 259,022 165,151 424,173 8,814,994 8,814,994 (8,390,821) 3,578,598 (692,196) 3,576,965 6,463,367 (1,927,454) 3,650,378 (6,756) $ 1,716,168 VARIANCE FAVORABLE (UNFAVORABLE) 259,022 (18,648) 240,374 2,375,472 2,375,472 2,615,846 (814,402) 376,965 (437,437) $ 2,178,409 Director Fry advised that overall we had a favorable variance on all of the funds. He continued that on Pages 12 and 13 are the statements for the County's enterprise funds, which now include the Housing Authority, and starting on running through Page 49 are all the notes generally accepted accounting principles. 14 Page 14 and that are required by Director Fry then referred in particular to the note on Pages 48 and 49 setting out the restatements that have been made from the 1986 year to the 1987 year. He informed the Board that the two major changes relate to our method of reporting for special assessment fund types and to the reclassifying of the Housing Authority as an enterprise fund due to the impending completion of their Victory Park project. 14. Restatements: The following is a summary of items which resulted in the fund balances and retained earnings in certain funds: Fund Balance (Deficit)/Retained Earnings at September 30, 1986 Special Revenue Funds $9,014,392 Debt Service Funds restatement of beginning Special Assessments Enterprise Funds Funds $1,173,977 $(4,835,303) $2,743,096 Restatements: Special Revenue Funds - Housing Authority (A) (198,508) - Petition Paving Program (B) 153,699 Debt Service Funds - Route 60 Sewer Project Route 60 Water Project Special Assessment Funds Petition Paving Program Route 60 Sewer Project Route 60 Water Project Enterprise Funds - Water and Sewer System - Citrus Grove Housing Authority Fund Balance/Retained .Earnings at Beginning of Year, as restated MEI - (B) 42,204 - (B) 330,237 (B) (153,699) - (B) 3,869,239 - - (B) 1,119,763• - - (c&D)026, 575 - (C) (455) - • - - (A) 20,739 $8 969,583 1,546,418 $ - $3.689.955 The following is an explanation of the restatements as listed above: (A) During the current fiscal year, the Housing Authority began operating an apart- ment complex. In addition, the Housing Authority develops low-income housing projects which entails the purchase and resale of single-family home lots. .Due to the nature of these projects, the Housing Authority has determined that its operations should be accounted for under a proprietary basis. In previous years, the Housing Authority had been reflected as a Special Revenue Fund. The fixed assets and long-term debt associatedwith the Housing Authority have been reclassified out of the County's related account groups into the newly estab- lished Housing Authority enterprise fund. FEB. 16 1988 15 BOOK 70 FAUF 833 FEB 16 1988 BOOK 70 PAU:8:34 14. Restatements - Continued: (B) During the current fiscal year, the County implemented GASB Statement No. 6, "Accounting and Financial Reporting for Special Assessments". This statement eliminates the Special Assessment Fund type and requires such Funds to be reclassified based on certain criteria. The County maintained three Special Assessment Funds, the Petition Paving Program, the Route 60 Sewer Project and the Route 60 Water Project. The Route 60 Sewer and Water Projects had bonds payable at the beginning of the period totaling $6,015,575. These bonds have been included in the General Long -Term Debt Account Group (see Note 6B). The Petition Paving Program has been reclassified as a Special Revenue Fund and the Route 60 Sewer and Water Projects have been. reclassified as Debt Service Funds. (C) In the previous year, the County acquired certain land which contained a citrus grove. The citrus grove was set up as an Enterprise Fund pending a decision as to its disposition. It has,been determined that the citrus grove will be razed and the land will be converted into a retention pond. As the result, the Citrus Grove Enterprise Fund was eliminated and combined with the Water and Sewer System Enterprise Fund. (D) During the current fiscal year, the County changed its accounting policy for depreciation charged on certain contributed fixed assets. In conformity with generally accepted accounting principles, the County has elected to add back depreciation of fixed assets acquired by grants, entitlements and shared revenue to retained earnings. For these assets depreciated in previous years, the total cumulative amount added to retained earnings at the beginning of the year was $926,120. The total amount restated in the Water and Sewer System Fund was $926,575 which includes the amount discussed in (C) above for the elimination of the Citrus Grove Fund. Pages 52 and 53 contain a description of all of the Special Revenue Funds of the county and basically set out what the purpose is of each, and the pages following contain a balance sheet for each, etc. Page 75 contains a description of the various debt service funds, and this is where the Route 60 sewer assessment bonds and water assessment bonds have now been classified rather than special assessment funds, and there are then individual statements for each. Page 83 describes all the Capital Projects funds of the county - the Sheriff's Communication Center, the County Jail, the Boule- vard extension, etc. - and the pages following are the balance sheets and statement of revenues and expenditures for each. Page 93 contains a description of the Enterprise Funds, which now include the Housing Authority. 16 Director Fry explained that the various statements for the Enterprise Funds have a slightly different format than the governmental fund types. The reason for this is that the enterprise funds are concerned with capital maintenance; so, you want to make sure the revenues are sufficient to cover all of the costs in those funds, including depreciation on the fixed assets. Page 110 is a schedule of all the General Fixed Assets of the County, and this does not include the assets of the Enterprise Funds, which are in their financial statements. Pages 118 - 149 are the financial statements of the Board of County Commissioners and the individual Constitutional Officers. Director Fry noted that the next section starting on Page 152 is the Statistical Section. He liked to have these statistic tables in the report because they set out the history of the last ten years and show the trends the county has gone through over those years. 17 FEB 16 1988 BOOK 70 F 3.J 8.35 1 CO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS FISCAL YEAR ENDED TOTALS (1) GENERAL • GOVERNMENT PUBLIC SAFETY PHYSICAL ENVIRON- MENT 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 $ 7,046,679 9,012,735 10,718,715 15,478,845 15,963,177 25,076,324 24,238,056 27,922,816 37,513,067 46,757,296 $ 2,358,607 2,661,764 3,733,632 7,803,462 5,785,774 4,994,475 5,375,130 6,268,428 7,385,581 7,503,480 332 302 342 502 362 202 222 122 202 162 $ 2,358,607 2,713,774 3,215,924 2,928,720 4,095,539 7,590,194 8,041,180 8,744,025 14,219,590 17,726,261 332 302 302 192 262 302 332 312 382 382 $ 88,125 358,787 295,358 367,708 626,969 1,072,198 1,331,464 3,208,108 4,078,489 691,168 (1) Includes General, Special Revenue,..Debt Service, and Capital Project Funds • 152. 12 4% 32 22 42 52 62 122 112 12 TABLE 1 TRANS- POR- TATION ECONOMIC ENVIRON- MENT HUMAN SERVICES CULTURE AND RECRE- ATION DE8T SERVICE $1,366,142 2,393,777 2,284,654 2,138,323 3,358,194 .4,049,612 5,305,712 4,913,254 5,578,238 9,428,021 192 272 212 142 212 162 222 182 152 202 $ 230,234 206,975 72,708 85,557 114,271 61,954 65,911 189,076 503,028 71,175 42 22 12 It 12 02 02 12 12 02 S 318,098 250,305 520,662 679,993 849,850 1,189,239 1,188,292 960,393 1,355,362 1.770,528 52 $ 326,858 52 $ _ 02 32 376,870 42 51,383 02 52 498,181 5% 97,596 12 52 502,141 32 972,941 62 52 582,992 42 549,588 32 52 5,548,529 222 570,123 22 52 1,168,854 52 1,761,513 72 32 1,663,069 62 1,976,463 72 32 1,068,594 32 3,324,185 92 42 4,562,676 102 5,003,987 112 153. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL REVENUES BY SOURCE (1) LAST, TEN FISCAL YEARS FISCAL YEAR ENDED TOTAL • ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS TAXES LICENSES AND PERMITS 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986' 1987 $ 8,460,430 9,256,883 10,513,690 11,865,042 15,441,252. 18,091,251 23,401,809 27,858,613 35,083,395 44,351,509 $ 4,222,315 50% 4,733,494 51% 5,271,474 50% 6,623,268 56% 8,553,434 55% 9,822,008 54% 13,562,769 58% 15,968,766 57% 22,249,158• : 63% 24,807,101 56% $ 261,957 3% 253,451 3% 357,574 3% 110,917 1% 158,140 1% 216,956 1% 194,327 1% 202,570 1% 219.821 1% 219,902 1% (1) Includes General, Special Revenue, Debt Service, and Capital Project Funds 154. TABLE 2 INTER- GOVERNMENTAL REVENUE CHARGES FOR SERVICES FINES AND FORFEITURES MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES $ 2,600,305 2,622,682 2,719,202 2.235,627 3,077.365 4,468,772 5,688,381 7,372,818 6,365,280 9,252,713 31% 28% 26% 19% 20% 25% 24% 26% 18% 21% $ 694,864 646,463 645,291: • 939,544 999,405 1,154,220 1,410,273 1,549,948 2,191,524 3,675,834 8* $ 223,118 3% $ 457,871 5% 7% 264,471 3% 736,322 8% 6% 274,341 3% 1,245,808' 12% 8% 286,151 2% 1,669,535 14% 7% 321,023 2% 2,331,885 15% 6% 715,615 4% 1,713,680 10% 6% 528,779 2% 2,017,280 9% 6% 504,875 2% 2,259,636 8% 6% 558,281 2% 3,499,331 10% 8% 474,244 1% 5,921,715 13% 155. 1 BOOK 70 OF 838 EB 1,X988 Director Fry believed that, especially in the table on revenues, you can see where the intergovernmental revenues, which used to make up a much larger portion of the funds we received, have declined in importance over the past few years with the exception of when we have gotten a large grant for a particular purpose. Some of the other sources have been pretty consistent, but the intergovernmental in the terms of the dollar amount and the percentage of the revenue has really had quite an impact on us. We have lost Federal Revenue Sharing, and our share of the other major state source, the Pari-mutuel funds, has remained at $446,500 for at least the last 15 years; the increase in those funds derived from the growth in the state over that time goes entirely to the state and the counties receive no benefit. Chairman Scurlock agreed that the table of expenditures over the last ten years clearly shows that the reliance on taxes back in 1978 was in the range of 50%, and then when you get up to 1985 through 1987, you are closer to the 60% level. It also shows where we are spending our money. We were allowing 33% for Public Safety in 1978, and now we are running pretty consistently at 38%; General Government in 1978 was at 33% and now is in the range of 16% and Human Services are at 4%. The Chairman believed this highlights how much of our resources are having to be directed to the area of public safety. Chairman Scurlock noted that the Board received a lot of criticism this year because we had a fairly substantial increase in taxes. One of the reasons for the increase was building our reserves, and he would like someone to address first, the need for reserves and second, the state requirements that mandate a reserve, i.e., you can't budget more than 95% of your revenues. Finance Director Fry confirmed that in budgeting you are required to pull out a 5% estimate for revenues that you will not collect. He referred back to Page 8, noting that comparison of budget to actual on the revenue on General Fund demonstrates the reason for this, particularly in the variance on taxes where 20 there was a budget of 18.6 million, but we actually received only 17.7 million so you are looking at a $900,000 unfavorable variance. Overall for the General Fund in terms of our total revenue, we had an unfavorable variance of $425,000. Director Fry felt when you are doing a budget, you have to budget not only the less 5%, but also have some type of contingency just for this type of event occurring. The General Fund is where the majority of the expenditures of the county are paid from. Chairman Scurlock asked if our current Cash Carry Forward contingency is abnormally high or if it is a good number in the opinion of our financial people. Christine Hill, Coopers & Lybrand, did not feel the contingency number was unreasonably high. She stated that the biggest difference in the budget this year was caused by the expenditures last year being under what was budgeted and some of that may be because some items that were due to be purchased during the year were not purchased and now fall over into the subsequent fiscal year. She felt that is one area to focus on before it is decided the reserve is higher than it should be. Ms. Hill did think that possibly the county should attempt in the future to get closer to break even and not let the reserve continue to build at 2 million per year; although there still are some expenditures that probably will carry over this year also. Director Fry next referred to Page 163 which shows that revenue bond coverage for the Sanitary Landfill for the last ten fiscal years ranges up and down from 1.52 coverage in 1978 to 1.96 in 1985 and then goes to 3.73 in 1986 and up to 5.83 in 1987. He agreed the coverage is high, but felt it is artifici- ally high because of the recognition of the money needed to close out the first phase. He explained that the Board adopted an increase in rate structure recognizing the tremendous capital cost that would be involved in closing out Phase 1 and starting up Phase 11, and even with that rate increase there will not be sufficient money. 21 FEB 161988 eooK 7© F yF 839 r � ROOK 70 PA;c 840 FEB 161988 Chairman Scurlock brought up the water and sewer bonds on Page 164 and the coverage figure of 3.15, which he felt is high. Director Fry did feel it is abnormally high, but believed if you look at previous years, it is basically an aberration and that when we come to the end of the 1988 fiscal year, it will be back under 1 again. He believed this one year with the way the revenues flowed and the expenses we had, it just seemed to get out of balance. Chairman Scurlock commented that we have had a very stable structure in utilities, and he did not anticipate a rate increase for another period of time. He asked if staff agreed. Director Fry concurred. He believed the increase in customers has helped tremendously. Chairman Scurlock asked about cash flow in Utilities, and OMB Director Baird advised that presently we have about 9 million of outstanding debt; when the Gifford project kicks in, we will have another 9 million so your ratio will drop in half. That is expected within the next two years; so, once again you would be back to normal. Chairman Scurlock pointed out that we also will be adding that asset and that cash flow to the system, and he believed the revenues will jump significantly. OMB Director Baird advised a lot of the impact fees were prepaid, and he believed there will only be an increase of 20% of the existing customer base. Chairman Scurlock felt that is a pretty good increase in one year and did not believe that takes Grand Harbor into account. Asst. Utilities Director Jeff Barton reported that they were one of the Targe payers in last year in the construction for part of what we are doing in this fiscal year; so, it is mixing the two fiscal years, and the money came in in one year, which pumps these numbers up. Commissioner Eggert wished to know what exactly was the answer to the Chairman's cash flow question. 22 AL Finance Director Fry referred to Pages 100 and 101 and noted that under the column for Water and Sewer System there was a net increase in working capital of $45,199; so, basically the utility system does have a positive cash flow at this time. Director Fry then turned the discussion over to the auditors from Coopers & Lybrand. Christine Hill referred to Page 1, the auditor's opinion on the financial statements of Indian River County. She noted that it is an unqualified opinion and also noted that it does state that they were in agreement with the restatements discussed earlier in regard to the change in reporting of Special Assess- ment Funds, reclassification of the Housing Authority Fund, etc. Ms. Hill then addressed the Compliance Section, which begins on Page 173 of the report. This, section deals with the require- ments of the Single Audit Act of 1984 covering federal financial assistance programs. Each Constitutional Officer has their own set of reports as does the Board of County Commissioners, and at the end of this section are the responses from those officials and the Board dealing with the comments and recommendations made. Ms. Hill felt the Board would like to know that the auditors were in agreement with the responses. She advised that the reports on internal control indicate no material weaknesses and the reports of compliance indicate no items that would have a material effect on the financial statements. Ms. Hill thanked everyone for their assistance and cooperation during the audit. Chairman Scurlock thanked Coopers & Lybrand for making possible such a smooth transition, which he believed is the most orderly he has ever seen. He did wish to remind them, that we didn't use our 40 hours last year and agreed we can double up this year, which he felt may be discussed later in the agenda. 23 FEB 161988 BOOK 7fl FAGE 841 iEE16198 BOOK �70 DGE 842 AUDITOR'S PRESENTATION OF I.R.C. HOUSING AUTHORITY FINANCIAL STATEMENT Ms. Hill noted that part of the Housing Authority has been combined with the Commission's report, but it also has its own separate report which will be presented to its Board. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY BALANCE SHEET September 30, 1987 ASSETS Current Assets: Cash $ 23,953 Accounts receivable 32,235 Grants receivable 128,249 Land inventory (Notes 2 and 3) 25,599 Total current assets 210,036 .Restricted Assets: Cash Total restricted assets 2,790 2,790 Property, Plant and Equipment (Note 2): Building 2,322,663 Land 146,426 Machinery and equipment 41,277 Furniture and fixtures 1,158 Vehicles 3,400 2,514,924 Less accumulated depreciation Total property, plant and equipment 2,514,924 Other Assets: Deposits Total other assets • LIABILITIES AND EQUITY Current Liabilities (Payable from Current Assets): Notes payable (Note 4) Contract payable Accounts payable Other accrued liabilities Total current liabilities (payable from current assets) Current Liabilities (Payable from Restricted Assets): Tenant deposits Total current liabilities (payable from restricted assets) Long -Term Debt: Bonds payable (Note 5) Total long-term debt Total liabilities Contingencies (Note 7) Equity: Contributions Retained earnings (Note 6) Total equity 24 894 894 ,52,728,•44, $ 122,882 111,037 16,909 4,993 255,821 2,742 2,742 1,908,000 1,908,000 2,166,563 538,221 23,860 562,081 P2,778,.f+'_4 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS ' Year Ended September 30, 1987 Revenues: Land sales $180,000 Other income 1,263 Total operating revenues 181,263 Operation and Maintenance Expenses: • Cost of land sold 161,740 • Employee services 62,491 Professional services 7,826 Office expenses 8,066 Miscellaneous expenses 8,117 Total operating expenses 248,240 Operating Loss (66,977) Non -Operating Revenues (Expenses): Subsidy from the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 65,882 • Grant revenue 12,995 Interest income 257 Interest expense (9,036) Total non-operating revenues (expenses) 70,098 Net Income 3,121 Retained Earnings, as restated, beginning .of year 20,739 Retained Earnings, end of year A ?3,8CO3 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION September 30, 1987 Sources of Working Capital: From operations: Net income Working capital provided from operations Proceeds from revenue bonds payable Increase in current liabilities payable from restricted assets Increase in contributions Total sources of working capital Applications of Working Capital: Additions and acquisition of property, plant and equipment Increase in other assets Increase in restricted assets • Total applications of working capital Net Increase in Working Capital Detail of Changes in Components of Working Capital: Increase (Decrease) in Current Assets: Cash Accounts receivable Grants receivable Land inventory •(Increase) Decrease in Current Liabilities: Retainage payable Notes payable Contracts payable Accounts payable Other accrued liabilities Net Increase in Working Capital FEB 16 1988 25 $ 3,121 3,121 1,571,109 2,742 538,221 2,115,193 2,104,707 894 2,790 2,108,391 S 6,802 $ (18,889) 32,235 128,249 (153,596) (12,001) 1,993 128,213 (93,103) (13,307) (4,993) 18,803 S 6.807 BOOK 7Q F�GE843 FEB 16 1996 BOOK 70 PAGE 844 Ms. Hill reviewed the above, advising that the Housing Authority has been recast in a format similar to the other enterprise funds of the county because they are now beginning to operate the apartment complex they have developed, and we want to be able to measure their performance as you would a business operation. The property and equipment which is part of the project is shown in their financial statements, and the land sales are just about concluded. They have a liability in bonds payable, and they received a relatively Targe contribution to fund part of the project. The income statement of the Housing Authority shows the subsidy from the Board of County Commis- sioners which is a very important element of funding their administrative expenses. The other item Ms. Hill wished to point outwith respect to the Housing Authority statement is that they have .their own compliance section, and the management comments were as follows: 1. Miscellaneous Expense Account During the year, the miscellaneous expense account was over- used. An analysis of the accounts indicated that many of the items should have been classified to another more appropriate line item. The Officer Manager should strive to classify all items in an appropriate expense account and only utilize the miscellane- ous expense account in unusual circumstances. If necessary, new accounts should be established. 2. Detail Records of Fixed Assets Should be Maintained Present accounting policies do not include the maintenance of fixed asset detail records to support general ledger balances. These detail records should include the original cost of the asset and the date of acquisition. Because these records are not available when an asset is retired, the proper amount cannot be deducted from tht balance sheet. In implementing detail records for prior acquisitions, a complete physical inventory of all assets should be taken and costs assigned based on actual vendor invoices, where avail- able, or estimated. As a starting point, we would be pleased to supply you with the detail asset data from our files. These schedules would be useful in conducting your inventory, comparing results and adjusting accordingly, and establishing initial detail records. We also recommend that this detail information be used to physically identify and verify the existence of all fixed assets owned by the Authority. These assets should be tagged or otherwise identified. 26 3. Capitalization Policy Many entities find it useful to establish a policy whereby only items costing in excess of a specified dollar amount (for example, $200) are considered fixed assets and recorded on the balance sheet. Expenditures for items under this level are classified as expenses in the year of purchase. Such a policy allows efficient handling of items for which detail recordkeeping would be impractical. 4. Inventory of Fixed Assets A physical inventory of property and equipment is needed to properly identify those assets in use. Such a physical inventory should be controlled by the use of prenumbered tags and reconciled to existing detail records. If management deems it beneficial, we are willing to assist in the recon- ciliation process. Controls over property and equipment are necessary to ensure the accuracy of financial statement balances and to safeguard against improper dispositions. We therefore suggest that a formal written policy regarding fixed asset purchases and dispositions be adopted and vigorously enforced. 5. Accounting Records Our review of the Authority's accounting system indicated a need for improvement in several areas. Presently, the Authority maintains a cash disbursements ledger as its basic source of accounting information. We encountered some delays in our audit due to mathematical errors and misclassified postings in this ledger. The projected growth of the Authority in the near future in substantial and will require a more sophisticated accounting system to accurately record and report the Authority's finan- cial condition on a timely and responsive basis. We recom- mend that consideration be given to 'bhe-.immediate retention of a part-time accountant for the dual purpose of helping to install a properly functioning accounting system in addition to periodic review for maintenance purposes. We would be happy to meet with the Authority officials to discuss various means available to upgrade its accounting system. 6. Petty Cash Fund For minor expenditures during the month (less than $20) some organizations find the use of a petty cash fund. more effi- cient than preparation of checks for very minor amounts. Such a fund should be in the custody of a responsible indi- vidual and. reimbursed periodically after the bookkeeper has reviewed the support for expenditures from the fund. 7. Bank Listing of Authorized Signatures During our review of authorized signatures for the Housing Authority's bank accounts, we noted individuals were included which are either no longer employed by the Housing Authority or are no longer involved in day-to-day management of the Housing Authority. We recommend the Director review all authorized signature lists to determine that only the appropriate individuals are included. In addition, we recommend that authorized indi- viduals be restricted to those with limited access to the accounting records. 27 FEB 16 1988 BOOK 70 rr.irL 845 1988 L`oo11 �70 o JF 846 Ms. Hill noted that the management comments deal primarily with some of the defects they have due to having a relatively small staff and being faced with rather complex reporting requirements because of the federal funds they receive. She stated that she pointed that out only because they may need some assistance with this during the year. Chairman Scurlock commented that their procedures looked a little loose to him, and Ms. Hill noted that is not uncommon in organizations that are getting started and being faced for the first time with some of this reporting. They are going to have some very detailed record keeping. Chairman Scurlock asked if some sort of constructive program has been presented to them so they can get better organized, and Ms. Hill advised that the auditor's letter with their comments has been presented to them. The Chairman noted that these comments should not appear again next year, and Ms. Hill agreed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously accepted the I.R.C. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for FY ending September 30, 1987, as well as the Annual Financial Report for the I.R.C. Housing Authority for the same period. COPY OF COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK Tb BOARD AND COPY OF HOUSING AUTHORITY REPORT ON FILE IN FINANCE OFFICE. SCHOOL BOARD REQUEST TO HOLD SPECIAL ELECTION (BOND 8 MILLAGE) The Board reviewed letter from School Board Chairman Gary Lindsey: 28 Telephone (305) 567.7165 SUNCOM No. 257 -1011 SCUCCIL 1DiS1E11CT Cr MND M% :LEVEL CCuNri' 1990 25th Street - Vero Beach, Florida 32960 JAMES A. BURNS, Superintendent February 10, 1988 Comm. Don C. Scurlock, Chairman Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Comm. Scurlock: As per F.S. 236.31, the School Board has approved a resolution to hold a bond referendum and a millage election on May 24, 1988. We have worPcd the date out in cooperation with Mrs. Ann Robinson, Supervisor of Elections. Attached are the resolutions as Board approved. Please add this item to your February 16th agenda. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Gary Lindsey School Board Chairman FA/bro cc: School Board Attachment RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE SCHOOL BOARD REQUEST AND TRANSFER FUNDS TO THE SPECIAL ELECTION ACCOUNT 001-700-519-036.74 SCHOOL BOARD GARY LINDSEY Chairman GENE WADDELL Vice -Chairman SANDRA BOWDEN JOE N. IDLETTE,JR. CAROL K. JOHNSON PAY TO THE ORDER OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 1990 25TH STREET • VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 GENERAL FUND PAY EXACTLY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1840 25th STREET VERO BEACH, FL ulna .rt.111111T^szr2.EWIN 3...r`t, 02/10/88 No, 119318 SOUTHEAST BANK, N.A. Vero Beach Banking Center Vero Beach, R 32960 83-681 02 870 ***22,000DOLLARS OO CENTS $***22,000.00*** - VOID AF'{R 6 MONTHS CHAIRMAN, SCH SECRETARY, S 01BOAR0, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY II'L193Lao 1:0670066L01: 29 FEB 16 1988 107 5059350 Boor 70 FA,E 847 f B ` '6 1958 BOOK F ;,E 848 Chairman Scurlock believed the Board action needed is to accept the $22,000 and make the necessary amendment to the Supervisor of Election's budget and also approve the use of the voting equipment. Attorney Vitunac stressed that the County Commission has no legal say so regarding the advisability of holding the special election; their sole function is to act as a conduit for the money to go into the fund to pay for the election and to authorize the use of the voting machines. Any other question about this election should be addressed to the School Board. Commissioner Wheeler personally was disappointed that we are having a special election when we have four ballots coming up this year, and he agreed with Mrs. Bowden, the School Board member who voted against it as being a waste of money. Commissioner Eggert also regretted they are having to do this, but pointed out that it is the choice of the School Board. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted the $22,000 check from the School Board, authorized the transfer of the funds to the Special Election Account #001-700-519-036.74, and authorized the use of voting equipment as requested. REQUEST OF VERO BEACH COUNTRY CLUB TO USE PROPERTY WEST OF PROPOSED INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD EXPANSION Attorney Kennon Hendrix came before the Board to discuss the following proposal made by the Vero Beach Country Club: 30 November 17, 1987 Board of County Commissioners Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman Indian River County 1840 - 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Commissioner Scurlock: It has come to the attention of our club that the proposed northern extension of Indian River Boulevard will pass very close to our golf course. Preliminary indications are that the proposed right-of-way will isolate certain property between our golf course and the right-of-way and also between Country Club Point and the right-of-way. At a recent meeting of the County Commission, certain discussions took place whzch indicate that the County may for various reasons be required to purchase the property in question. The Vero Beach Country Club requests that the County consider using this property in a manner which would be to the mutual benefit of the citizens of Indian River County and our club. The use would involve an expansion of our golf course. The most immediate problem appears to be in satisfying the environmental requirements associated with the property. We would submit that the construction of golf holes on the property could be performed in a manner which would enhance the environmental value of the property and thus satisfy any requirements imposed upon the County in construction of the road bed. Secondly, there may be some method devised by which property currently occupied by our golf course can be put to use as part of the County's overall mitigation plan. This would involve a coordinated use between our current property and the new property as described. Additionally, there appear to be many other mutual benefits to be derived that go beyond the environmental questions. I have had preliminary discussions with the Public Works Director who has suggested that we submit drawings showing possible uses of the property. Mr. Davis has agreed to supply us with the most current set of plans from Boyle Engineering showing the proposed location of the road so as to enable our golf course architect to provide that information to you. In the meantime, however, the club desires to place its interest in the property on record. Please be advised that any actual golf course expansion would require proper authorization from the club and its membership. Accordingly, this inquiry is preliminary in nature and is for the purpose of determining whether the property could be put to the use suggested. Any actual agreement between the County and Vero Beach Country Club would have to be negotiated separately. Thank ou for your cooperation and I look forward to exploring thi pro'ect with you. yours, ennon Hendrix . Chairman of Property.Ac=isition Committee 31 FEB 16 '98B BOOK 70 FA E.849 Pr— FEB 16 198 BOOK70 FACE 850 Attorney Hendrix advised that he is here today just to put the matter on the table, provide information, and solicit input; anything in terms of a concrete proposal would have to wait for a vote from the membership. Chairman Scurlock believed what he is asking today is some direction from the Commission as to whether we are willing to allow staff to spend some time working with the Country Club on this possibility to see if it could be mutually beneficial. He had no problem with that request and believed possibly there could be some mutual benefits, but his real concern was that we not do anything that in any way would inhibit us moving forward expeditiously with the expansion of the Boulevard. Commissioner Bird stated that if the construction of the "Boulevard does create this enclave, if we do acquire it, if it can be part of our mitigation plan, and if the drainage concerns of Country Club Point can be addressed so that area is not impacted and all the environmental concerns and permits can be handled; then, he would be in favor of pursuing this with the Vero Beach Country Club with the thought that it does not hold up the construction program of the Boulevard. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, to instruct staff to work with the Vero Beach Country Club to investigate the feasibility of their proposal based on the concerns stated above. Commissioner Bowman inquired about a time schedule, and Chairman Scurlock believed that basically Public Works Director Davis would move full ahead with the permitting of the Boulevard, and it would be up to Attorney Hendrix and his group to work with Director Davis to see if something can be presented to the Commission. This could occur either before or after the Boulevard is built. 32 THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. Director Davis wished to update the Board on the status of the Boulevard project. He informed the Board that he had a meeting with the DER in the field, and they are in the process of determining jurisdiction on the wetlands area. It_ has been necessary for us to make the decision to proceed with the design of a wetlands mitigation plan prior to owning the actual land where the plan will be developed in order to move our permitting along, and he wanted the Board to be aware that we are preparing a mitigation plan on the property which is referred to as the golf course impoundment - the 106 acres owned by the Caldwell and Hoffman interests. The Chairman wished to know if any action is needed from the Board to move this along because if so, he wanted it brought right to the Commission for action. Director Davis noted that the big question people have been raising is whether we have authority to condemn property for mitigation purposes. He believed this has been tested in the courts, which in some cases ruled we do not have that authority and in other ,cases ruled that we do. The Chairman and the County Attorney believed it has been indicated we should move ahead with condemnation where required on the assumption we have that power. LANDCLEARING/TREE REMOVAL VIOLATION - KENNEDY GROVES Staff Environmental Planner Roland DeBlois made the follow- ing presentation: 33 __F±E_B 1 6 i988 BOOK 70 F �,, 851 Pr - FEB i 1968 BOOK 7p PAGE 852 TO: Charles P. Balczun DATE: February 3, 1988 FILE: County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. K aI g, fP SUBJECT: LANDCLEARING/TREE REMOVAL Community Deve opm:► Director VIOLATION: KENNEDY GROVES THROUGH: Michael K. Miller Chief, Environmental Planner FROM: Roland M. DeBlois'OP REFERENCES: TM 88-371 Staff Environmental Planner KENNEDY GROVES/IBMIRD It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on February 16, 1988. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: On October 5, 1987, County staff observed that the eastern +47 feet of parcel number 23-31-39-00000-5000-00006.0 had been cleared, including the estimated removal of at least eight (8) protected trees, without County landclearing and tree removal permits. The area cleared is approximately 2.8 acres in size, and is part of a +38.8 acre.tract located on the north side of C.R. 510, immediately west of Spring Place and Oceanaire Heights subdivisions and owned by Kennedy Groves, Inc. The property has been in citrus grove use since at least the 1950's but has been zoned for single-family development since at least 1969. Presently, the tract is zoned RS -6, Residential Single -Family up to 6 units/acre, as are the subdivisions to the east. The agricultural grove use on the site is an existing legal nonconfcrmlfy. The area cleared was a +47 foot forested buffer between the easternmost row of citrus trees and the tract's eastern boundary, which abuts the rear of 28 single-family lots (25 Oceanaire Heights lots, and 3 Spring Place lots). The buffer area that was .cleared consisted of a row of Australian pines interspersed with native hammock species, including a number of large oaks and bays. Since the removal of the forested buffer strip, Kennedy Groves, Inc. has planted a single row of new citrus trees. The original +47' wide heavily vegetated buffer area is now a +26' wide cleared strip. The referenced clearing and planting brings up two issues relating to Indian River County Code regulations: 1) the expansion of a nonconforming use; and 2) the landclearing and removal of protected trees without county permits, in association with the expanded nonconforming use. Staff have made the determination that the clearing and establish- ment of an additional row of citrus is an unpermitted expansion of the nonconforming citrus grove use, in accordance with Sec. 25(j) of the County zoning code. On January 11, 1988, the Respondent's appeal of the staff's administrative decision that the clearing and planting constituted expansion of a noncon- forming use was heard by the Board of Adjustment, which upheld staff's determination by a 3-2 vote. 34 The original buffer strip functioned to mitigate the incompati- bilities of an active agricultural operation abutting a single- family neighborhood. Such mitigation aspects include separation from noises and smells, and some protection (via distance removal) from pesticide drift (aerial) and pesticide and fertilizer infiltration into nearby wells used for potable water. Destruction of the buffer extended the area of active agricultural use, expanded the nonconformity, and increased the incompatibility of the agricultural and residential uses by removal of the mitigating buffer. In that the clearing was part of the illegal expansion of a nonconforming use, the activity does not qualify as a lawful agricultural activity exempted from needing County landclearing and tree removal permits. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: Section 23$-6(a)&(b), Tree Protection, of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County prohibits the performance of any tree removal, landclearing or grubbing unless tree removal and landclearing permits have first been issued by the County, unless expressly exempted within the ordinance. The ordinance further specifies that a violation shall be punishable upon conviction by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500)e per tree and landclearing activity or by imprisonment in the County jail for up to sixty (60) days, or both. Section 23i -7(e) of the County Tree Protection Ordinance exempts from requiring landclearing and tree removal permits "any activity conducted by a lawfully operating and bona fide commercial nursery, tree farm, agricultural operator, ranch, or similar operation, when the activity occurs on property owned or lawfully occupied by the person conducting said activity and is doTle in pursuit of said activity." While in general the grove is a lawfully operating agricultural operation, the clearing was not done as part of the lawful operation, in that the expansion of the grove use is unpermit- ted in the RS -6 zoning district. Therefore, landclearing and tree removal permits were required for the clearing that occurred. Site evidence and statements from adjacent residents indicate that at least (8) protected trees (ie - oaks and bays) were removed. Based on the illegal landclearing and number of protected trees removed, staff explained in. a letter to Mr. Kennedy dated October 16, 1987 that the clearing matter could be remedied by his voluntary payment of a $4,500.00 fine. Kennedy Grove's representing attorney, B.T. Cooksey, indicated that the matter would be appealed as necessary to challenge the determination that a violation exists. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider obtaining a voluntary payment of $4,500.00 and/or require the re-establishment of a vegetated buffer. In the event that any said agreement is not forthcoming, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant staff the authorization to pursue available remedies in County Court. FEB 16 1900 35 BOOK 70 [*-853 pr- FEB 16 6ci BOOK 70 P;, F 854 Planner DeBlois reported that the debris from the clearing of the pines was left on the site for some time and there were concerns expressed about that being a habitat for rats and snakes. They did remove the debris, but then they apparently decided to clear the entire buffer strip between the subdivision and the citrus groves to maximize their grove space and subse- quently planted an additional row of citrus trees. Chairman Scurlock noted that this is an agricultural use, but it is not zoned agricultural, and he wished to know if it were zoned agricultural whether they would have been able to clear the land and plant the trees. Planner DeBlois advised that if it were zoned agricultural presently they would be exempt from needing the permits. Commissioner Eggert stated that she has a basic disagreement with the Planning Department on this matter. She and Nurseryman John Tippin both were sitting on the P&Z Board when this came up, and the way they talked about it took into consideration not only whether the property was zoned agricultural but also if it was "green belted" - i.e., if it was used agricultural. Many nurseries in this town are half commercial and half residential, but they are "green belted" and that was the business regardless of the zoning is how they look at it. Chairman Scurlock felt we have a conflict here. We have been trying to maintain land as an agricultural use as long as he can remember, and here is a man who has an on-going citrus operation, has no desire to turn it into development at 6 upa, and, in fact, has just planted 250 trees. He believed this situation is catching people in between - we want them to remain agricultural but we don't really let them conduct their business because of this little quirk. Commissioner Bird asked who requested the rezoning when it went to RS -6, and Director Keating reported that the residential zoning has been in place for some 20 years or so. 36 Chairman Scurlock believed the property was traded and felt possibly through the process the ramifications of the zoning weren't clearly communicated. Although staff probably is interpreting the language of the ordinance correctly, he did not believe that had been his intent nor that of a majority of the Commission. Commissioner Bowman pointed out that this agricultural use is a non -conforming use in a residential area, and as such, you can't expand it. The Chairman agreed, but he still did not believe that was the intent and felt it is wrong. Commissioner Wheeler agreed it was wrong also. He preferred agricultural to condos. Planner DeBlois advised that the Board of Adjustment has already ruled it is an unpermitted expansion of a non -conforming use, and staff's position in upholding this as an unpermitted expansion was on the basis of the buffer strip and the problems associated with spraying near residences. Concerns have been expressed by Oceanaire Heights residents. Commissioner Eggert realized the Board of Adjustment has already passed on this, but she did not agree with them because she also felt we got into something that was not the original intent. Commissioner Wheeler stated that he would like to see the ordinance readdressed where it applies to agriculture as he believed the intent of the ordinance re non -conforming use applies more directly to a commercial use than to agriculture. Attorney Vitunac stated that he would prefer to see the Board rezone this piece of property to agriculture rather than destroy the symmetry of our whole Code; otherwise, we would have agriculture as the one use that can expand without regard to zoning throughout the county, and this may not be desired in other cases. FEB 161968 37 POOK 70 855 FEB 16`988 BOOK 70 F'AE S56 Chairman Scurlock agreed there are some problems with that, i.e., how would you deal with it if they are not going to expand by just adding more trees, but sheds, etc. Commissioner Eggert did not have a problem with them expanding with vegetation. Director Keating informed the Board that there is a provi- sion in the ordinance which puts the burden on the residential development to protect itself from active agricultural uses when they butt up against an agricultural use. Chairman Scurlock inquired how close the trees just planted are to the residences. Planner DeBlois stated they are about 25' from the property line and there is a setback of 20'; so, approximately 45'- 50'. Commissioner Bowman asked what is buffering there now since the bays and oaks are gone, and she was informed there is no buffer except unvegetated space. Janice Broada of 9335 Frangipani Drive believed that staff, despite their efforts, is not quite. accurate. They say that the buffer area that was cleared was constituted of a row of Australian pines interspersed with native oaks and bays, and that is not entirely true. She informed the Board that the buffer north of the center was all Australian pines and the center part was pines interspersed with the oaks and bays, but the southern _ part was definitely a native oak hammock with the vegetation that accompanies such a hammock. That hammock was destroyed entirely and many more than 8 trees were taken. Ms. Broada' noted that the people living on the north end of the street were quite happy to have the Australian pines removed, but those on the southern part of the street are very upset because the thick buffer that was there even before there were groves was completely devastated. She stated that the reason staff doesn't know this is that the clearing took place so quickly and what was removed was burned completely. 38 A member of the audience interjected that a Targe part of the buffer zone that was removed was on Ms. Broada's property and were her trees. Chairman Scurlock noted that would be a civil matter, and was informed that Ms. Broada is suing. Ms. Broada continued to contend that a large oak hammock was cut intentionally and the evidence was destroyed completely and quickly. She stated that on Monday, October 5th, oaks were cleared behind her property; on the 6th, she suspected they were on her property, and she took pictures and called the environ- mental planner and mentioned there was an oak on her property 30-36" in dimension which had been cut. She tried to contact Mr. Kennedy all that day and all day Wednesday. On Thursday when she went out to assess what was happening, there was more fill being moved around and she feared she would be encroached on more. She again called Mr. Kennedy and was told he was out and she was referred to the Environmental Planner. She called him and was informed that he had been told that Mr. Kennedy had said absolutely no oaks had been destroyed; that the specific oak she spoke of had been only a dead stump; and that he had workers who would testify to that. Ms. Broada continued that on Monday, October 12th, she brought a picture to Planner DeBlois showing the oak freshly cut with the chain saw sitting on top if it. She then submitted pictures to the Board confirming her presentation. (These pictures were returned to the Environmental Planner.) Attorney B. T. Cooksey came before the Board representing Kennedy Groves, and asked that the Board allow him to explain what took place from their standpoint. Attorney Cooksey advised this was an old grove area from the '50's. There was a whole row of Australian pines that were freeze dead and hung over people's property, which caused concern and complaints. Kennedy Groves acquired this property in a land swap with Ryall Groves in 1986. They went in and took down the freeze damaged trees and left them windrowed on the property which caused further complaints. They FEB 16 1538 39 BOOK 70 F AU. 857 FEB 16 1988 BOOK 70 P E 858 received. calls from the County Health Department about the windrow; so, Kennedy Groves went in and cleaned the whole R/W along the 1/2 mile of their land there. Then, immediately following that, they had room to put in a new row of citrus. They next got a letter from the county which made the determination that they should pay a voluntary fine for removal of five oak trees on the property. Kennedy Groves felt the fine was quite harsh and appealed to the Code Adjustment Board, which ruled against expansion of the use. Attorney Cooksey informed the Board that at the time Kennedy Groves made the land swap, they did not know the property was zoned residential. Kennedy Groves have been out there for years, and they thought what they were doing was trying to cooperate when this suddenly whiplashed into a major emotional issue. Attorney Cooksey felt the whole thing can be summed up in basically two items. It has been pointed out that the county zoning regulations put the burden on the residential use as far as the buffer zone is concerned, and what they are calling the buffer zone was part of the agricultural use - the setback. Then there is also the "green belt" law. Attorney Cooksey emphasized that Kennedy Groves used a bulldozer; they didn't use a crowbar or any tree -killing preparations. He further noted that staff held that while the general grove is a lawful agricultural operation, the clearing is not; so, he felt they came up with a very narrow interpretation. He advised that Mr. Kennedy is here to answer any questions. It is recognized that what was brought up by Ms. Broada is a civil matter and they have received a letter from Mr. Brennan, Mrs. Broada's attorney. Chairman Scurlock asked if they got a survey before the clearing was done, and Attorney Cooksey confirmed that they did and the corner markers are down. He noted that it appears there will be a dispute with Ms. Broada, but Kennedy's position is that they did not encroach. Attorney Cooksey believed what we have here is a canopy problem. 40 Commissioner Bowman asked Mr. Kennedy if he did not know when he acquired this property by swap that it was a non- conforming use in a residential area. Mr. Kennedy stated that he did not. He stressed that he is a bona fide agricultural operator and acquired the land from another bona fide argicultural use, the Ryall family, and never checked on the zoning. When the question of the zoning did arise, the Ryalls stated that they never knew it was rezoned, and they had never asked for it to be rezoned. Commissioner Bird noted that since we do have certain rules and regulations that apply to agriculturally zoned lands as well as residential, and we do want to encourage agriculture to continue to operate, and if feasible, to expand, he believed that in the future we need to be sure bona fide agricultural uses are actually zoned agricultural. If at some time in the future, it appears they should be converted to some other use, we should change the zoning at that time. Commissioner Bowman felt Mr. Kennedy should have hired Mr. Cooksey back when they acquired this property, and Attorney Cooksey advised that actually they did, but nobody thought to check on the zoning because it had been an agricultural use for so long. Harvey Daniels, 9355 Frangipani Drive, stated that he had nothing against Mr. Kennedy, but wished to know if Mr. Kennedy has the right to cut down oak trees, especially since the oak trees he cut down were not on Kennedy's property and did not interfere with the tangerines he planted. Mr. Daniels informed the Board that he had three oaks cut down in the back of his place and three palm trees and he believed some were on the easement. He could not see why they didn't leave those nice big oak trees there. Alan McCarthy, 2526 47th Avenue, licensed landscaper, informed the Board that he saw the property before it was transferred to Kennedy Groves and alt during this whole d � '936 41 BOOK 70 FA,E 859 1988 BOOK 70 F,1,E 860 procedure. He commented that it has been noted that the residential land owners are responsible for maintaining the buffer, but he believed the question is whether the buffer was taken down off their property. Mr. McCarthy informed the Board that he did have a chance to inspect the site while this operation was being conducted; he also has an association with the people with Lloyd & Associates who did the original survey; and he can have the leader of the surveying crew testify to the location of some trees that he remembers. One specific oak that was taken down., all but about 6" of the base of the tree was on Ms. Broada's property. In addition, Mr. McCarthy pointed out that every single one of the survey flags were torn down by the bulldozer when this was cleared, and where those stakes lined up in relation to the original survey he did not know. To his knowledge, at least four of the trees removed were on the property owners' property. The buffer that was being maintained by the residents was removed, and this facilitated the planting of the new trees. He stressed that we are talking about 200 year old oak trees that have a canopy spread of 80-90' and would interfere with citrus trees that need more sun. Mr. McCarthy did not know which part is to be decided by a civil trial, but as far as the tree ordinance is concerned, trees were cut down that there were no permits to cut down. Attorney Vitunac noted that whether or not a civil action is pursued should not affect the Board's decision regarding those trees. Commissioner Wheeler believed the question that concerns us is whether a fine of $4500 for violation of the tree ordinance is justified. He has looked at the area, and his feeling is that we are dealing with legitimate citrus farmers who acquired a piece of property in good faith assuming it was agriculturally zoned. This property is in a heavily agricultural area, and had it been zoned agricultural, there would have been no permit required and no violation, other than if there was an actual property line 42 violation. Commissioner Wheeler did believe the Kennedys were running a good faith agricultural operation and that there was no intent to commit a violation. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, not to fine the Kennedy's for the violation. Commissioner Bowman asked if they were planning to rewrite alt the county zoning ordinances to accommodate agriculture. She noted that she certainly is not opposed to agriculture, but she felt when they break the law, there is no reason we should revise our Codes to accommodate them. She further noted that she has heard people time and time again say they didn't know their land was rezoned, but whose business is it to know these things. Commissioner Eggert again emphasized that when this was put together, we weren't just talking about zoning, we were also talking about anything that was "green belted" and was in a legitimate business. She, therefore, agreed with the Motion because she believed we just have a misunderstanding. Chairman Scurlock noted that several of the Commissioners were previously P&Z Commission members, and he did believe there is some debate as to what the intent was. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Bowman voting in opposition. Chairman Scurlock believed that the Board should initiate another action since this is a non -conforming use and should be rezoned to become conforming. Commissioner Eggert felt it should either berezoned or there should be a new understanding in regard to what the tree ordinance says as far as agriculture is concerned. E81 1988 43 BOGY 7Q AGE 861 pr - FEB 161988 BOOK • 70 PAGE 862 County Attorney Vitunac pointed out that the Board of Adjustment has found that this was an expansion of an illegal use. The Commission has found that there should be no fine for that because the expansion was done in good faith. However, that still leaves the problem that it is a continuing illegal use which can be corrected only by .changing the zoning or by changing our whole code. Commissioner Eggert continued to stress consideration must be given the act of "green belting," and Attorney Vitunac commented that he needed to have a definition of "green belting" because Florida doesn't have a "green belt" law. Commissioner Eggert noted that if you are in an agricultural business, you know you must put in papers every year to prove you are an active legitimate agricultural use in order to get your proper tax status. Chairman Scurlock felt we have to address the zoning; other- wise you will inevitably have someone who will try to circumvent the code. Commissioner Bird asked Attorney Cooksey if he felt his clients would have any problem with their property being zoned agricultural to be consistent with its use. Attorney Cooksey noted they had their day in court, so to speak, before the Board of Adjustment. His argument was that what they did was an intensification and that was not an expansion. He believed the Board of Adjustment's attorney, Mrs. Brennan, gave them a strict interpretation of the law, and the Board held it was non -conforming. He continued that they asked the Board of Adjustment to hold off so his client could determine if they were going to appeal. Based on what the Commission did today, they probably will not appeal, and if that Board requires them to take out the trees, they will do so. Commissioner Bowman stated that she would rather see them restore the buffer. 44 Chairman Scurlock noted there is no appeal to the Commission from the Board of Adjustment, it goes from that Board to Circuit Court. Argument continued about the three options, i.e., go to court, remove the trees, or change the zoning, and Attorney Cooksey advised that the Kennedy's at this point would not want the zoning reverted to agricultural. The reason for that is because of the circumstances of having the subdivision to the east and getting complaints when they spray, etc. There comes a question of the intensity of the adjoining property's residential use and how long they can keep their property in agricultural use because of that. Chairman Scurlock felt that argument is a bit inconsistent, and Commissioner Bird pointed out that the Kennedy's use today is agricultural and he did not feel the Board can give them the best of both worlds. He believed they were operating as a bona fide agricultural operation when they took out the trees, and he could not vote as he did and still live with leaving that property residential. Commissioner Bowman believed they now are saying this agricultural use won't go on too long because of the nearby residential. Attorney Cooksey emphasized they are not saying that. The present intention is to keep the groves in business. Commissioner Eggert felt if that is the case, there then should be no problem with changing this property to an agricultural zoning, and then when the time came and pressures got too great, the Kennedys could come back and ask for residential zoning. Commissioner Bird stated that he would like to see the Kennedys voluntarily request the rezoning, and if they don't, he will initiate the rezoning on the county side because he really feels the property should be zoned agricultural to be consistent with its present use. 45 FEB 1 6 1998 L f'W 70 FA,r.863 FEB 1 19E3 BOOK 70 P" SF 884. Attorney Cooksey asked the Board for some time to discuss this with his clients. Chairman Scurlock, as one Commissioner, wished to have a decision now, and expressed his feeling that possibly we should reconsider and fine them the $4,500. Commissioner Bird stated that he would be willing to give them until the next Board meeting to see if they want to initiate a rezoning themselves. Attorney Vitunac wished to know if Attorney Cooksey had been hinting at a possible conflict of interest of Asst. County Attorney Brennan in that she was attorney for the Board of Adjustment and her husband, he believed, was attorney for Ms. Broads. He advised that this is not a conflict in Mrs. Brennan's mind. Attorney Cooksey stated he was not aware at the time there was any connection, and he had no reason at this point to question their integrity. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously tabled for one week the matter of initiating a rezoning of the Kennedy property to make it conforming. R/W ABANDONMENT - 13TH ST. BET. 27TH & 28TH AVE. (ZIMMERMAN/ WELLER & HAAS) 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: 46 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann. Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal. a dally newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement. being in the matter of &itCtM X344 z in the lished in said newspaper in the issues of LL2444 4 - Court. was pub- 7Ifft Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in sad Indian River County. Florida. and- that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County. Florida. each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty. Florida. for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or retund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribe. •efo (SEAL) v day of 19 0 `�- `fill `l (Clerko e Circuit Cour.ndian River County, Florida) (Business Manager) • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR .SG Notice of hearing to consider a petition for the closing. abandonment, and vacation of 13th Street lying between 27th and 29th Avenue. Said '' right-of-way being more particularly described as follows: The subject property is described as: ' • BEGINNING AT THE SW CORNER OF LOT , BLOCK LONE PALM PARK UNIT1*1. SUBDIVISION, AS IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 61. PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN COU, THENCE RUNVER EAST 250 FEETLTO TDHE SE CORNER OF LOT 10, BLOCK 3. THENCE RUN 80 FEET SOUTH TO THE NE CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4. THENCE RUN WEST 250 FEET TO THE NW CORNER OF LOT 20, BLOCK 4. 'THENCE RUN 80 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. , A public hearing at which parties in Interest heard. will be held by the Board an of County to Com- missioners of Indian River County, Florida in the CounCommission Chambers of 80tAdministation Building, located at 8425 Street, Vero Beach, Florida. on Tuesday, Febru- ary 16, 1988 at 9:05 a.m. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evi- dence upon which the appeal will be based. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY -s -Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman January 27, 1988 The Board .reviewed memo of Staff Planner McCoy: FEB 16 1988. 47 BOOK 70 FnE865 Pr— EB 1 31988 BOOK 70 FAGE 865 TO: Charles Balczun DATE: January 25, 1988 FILE: County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keati ,g, �P SUBJECT: LARRY ZIMMERMAN'S PETITION Community Developm Director FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDON- MENT THROUGH: Stan Boling 4A. Chief, Current Development FROM: John W. McCoIr P& REFERENCES: Staff Planner z immerman JOHN2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting February 16, 1988. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: Larry .Zimmerman on behalf of Kermit Weller, has submitted a petition for abandonment of that portion of 13th Street which lies between 27th and 28th Avenues. Per guidelines established by the Board of County Commissioners, the petition was reviewed by all County divisions and utility providers having jurisdiction within the right-of-way. All reviewing agencies have recommended ap- proval of the abandonment, with the provision that a 15' utilities and drainage easement be retained. The 15' easement is to be centered in the existing right-of-way. This portion of 13th Street has never been used, is not part of the roadway system as noted on the County Thoroughfare P1an, and is not needed for the thoroughfare system. This is an unused, unopened, overgrown, portion of righ-.-)f-way. Property to the North and South of it is owned by Kermit'- . Geller (OR Book 551, page 307) and property to the South of it is owned by Charles J. Haas, Jr. (OR Book 114, page 518, and OR Book 411, page 793) and the purpose for which this abandonment is being requested is that they desire to develop and sell part of said property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff- recommends that the County abandon its portion of 13th Street, and that the Chairman County Commissioners be authorized to execute the tion (Attachment #3), with the condition: 1. that a 15' utility easement be retained centerline of the existing right-of-way. rights to this of the Board of attached resolu- centered on the Chief Planner Boling advised this would correspond to the county's policy of not increasing intersections along 27th Ave. He noted that 13th Street is basically a paper street at this point. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. 48 Kermit Weller, one of the petitioners, came before the Board, and Chairman Scurlock inquired if the reason for this request is that he wants to sell the lots. Mr. Weller stated the intent was either to develop them or sell them. Upon determining that no one else wished to be heard, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved staff recommendation and adopted Resolution 88-11 abandon- ing a portion of 13th Street lying between 27th and 28th Avenues in Lone Palm Park, Unit #1. RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 11 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING, VACATION OF ALL OF THAT PORTION OF 13TH STREET LYING BETWEEN 27TH AND 28TH AVENUES IN LONE PALM PARK UNIT #1, A SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE .61, PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, on November 16, 1987, the County received a duly executed and documented petition from Larry Zimmerman, 921 7th Avenue requesting the County to close, vacate, abandon, and disclaim any right, title and 'interest of the County and the public in and to all that portion of 13th Street lying between 27th and 28th Avenues in Lone Palm Park Unit #1, a Subdivision recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 61, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes §336.10, notice of a public hearing to consider said petition has been duly published; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the petition, supporting documents, staff investigation and report, and testimony of all those interested and present, the Board finds that said right-of-way is not a state or federal highway, nor located within any municipality, nor is said right-of-way necessary for continuity of the County's street and thoroughfare network, nor access to any given private property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 'RESOLVED BY THE BOARD COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: OF COUNTY 1. All right, title, and interest of the County and the public in and to that certain right-of-way being known more particularly described as: FEB 16 1988 49 BUOK 70 F.!, c•8 7 Eg 1 °� ['Jot'76 Farr 868 BEGINNING AT THE SW CORNER OF LOT 11, BLOCK 3, LONE PALM PARK UNIT #1, SUBDIVISION, AS IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 61, PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THENCE RUN EAST 250 FEET TO THE SE CORNER OF LOT 10, BLOCK 3. THENCE RUN 80 FEET SOUTH TO THE NE CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4. THENCE RUN WEST 250 FEET TO THE NW CORNER OF LOT 20, BLOCK 4. THENCE RUN 80 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. is hereby forever closed, abandoned, vacated, surrendered, discontinued, remissed and released, with the exception that a 15' wide drainage and utilities easement be retained to align with the centerline of the abandoned 13th Avenue right-of-way, and this easement is reserved in perpetuity unto the County and the Public and shall not be deemed to have been closed or abandoned in any way by this resolution. 2. Notice of the adoption of this resolution shall be forthwith published once within thirty (30) days from the date of adoption. hereof; and 3. The Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution together with the proofs of publication required by Florida Statutes §336.10 in the Official Record Books of Indian River County without undue delay. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Rird who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and upon being put to a vote, the vote as as follows: Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Vice -Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Commissioner Richard N. Bird Commissioners Carolyn K. Eggert Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler The Chairman thereupon declared the and adopted this 16th day of February Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye resolution duly passed , 1988. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Don . Scu oc , Jr. Board of County Comm airman Toners PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING ORDINANCE IN REGARD TO REQUIRING SIDEWALKS 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: 50 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County. Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter of in the _ /1 Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of /fy, 7a7, Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in sajd Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before (SEAL) ethis Aday tiT 4,-_m f siness Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court,(L 1dian River County, Florida) 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE 1 Notice Is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, shall hotd a public hearing at which par- ties in interest and citizens shall have an oppor- tunity to be heard, in the County Commission Chambers of Build- ing, ocatedath1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida,• 16, 1988, consider the on adoptipn oan Ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ' SECTION 10 OF APPENDIX B OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, DSUBDIVISION AND PLATTING; REQUIRING SIDE- WALKS IDEWALKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN -NEW -- SUBDIVISIONS; AMENDING SECTION 23.3 OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN • RIVER COUNTY, SITE PLAN REVIEW - STANDARDS; REQUIRING SIDEWALKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG DESIG- NATED ROADWAYS; AND PROVIDING • FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROM SIGNS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. A copy of the proposed ordinance Is available at the Planning Department office on the second floor of the County Administration Building. Anyone who may wish to appeal" any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which Includes the testimony and. evi- dence upon which the appeal will be based �, • Indian River County- i Board of County Commissioners,} " B : s -Don C. Scurlock Jr Chairman January 27, 1988 Chief Planner Boling reviewed the following memo, noting that the intent is to have the requirement for sidewalks parallel to the intensity of the use of the adjacent. FEB 161933 roadway to which they are 51 poor 70 F V,F. 899 r BOOK 70 NOF 870 FEB 1 1983 TO: Charles Balczun County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: DATE: January 15, 1988 FILE: SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT Ro ert M. Keating, AIC • SUBJECT: CHANGES: AMENDMENTS TO Planning & Develpment�lirector SECTION 10(e) OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND TO SECTION 23.3(e)(5)b. OF THE SITE PLAN ORDINANCE THROUGH: Stan Boling :4.15, Chief, Current Developmen FROM: Robert E. Wiegers/� Staff Planner REFERENCES: subdivision BWIEG2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 16, 1988. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: At the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, staff has been reviewing over the last several months existing regulations concerning sidewalk placements adjacent to and within new sub- divisions. The proposed changes address the Board's expressed concern regarding the need for having more intense sidewalk development along major roads with less intense development along minor roads, and the need to better specify current county standards with regards to sidewalk provisions. The proposed changes are intended to implement and coordinate with the County's future sidewalk and bikeway plan. ANALYSIS: Section 1 This section concerns the future provision of sidewalks adjacent to and within new subdivision developments. Sub- section (1) of the proposed amendment requires that sidewalk improvements coincide with the adopted sidewalk and bikeway plan as well as all applicable zoning district regulations. Subsection (2) of the proposed amendment expands the current County subdivision regulations concerning the provision of sidewalks along Thoroughfare Plan roads, school access routes and the location of sidewalks on interior local streets. Provisions are also made in this amendment for situations where sidewalks are not required. Subsection (3) and (4) relate to existing regulations which have not been changed by this ordinance. 2. Section 2 This section revises the existing County Site Plan Ordinance to require that sidewalk improvements conform to the adopted sidewalk and bikeway plan as well as all applicable zoning district regulations. Summary The following table compares the 4 major areas of change covered by proposed amendments: SIDEWALK REGULATION COMPARISON TABLE 1. Sidewalk Bike- way Plan ordinances) Existing Regulations Proposed Regulations No reference Referenced as the (subdivision/ standard, guiding site plan plan (subdivision/ ordinances) site plan 52 2. Arterial & Collector Roadways Existing Regulations Locate on one side only. 3. School Access Routes Locate on one side only. 4. Low Density Subdiv- Locate on both isions Minor Streets sides. Proposed Regulations Locate on both sides unless physical or design constraints preclude sidewalk placement. Locate on both sides. Exempted from side- walk requirements. In essence, the proposed amendments increase sidewalk requirements along arterial and collector streets and school access routes, decreases requirements along minor streets in low density subdivisions, and references the to -be -adopted County sidewalk and bikeway plan. The County Attorney's office has verified that the proposed ordinance is acceptable as to form and legal sufficiency. At its regular meeting of January 14, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed subdivision ordinance amendments. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed sidewalk regulation to the subdivision and site plan ordinances. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard. There were none, and the Chairman thereupon declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION missioner Ordinance Ordinance FEB 16 1988 by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com - Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted 88-9, amending the Subdivision and Platting as to requirements for sidewalks. 53 EOOK. 70 FE 871 Pr - FEB 16 198 BOOK 70 F E 872 ORDINANCE NO: 88 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 10 OF APPENDIX B OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING; REQUIRING SIDEWALKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN NEW SUBDI- VISIONS;AMENDING SECTION 23.3 OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS; REQUIRING SIDEWALKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG DESIGNATED ROADWAYS; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Section 1 Section 10(e) of Appendix B, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: (e) Sidewalks AXY//400A tiOAA///444kAAAAA//aWYY/U/t4k#h 4//drY/OAA/Al k//d /AXX AtUAtiAX/A44/bb1111kbkbk/kkkkkkkk//a dl /WPVIDdY/dddds(d /116iLitOsf //AAA IMA M//slYcW //df//trbbk//$ 1//zpWr/ 'j/rj f j//a/c%/e'a'W/bfikkkkA//X0¢Aitea ViiitUXA/b/ 4441v4A0/W mte /5keie/XO5tt%//ih/MIN/a'ddtlxtg'/tA$AXAUXOAA dli 0 ttig //al00XN4X0//#/c6/ /, 'Qp'eIV0, ,//,iAA4V /ak//XAXXA0ii1 0g000A10141 //aXlkAALAe//aW/1X4t</kk4 4tAA//0461),//ft/40 / $04t0At q$ tWit k/ibA-A1./ /s't/,WWWW / kkkkltr444ai / X 4 / /WW / /IOU s r)ii bij at1///TOtt4A MA/LYi/b/kit41-, -k / /ear/er/Nai'v'e'/d/ttadaYdr//0X/t1ik AX4AAA/160t05Adl/AMA/01,i149107 0/X4/AAk/AAAd1Ad/A4/dd0W14XAAdI 3t/itXA/0A4Aitt/T tAt XX.0/$AtIAAAit Al / / / x i / 4U101/i/c/ /WAkXA/ /cXi/ /ddtt'd / dkEkkakkk/ /itJ%4 / Jthak/ / AAkAAA 400160At/L4/40X/A/005404it 'LAA/A01400X/A¢0AAA/tOliAAI/41491 01///$AIdl//d atiiatist/As a/1/1//ka//ft0t//i d//cAW-AW-A.i/a/c//bb//itMA AAAtAAit/Ot0$4i4 ttAAAI (1) Placement and construction of sidewalks and sidewalk improve- ments shall conform to the adopted sidewalk and bikeway plan, and to requirements in the applicable zoning district regu- lations. (2) Locations. Sidewalks shall be provided within new sub- division project sites and along road rights-of-way adjacent to projects, as follows: a. All subdivisions shall provide sidewalks along the entire frontage of adjacent roads designated by the Thoroughfare Plan as arterials or collector roadways 54 (including subdivision collector or subdivision feeder roads), unless otherwise indicated by the sidewalk and bikewa lan. Pro'ects ma be exem•ted from this requirement upon a determination, by the Public Works and Community Development Directors, that the need for providing a sidewalk(s) along the adjacent road right(s)-of-way frontage of a site is precluded by physical or design constraints. b. All subdivisions shall provide sidewalks along the entire frontage of all adjacent roads designated by the sidewalk and bikeway plan as being school access routes; and c. Sidewalks shall be located along the entire frontage of all adjacent local streets, and on both sides of all interior local streets within a subdivision except where: (1) Within residential subdivisions a street segment terminates in a cul-de-sac where future extension of the street beyond the cul-de-sac is not needed as determined by the County Traffic Engineer. In such cases no sidewalks shall be required. (2) The density within the subdivision, if a resi- dential subdivision, is not greater than three (3) units per acre. In such cases no sidewalks shall be required; NOTE: these exemptions apply to local streets only, and do not apply to any collector or subdivision feeder roads as designated by the Thoroughfare Plan or the Public Works and Community Development Directors. Any (3) Specifications. All sidewalks shall: a. Be at least four (4) feet wide. b. Be located outside of the roadside recovery area unless protective devices are provided (i.e. nonmountable curbs). 55 I._ FEB 161988 BOOK 70 ; A,C_ 873 FEB 1( 'x1988 in (4) E'ooK 70 FA,[ 874 c. Have a curb cut and ramp for wheelchairs at all intersections as specified in Indian River County Standard Specifications. d. Be constructed in accordance with Indian River County Standard Specifications. The board may require that additional right-of-way and pavement at schools, shopping centers, parks and t4¢ other high pedestrian traffic sites, 14X0/t0 be provided and dedicated to the county as may be necessary to facilitate anticipated higher pedestrian traffic iVOTA0t0 $4fOttt /O0ri3f0AX0400/Ar d/U0/(4$ri0tAX/ i0Xf t01 Construction prior to final inspection. Sidewalks shall be installed prior to final inspection of the subdivision improvements. The board shall have the discretion to grant the applicant a two-year period, after final inspection of subdivision improvements, to construct sidewalks if the applicant posts construction security in the amount of one hundred and fifteen (115) percent of the construction costs. Section 2 Section 23.3(e)(5)(b) of Appendix A, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: b. Sidewalks t041,4it$ui¢iit$l $Xv1$tib$XXA/$M$.XX/1604t S76X¢10di/A$ 04ta XX$M09t/Xri/ X10/ 014/ i¢/41X$ttX0t/t0i0UtL9W. c (1) Provisions for sidewalks and sidewalk improvements shall conform to the adopted sidewalk and bikeway plan, and to requirements in the applicable zoning district regulations. Section 3 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING SECTIONS All previous ordinance, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed 56 to the extent of such conflict. All Special Arts of the legisla- ture applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 4 CODIFICATION The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "sec- tion", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions. Section 5 SEVERABILITY If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, unoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legis- lative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitution- al, invalid or inoperative part. Section 6 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowl- edgement that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 16th day of 1988. FEB 13 1988 February BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: 57 Don C. Scurlock, Jr .'airman BOOK 70 FnE 875 1 FEB 16 1988 BOOK 70 Fait 876 PRELIM. ASSESSMENT ROLL - WATER MAIN EXTEN. (LONE PALM PARK SUB.) The hour of 9:05 having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero -Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter o f,d�%Z!l PGhl,/-4 2;:j in the lished in said newspaper in the issues of Court, was pub - a4 /ye Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. n Sworn to and subscribed before mAthis /if = day of 9 if (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, In.,. River County, Florida) NOTICE OF P►1BuC HEARING ' ".. Notice is hereby given that the Board of County .• Commissioners of -Indian River County, will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, February 16, 1988;; at 9:05 a.m., in the Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, 1840 25th,', Street, Vero Beach, Florida, 32960; to discusaA the Lone Palm Park water main extension that ,. has been prepared by Lloyd & Associates. 8 consultant for the City of Vero Beach.. , ., E . All interested parties are invited to attend the ' Public Hearing, and all persons wishing to speak will be given an opportunity to do so following a',' brief presentation by the consultant For addl 1 tonal information, contact the Indian River County Utilities Department at 5674000. exten- sion 460, or Ronald Rushworth at Lloyd & As- sociates telephone number 562-4112. , RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OP .', -,^',- - COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN "','• RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN WATER IMPROVE- , MENTS IN THE LONE PALM PARK SUB!' DIVISION, PROVIDING THE TOTALI ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAY- MENT OR ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL;_ ,. DESCRIPTION OF AREA SPECIFICALLY, SERVED. • ,ii ,. t :±.s 1/; Dated the 28th day of January. 1988. 'I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. CHAIRMAN 11, 1988 { January 28, February 4, Asst. Utilities Director Jeff Barton made the staff presentation: 58 •r TO: THRU: FROM: CHARLES P. BALCZUN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILITY ES JOHN F. LANG ENVIRONMENTAL PECIALIST DIVISION OF U LITY SERVICES DATE: JANUARY 19, 1988 SUBJECT: LONE PALM PARK SUBDIVISION - CITY OF VERO BEACH 27TH AVENUE WATER MAIN EXTENSION FROM 14TH STREET TO 12TH STREET BACKGROUND Pursuant to the agreement between the City of Vero Beach and Indian River County, the City of Vero Beach will provide water service to the 27th Avenue area from 14th Street to 12th Street. The detailed construction plans have been reviewed and approved by the City of Vero Beach. The Division of Utility Services has agreed to act as the collection agency for assessment fees for this project, subject to approval, by the Board of County Commissioners. The area in question, 27th Avenue from 14th Street to 12th Street, is outside the city limits and is inside the County's jurisdictional boundaries. The total estimated cost of the project is $46,944.10, as prepared by the engineering firm of Lloyd & Associates, Inc. ANALYSIS The total assessment is $45,012.10. The City of Vero Beach will pay $1,932.00, the difference between a 6 -inch and an eight -inch line. The Board of County Commissioners has previously approved the agreement between the City of Vero Beach and the County that delineates this area to be served by the City. RECOMMENDATION The Division of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the collection of monies for the project and approve the Preliminary Assessment Roll, with any changes that may be required as a result of the public hearing. Asst. Utilities Director Barton noted that this came before the Board previously, at which time there was some controversy over the size of the project the City had proposed. The original people involved were basically located on 14th Street, 13th Street, and 13th Place, and the City took the project all the way to 12th Street. The county at the last public hearing instructed that the project be redesigned back to its original scope. Chairman Scurlock asked for the percentage of petitioners in favor of the project, and Asst. Director Barton advised they 59 FEB 1 $ 1q Boor 70 x.,,.877 Pr - FEB 16 1988 BOOK 70 FA,F878 really dropped the petition by the wayside and we are back to about the 2/3 originally interested in the project. The City will be funding the project up front. The assessment roll will be collected by us and remitted to the City. This is the public hearing to approve the preliminary assessment roll. Administrator Balczun noted, for purposes of the record, that the reason for an 8" main instead of the standard 6", which is sufficient for residential service, is that the City wants that system to be part of their fire service, and they will pay the difference. Chairman Scurlock asked if anyone wished to be heard. Kermit Weller, property owner, did not blame the people on the side streets for wanting the water; however, he owns most of the lots in that block and they are all empty. He stated that he has water on 28th Avenue and did not get any bill like this. He did not think the people asked for the big fire main. His assessment on this is $15,000, and the line on 28th didn't cost him anything. Chairman Scurlock explained that the City designed the project, and Mr. Barton advised that the cost was divided by the number of residential homes that could be built that would be in the affected area. Therefore, if you have 6 vacant lots that are buildable, you would be billed for 6 lots. Mr. Weller asked why lots 19 and 20 on 13th Street weren't assessed, and Mr. Barton believed that is because they were already connected to the system on the 14th Street line and further noted that those lots are a block off the project. Chairman Scurlock felt the assessment of $1,900 is pretty much in line, and he further pointed out that Mr. Weller can sell the lot the County just gave him earlier through an abandonment. Mr. Weller wished to know•why the lots in the next block on 27th are hooked up and get their water through from 28th in the back, and why his can't do the same. Director Pinto commented that he asked that also, but the City won't do it. 60 It was determined no one else wished to be heard, and the Chairman thereupon declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 88-12 authorizing the collection of money for the above described project and approved the Preliminary Assessment Roll. RESOLUTION NO. 88- 12 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN WATER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE LONE PALM PARK SUBDIVISION, PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT. OR ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF AREA SPECIFICALLY SERVED. WHEREAS, the Indian River County Department of Utility Services has received a public improvement petition requesting water improvements within the Lone Palm Park Subdivision along 27th Avenue from 14th Street to 12th Street; and WHEREAS, the Indian River County Department of Utility Services recognizes a need for water improvements within the Lone Palm Park Subdivision; and. WHEREAS, conceptual design work including cost estimates for construction of water improvements in the Lone Palm Park Subdivision has been completed by the City of Vero Beach and its contracted engineering firm, Lloyd & Associates, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the proposed water improvements to the owners of property that will benefit from the project is $46,944.10; and WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall be a proportion, based on the square footage of the property, of 100% of the total cost of the project for each given record owner of property within the specific area benefitted, and on which a residence is located or could be located; and 61 FEB 16 1988 BUR `A E. 879 FEB 16 L BOOK 70 FAE 880 WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall become due and payable at the office of the Department of Utility Services of Indian River County ninety (90) days after the final determination of the special assessment pursuant to Ordinance 81-27; and WHEREAS, all special assessments not paid within said ninety (90) day period shall thereupon become payable in equal installments in each of the succeeding five years with interest established at 12% from the expiration of said ninety (90) days payable annually; but any assessment becoming so payable in installments may be paid at anytime together with interest accrued thereon to date of payment; the balance of assessment shall become due and payable on any transfer of title ito said properties; and WHEREAS, after examination of the nature and the anticipated usage of the proposed improvements, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that the following described properties shall receive direct and special benefit from these improvements, to wit: LOTS 6-10, N 1/2 OF LOTS 11 & 12, S 1/2 OF LOTS 11 AND 12, LOTS '13-18 OF LONE PALM PARK SUBDIVISION, BLOCK 1; LOTS 1-10 OF LONE PALM PARK SUBDIVISION, BLOCK 3; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and satisfied in their entirety. 2. A project providing for water improvements for Lone Palm Park Subdivision, heretofore designated as Indian River County Utilities Project Number DS -245, is hereby approved subject to the terms outlined above and all applicable requirements of Ordinance 81-27. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Eggert who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wheeler , and upon being put to vote, the vote was as follows: 62 Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Vice Chairman Gary Wheeler Commissioner Richard N. Bird Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman, Commissioner Carolyn Eggert Aye Aye Aye Aye ye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 16th day of February , 1988. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Don d'.'Scur16 , Jr. airman • CONTRACT FOR STATE AID TO LIBRARY The Board reviewed the following memo: TO: Charles P. Balczun DATE: February 11, 1988 County Administrator SUBJECT: FROM: Perry J. Mattes REFERENCES: Assistant County Administrator Contract for state aid to library AGENDA ITEM Background In order to receive assistance from the State of Florida in the form of an operation grant in the amount of $35,913 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1988, the attached agreement requires the Board of County Commissioners approval and the Chhirman's signature. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the agreement. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the contract with the State Division of Library and Information Services for State Aid to Libraries. 63 FEB 19G8 BOOK 70 891 M3 BOOK 70 FAGE882 STATE AID TO LIBRARIES Agreement Between STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIVISION OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES and the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY This Agreement, made and entered into this day of 1988, by and between the State of Florida, Department of State, Division of Library and Information Services, hereinafter referred to as the DIVISION, and the Board of County Commissioners of County, hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY. WITNESSETH WIIEREAS, the DIVISION is authorized pursuant to Sections 257.17, 257.172, 257.18, and 257.19, Florida Statutes, to administer operating, regional library, equalization, and establishment grants for public library service; and, WIIEREAS, funds have been appropriated to the DIVISION under Sections 257.17, 257.172, 257.18, and 257.19, Florida Statutes; and, WIIEREAS, the COUNTY has made application and certified eligibility for receipt of grants authorized under 257.17, 257.18, and 257.19, Florida Statutes; and, WHEREAS, the COUNTY has centrally expended for the operation of public library service during the fiscal year ending September 30, 1986; the amount of $357,441 exclusive of federal and state grants; NOW THEREFORE, WITNESSETH THAT the parties hereto mutually agree, in execution of the Agreement, as follows: The COUNTY agrees to expend grant funds awarded pursuant to this Agreement in full compliance with the terms and conditions of Chapter 257, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 1B-2, Florida Administrative Code, relating to free public library service, and to provide access to financial records when an audit review is deemed necessary by the DIVISION. 64 II The DIVISION, for and in consideration of the COUNTY'S performance hereinunder, and contingent upon the availability and release of funds to the DIVISION, awards an operating grant in the amount of thirty-five thousand, nine hundred thirteen dollars ($35,913), to be released in quarterly allotments, in accordance with the schedule set forth in ATTACHMENT A. IN WITNESSETII WIIEREOF, the parties hereto have agreed and executed the Agreement the date and year first above written. ATTEST: - Clerk of the Cir it Cou Jim Smith Secretary of State State of Florida Chairman, Board of Cou commissioners of Indian River County STATE AID TO T.IBRARIES INDIAN RIVER ATTACIIMENT A Quarterly Allotments Payments October 1, 1987 $ 8,978.25 January 1, 1988 $ 8,978.25 April 1, 1988 $ 8, 978.25 July 1, 1988 $ 8, 978.25 $ 17,956.50 $ 17,956.50 The first payment will be made on receipt of the signed contract. The third and fourth quarterly allotments will be processed for payment in April, 1988. iSW 65 BOOK 70 t � F $S3 Pr— ELI-3 1c). 1988 BOOK 70 FAGF.8S4 DEPT. OF UTILITIES - DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE & HARDWARE NEEDS Utilities Director Pinto reviewed the following: TO: CHARLES P. BALCZUN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILRVICES FROM: JEFFREY K. BARTON ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 1988 SUBJECT: DATA PROCESSING SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE NEEDS DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES BACKGROUND Indian River County Utilities has experienced tremendous growth over the last few years and, as we expand with the many projects under way, we need to look at our financial, accounting, and data processing services. The County's auditing firm, Coopers and Lybrand, Certified Public Accountants, were asked for proposals to define the needs of the Department of Utility Services. Attached are the proposals from Coopers and Lybrand. ANALYSIS The proposals from Coopers and Lybrand are to cover two areas of concern for future needs of Utilities: 1. Customer billing and information system 2. Financial Projection System RECOMMENDATION The Department of Utility Services recommends to the Board of County Commissioners to approve the two proposals for services from Coopers & Lybrands with funding from the Utilities budgeted line items for water and sewer - Other Contracted Services: 471-218-536-033.49 and 471-219-536-033.49. Chairman Scurlock advised that he reconfirmed with Coopers & Lybrand that we have 80 hours available to the county that we may want to make use of as a part of this negotiation, and Director Pinto agreed he would like to be able to take advantage •, of that. Director Pinto believed the Commissioners all should be aware of the growth that is taking place in the Utilities Department. It is growing to such an extent that they need professionals to come in and take a look at their future needs. 66 One of the areas they particularly want to take a look at is the movement of cash from the customer paying it to the person at the desk until it gets where it is supposed to go to make sure all the checks and balances are there. Director Pinto noted the __ auditors made no comment on the Utilities Department this year, but one of the areas that has shown up for the last two years was simply reconciliations of customer deposit accounts. That was taken care of internally, even though they were authorized to hire someone to straighten that out. Irene Lewis spent hundreds of hours doing this by hand because it wasn't on the computer system. Obviously, Utilities cannot continue to operate in this manner. Director Pinto noted there are two aspects - one, just to come in at the total accounting and billing procedures used and recommend new software, andsecond, to come in and set up a new program that Coopers & Lybrand has that takes your total system and puts it on a model; then every time we take over a new system, it adds it in and analyses that impact for as many years as you want it to. He felt it is very important we do this. Chairman Scurlock asked if Director Pinto was asking for authorization to negotiate a contract with Coopers & Lybrand and come back to the Board, and Director Pinto stated that he wanted authorization to enter into the contract. The Chairman commented that he did not see a dollars and cents figure anywhere, and Asst. Director Barton noted it would be about $70,000 - $35,000 tor each aspect. Commissioner Eggert believed that, as she read it, the second part depended on the results of the first, and Chairman Scurlock further emphasized that we need to negotiate with Coopers & Lybrand in regard to the hours they owe us and whether they can be a part of this. Director Pinto agreed that is a new glitch, and they will negotiate that into it. 67 tFEB 1 "]bt18 BOOK 70 'E8S5 FEB 16 1968 Root( 70 pti cF 886 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized staff to negotiate a contract with Coopers & Lybrand as discussed and bring it back to the Board. DEPT. OF UTILITIES - SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR (PART-TIME) Utilities Director Pinto reviewed the following: TO: THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTIL FROM: CHARLES P. BALCZUN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR JEFFREY K. BARTON ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES VICES DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 1988 SUBJECT: SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR (PART-TIME) BACKGROUND During the Budget hearings, the Board approved a new position within the Department of Utility Services for a Special Projects Coordinator at an annual salary of $15,050.00. This position was to aid individuals wishing to submit petition assessments for water and sewer line extensions to our system. Considerable work is required to coordinate this type of project from beginning to end. The individual needed should have a varied background, being familiar with engineering, utilities, and accounting. ANALYSIS Because of the backgrour_uneeded and the Department's rapid expansion, we feel the position siv,o d be part-time for someone with the necessary experience and backgrourr. Mr. Jack Pearce has been recruited for the position on a part-time basis. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Utility Services recommends to the Board that they approve the hiring of Jack Pearce on a part-time basis (20 hours a week) for $300.00 a week, without benefits, in order that this important function may be accomplished for the Department. Director Pinto advised that the present system for dealing with those petitioning for utility service is extremely awkward; it takes too long to get a project engineered and before the Board, and people have needs that are immediate. If we can hire 68 Jack Pearce, we would be getting probably a $40,000 a year individual, whom we can't afford right now, for about 20 hours a week at $300 a week with no benefits whatever. Commissioner Eggert asked if Mr. Pearce would be a pre -project coordinator rather than a during -project coordinator like Ernestine Williams. Director Pinto explained that Mrs. Williams would be more specific to a construction project, and Mr. Pearce would be involved more with procedure and putting in the works a smooth working petition system. Administrator Baclzun asked if Mr. Pearce is going to be an independent contractor or an employee, and Director Pinto asked if we can have a part time employee without providing them benefits. Administrator Balczun believed it is possible to create a part time employee without benefits, and if we run afoul of the pension laws, etc., we will negotiate a contract. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the Department of Utility Services to hire Jack Pearce on a part-time basis at $300 per week without benefits, as recommended by staff. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DIST. - AUTHORIZATION FOR ISSUANCE OF BONDS Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that Charles Sieck of Rhoads & Sinon, our Bond Counsel, has passed out a resolution to replace the one in the Board's back-up material and one of the changes would up the bond issue from 9 million to 11 million. Mr. Sieck advised that the changes, with the exception of the dollar amount which will be gone into in more detail, are all typos and insignificant comments received from the underwriters 69 FEB 161988 6 LOO 70 F.,,r 887 ,FEB 1 '6'38 BOOK 0 FxF888 after they had provided the copy of the resolution for the agenda packet last Wednesday. County Financial Advisor Art Diamond explained that the raise in the bond amount is based on a new estimate from Camp, Dresser, McKee. This includes constructions costs of approxi- mately $6,550,000, plus the costs of engineering, land acquisition, issuance costs, and equipment for Segment 2, which are approximately another 2,480,000. In addition to that, provision has to be made for one year's interest payment during construction. Also, provision has to be made for the possibility that we do not get an insurance policy for the debt service reserve and have to fund it fully up front. Mr. Diamond stressed that conservative figures were used to come up with an amount of about 10.6 million; these are very preliminary figures; and he is being very careful. He explained that authorization is different than issuance; so, we attempt to authorize more than we actually need. That does not mean this is the amount we actually will issue, just up to that amount. If you do not authorize a sufficient amount, you then have to go back to court to authorize additional and that would take another 75 days. This increased amount just provides a cushion in case the number goes higher than 9 million. Mr. Sieck further explained that at the time the awarding resolution is presented to the Board, they will have the definitive number. The resolution being discussed today is just to get the bond validation filed, and it would authorize the issuance of up to $11,000,000 bonds. Chairman Scurlock noted that we made certain presentations when we held the public hearing about the solid waste district in regard to raising revenues, and he wants to be very careful when we work on the structuring of servicing the debt that we don't fall into the trap of having this pyramid. Obviously the next cell of the landfill has a certain life, and he did not want to have a 15 or 20 year bond on a 5 year landfill cell. Utilities Director Pinto confirmed that this aspect has been discussed specifically, and they will take the life of each part of the project. and have.a weighted average. He stated that the closing of the second cell should be self-funded; however, you have to fund the closing of the first cell now; actually, you are really going to build it into the rate, but you need the cash up front to do it with. Chairman Scurlock emphasized that on top of that, he wanted to do a surcharge because you don't know what those closure costs are going to be in the future; they seem to keep going up and up, and that is an unknown. Commissioner Eggert asked if there is a time limit on the use of, any unused portion of the amount of bonds validated, and Mr. Sieck advised that can be handled several ways - some issues will cancel the unused portion, but others will leave it there. He confirmed that once the issue has been authorized by the Board and validated by the court, there is no statute of limitations. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Resolu- tion 88-1 providing for the issuance of not exceeding $11,000,000 Solid Waste Disposal System Revenue Bonds. RESOLUTION NO. 88-1 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PROJECT OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING $ 11,000,000 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1988, OF SUCH DISTRICT TO PAY THE COST OF SAID PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE REGISTERED OWNERS OF SAID BONDS; PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF; MAKING CERTAIN OTHER COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF SAID BONDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ACTING AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE RESOLUTION 88-1 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD IN ITS ENTIRETY. (SEPARATE FILE - SOLID WASTE` DISPOSAL DISTRICT) 71 FEB 16 1988 BOOK `0 FA,F 889 FEB 161988 BOOK 70 F-ACE890 DISCUSSION OF FINANCIAL ADVISOR CONTRACT WITH M. G. LEWIS The Chairman referred to the following memo: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: DATE: February 10, 1988 Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney RE: DISCUSSION OF FINANCIAL ADVISOR CONTRACT WITH M. G. LEWIS BOARD MEETING - FEBRUARY 16, 1988 The County presently has a personal services contract with M. G. Lewis for that company to serve as our financial advisor. That firm has recently entered bankruptcy proceedings due to a falling out between the major stockholders. This has resulted in a change in personnel available to work on our account, and makes it timely for us to reconsider our contract with M. G. Lewis. Our liaison with M. G. Lewis, Mr. Art Diamond, will be in the audience to make alternative proposals to the County. Chairman Scurlock reported that apparently Dr. Fishkind has formed his own company, and he believed we now need some kind of formalized situation. In our present agreement with M. G. Lewis, we reference both Art Diamond and Hank Fishkind. Commissioner Eggert noted that the wording on the second page of the contract with M. G. Lewis & Co. specifically says we can terminate the agreement any time "in the event Arthur H. Diamond and/or Henry Fishkind are no longer associated with or employed by M.G.Lewis & Co and she felt we theoretically are in termination. Mr. Diamond agreed it reads that it is the sole option of the county to terminate the agreement. He wished to advise the Board that he spent his last day with M. G. Lewis Friday, and he would suggest that the county send a letter to M. G. Lewis notifying them that the contract is no longer valid. Discussion continued regarding termination, and Administra- tor Balczun noted, for purposes of the record, that it was clearly our intent when we drafted and negotiated this contract 72 that we did so specifically because of the track record and abilities of Dr. Fishkind and Mr. Diamond, and if we couldn't have either of them, we didn't want M. G. Lewis & C • ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to write M. G. Lewis & Co. terminating their contract. Chairman Scurlock believed we now need some sort of formal relationship with Mr. Diamond as our financial advisor. Commissioner Eggert asked if the Finance Committee has a recommendation, and Chairman Scurlock advised that he has not taken this to them as he was waiting for Mr. Diamond to tell us what his plans are going to be. There are several firms he is thinking about, but in the meantime, he has been providing his services at no cost to the county. Commissioner Eggert asked if it is possible to contract directly with Mr. Diamond if everyone agrees he has done a good job, and the Chairman noted that is what he would like to do. Mr. Diamond stated that an interim contract would more than satisfy him. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized entering into a negotiated contract with Art Diamond to be our financial advisor. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE - SUMMARY OF ACTIONS Commissioner Bowman reviewed the following: 73 FEB 16198II BOOK 7Q F A. GF 891 FEB EB 1_6 1988 BOOK 70 PGE 892 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF ACTIONS February 10, 1988 MEETING 1. US#1 Corridor Study Staff presented a verbal status report on the US#1 Corridor Study for the three -county area being conducted for the FDOT by a consultant. Comments are requested from affected municipalities. A workshop with the consultant will be scheduled. 2. Five- ear Trans•ortation Ca•ital Im•rovement Pro ram The subject plan was presented by staff and unanimously approved by the Committee with the addition of the SR -60 One-way Pair Project, and Barber Bridge replacement as unfunded projects. 3. Old Dixie Highway/45th Street Intersection At the request of the Gifford Progressive Civic League, staff was directed to investigate additional warning devices ,for this new four-way stop intersection. 4. 43rd Avenue/8th Street Intersection Member Waddell requested four-way stop control be placed at this intersection until the planned traffic signal is installed. The Committee took no action because of potential conflicts since the signal design is in progress and should be installed in 1988. Discussion ensued regarding Item 4, and R/W problems.with the land owner. Commissioner Wheeler wished to know why a 4 -way stop would be a conflict at this intersection, and Commissioner Bowman stated that the Traffic Engineer considers a 4 -way stop very dangerous. Commissioner Wheeler felt a 4 -way stop at least slows people down so the accidents aren't as serious. Public Works Director Davis reported that they are finaliz- ing the contract for that intersection work. There has been correspondence with Mr. Earman re the R/W, and there is no working relationship problem; it is just a problem of getting the design complete and the project before the Board for approval as quickly as possible. As to a 4 -way stop, Director Davis pointed 74 out that. when you have an approach to a 4 -way stop with more than two lanes, it becomes extremely confusing for the cars. William Koolage, interested citizen, felt that the cause of many of the accidents at this intersection is that the 45 mph speed limit on 8th Street is too much for a narrow road. He believed that speed limit should be. reduced. Chairman Scurlock requested that the Transportation Planning Committee look into Mr. Koolage's suggestion. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously accepted the four items on the Transportation Planning Committee . Summary of Actions dated February 10, 1988. REQUEST TO ABOLISH SEAGRASS PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION COM- MITTEE AND INCORPORATE INTO MARINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Commissioner Wheeler reviewed the following: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: February 10, 1988 FILE: SUBJECT: Seagrass Preservation and Restoration Committee FROM: chairC. Wheeler REFERENCES: Marine Advisory Committee Attached is a letter from Ray Fernald who was the Chairman of the Seagrass Preservation and Restoration Committee. That committee has not met in a long time, and because the Marine Advisory Committee has taken up where that committee left off, I feel the Seagrass Preservation and Restoration Committee should be abolished, and its functions be combined with those of the Marine Advisory Committee. 75 !FEB 1 6 1988 BOOK 70 F u 893 iE13 16S8 BOOK 70 F�;E 894 - FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION THOMAS L. HIRES, SR. MRS. GILBERT W. HUMPHREY Chairman, Lake Wales Vice -Chairman, Miccosukee ROBERT M. BRANTLY, Executive Director ALLAN L. EGBERT, Ph.D., Assistant Executive Director WILLIAM G. BOSTICK, JR. Winter Haven C. TOM RAINEY, D.V.M. DON WRIGHT Miami Orlando 110 43rd Avenue, S. W. Vero Beach, Florida 32962 February 4, 1988 Mr. Doug Scurlock, Chairman Members of Indian River County Commission 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Chairman Scurlock: y 23456 . a 42400'Ualo Oilos $14 DISTRIBUTION LfS7 Commissioners AdministrGtor Attorney Personnel Public Works Community i:ev. Utilities Fi... For the past few years, I have been chairman of the Indian River Seagrass Preservation Committee. During this period, other state and regional agencies have conducted major research projects which delineated the seagrass beds in the Indian River, and postulated reasons for the observed declines in seagrass abundance. Our committee's primary product was the draft seagrass position statement which was provided to Tommy Thomas, along with the remainder of the photographs and maps in my possession, several months ago. I regret that the committee's position statement was not finalized during this time, but it became apparent to me that the committee's initial findings were not as essential as originally anticipated, because of the ongoing research of the Marine Resources Council and the Florida Department of Natural Resources. It may now be appropriate for the committee to thoroughly review. the findings of those agencies, and assist in future preservation efforts regarding the Indian River. Continued monitoring of the status of seagrass beds in the Indian River is essential, and should be encouraged. Significant changes in my professional duties, however, do not permit me to continue as chairman of the Seagrass Preservation Committee. I therefore request that another chairman be appointed, effective immediately. The committee has been inactive for some time, and the role of the committee, relative to other existing committees, should perhaps be reviewed. I would be glad to continue as a committee member, and would be_able to attend regularly scheduledmeetings, but I am unable to commit sufficient time and energy to be an effective chairman. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Ray io d T. Fernald Cha rman, Seagrass Preservation Committee 76 lami . ;ilr. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Eggert, to abolish the Seagrass Preservation and Restoration Committee and incorporate its functions into the Marine Advisory Committee. Commissioner Bowman did not feel that Mr. Fernald was looking for the dissolution of this committee, but was just saying he didn't have time to continue as chairman. She further noted that the Seagrass Committee was composed entirely of biologists, and she was concerned about the expertise of the Marine Advisory Committee as she did not believe there were any biologists on that Committee. Commissioner Wheeler advised that the Marine Advisory Committee has on it probably the foremost biologist on the Indian River Lagoon area itself, Dr. Grant Gilmore. Other biologists on the Committee are Jack Jackson and Tim Adams, and Diane Barile is a non-voting technical member. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. F.I.N.D. GRANT - ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING CENTER The Board reviewed memo from Asst. County Attorney Brennan: TO: Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Board of County Commissioners FROM: Sharon P. Brennan, Assistant County Attorney DATE: February 9, 1988 RE: FIND GRANT - Environmental Learning Center Attached please find a resolution I have prepared, as required, for a Florida Inland Navigation District grant for the Pelican Island Audubon Society Environmental Learning Center. I will need to know the percentage amount of the total cost of the project which we are requesting before making the grant application. Thank you very much. 77 FEB 16 1% 800K 70 f CE 895 FEB d 68t BOOK 70 06E 896 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 88-14 requesting financial assistance from Florida Inland Navigation District in the amount of 25% of the cost of the Pelican Audubon Society Environmental Learning Center. RESOLUTION NO. 88-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO THE FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT REQUESTING GRANT ASSISTANCE UNDER THE GRANT ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS PROGRAM FOR THE PELICAN ISLAND AUDUBON SOCIETY ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING CENTER. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida (BOARD), is interested in carrying out the Pelican Audubon Society Environmental Learning Center project at a total estimated cost of $2,000,000 for the enjoyment of the citizenry of Indian River County and the State of Florida; and WHEREAS, the Center will provide a hands-on environmental education program facility consisting of two classroom laboratories, exhibit room, meeting room, boats, offices, library, trails, boardwalks, dock, boathouse, and other features enabling County educators to teach environmental sciences to County school students and through adult education programs; and WHEREAS, Florida Inland Navigation District (DISTRICT) financial assistance is required for the program mentioned above; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the project described above be authorized. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said BOARD makes application to the Florida Inland Navigation District in the amount of % of the actual cost of the project in behalf of said Environmental Learning Center. 78 AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the BOARD that it certifies to the following: 1. That it will accept the terms and conditions set forth in the FIND Grants Guidelines and which will be a part of the Project Agreement for any grant awarded under the attached proposal. 2. That it is in complete accord withthe attached proposal, and that it will carry out the program in the manner described in the proposal and any plans and specifications attached hereto, unless prior approval for any changes has been received from the DISTRICT. 3. That it has the ability and intention to finance its share of the cost of the project, and that the project will be operated and maintained at the expense of said Pelican Audubon Society for public use. 4. That it will not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, or national origin in the use of any property or facility acquired or developed pursuant to this project, and shall comply with the terms and intent of the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, P. L. 88-352 (1964) and design and construct all facilities to comply fully with the statutes relating to accessibility by handicapped persons as well as other federal, state, and local laws, rules, and requirements. 5. That it will maintain adequate financial records on the proposed project to substantiate claims for reimbursement. 6. That it will make available to FIND, a post -audit of expenses incurred on the project prior to, or in conjunction with, a request for the final 100 of the funding agreed to by FIND. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Eggert who moved its adoption. The FEB 161988 79 BOOK 70 FNGE 897 Pr— FEU 1 198b Poop 70 FA,E 898 motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman upon being put to a vote, the vote was as Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Vice -Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Commissioner Richard N. Bird Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert follows: Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye and, The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly. passed and adopted this 16th day of February, 1988. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA DISCUSS COST OF COUNTY LAND TO LIBRARY BOND Commissioner Eggert reviewed the following: hoard of county TO: Commissioners DATE: February 15, 1988 FILE: SUBJECT: County -owned Library site FROM:Carolyn R. Eggert til REFERENCES: County Commissioner land for In talking with staff varying amounts have been as the possible cost of the Old Jail site and Department site to the Library Bond. For example: OLD JAIL SITE: put forward the Health 1. Nothing for land with Sheriff or BCC paying for demolition of old buildings. 2. Nothing for land with library bond paying for demolition or at $200,000r 3. $428,000 for land minus cost of demolition (estimated at $200,000) or at $250,000. 4. $428,000 for land and cost of demolition or about $650,000. The jail building has been judged to have value only for insurance since no one can just buy the building. In looking for a new drug rehabilitation center, Judge Vocelle and group found the cost of fixing up the jail to be enormously high. The Health Building site is three acres of trapezoidal shape. This is probably not suitable for the library, but I do know $110,000 was earmarked in a bond issue toward purchasing of this land. I would like to have a solid land cost with consideration of demolition to take to the Public Library Advisory Board for the Old Jail site and a costfor the Health Building site. 80 TO: Carolyn Eggert County Commissioner DATE: February 15, 1988 FILE: SUBJECT: OLD JAIL AND ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AREA SITE INFORMA- TION FROM: REFERENCES: Stan Boling Chief, Current Development The information herein presented has been gathered from Don Finney and Joe Baird. Old Jail Site: The old jail site consists of several buildings (see attached site sketch) located east of St. Francis Manor and immediately south of the Indian River County Volunteer Ambulance Squad (see attached map). Site Data: 1) Total site (Jail complex only) a) Jail Building 4.28 acres 14,738 sq. ft. b) Civil Defense Building 1,920 sq. ft. c) Detective Building 2,590 sq. ft. d) Maintenance Garage 1,132 sq. ft. TOTAL 20,380 sq. ft. 2) Roughly estimated market value is $100,000/acre or $428,000.00 Total Site. It should be noted that razing costs would be high for the jail building. The admir.Eistrative offices (1.938 sq. ft.), the Civil Defense building (1,920 sq. ft.), and the Detective building (2,590 sq. ft.) are useable. Thus, the total value of the 6,448 sq. ft. of useable building could help offset the costs of razing the Jail and Maintenance Garage. 3) The roughly estimated value of the land and useable buildings minus the costs of razing is $350,000 to $400,000. Properties North of Administration Building The County owns 6 tracts of property north of the present administration building. Two of these tracts, together with a segment of 19th Avenue right-of-way which could be abandoned, forms a single parcel 3.2 acres in size. Additional vacant land immediately south of the 3.2 acre parcel consists of 0.93 acres which could be used for parking. Site Data: 1) Remainder of Block 3 & 4, Booker T. Washington Subdivision and segment of 19th Avenue right-of-way (to be abandoned) 3.2 acres 2) 6 1/2 contiguous lots in Block 6 .93 acres All property is now owned by Indian River County. Remaining 2 lots of the 3.2 acre parcel are being settled entirely with funds from a previously issued bond. 81 1` EE B-1 1938 BOOK 70 Fla 899 Pr - FEB i 066 FACE 900 TO: Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Board of County Commissioners FROM: DATE: RE: (2Q29,t(b-42, Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney February 15, 1988 USE OF OLD JAIL SITE FOR LIBRARY Yot) have asked me to respond concerning what legal requirement exists that the library bond issue be charged some amount for use of the old jail site or new hea-Ith department building site. The library bond issue was passed to acquire two sites and build two libraries.. The bonds will be paid by.ad valorem taxes countywide. The bond issue does not requ,i,re that the County spend any amount or percentage of money to acquire land. It clearly authorizes acceptance of donated land. The next question is whether the County may dedicate the old jail site for library purposes for no or Kittle remuneration. The old jail site was acquired years ago by the County as an asset of the general fund. This is a countywide fund supported by the taxpayers of the whole county --the same people who pay for the library bonds. Thus, the land could be dedicated for library purposes unless the bond issue itself restricted the total expenses of the library costs to the bond amount, i.e., $5.9 million. The bond documents are only an authorization for long-term capital funding through taxes. They do not either explicitly or implicitly forbid the use of other money, lands, or funds. Thus, in my opinion, there is no legal requirement for the County to pay anything for the old jail site if the Board of County Commissioners decides to use that land for the new library. The new health department site was acquired by another bond issue supported by revenue which would otherwise be put into • the general fund. The bond authorized raising money for capital projects as follows: "Project" shall mean the construction, reconstruction, acquisition, alteration, furnishing and equipping of buildings and capital facilities of the County for administrative, law enforcement, judicial, jail, medical use, recreational facilities, excluding beach renourishment, and other facilities to house governmental services in the County, all pursuant to the plans and specifications of a Qualified Independent Consultant on file, or to be on file, with the Issuer. Thus, use of the new health department site for a library would be proper without charging the library bond fund for the bond if a new public library comes within the definition of "Project", which I believe it does. 82 TO: Commissioner Carolyn Eggert THROUGH: Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator FROM:James W. Davis, P.E Public Works Director DATE: February 9, 1988 FILE: SUBJECT: °rt of Road and Infrastructure Improvements Required - Proposed Main Library Sites This date, the Public Works Department inspected four proposed main library sites. Our comments follow: Site 1 Catron Site (South of SR60 between 25th Ave and 23rd Ave) 19th Street along South of site present width 19' no sidewalks existing - since the parcel being considered does not contain 19th Street frontage, no improvements are anticipated. If widening to 22' is required, a cost of $2,500 would result sewer/water in area 23rd Avenue along east of site present width is 20' driveway should be connected to 25th Ave to widen to 22', cost of $10,000 would apply due to curb SR60 left turn lane extension would cost $10,000 25th Avenue along west side of site present width is 19'3". To widen this road to 22', a cost of $10,000 would apply. there is good open frontage on 25th Avenue for a proper site connection. Extension of the westbound SR60 left turn lane may be required at a cost of $15,000. sidewalks are required at a cost of $7.50/lf or approx. $4,000. - DOT drainage outfall available. Impact Fee Zone 5 Site 2 North side of SR60 west of 28th Avenue 28th Avenue is 22' wide existing paved road - No widening is required. - sewer/water in area - no eastbound left turn lane exists along SR60. This installation is estimated to cost $25,000. DOT drainage outfall available Site 3 Old Jail Site - 1700 17th Avenue 17th Avenue pavement is 24' wide, no improvements required. sidewalk is existing on east side of 17th Avenue providing good pedestrian access. SR60 Twin Pairs Project is programmed to north of site water/sewer in area drainage outfall available Site 4 FEB 161988 New Health Dept. Building Site - North of 27th Street at 19th Avenue 27th Street width is 24'6". No improvements needed. trapezoidal shape of property would result in difficult site planning. road access is poor due to FDC railroad crossing to east, airport to north, and no collector or arterial road access. 83 a00K 70 PAGE 901 FES 161988 BOOK 70 FA;E 902 Commissioner Eggert noted that she will be taking up different library sites the first of March with the Library Advisory Committee and would like to carry with her to the decision- making process an exact price of the total cost to the library bond for the land at the Old Jail site and the Health Department site. She felt the jail site is more important and wished to know the Commission's feelings. Chairman Scurlock stated that he would be in favor of giving them the land at the Old Jail site as set out in Alternative 2. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to donate the land at the Old Jail site for a library site as set out in Alterna- tive 2. Chairman Scurlock noted that he would even go one step further and say that if there is any in-kind work that could be contributed to help clear that site, he would be willing to say that would be acceptable. Commissioner Eggert asked if it was the general feeling of the Board that Public Works could help, and there were no. objections. Commissioner Eggert noted that Director Davis has been helpful in getting the impact fees for her. Commissioner Wheeler inquired about the credit we would have on the jail site for transportation type fees particularly. Commissioner Eggert reported that they are giving a whole credit of $15,804.90. Commissioner Wheeler believed that the jail had tremendous traffic with deputies coming and going and visitation. Director Davis advised that the way they looked at it, a certain percentage of the building was used for offices, which would be the Sheriff's record keeping area. He felt, practically speaking, you could probably feel that was a little more intense use than our tables indicate, but they did apply the same impact 84 fee per sq. ft. for the new jail facility as opposed to the old jail facility that we are crediting the library for; so, they are comparing apples to apples on what they are charging and what they are crediting. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:50 o'clock A.M. ATTEST: FEB 181988 Clerk Chairman 85 BOOK 70 PAGE 903