HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/15/1988Tuesday, March 15, 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,
March 15, 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.
Reverend Elmer Vogelsang, Immanuel Baptist Church, gave the
invocation, and Commissioner Bowman led the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Eggert wished to add a short statement about
the Community Redevelopment Agency to the agenda. She also
requested that the item regarding selection of the main library
site be taken up while a full Board is still present, knowing
that the Chairman has to leave about noon, and further asked that
Item 10 A - North County Library Amended Survey - be tabled until
a later meeting.
Commissioner Bird advised that he will make a report on the
Parks & Recreation Committee under his matters.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously tabled and added on
items to today's agenda as described above.
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71
1`70
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 9, 1988.
Commissioner Bowman advised that on Page 25 "Ronald"
MacDonald Park should be corrected to "Donald" MacDonald Park and
further advised that Page 28 should read that the organizational
meeting of the Indian River Lagoon Narrows Action Committee was
held in Melbourne, not Sebastian.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 9, 1988, as
corrected.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 16, 1988.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED By Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 16, 1988,
as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Bird asked that Item 14 be removed from the
Consent Agenda for discussion, and Commissioner Eggert wished to
have Item 12 removed also.
(1) Duplicate Tax Sale Certificate #321
LIAR 15 1988
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Duplicate
Tax Sale Certificate #321 for Tom O'Callaghan in the
amount of $74.31.
2 BOOK 71 PAGE 171
(2) Reports
The following reports were received and placed on file in
the Office of Clerk to the Board:
Traffic Violation Bureau, Month to date report
by Last Name for month of February, 1988
Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund,
Month of February, 1988 - $40,191.39
(3) F.I.N.D. Proposal for Boat Dock/Moorings/Equipment at Fire
Station #2
The Board reviewed memo from Chairman Scurlock:
TO: Board of County
Commissioners
DATE: February 26, 1988 FILE:
SUBJECT: FIND Proposal for boat
dock/moorings at Fire
Station #2
FROM: Don C. Scurlock, Jr. REFERENCES:
Chairman
Request retroactive approval for Chairman to sign F.I.N.D. Proposal
for boat dock/moorings at Fire Station #2. No matching funds
are required from the County.,
MAR 15 1988
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously granted the Chairman
retroactive approval to sign applications to Florida
Inland Navigation District for Boat Dock and Emergency
Equipment at Fire Station #2 and adopted Resolutions
88-18 and 88-19 authorizing same.
3
BOOK 71 F'/ E 172
i
RESOLUTION NO. 88-18
RESOLUTION ON GRANT ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT
GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS PROGRAM
South Indian River
WHEREAS, THE County Fire District is interested in carrying out the
(Name of Agency)
following described project for the enjoyment of the citizenry of Indian River County
and the State of Florida:
Project Title Fire Rescue Boat Dock
Total Estimated Cost $ 15,550.00
Brief Description of Project:
The South Indian River County Fire District has recently obtained a 30 foot
Wellcraft boat to be used for Emergency Fire Rescue services on the Indian River.
Being that the District has a station located on the Intracoastal waterway, a
mooring is needed to place the boat in order to respond to emergencies as soon
as possible.
RESOLUTION NO. 88-19
RESOLUTION ON GRANT ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT
GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS PROGRAM
South Indian River
WHEREAS, THE County Fire District is interested in carrying out the
(Name of Agency)
following described project for the enjoyment of the citizenry of Indian River County
and the State of Florida:
Project Title Emergency Equipment for Fire Rescue Vessel on Intracoastal waterway
Total Estimated Cost
$ 25,000.00
Brief Description of Project:
The Florida Marine Patrol has furnished the Fire District with an unequiped
vessel for fire and rescue use on the Intracoastal waterways and Indian River
narrows. This request is for matching funds to purchase necessary equipment
and make necessary repairs to put this boat in operation.
RESOLUTIONS 88-18 & 88-19 ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO
BAR 15 1988
THE BOARD IN THEIR ENTIRETY.
4 BOOK 71 fnE 173
(4) Appointments to Code Enforcement Board
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the follow-
ing appointments to the Code Enforcement Board:
Monte K. Falls (as recommended by Commissioner Bird)
Phillip H. Barth, Ill (as recommended by
Chairman Scurlock)
(5) Resignations from Environmental Control Hearing Board
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted the
resignations of Jack Pearce and Richard Votapka from
the Environmental Control Hearing Board for the
reasons set out in the following letters:
o R CV cm
. 4f18gioH
44, % of Invironmental Health Control
Commissioners:
926 47th Avenue
Vero Beach, FL 32966
February 27,1988
Please accept my resignation from the Indian River County
Environmental Health Control Hearing Board. I have enioyed this
service. I concur that continued service in view of employment
with the Utilitie Services Department "could give rise to
conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict of interest".
It is my hope that there may be a future situation in which I may
be of similar service to the County and its citizens.
Thank you all for past considerations.
Sincerely,
Jack Pearce
5
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71 fu174
873 S.E. Lance St.
Sebastian, Florida
32958
March 1,1988
b07 Doug Scurlock
4n
Indian River Co. Board Of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32690
Dear Commissioner Scurlock:
I hereby offer my resignation as a member of the Indian
River County Environmental Control Hearing Board, since I am
a candidate for the office of Mayor in the City of Sebastian.
I have been recently informed by Mrs. Suzanne Vitunac, Attor-
ney for the Environmental Control Officer, that the enabling
legislation creating the Environmental Control Hearing Board
prohibits candidates for elective office from serving on the
Board. If I am not elected, I request that I be reappointed
to the Board.
Sincerely,
‘-zt
Richard B.Votapka
(6) Bid #395 Emergency Life Station
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Ambler:
TO: Charles Balczun
County Administrator
THRU: P. J. Mattes ;J
Asst. County Administr$tor
FROM -'=�'�-� ' �'"����" REFERENCES:
DATE: February 24, 1988 FILE:
SUBJECT: IRC BID #395 EMERGENCY LIFT STATION
is Ambler, C.P.M.
Purchasing Manager
1. DESCRIPTION. AND CONDITIONS
Bids were received on Wednseday, February 3, 1988, at 2 p.m. for
Bid #395.
Invitations to Bid were mailed to 6 vendors. 5 bids were received,
including one no bid.
MAR 15 1988
6
BOOK 71 F,AGE 175
2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The lowest bid meeting specifications was submitted by Barney's Pumps,
Inc. at a price of $7,514.00.
3. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that IRC Bid #395 be awarded and that the purchase be
accomplished from Barney's Pumps, Inc. Budgetary funding has been
confirmed for Utility Services 471-218-536-066.49.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #395
for an Emergency Lift Station to Barney's Pumps, Inc.,
as being the lowest bid meeting specifications, in
the amount of $7,514.00, as recommended by staff.
(7) Bid #406 Micro Film Reader/Printer (Building Dept.)
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Ambler:
TO:
Charles Balczun
County Administrator
THRU: P. J. Mattes
FROM
•
•
1'4
DATE: February 25, 1988 FELE:
SUBJECT: IRC BID #406
MICRO FILM READER
Gus mbler,
/Purchasing Manager
ERENCES:
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Bids were received on Wednesday, February 24, 1988, for
Bid #406, a Micro Film Reader Printer.
10 Invitations to Bid were mailed and 6 vendors responded,
including 4 no bids.
2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The low bid meeting specifications was submitted by
Milner Document Products for $14,642.00.
3. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that we award IRC Bid #406 and purchase
this item from Milner Document Products.
WAR 15 19$8
� J
Budgetary funding has been confirmed for expenditures
from Building Department Account # 441-233-524-066.41.
7 BOOK 71 oGE 175
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #406
for a Micro Film Reader/Printer to Milner Document
Products, as being the lowest bid meeting specifica-
tions, in the amount of $14,642.00, as recommended
by staff.
(8) Bid #407 Equipment Trailer for Utilities
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Ambler:
TO:
THRU:
Charles Balczun
County Administrator
Perry J. Mattes
Asst. County Administrator
DATE: February 26, 1988 RLE:
Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT:
IRC BID #407 EQUIPMENT TRAILER
REFERENCES:
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Bids were received Wednesday, February 24, 1988, at 2:00 p.m.,
for IRC Bid #407.
11 Invitations to Bid were sent out. 5 Bids were received.
2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The low bid meeting specifications was submitted by
Berggren Equipment at the price of $5,580.00.
3. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that IRC Bid #407 be awarded and that the
purchase be accomplished from Berggren Equipment.
Budgetary funding has been confirmed for expenditure from
Utilities Services, Account Number 706-230-535-066.49.
Staff requests authorization to order the trailer.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #407
for an Equipment Trailer to Berggren Equipment, as
being the lowest bid meeting specifications, in the
amount of $5,580.00, as recommended by staff.
8
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71 177
•
(9) Public Health Unit Report for Period Ending 12/31/87
The Board reviewed letter from the Public Health Director:
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT
2525 141w AVorus
VMO B*CM. F1.32950
Tm .EPWON[ 13051557.1101
SuNCoM 221.5302
February 26, 1988
FROM: Indian River County Public Health Unit
SUBJECT: Report'of'Activities and Expenditures
TSH: Charles.P. Balczun, Indian River County Administrator
Joseph Baird, Office of Budget and Management
TO: Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman of the Board
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
As required by Chapter 154, Florida Statutes, and the contract between the
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Indian River County, the
attached report of the activities and expenditures of the Indian River County
Public Health Unit (CPHU) for the period ending December 31, 1987.is
submitted.
This report is made up of the following sub -reports produced by the CPHU Con-
tract Management System:
1. DE140L1. - "CPHU Contract Management Report" which compares the actual.
. services and expenditures with the contract plan for the
second quarter of the contract;
2. DE235L1. - "Analysis of Fluid Equities" which shows revenue for the re-
port period by source and the balance in the CPHU trust
fund;
3. DE250L1 - "Statement of Budget and Actual Expenditures Per Revenue
Contribution Ratio":
4. "CPHU Program Service Area Variance Report" which explains variance
in actualexpenditures for the report period which are greater or
less than 25 percent of the planned expenditure levels.
Bernard D. Berman, M.D.
Director
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted the Report
of Activities and Expenditures for the Indian River
County Health Unit for the period ending 12/31/87.
COPY OF SAID REPORT IS ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
BOARD.
MAR 15 1988
9
BOOK 71 Fa H 178
(10) Good Life Games Indemnification Agreement
The Board reviewed letter from Golf Director Komarinetz:
TO:
Members of the Board of
County Commissioners
Tf1111: Charles Balczun
County Administrator
FROM:
Bob Kamarinetz'
Director of Go
DATE: February 17, 1988 FILE:
SUBJECT: Good Life Games Indemnification
Agreement
REFERENCES:
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Sandridge Golf Club will be hosting the golf portion of the Good Life Games
on Thursday and Friday April 7th and 8th, 1988. Barnett Bank of Indian
River County are the sponsors of this event and has asked us to sign this
agreement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the Indemni-
fication Agreement with Barnett Bank of Indian River
County re the 1988 Senior Good Life Games at Sandridge
Golf Club.
10 BOOK 71 F'VJ'E 179
MAR 15 1988
YERO BEA04RtIRN RIVER COUNTY RECREATION
eiea�th
....fol 0 1
1988 SENIOR GOOD LIFE GAMES
P.O. Box 2767
Vero Beach, Florida 32961-2767
567.8351, Extension 2294
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
In consideration of having persons attend and participate in
the 1988 Senior Good Life Games (GAMES") at the INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY premises known as Sandridge Golf Club, the COUNTY hereby
agrees to hold harmless and indemnify BARNETT BANK OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, its related corporations, directors, officers,
employees and assigns from any and all liability, claims, losses
and expenses for any damage or injury, caused by the COUNTY's
negligence, to the person or property of any person(s) attending
or participating in the GAMES.
DATED: March 15,
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
, 1988 By:
6,(e/thzike,
Gary . Wheeler, Vice Chairman
:Board of County Commissioners
(11) Report - Occupational License Taxes Collected, Feb/88
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted the
following report from Gene Morris, Tax Collector:
11
MAR 15 1988
BOOK
71 f'ACE ISO
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
DATE: March 2, 1988
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please
be informed that $3,239.40 was collected in occupational license
taxes during the month of February 1988, representing the
issuance of 141 licenses.
Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
(12) Authorization to Amend Tree Protection Ordinance
The Board reviered memo from Community Development Director
Keating:
TO: Charles Balczun
County Administrator
DATE: March 2, 1988
FILE:
AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND
THE COUNTY'S TREE PROTEC-
SUBJECT: TION ORDINANCE
Robert M. Keating, AICP"
WK
Direct•r
•': ,4: Commun'ty—Development DeREFERENCES:
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their.
regular meeting of March 15, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
Recently, one county commissioner suggested that the staff
consider several amendments to the County's tree protection
ordinance. One recommended change is simply to add trees of the
Bald Cypress Family to the list of trees which are protected
regardless of size. Another proposed change is more complex. It
involves assessing the adequacy of tree violation penalties
generally, and in particular considering a specific alternate
penalty procedure for assessing mangrove violations.
Cypress trees are associated with wet "swampy" areas. Cypress
heads or swamps are documented as valuable natural resource areas..
Cypress head habitats are important wildlife refuge areas since
they are well suited for waterfoul, wading birds, turkey roosting
and water adapted reptiles and mammals. Also, many threatened and
endangered species of plants and several threatened wildlife.
12
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71 FACE 131
species are found to depend on cypress head habitats. In
addition, cypress heads form a vital link with surrounding
flatwoods by providing much of the breeding environment for
flatwoods wildlife. This habitat is subject to periodic flooding
and has severe limitations for urban development.
The alternate mangrove penalty assessment method relates to
principles of resource economics which involve analysis of energy
production (and through further application monetary value) of
wetlands systems. By incorporating this methodology in the
ordinance, the penalty for illegal mangrove removal could be
related to the relative value of the tree, rather than set at a
maximum of $500.00 per tree. In conjunction with this analysis,
the planning and legal staffs would identify and evaluate tree
removal violation penalties generally.
Several other tree protection issues have arisen recently and
could be addressed as part of an ordinance amendment. One such
issue is a discrepancy between the state and county mangrove
trimming regulations. Another is understory protection in certain
areas. A third is the timing and requirements for issuance of
landclearing permits in wetland areas.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
Most of the activities required to amend the tree protection
ordinance will not involve a substantial amount of staff time.
The alternate mangrove penalty method, however, will necessitate
considerable staff analysis. This is because using principles of
resource economics to determine mangrove value for penalty
assessment purposes is a new idea, and the application of this
concept may involve a considerable amount of staff work. If
workable however, this method would provide a more equitable
determination of value and therefore a more appropriate penalty.
Generally, the alternatives available to the Board are to
authorize the request as presented, authorize a modification of
the request, or deny the request to authorize. For the first two
alternatives, the principal disadvantages are cost. Primarily)
these costs would involve an expenditure of thirty to fifty hours
of staff time plus the relatively low advertising and notification
costs required for public hearings. The advantages of these
alternatives are: a more equitable ordinance, an innovative
ordinance, an ability for the Board to consider a full analysis of
the issues before making a decision. For alternative 3, no
action, the major advantage is no cost, and the major disadvantage
is retaining the ordinance in its present form.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Board authorize the staff to
undertake the necessary activities to amend the tree protection
ordinance.
Commissioner Eggert noted we had that problem with the dune
clearing on South Beach and asked if she can assume that kind of
thing will be taken up and added.
Director Keating confirmed that it will.
Commissioner Eggert asked if someone is going to do
something about taking pictures of mangroves if their intent is
to go mangrove by mangrove and compare the size, and Director
13
f11AR 15 1988
11.
BOOK 71 F` GE 182
Keating explained that staff is looking at this concept to see if
it is a feasible way to go. They will probably be asking for
some expertise and trying to get some of the people locally who
are familiar with this and will report back with recommendations.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized staff
to take the necessary steps to proceed with amending
the Tree Protection Ordinance.
(13) Final Plat Approval - River Club Subdv. (Grand Harbor)
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Wiegers:
TO: Charles Balczun DATE: February 19, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
DIVIS4ION6'
HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Ke/ting, ICP SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE
Community Develop ent Director RIVER CLUB SUBDIVISION:
GRAND HARBOR
THROUGH: Stan Boling
Chief, Current Development
FROM:Robert E. Wiegers river REFERENCES: river club
Staff Planner BWIEG
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of March 15, 1988.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
River Club subdivision is a proposed 71 lot subdivision of a
±179.25 acre tract located between U.S. #1 and the proposed Harbor
Center area of the Grand Harbor project; and is accessed from U.S.
#1 by 53rd Street. The subdivision plat will cover the entire
±179.25 acre River Club tract which is part of the Grand Harbor
D.R.I. The River Club tract is not part of the Grand Harbor PRD,
and is being developed via a site plan for the River Club golf
course, and via this final plat. The area covered by the golf
course development is ±144.25 acres; the area covered by the
single-family, River Club subdivision development is ±35 acres.
The subject property is zoned RS -6 (Single Family Residential up
to 6 units/acre) and RM -6 (Multiple Family Residential up to 6
units/acre), and has an MD -1 (Medium Density Residential up to 8
units/acre) land use designation. The proposed building density
for the subdivision portion of the River Club tract is ±2.03
units/acre.
14
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71 PAGE 183
At its regular meeting of May 14, 1987, the
Commission granted preliminary plat approval
The owner, River Club of Indian River, Inc.
final plat approval and has submitted:
1. A final plat in conformance with the
plat.
Planning and Zoning
to the subdivision.
, is now requesting
approved preliminary
ANALYSIS:
All required improvements have been constructed, and have been
inspected and approved by the Public Works and Utilities
Department. The final plat is in conformance with the approved
preliminary plat:and all requirements for final plat approval have
been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval to the River Club Subdivision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously granted Final
Plat Approval to River Club Subdivision (Grand Harbor)
(14) Environmntl System Serv. (Frizzell Architects) Phase 11 Jail
The Board reviewed memo of Budget Analyst Leila Miller:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: March 4, 1988
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM SERVICES, INC. -
W. R. FRIZZELL, ARCHITECTS -
PHASE II JAIL
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
FROM: Leila Miller
Budget Analyst
DESCIPTION AND CONDITIONS
W. R. Frizzell, Architect for the Indian River County Jail,
hired Environmental System Services to perform test and balance
surveys. Frizzell has now presented the County with an invoice
for $4,125, of which $3,300 is due to Environmental System
Services Inc. and $825 is due to Frizzell (under the terms of the
contract Frizzell is entitled to a fee of 25% of the billing for
obtaining an outside consultant).
RECOMMENDATIONS
According to H. T. "Sonny" Dean, Owner's Representative at
the project, the work performed by Environmental System Services
Inc. has been carried out in a satisfactory manner. Given this,
staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the payment of $4,125.
MAR 15 1988
15
BOOK
71 usEx.84
Commissioner Bird believed that in new buildings such as
this you assume a certain amount of testing will be involved, and
he asked why this wasn't anticipated and made a part of the
original contract instead of being considered an extra.
OMB Director Baird advised that Owners Representative
"Sonny" Dean would have to answer that, and he isn't here right
now. When this contract was authorized originally, the Board
allowed him to make additional service requests up to about
$3,500 to keep the project rolling.
Commissioner Bird realized it is not a big item, but he felt
we should keep a better check on it in the future as he did not
want to have to pay the architect 25%.
The Chairman agreed it was a bit heavy to add 25% on top; he
felt it generally is 100, and Commissioner Eggert agreed.
OMB Director Baird advised that factor was set out in the
contract so they didn't have much choice.
Commissioner Eggert hoped we will prereview the next
contract, and Commissioner Wheeler advised that is being done now
and they are going over it very carefully.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the
payment of $4,125 as set out in staff's memo dated
March 4, 1988, with the understanding that in the
future we will try to get all this covered in the
original contract
(15) Golf Course - Request for Change in Capital Account
The Board reviewed memos of Budget Analyst Miller and Goff
Director Komarinetz:
16 BOOK .71 `'`:)E 185
MAR 15 1988
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: March 4, 1988
SUBJECT: GOLF COURSE - REQUESTING CHANGE
IN THEIR CAPITAL ACCOUNT
THROUGH: Joseph A. Bairde
OMB Director
Budget Analyst*FROM: Leila Miller
DESCIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Last September, the Board of County Commissioners approved
$82,000 for the Golf Course's Other Machinery and Equipment
account. Three mowers and grinding equipment were to be
purchased with the funds. Bob Komarinetz, Director of Golf,
recently reviewed this account and feels that the funds would be
better applied towards different equipment. He estimated the
cost of the substitute equipment at $75,400 less trade and
discounts (see attached memo).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the change in lists, as it will result in a savings of at
least $6,600 for the County.
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: February 18, 1988
FROM:
Bob Komarinetz
Director of Golf
SUBJECT:
FILE:
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT ACCOUNT
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS
I have reviewed the present equipment list approved last September with
Golf Course Superintendent Roger Welker. We feel that we need to adjust
the list in order to better meet our maintenance needs on the golf course
and still fall within budget.
Old List Approved September 1987
006.49 Other Machinery and Equipment
Fairway Mower $52,000
Grinding Equipment 10,000
Greens Mower 10,000
Greens Mower 10,000
Total $82,000
RECOMMENDATION
New List APPROX. COST
1 Greens type aerifer with tractor
(for use on greens & tees) $17,000
1 Fairway mower jac w/10 blade reels 15,000
1 Tractor (Massey -Ferguson) 10,000
Slope Mowers: Steiner Diesel 9,800
Triplex Deck 6,100
Blower 500
2 Transportation vehicles 8,000
Topdresser (Metermatic Pull Behind) 6,500
Walking Greens Mower (demo) 2,500
(minus trade & discounts) $75,400
Upon approval I will prepare this list with specifications and forward it
to the Purchasing Department to bid on the equipment.
17 BOOK 7a wE 186
MAR 15 1988
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the change
in lists as requested by Golf Director Komarinetz and
set out in his memo.
(16) Budget Amendment #030 - Libraries Increase in State Aid
The Board reviewed memo of Budget Analyst Miller:
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
THROUGH:
FROM:
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
March 4, 1988
VERO BEACH LIBRARY/SEBASTIAN
LIBRARY INCREASE IN STATE AID
BUDGET AMENDMENT 030
Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
Leila Miller
Budget Analyst
DESCRIPTION OF CONDITIONS
The Vero Beach and Sebastian Libraries have received
unanticipated revenue from their budgeted state aid. They expected to
receive $28,148, but their contract actually granted them $35,913, an
increase of $7,765. A budget amendment is needed to record this
increase in revenue. One third is allocated to the Sebastian Library,
two-thirds to the Vero Beach Library. Please see the attached budget
amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the attached budget amendment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Budget
Amendment #030 allocating the increase in revenue for
the Vero Beach and Sebastian Libraries.
MAR 15 198
18
BOOK 71 Fv,[ 1.S?
TO: Members of the Board
Director of Finance
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
FROM: Leila Miller
Budget Analyst
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 030
DATE: March 4, 1988
Entry Number
Fund/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease •
REVENUE
1.
Vero Beach
GF/Library/State Aid General
001-000-334-710.00
7,765
0
EXPENSE
2.
Vero Beach
GF/Library/Books
001-109-571-035.45
4,000
0
Vero Beach
GF/Library/Microforms
001-109-571-035.47
1,177
0
Sebastian
GF/Library/Youth Books
001-112-571-038.11
2,588
0
(17) Budget Amendment #029 - FEMA Grant (Welfare)
The Board reviewed memo of Budget Analyst Miller:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: February 29, 1988
SUBJECT: FEMA GRANT
BUDGET AMENDMENT 029
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
FROM: Leila Miller
Budget Analyst,
DESCRIPTION OF CONDITIONS
Not too long ago, Joyce Johnston, Director of Welfare, successfully
obtained a grant from FEMA for the purpose of aiding welfare recipients
with certain living expenses. A reading of the grant's notification
form seemed to indicate a total award of $56,051, of which $54,952 would.
be used for welfare recipients and $1,099 would be applied to
administrative costs associated with the program (see March 1, 1988
agenda - Budget Amendment 024). When only $54,952 was received from
FEMA rather than the $56,051 expected, Ms. Johnston called the agency
and asked them to explain this difference. She learned from them that
the total amount of the award was actually $54,952 of which $1,099 was
to be used for administrative purposes. As a result of the ambiguous
nature of FEMA's notification form, Budget Amendment 024 is overstated
by $1,099.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board approve Budget Amendment 029,
which corrects Budget Amendment 024 by reducing revenue to the total
amount actually received from FEMA.
MAR 15 1988
19
BOOK 71 PGE 188
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Budget
Amendment #029, correcting Budget Amendment #024 by
reducing the revenue received by Welfare from an
FEMA grant.
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMEN
NUMBER: 029
DATE: February 29, 1988
Entry Number
Fund/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
REVENUE
1.
GF/Welfare/FEMA Grant
001-000-331-066.00
0
1,099
EXPENSE
2.
FEMA Grant .
GF/Welfare/Disbursement
001-211-564-037.09
0
1,099
(18) Budget Amendment #031 - Microfilm Viewer/Printer & Film for
BCC Office
The Board reviewed memo of Budget Analyst Miller:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
FROM:
Leila Miller
Budget Analyst
DATE: March 8, 1988
SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF MICROFILM VIEWER/
PRINTER AND FILM FOR BCC -
BUDGET AMENDMENT 031
DESCRIPTION OF CONDITIONS
On March 1, 1988 the Board of County Commissioners approved the
purchase of a microfilm viewer/printer and film for the purpose of
reducing the amount of floor space needed to hold files in the Board
of County Commissioners office. The attached budget amendment
reflects the anticipated expense of this equipment which was
approved by the Board on March 1, 1988.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the attached budget amendment.
20
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71 F'ASE 189
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Budget
Amendment #031 appropriating funds for purchase of
microfilm equipment for BCC Office.
SUBJECT: BUDGET AN ENDMEN`
NUMBER: 031
DATE: March 8, 1988
Entry Number
Fund/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
EXPENSE
1.
Other
GF/BCC/Contractual Services
001-101-511-033.49
6,575
0
Office
GF/BCC/Funiture & Equipment
GF/BCC/Reserve for Contingency
001-101-511-066.41
001-199-581-099.91
5,110
0
0
11,685
(19) Route 60 Water & Sewer Refinancing - Recommendations
The Board reviewed memo of the OMB Director:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: March 8, 1988
SUBJECT: ROUTE 60 WATER AND SEWER
REFINANCING - RECOMMENDATION
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Last month, the County received four (4) bids for the
refinancing of the State Road 60 Water and Sewer bonds. Art
Diamond, (the County's Financial Advisor) and County staff reviewed
each candidate's proposal; the results are summarized in a letter
from Mr. Diamond dated February 24, 1988 (see attached).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Both staff and Mr. Diamond recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners consider using the lowest bid, First Union Bank, to
obtain the necessary financing. In the event the County and this
institution fail to reach an agreement, however, staff would like
the permission of the Board to negotiate with the next lowest
bidders (Barnett Bank and NCNB).
21
MAR 15 1988
i6._
BOOK 71 ocF.190
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized staff
to negotiate an agreement for financing with the banks
in the order listed.
(20) Judge Kanarek - Request for Monitor & Door Control
The Board reviewed memo from Superintendent Williams:
TO: Charles Balczun DATE: March 7, 1988 FILE:
Administrator
THRU: Perry Mattes
Assistant Administrator
op?
lig ,
m i l l i ams , Supt. REFERENCES:
ilding and Grounds Division
SUBJECT:
Judge Paul 3. Kanarek
Request
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS
Approximately one and a half (1') years ago a security system
was installed in the Circuit Court Judges Office Suite of the
Courthouse. The system requires that access be controlled by
the Circuit Judges judicial assistants, who monitor the entrance
area by closed-circuit television. Presently, monitors are
located on both Judge Smith's and Judge Vocelle's assistants
work stations.
Judge Kanarek has requested that his assistants be supplied
with the monitor and door control for access when the other
assistants are not present.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
I have received a cost estimate from Sonitrol, the original
installer and monitoring company, of $950 for the equipment
and installation of the required equipment. This is a single
source purchase.
RECOMP•IENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of purchase as requested, and that
funding be provided from Coutt Facilities Fund account
# 106-901-526-066.41.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved purchase and
installation of the equipment requested by Judge Kanarek
from Sonitrol, as a sole source, in the amount of $950.
MAR 15 1988
L_
22 BOOK 71 mrE 191
(21) Addtl. R/W Purchase - Virlyn Groves (17th St. SW) -
AiTTOrome Su5. lset tion—pav ni g
The Board reviewed memo from R/W Agent Don Finney:
TO:
Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
THROUGH: 4�;/X.
Ralph N. Brescia,
County Engineer
[r.
P.E.
C
DATE February 26, 1988 FILE:
SUBJECT Additional r/w purchase
Virlyn Groves 17th Street SW
FROM: REFERENCES:
Donald G. Finney SRA
Right of Way Acquisition Agent
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Previously the Board approved and the county closed on the
purchase of road right-of-way at the appraised value of $10,693
per acre.
The engineers have determined additional right-of-way is
needed as shown on the attached drawing. The property owner is
willing to sell to Indian River County the 13,750 sq. ft. at the
same $10,693 per acre appraisal price which equates to a purchase
price of $3,375.35 for the .31566 acre right-of-way.
RECOMMENDATION & FUNDING
Staff requests authorization to purchase the additional
right-of-way for $3,375.35. Funding from Impact Fee District 6.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized purchase
of the additional R/W described above for $3,375.35.
MOVABLE FILES FOR CLERK'S OFFICE - COURTHOUSE ANNEX
Ed Fry, Finance Director, came before the Board to review
the following:
MAR 15 1988
23
BOOK 71 FA E192
TO: The Board of County
Commissioners
DATE: March 8, 1988
FILE:
SUBJECT: Movable Files for Courthouse
Annex Office
FROM: Freda Wright -- :
R FERENCES'
Clerk of the Circuit Court
I would like to have movable files installed in the Annex Office that is
being renovated. Movable files require much less space than filing
cabinets and provide easier access to the court documents.
It is my intention to consolidate County Court Traffic and Misdemeanors
with the Circuit Felony division in the Annex Office. The court cases
handled by these divisions require retention periods of 75 years for
felony cases and five years for misdemeanor cases.
The movable files that I would like to have installed can be acquired from
United Business Systems for an approximate cost of $20,000.00. Ed Fry
.has talked to Joe Baird about a funding source and advises me that
Federal Revenue Sharing Funds would be available to purchase the movable
files.
Please authorize the purchase of the movable files from the Federal
Revenue Sharing Fund.
Chairman Scurlock had just one question. He wished to know
if these files have been ordered already.
Finance Director Fry advised that the track part had to be
ordered before they put the carpets down.
The Chairman asked why the Clerk would order something that
has not been approved in the budget.
Director Fry explained the problem was that they were
starting to put the carpet in, and they wanted to put the track
in first; so, he felt the Clerk made the assumption the Board
would approve it, knowing that if the Board did not approve it,
we would have to have them take it out and we would have to take
the cost out of the Clerk's side.
Chairman Scurlock reminded Director Fry that the Board meets
every Tuesday, and this could have been put on a previous agenda.
He felt we have to make the purchase, but he would like to have
MAR 15 1988
24
BOOK 71 FADE 193
seen it budgeted for in this past year, and he would like to see
this taken from the fee side.
Clerk Freda Wright advised that the reason it was not
budgeted in the last year was because she did not have the space
in the Annex at that time nor did she know whether she would be
able to get it during that time.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the funds can be taken from the
fee side as he felt that is where they should come from.
Mrs. Wright felt there will be ample fees to turn back this
year, and Director Fry stated that he may have to come back to the
Board to amend the fee side of the Clerk's budget in order to be
able to do this.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the
purchase of the movable files requested by the Clerk,
the funding to be
budget.
from the fee side of the Clerk's
DESTRUCTION OF BOARD RECORDS
The Board reviewed the following memo- from the Clerk:
TO: The Board of County
Commissioners
DATE: March 8, 1988 FILE:
SUBJECT: Destruction of Board Records
FROM: Freda Wrights REFERENCES:
Clerk of the Circuit Court
In accordance with Chapters 119 and 125, Florida
is requested to destroy the following records:
1. Sound recordings of Official Board Meetings,
prepared.
2. Deposit slips from 10/1/82 to 9/30/84.
3. Check registers from 10/1/82 to 9/30/84.
4. Cancelled checks from 10/1/81 to 9/30/82.
MAR 15 198
25
Statutes, permission
after transcript is
BOOK 71 PACE 194
5. Utility customer payment receipts from 10/1/82 to 9/30/84.
6. Cash receipts from 10/1/82 to 9/30/84.
7. Bank reconciliations/statements from 10/1/82 to 9/30/84.
8. Accounts Payable/Receivables from 10/1/82 to 9/30/84.
9. Vendor Ledgers from 10/1/82 to 9/30/84.
10. Vendor files from 10/1/82 to 9/30/84.
11. Payroll Registers from 1/1/73 to 12/31/87.
12: Retirement Registers from 1/1/45 to 12/31/79.
13. Retirement summaries from 1/1/75 to 12/31/87.
14. Surety bonds and Performance of Service bonds from Day 1 to
12/31/86.
A records retention schedule has been filed with the State of Florida,
Bureau of Records and Information Management, for all of the records
listed above. A records destruction request has been approved by the
Bureau of Archives and Records Management for all of the records listed
above.
Commissioner Bowman assumed the State Board of Records bases
their destruction schedule upon the statute of limitations.
Finance Director Fry confirmed this and advised that as part
of their records management program they are going through
microfilming those records with a permanent retention period or
an extended retention period.
Commissioner Eggert wished to know how long microfilms of
the Board of County Commission Minutes are retained and was
advised that the Minutes are a permanent retention and are
microfilmed and kept forever. The tapes of the meetings do not
have to be kept indefinitely.
Administrator Balczun suggested that the sound recordings of
the official meetings of the Board be retained for at least 90
days after the meeting is transcribed.
Deputy Clerk Hargreaves informed the Board that presently
the tapes are kept indefinitely, and we have them going back for
almost ten years. We have requests for cassettes to be made from
tapes fairly often, sometimes from tapes a year or two old.
Discussion continued regarding the wording in the memo
requesting that the sound recordings be destroyed after the
transcript is prepared, and Commissioner Eggert pointed out that
MAR 15 1988
26
BOOK- 71 F;.,71.95
the Records Destruction Request in the backup reads as follows:
"Sound recordings of Official Minutes when transcript is
Prepared (Inclusive dates - Day 1 to 12/31/85)"
Finance Director Fry confirmed that actually is the time
frame we are looking at right now. He explained that the
retention schedule is approved by the state, but then it is
necessary to go back to the Division of Archives each time you
actually want to destroy something and set out exactly what it is
you want to destroy.
Commissioner Bird did not feel the tapes take up very much
room and asked if we can retain them and approve everything else.
It was noted that the quality of the tapes deteriorates after
five years or so.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
destruction of Board records as listed, including the
sound recordings of Official Board Meetings from Day 1
to 12-31-85.
TEFRA RESOLUTION € NOTICE (FLA. CONVALESCENT CENTERS REFUNDING OF
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS
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:
MAR 15 1988
27
BOOK 71 r'sa: 196
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
a
W
in the matter of 46
in the QCourt, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of ��n /3,/q' "ou
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 pLblished 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 Rive? Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
(SEAL)
le
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Ind' • • ' fiver County, Florida)
day of /6.
nager)
NOTICE
' The Board of County Commissioners o)• `i_
Indian River County, Florida, hereby pro-"
vides notice of a Public Hearing ached- `,
uled for 9:05 A.M. on March 15, 1988, t0
discuss ;..., i• •_, •,' ..,,;.� c;, s:Atte m.
ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL: DEVELOPMENT•''
BONDS • `. _
Public Notice Is hereby given that dn'Maroh-15,
1988, at 9:05 a.m., the Board of CountyCommis-'
sioners of Indian River County; Florida will meet
at the Indian River County Administration Build-
ing, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL, .tu con-
sider approval of the issuance of not exceeding
84,800.000 of industrial development revenue re-
funding bonds of Indian River County ;10 • be
issued for the purpose of loaning the proceeds
therefrom,: or using such proceeds to refinance
the acquisition, construction, and equipping of a
skilled and immediate care 91 bed nursing home
faciliFlorida, located
Indian at
River County.ero Beach.
for Florida
Convalescent Centers. Inc.. a Florida corpora-
tion. which shall be the principal user of said Fa-
cility.
bondsshall
The industrial
re-
funding payable sol from the
revenues derived by Indian River County from
the financing agreement it shall enter Into with
Florida Convalescent Centers. Inc. or. such other,
agreements as Indian River Count/ shall ap-
prove, except to the extent they are payable from
refunding bonds proceeds. Such refunding
bonds and the interest thereon shall not consti-
tute an indebtedness or pledge of the general
credit or taxing power of Indian River County or
the State of Florida. Issuance of the refunding
bonds of Indian River County shall be subject to
several conditions, including satisfactory docu-
mentation, and approval by counsel as to the
tax-exempt status of the interest on the refund-
ing bonds. The aforementioned meeting shall be
a public meeting and all personsh tmaayy heard
In-
terested will be given an opportunity
concerning the same.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any declsion
which may be made at this meeting will need to'
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
is made, which includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is based.
February 1,9,1988
County Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following, noting that
this is just to take care of a little "glitch" and our Bond
Counsel has requested this.
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County torney
DATE: February 23, 1988
RE: TEFRA RESOLUTION AND NOTICE
FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS
REFUNDING OF INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS
B.C.C. MEETING MARCH 15, 1988
To satisfy the request of the attorneys handling the
closing on the refunding of the referenced industrial
development revenue bonds, the County has scheduled a public
hearing to discuss the attached resolution for TEFRA notice.
AR 15 1988
28 BOOK 71 F'{,c 197
•
This matter was previously heard and approved by the Board
at its meeting September 29, 1987. It is being acted on
again on March 15, 1988, in order to include the actual
street address of the Florida Convalescent Center building.
Passage of the attached resolution will allow the bond
closing to proceed; therefore, staff recommends the Board
authorize the Chairman to execute it.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard, and
upon determining there were none, declared the public hearing
closed.
UPON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 88-16 approving the issuance of Industrial
Development Refunding Bonds for Florida Convalescent
Centers.
RESOLUTION NO. 88- 16
WHEREAS, Indian River County, Florida (the "County"), adopted
Resolution 87-139 on November 24, 1987, wherein the County
authorized the issuance of its Variable Rate Demand/Fixed Rate
Industrial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds (Florida
Convalescent Centers, Inc. Project), in the aggregate principal
amount of $4,800,000 (the "Bonds"), for the purposes of refinancing
the cost of.acquisition, construction and equipping of the facility
owned by Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc. (the "Corporation")
consisting of certain land, buildings, structures and equipment
comprising a skilled and intermediate care nursing home facility
(the "Project") which is located at 1755 37th Street, Vero Beach,
in Indian River County, Florida, and refunding the entire
outstanding principal amount of the County's $4,800,000 Industrial
.Development Revenue Bond, Series 1986 (Florida Convalescent
Centers, Inc. Project) (the "Prior Bond"), issued to provide
initial financing for the Project;
WHEREAS; the County is authorized to issue the Bonds to
refinance the Project and refund the Prior Bond pursuant to the
provisions of the Florida Industrial Development Financing Act,
Part II of Chapter 159, Florida °Statutes, as amended; and
WHEREAS, in order to satisfy the requirements of Section
147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the County
held a public hearing on the proposed issuance of the Bonds on the
date of adoption hereof, more than 14 days following the first
29
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71. f'CE 198
publication of notice of such public hearing in a newspaper of
general circulation in Indian River County, Florida (a true and
accurate copy of the publication of notice is attached hereto as
Exhibit "A"), which public hearing was conducted in a manner that
provided a reasonable opportunity for persons with differing views
to be heard with regard to both the issuace of the Bonds and the
location and nature of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, is the elected legislative body of the County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the issuance of
the Bonds is hereby approved in compliance with the requirements of
Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
The Clerk is authorized to make such applications to the State of
Florida,' Department of General Services, Division of Bond Finance
as may be necessary to enable the County to issue the Bonds.
ADOPTED this 15th day of March, 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE UPDATING BUILDING CODE (PLUMBING,
ENERGY, MECHANICAL, ETC.)
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:
NiAR 1 b 1988
30
BOOK 71 r'',GE 199
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
asZle,e;)
in the matter of `��Rr/Y�./7Q
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
. � &L_ /fere
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribe
(SEAL)
day ofit D. 19 et
sjness Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Ir • n River County, Florida)
• The Board. of County CommissionerOTICEs sof Indian
River County, Florida. provides notice of a Pub-
lic Hearing scheduled for 9:05 A.M. on March
15, 1088, to discuss a proposed ordinance relat-
ing to Indian River County entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
FLORIDA MAKING ADDITIONS, DELECTIONS
AND AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 11114 (ENERGY
EFFICIENCY BUILDING CODE);. ARTICLE V
(GAS CODE); ARTICLE VING COD
ARTICLE VH (MECHANICAL( PLUMCODE). ANO ARTE);I
CLE VIII (HOUSING CODE), CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY;
PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING
FOR INCORPORATION IN CODE; AND PROVID-
ING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. •
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 proceed_;
Inge is made, which Includes testimony and evl-j
dance upon which the appeal Is based. .f
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS .!
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR., CHAIRMAN
FEBRUARY 213, 1988
County Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that all the
proposed ordinance does is update our technical codes by one
year, which we have to do every year.
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard. There
none, and he thereupon declared the public hearing closed.
MAR 15 1988
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 88-12 amending the County's existing
Building Code to bring them up to date.
31
were
BOOK 71 ['An 200
ORDINANCE NO. 88- 12
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA MAKING ADDITIONS,
DELETIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE
IIIc (ENERGY EFFICIENCY BUILDING
CODE); ARTICLE V (GAS CODE);
ARTICLE VI (PLUMBING CODE); ARTICLE
VII (MECHANICAL CODE); AND ARTICLE
VIII (HOUSING CODE), CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVER-
ABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORA-
TION IN CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR
EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida;
SECTION 1.
Section 4-31, Code of Laws and Ordinances is amended to
read:
Section 4-31. Standard Building Code adopted.
The Standard Building Code, 1985 edition, including
Appendix A, and the 1986/87 Revisions, as published by the
Southern Building Code Congress is hereby adopted by
reference as the Indian River County, Florida, Building
Code, subject to the limitations, exceptions, and
modifications set forth herein.
SECTION 2.
Section 4-38, Code of Laws and Ordinances is amended to
read:
Section 4-38. Energy efficiency building code adopted.
The 19814/ bIAAAbh/ /o/f/ /t/hte Florida Model Energy Code for
Building Construction published by the Governor's Energy
Office for the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of
Code Standards, is hereby adopted by reference as the Indian
River County, Florida, Energy Efficiency Building Code.
SECTION 3.
Section 4-81, Code of Laws and Ordinances is amended to
read:
CODING: Words in %ft0 V/Wnb/JL' type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
32
f : R 15 1988
BOOK 71 WI 201
Section 4-81. Standard Gas Code adopted.
The Standard Gas Code, 1985 edition, 1986/87 Revisions,
as printed by the Southern Building Code Congress, is hereby
adopted by reference as the gas code of Indian River County,
Florida, with such modifications as hereinafter set forth.
SECTION 4.
Section 4-91, Code of Laws and Ordinances is amended to
read:
Section 4-91. Standard Plumbing Code adopted.
The standard Plumbing Code, 1985 edition, 1986/87
Revisions, as printed by the Southern Building Code
Congress, is hereby adopted by reference as the plumbing
code of Indian River County, Florida; with such
modifications as herein set forth.
SECTION 5.
Section 4-101, Code of Laws and Ordinances is amended
to read:
Section 4-101. Standard Mechanical Code adopted.
The Standard Mechanical Code, 1985 edition, 1986/87
Revisions, as printed by the Southern Building Code
Congress, is hereby adopted by reference as the mechanical
code of Indian River County, Florida, with such
modifications as herein set forth.
SECTION 6.
Section 4-106, Code of Laws and Ordinances is amended
to read:
Section 4-106. Standard Housing Code adopted.
The Standard Housing Code, 1985 edition, 1986/87
Revisions, is hereby adopted by reference as the housing
code for Indian River County, Florida, with such
modifications as may be set forth by the Board of County
Commissioners by ordinance.
33
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71 FACE 202
SECTION 7.
Conflicting Provisions.
Special acts of the Florida legislature applicable only
to unincorporated areas of Indian River County, County
ordinances and County resolutions, or parts thereof, in
conflict with this ordinance are hereby superseded by this
ordinance to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 8.
Severability.
If any section, or if any sentence, paragraph, phrase,
or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall
not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance, and it
shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to
pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or
inoperative part.
SECTION 9.
Incorporation in Code.
This ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code of
Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County and the word
"ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other
appropriate word and the sections of this ordinance may be
renumbered or relettered to accomplish such purposes.
SECTION 10.
Effective Date.
This ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from
the Secretary of State of the State of Florida of official
acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed with the
Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 15th
day of
March
, 1988.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press -Journal on the 26th day of February , 1988, for a
NAR 15 1988
34
BOOK 71 Pa _,t 203
public hearing to be held on the 15th day of March
1988,
at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Eggert
Bowman
vote:
, seconded by Commissioner
and adopted by the following
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler,
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Aye
Aye
re
ye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By:
Vice ha'i ri
ASSESSMENT ROLL & AWARD OF CONTRACT - WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
BREEZEWOOD PARK, LITTLE PORTION & SUNNYDALE SUBDV.
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:
BAR 15 1988
35
Booz 71 FAT 204
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
RUNTY 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
a
in the matter of �L)
7'/4'
RECEIVED MAR 0 Li 1988
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
_ do Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before e this day of e •D• 19 re
A
1 4.ysi.aiiK�1J,. . of
siness Manager)
(SEAL)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, I
ian River County, Florida)
The Board reviewed Utility staff memo:
PUBLIC NOTICE
A Notice is hereby given that the Department of
Utility Services will hold an Informational Meet-
ing on Tuesday, March 8th, 1988 at 7:30 PM, In
the Commission Chambers.' The Board of
Commissioners
Indian River
will tod a PublicHearing onuesday, March
15th, 1988, at 9:05 AM, in the Commission
Chambers of the County Administration Build-
ing, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, to
discuss the WATER IMPROVEMENTS TO 71ST
AVENUE AND 71ST COURT, SOUTH OF STATE
ROUTE 60 that have been prepared by the
County's consultant, Masteller & Moler Associ-
ates, inc. The improvmeMs are for a Potable
Water Distribution system and tire protection.
Copies of the pians will be available at the Infor-
mational Meeting for review as well as at the De-
partment of Utility Services office during normal
working hours atter February 15, 1988. All inter -
ed parties are invited to attend the Informa-
tiotnal Meeting as well as the Public Hearing, and
all persons wishing to speak will be given an op-
resentation
portunity
• the�coonsultto do antoFor ladditionat information,
contactIndian River
ment at 567-8000, extension 4f, orMs-Rowe a
Sommers at Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc.
at 0.
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING
FOR CERTAIN WATER IMPROVE-
MENTS TO BREEZEWOOD PARK, UT -
TLE PORTION, AND SUNNYDALE
ACRES SUBDNISIONS, PROVIDING
THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST,
METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESS
MENTS, ANNUAL IN-
STALLMENTS,BER AND OFANDDESCRIP-
- TION OF AREAS SPECIFICALLY
SERVED.
Dated the 15th day of February, 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.. .
CHAIRMAN
February 11, 18, 25;1988
TO:
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL T -SERVICES
FROM:
CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
JOHN FREDERICK LANG
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIA IST
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 1988
SUBJECT: 71ST AVENUE & 71ST COURT - WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
BREEZEWOOD PARK, LITTLE PORTION, AND SUNNYDALE SUBDIVISIONS
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -87 -20 -DS
BACKGROUND
The Board of County Commissioners in their meeting of September 15,
1987 approved the preparation of detailed cost estimates for
engineering and construction, the work authorization for engineering,
and a preliminary assessment roll. The Department of Utility Services
has had engineering plans drawn up by the firm of Masteller & Moler
Associates, Inc.
36
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71 Fa,E 205
•
Included in the plans were firm cost estimates for construction
totalling $113,000.00. The Department of Utility Services wishes to
proceed with the project by adoption of a Resolution.
ANALYSIS
The bids for the project have been opened and the low bid was
$99,977.50 made by Tri -Sure Corporation. This company and the bid have
been approved by the consulting firm of Masteller & Moler Associates,
Inc. The total estimated project cost for use in the preliminary
assessment roll is $126,080.00 at a cost of $1,970.00 per connection.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners authorize awarding the bid to the low bidder, Tri -Sure
Corporation, and execute the contract documents for the subject
project. These documents will be forwarded under separate cover.
Chairman Scurlock noted that this is his neighborhood; he
lives at 1656 71st Court; and he asked the Attorney if he should
vote on this issue or not.
Attorney Vitunac recommended that Commissioner Scurlock do
vote since this is not anything relating to a personal financial
gain, and he has let it be known that he does live in this
neighborhood.
Asst. Utilities Director Jeff Barton advised that this
project was before the Board on September 15th, at which time the
Board authorized staff to go ahead with the design, bid the
project, and go through the workshop hearings. He informed the
Board that they held a public meeting with the individuals
involved on March 8th between 7:30 and 9:30 P.M. in the
Commission Chambers and reviewed the project.
Mr. Barton explained that staff is proceeding a little bit
differently than they have in the past with such a project.
Usually they have worked based on estimates, and this is the
first time they actually have the hard costs. The project has
been bid; there were four bidders, and the low bid came in tower
than the engineer's estimate. The majority of the costs are
known - the total cost of the project as proposed and bid is
$126,060, which includes the low bid of $99,977.50 plus
engineering costs, inspection fees, reserve for contingencies,
37
MAR 15 1988
NOOK 1 FADE 206
etc. If we go on to the Board of Equalization with the assess-
ment roll, we cannot exceed that figure. Mr. Barton continued
that at the meeting last Tuesday some changes were suggested by
the public which they have instituted because the information
they sent out included only the proposed assessment of $1,910 per
parcel for the line extension and did not explain that once the
line was in place it was going to cost them another $1,295 to
connect on.
Chairman Scurlock believed all that information should be
included in a cover letter next time, and Asst. Director Barton
reported they are trying to be more effective in the paperwork
they send out, and they are sending out a letter today spelling
out all the costs involved.
Commissioner Wheeler wished to know if there is a reason the
Board doesn't have any material on the bidders, and Mr. Barton
thought it had come to the Board. He advised there were four
bidders, and Tri -Sure Corp. was the low bidder.
Commissioner Eggert asked if all utility projects have the
state required 5% contingency the same as the Library and the
jail, and Asst. Utilities Director Barton advised that while they
don't have a state required minimum, they allow for a 10%
contingency on their construction projects mainly because of what
has happened in the past with working on estimates.
Chairman Scurlock asked about the percentage of people in
favor of the project.
Asst. Director Barton explained that there was a petition at
one time, but it was just for a part of the total project that is
being done now. One thing that helped this project come to
fruition was when Lake in the Woods Subdivision brought the major
transmission line over from the north side of SR 60 and these
other subdivisions then had available and were saved the $200,000
cost to jack and bore under the highway.
The Chairman determined that no one further wished to be
heard and thereupon declared the public hearing closed.
MAR 15 1988
38
BGOK 71 PAA 207
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution
88-17 approving the assessment roll for Lots 1-24
Breezewood Park; Lots 1-32 Little Portion Subdv.; and
Lots 1-25 Sunnydale Acres Subdv.; and awarded the bid
to the low bidder, Tri -Sure Corporation, in the amount
of $99,977.50.
RESOLUTION NO. 88-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN WATER
IMPROVEMENTS TO BREEZEWOOD
PARK, LITTLE PORTION, AND
SUNNYDALE ACRES SUBDIVISIONS,
PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF
ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL
INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DES-
CRIPTION OF AREAS SPECIFICALLY
SERVED.
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Utilities Department has
received requests from owners of property in the areas to be
specifically benefitted, requesting water improvements within the
Breezewood Park, Little Portion and Sunnydale Acres Subdivisions on
71st Avenue and 71st Court; and
WHEREAS, conceptual design work including cost estimates have
been completed by the Department of Utility Services and their
contracted engineering consultant, Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc.;
and
WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the proposed water
improvements is $126,080.00; and
WHEREAS, the lowest bid was $99,977.50 for the construction of
the water main from Tri -Sure Corporation; and
WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall be an
equal proportion of 100% of the cost of the project, less adjustments
by the Department of Utility Services, for each given record owner of
property within the specific area benefitted, and on which a residence
is located or capable of being located, and shall become due and
payabletat the office of the Indian River County Department of Utility
Services ninety (90) days after the final determination of the special
assessment pursuant to Ordinance No. 81-27; and
MAR 15 1988 39 BOOK 71 fA [ 2O8
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 date of Final Assessment, payable annually; but any
assessment becoming so payable in installments may be paid at any time
together with interest accrued thereon to date of payment; and
WHEREAS, after examination of the nature and the anticipated
usage of the constructed improvements, the Board of County
Commissioners has determined that the following described properties
shall receive a direct and special benefit from these improvements, to
wit:
LOTS 1-24 of BREEZEWOOD PARK;
LOTS 1-32 of LITTLE PORTION SUBDIVISION; and
LOTS 1-25 of SUNNYDALE ACRES SUBDIVISION.
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. The project providing for water improvements on 71st Avenue and
,71st Court south of State Route 60, heretofore designated as
Indian River County Department of Utility Services Project Number
UW -87 -20 -DS;, 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 Bird and, upon being put to vote, the vote
was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Aye
Vice Chairman Gary Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Carolyn Eggert Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this
15th day of March , 1988.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
IVIAR 15 1988
40
. W+lheeler, Vice Chairman ��n
BOOK / ._ fA;r
X.11.4. Notice of Award
TO:
NOTICE OF AWARD
CoRPoRATi )
e. o. Pox
veuk
663
I FL_ 338 23
PR ECT Description: 7l 3.1 'tF ) 7/ It C Gt', M( 1411 id
nJi f NSA 0 . '- R c �z a,(FCT Q0. C(i -1)s
The OWNER has considered the BID submitted by you for the ab
desc ibed WORK in response to its Advertisement of Bids dated ' Jq�v�
) K
described
191a, and Information for Bidders.
You are here no i ierdO that your BID has been accepted for items in
the amount of 8 .
You are requited by the Information for Bidders to execute the
Agreement and furnish the required CONTRACTOR'S Performance BOND,"Payment
BOND and Certificates of Insurance within ten (10) calendar days from the
date of this Notice to you.
If you fail to execute said Agreement and to furnish said BONDS
within ten (10) calendar days from the date of this Notice, said OWNER
will be entitled to consider all your rights arising out of the OWNER'S
acceptance of your BID as abandoned and as a forfeiture of your BID BOND.
The OWNER will be entitled to such other rights as may be granted by law.
You are required to return an acknowledged copy of this NOTICE OF,
AWARD to the;.OWNER.Q ,,/ p
Dated this -/ day of tit/ RCP 19 S8 .
(Owner) 10 1AA) QWQR' o 'TY WA/ los £»/7
By: ' 4f (1/ / /11 d
Title: b►REcTa C.4 SeRVicES
ACCEPTANCE OF NOTICE
Receipt of the above NOTICE�OF AWARD is hereby acknowledged by
//2.z 5cl/t.. (�/r.� Oil
this the
By:
Titi
4
Aot.ei
MAR 15 1988
41
, 19 r/G
BOOK. 71 w3E210
NOTICE TO PROCEED
To: ./R/ CORN/1/i7,000
P�. gox 6,53
i4liadpa1 bite 1 k s38)
Date: 3/15/3g
Project: TRL eaoiFCT 130. U6t187-90-b-S
e7/14 /-+UPN t E 71 S4 (-647 S -c e1 , l S.N3o
GZJh -r/? 01-1Ai0 fki r'ouS/NO
You are hergky notified 5 to commence WORK in accord nce with the
1greeiefoent dated //��l! , 19 GS, on or before RI L. 0;
and you are to complete the WORK within <
calendar days thereafter. „Tell date of completio/ of all coWORK utis,
therefore, the 1(1 day of j IL , 19 ZS
ACCEPTANCE OF. NOTICE
Receipt of the above NOTICE TO
PROCEE'. s hereby ac
by
Ar4t)?/.1.,
the . Z S may of 11/044,
by t\AMcS N . C NAtt,a&Qs
(Owner) /0 Auk
Bygifi6 / ,#9 /1()
Title: bl4C i o Q
Title:
•
0r
ADDENDUM #1
JT7' Ur/ L1T/(s 1fP7
VI" r1.) %CVic
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT #UW87-20-DS
POTABLE WATER MAIN
. BREEZEWOOD PARK SUBDIVISION
TO ALL BIDDING CONTRACTORS:
Please be advised that the following additions, revisions,
and/or amendments have been made to the Contract Documents as
noted:
SPECIFICATIONS
1. Article 1.9.11. Florida (5%) Sales Tax; has been
deleted.
2. Article 1.10.1. Form of Proposal;
Has been amended to delete item number 18. "Florida Sales
Tax as applies to this Contract" sad has been amended to
read "The above "Total Amount Bid" for items #1 through -
#17 shall be the basis of award of the Contract .."
Please indicate receipt of this notice by completing the
bottom portion of this notice and returning a copy to Masteller
& Moler. Associates, Inc., Post Office Box 781045, Sebastian,
Florida 32978-1045. You are requirdd to include an executed
copy of this notice with your submitted bid.
42
MAR 15 1988 BOOK 71 F iE 211
ADDENDUM *1 Received and considered by:
Name of Bidder (Please Print):
Tri -Sure Corporation
Name of Bidder's Representative:
Signature of Bidder'
Representative:
Titles
James H. Chambers
lease Print)
Prpsi
Date: Jan
.1 .1. Fora+ of Agement ( Cont' d )
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreeme
day and year first written above.
Signed and sealed by the
Contractor in the presence of:
By:,..irg�.u.e, ,.,,
' NOTARY POILIC STATE OF FLORIDA
MY COMMISSION EXP. NAY 4, 1991
IDfl 2 TNRU
GENERAL INS. VW.
Signed and sealed by the
Owner in the presence of:
By s
agtOlaeeleA. 6
&MAILr1 ' PC
Not ed and Ap rea-
(Contractor)
Attest:
(Seal)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY (Owner)
:)"'s 46"2-66'
Don Scurlock, Chairma
Attest::iZ� 7�1J/Z4
4
Fr da Wright, n y.
EW
Q (Seal)
,.
. ////i / ,i�2I
r = er 'int • , Director
By:
Ut lity Services Department
es Ba 1�c3.c�n
ty Administrat
I
BY: (od C�.tAd
• Jo eph/Baird
D actor of Budget Department
This foregoing Contract Agreement is in correct form according to law and
in hereby approved:
Charles Vitunac, County Attorney
CONTRACT WITH TRI -SURE CORPORATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD IN ITS ENTIRETY.
43
MAS 15 1988
BOOK F'!,;7. 212
JULY 1987 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOUR 04618 9101,/x!
Published Daily rye T
Vero Beach, Indian River Coun..LFIor*J�R19O r
:n : ^ECrlt/L'0 isl
4 •sari.. rily .:1%74•iRIVER STATE OF FLORIDA aT G�;:•loprrl,.nJ:ppear. SLLw . P r. wri
:ersigned authority aropersonatly fe88.J tai
our
•e38 Manager
anRivea erof t' FI/orro Beachthe attache. tlaHrlykk neY.spapa,1,
. 'gt e4�,V
•
illi
shed
being
in the matter of lA> S2 G� G it LL/.151—
in the . _ Court, was Pub.
.taper m the .ssues of
• nays that the said Vero Beach PressJournal rs a newspaper published at
.1 Indian River County. Florida. and that the said newspaper has heretofore
;. nb;ished said Indian River County. Florida. each daily and has been
c ass ter at the
st off ice m Vero Beach. in
Ind
••r..,d an River
of one yeto
year next preceding ng the lust publication of
t e attached tp c uof
.orcins Wither says that he has neither paid nor promised any raison. lam
. discount. rebase commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
pabbCal.on in the sauf newspaper.
+hday of i Y later•
ems Were alhi/
A.D. 19
I' u as N. nagert
1t iii
Peri •os Irie Circblt Crlun. India Rive�County, Florida)
MAR 15 1988
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF .LAND USE
. , IV"
W�� Mik,S
C'.7 1 1
C ,`\volitlfvo
• t• . i`! nTiiy.y.i 1 -ryv Vit r iUr
ieoniegNa/rer!r_...
The Board of County Carrs mis iionms of brims River County, Florida, will consider
the adoption of an ordinance to change the use of land within the unincorporated
portions of Indian River County as shams In the maps of this advertisement, as well as
to amend the text of specific &entertls of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposals will be
held on Tuesday, March 15, 1988, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers
of the County Ad minishatianAtuitd•+rhg, located of 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida. At this public hearing the Board of County Commissioners will consider
adoption of these amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
amendments -am included in a proposed on%togpsntitted,
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COtiV11f, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND
USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS' OF THE. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
ENLARGING THE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE AT C.R. 512 AND 1-95 FROM
650 ACRES TO 665 ACRES, ENLARGING THE COMMERCIAL NODE AT OSLO
ROAD AND 27TH AVENUE FROM 58 ACRES TO 60 ACRES, ENLARGING THE
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE AT 051.0 ROAD AND 74TH AVENUE FROM 450
ACRES TO 690 ACRES, ENLARGING THE S.R. 60/1-95 COMMERCIALLINDUSTRIAL
NODE FROM 650 ACRES TO 790 ACRES, REDESIGNAT1NG 145 ACRES SOUTH OF
69TH STREET AND EAST OF THE LATERAL "O" CANAL FROM LD -2 TO 1.0-1,
ESTABLISHING A MIXED USE DISTRICT ON THE EAST SIDE OF U.S. 1 FROM A
POINT SOUTH .09 35TH STREET SOUTH OF THE VERO BEACH CITY LIMITS,
ESTABLISHING AN LD -2 LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE RIVER EDGE .
SUBDIVISION RECENTLY DEANNEXED FROM THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, AMENDING ,
THE NOMENCLATURE OF ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE
COUNTY THOROUGHFARE PLAN, ADDING 43RD AVENUE BETWEEN 69TH STREET
AND 77TH STREET AS •A SUBDMSION COLLECTOR STREET TO THE
THOROUGHFARE PLAN, ADDING 2ND STREET BETWEEN 20TH AVENUE AND OLD
DIXIE HIGHWAY AS A SUBDIVISION COLLECTOR STREET TO THE THOROUGHFARE •
PLAN, CHANGING THE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION ON THE THOROUGHFARE
PLAN FOR 73RD STREET EAST OF U.S. 1 FROM A SECONDARY COLLECTOR STREET
TO A SUBDIVISION COLLECTOR STREET= AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the
transmittal of these proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. The plan amendment
application may be inspected by the public at the Community Development Division
offices located on the second floor of the County Administration Building located at
1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florido, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
on weekdays. • • •
Anyone who may wish b appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting
will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made which includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s• Don C. Scurlock, Chairman
44
KOK 71 FAH 213
Community Development Director Keating reviewed the
following:
TO: Charles P. Balczun DATE: March 3, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
-- �,�.% JULY 1987 COMPREHENSIVE
Ro ert'fM Keat ng AI' SUBJECT: PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS
Community Develop ent Director
THRU: Gary Schindler %l
Chief, Long-Range
��..Planning
oolann�
FROM: staff Plannevid r,
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 15, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Community Development Division received two Comprehensive
Plan amendment applications in July of 1987 and initiated ten
amendment applications, three at the request of the Public Works
Division.
The staff has reviewed these amendment applications and made
recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission which,
sitting as the Local Planning Agency, held public hearings on
September 10, 1987, to consider making recommendations on the
proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan.
In 1986, the State Legislature revised the local government
Comprehensive Plan amendment procedure. The process now requires
the first public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners to
be held prior to the transmittal of each request to the State
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for a mandatory ninety -day
review period. At that public hearing, the Board has the
option of transmitting or not transmitting any or all of the
proposed amendments to the State for review. Failure to
authorize transmittal of any proposed amendment constitutes
denial of that request; however, transmittal of an application
does not indicate Board approval of the request.
On October 27, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners reviewed
these requests for consideration to transmit each request to the
DCA for review. The Board approved 8 of the 10 for transmittal.
Denying transmittal of two of the 10 requests constituted an
automatic denial of these requests and the concurrent rezoning
requests which accompanied them.
All the comments from DCA have been received. The Board of
County Commissioners must now consider the proposed amendments
for final action. At the close of these final hearings, the
Board may adopt all, part of, or none of the proposed amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan. The attached flow chart illustrates
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process as amended by the 1986
state planning legislation.
In order to approve each request it will be necessary for the
Board of vote on each of the Comprehensive Plan amendment
applications individually. Three affirmative votes are required
for approval.
45
MAR 15 1988
DooK 71 F'" 214
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
These amendments are to the Comprehensive Plan and associated
Land Use Map. Because of this, the staff feels that the best
method of approval is through one ordinance containing all
amendment requests. This ordinance is attached to this item.
Once all public hearings have been completed, the Board should
motion and vote to approve the attached ordinance in its entirety
if all amendments are approved, or in part if any amendments are
denied.
Further, it will be necessary to amend the land use for those
parcels with accompanying concurrent request for rezoning.
Becase the new land uses should be in place prior to final action
on the concurrent rezonings, it is recommended that action on
these rezonings be delayed until the attached ordinance has been
formally acted on.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends:
1. Action on concurrent rezonings be delayed until formal
action has been taken on all land use amendments; and
2. That the Board of County Commissioners approve the
attached ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan and
related Land Use Map as presented.
Director Keating explained that the proposed ordinance
covers all the proposed Comp Plan amendments and should not be
adopted until after all those amendments are considered and acted
on, at which time all those approved will be included in the
ordinance. Director Keating further noted that the Comp Plan
changes must be considered before the related rezonings can be
acted on, and the ordinances for the rezonings which are approved
will be adopted after the overall Comp Plan amendment ordinance
is adopted.
The Chairman asked if we will just keep the public hearing
open throughout the consideration of the various proposed Compre-
hensive Plan amendments, and the County Attorney confirmed that
could be done.
The Chairman thereupon opened the public hearing on all the
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments.
MAR 15 1988
46
BOOK 71 ME 215
AMENDMENT TO TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Director Keating reviewed staff recommendation:
TO:
Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Ro ert M. It ng,/XICP SUBJECT:
Community Development Director
THRU: Gary Schindler //WI
Chief, Long -Range Planning
eri J. Boudreaux LA*
FRO"Staff Planner, Long-Range
P E+9 ENCES:
DATE: March 3, 1988
FILE:
AMENDMENTS TO THE TRANS-
PORTATION ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 15, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Planning and Public Works Divisions are requesting an
amendment to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
amending the Thoroughfare Plan as follows:
(1) Changing the functional classification nomenclature for
roadways on the Thoroughfare Plan and developing an
additional map for the new subdivision collector roads.
The proposed changes to the nomenclature are as
follows:
Existing
Classification
Arterial
Primary Collector
Secondary Collector
Proposed
Classification
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Subdivision Collector
The Public Works Division has also requested the following
amendments to the Thoroughfare Plan:
(1) Adding 43rd Avenue as a subdivision collector road
between 69th Street and 77th Street;
(2) Adding 2nd Street as a subdivision collector road
between 20th Avenue and Old Dixie Highway.
In addition, the staff has received an application requesting
that the Thoroughfare Plan be amended as follows:
(1) Reclassifying 73rd Street, east of U.S. Highway #1 to
the Indian River, from a secondary collector to a
subdivision collector. In addition, the staff proposes
to re-classify 73rd Street between Old Dixie Highway
and the Indian River from a secondary collector to a
subdivision collector. =
The Transportation Planning Committee approved 5-0 these requests
as presented at their September 9, 1987 meeting.
Also, on September 10, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission
voted 5-0 to approve these requests.
MAR 15 1988
47
BOOK 71 FA E 218
On October 27, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners voted
unanimously (4 to 0) to approve the transmittal of this
comprehensive plan amendment request to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) for a required 90 day review period.
On January 20, 1988, the Planning Department received comments
from DCA relative to this comprehensive plan amendment
application. The DCA's comments on this request are as follows:
"Our review of the proposed amendments to the Transportation
Element of the comprehensive plan indicates that they are
consistent with the provisions of Section 163.3177, Florida
Statues, which were in effect prior to October 1985."
The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and the Florida
Department of Transportation had no comments on this
comprehensive plan amendment.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The proposed changes to the functional classification
nomenclature for roadways on the Thoroughfare Plan are requested
in order to provide a better description for the actual function
of the roadways, to be consistent with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) classifications, and to designate a new
class of road called subdivision collector.
The requested addition to the Thoroughfare Plan of 43rd Avenue
between 69th Street and 77th Street as a subdivision collector is
proposed in order to ensure access to individual parcels of
property in the area. Also, 43rd Avenue is necessary to provide
proper access for proposed future development in the area.
Adding 2nd Street between 20th Avenue and Old Dixie Highway as a
subdivision collector is proposed due to the fact that this
street is functioning and is designed as a subdivision collector
at the present time.
The re-classification of 73rd Street, east of U.S. Highway #1 to
the Indian River from a secondary collector to a subdivision
collector has been requested by the applicant. The staff
proposes extending the request to include the area east of Old
Dixie Highway to the Indian River due to the fact that 73rd
Street between 58th Avenue and Old Dixie Highway has previously
been deleted from the Thoroughfare Plan to accommodate the
County's Sandridge Golf Course. Also, 73rd Street east of U.S.
Hwy. #1 does not serve a large enough area of land to generate
traffic volumes demanding a secondary collector road.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation and the Transportation Planning
Committee's recommendation, staff recommends approval of these
changes to the thoroughfare plan as an amendment to the
Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Director Keating advised that the only advantage to having a
subdivision collector is to keep driveways on the roads of lower
functional classification.
Commissioner Bird asked if Director Keating was sure they
have the right streets. He noted that 69th Street is North
Winter Beach Road, and he believed 77th goes through Sandridge
Golf Course and right through Hobart Park.
48
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71 F[217
Director Keating referred to Attachment 2, and advised that
goes (through the Mooney property and would be east of the golf
course:
MAR 15
PROPOSED
Indian River County
_ 'i'll Thoroughfare Plan
r.
. elf ' N\ • o'llik Minor Art•rial
1 44° '
ill
stlj : ;.1: ‘ \E.'‘ 1 4:411/4 PROPOSED
r
i
CHANGE
,
111111111111 11111 111 1 1111111111
St
Ih St
•
Commissioner Bird noted that the Mooney property is south of
69th Street, and he believed staff's description is wrong.
Director Keating stated he will have staff check on this.
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard, and there
were none.
It was agreed to table further discussion until staff could
check the road description.
In the interim the Board considered amending the Comp Plan
to enlarge the Oslo Road & 27th Ave. Commercial node, which
action is included in the Minutes following conclusion of
consideration of the Transportation Element.
988
49
ROOK 71 218
Discussion resumed in regard to adding 43rd Avenue as a
subdivision collector road between 69th Street and 77th Street,
and Director Keating confirmed that the correct location of the
road being discussed is from 69th St. to 77th St. and it is east
of the golf course.
Commissioner Bird continued to express concern about a
proposed road that would bisect the plans they are presently
developing for Treasure Ridge Golf Course which lies east of
Sandridge. He pointed out that on 43rd Avenue everything runs at
a diagonal to U.S.I, but where it intersects at Hobart, it runs
into Old Dixie. The address of Treasure Ridge Golf Course is
4415 77th St; 43rd Avenue would be east of them; and Commis-
sioner Bird did not feel there is any room between the Hobart
plant and the railroad tracks for a road.
The Board referred to the map, and Engineer Orr stated that
the road will come in right at the line between the grove and the
scrub land and will bend with the property line; however, there
was still confusion about the exact location.
Commissioner Eggert suggested tabling action on this until
next week, but Director Keating advised that action has to be
taken at this meeting in order to meet the Comprehensive Plan
amendment timetable.
Chairman Scurlock was mainly concerned as to what the impact
might be on the county golf course.
Commissioner Bird did not believe it would have any effect
on Sandridge but was concerned about the possible effect it might
have on Treasure Ridge Golf Course and questioned the demand for
a road at this location.
Staff advised there was a request made by someone who wants
access to develop industrially in this area, and they went on to
give a detailed description of the existing and proposed
industrial development in this area, explaining that the way the
Russell Concrete site accesses cemetery Road now is by using an
50
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71 FADE 219
easement through another person's property. Adding 43rd Avenue
as a subdivision collector road between 69th and 77th Streets
would provide a consolidated access point for all the properties
in the area and also there is the possibility the Cemetery Road
railroad crossing could be swapped at some time down the line for
somewhere where we need a major crossing.
Commissioner Bird still wished he could actually see a
clearer alignment, but did not believe he was opposed to what is
proposed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved staff's
recommendation for amendments to the Transportation
element of the Comprehensive Plan. Said amendments
will be included in the overall ordinance adopted when
all Comprehensive Plan amendments have been acted on.
AMEND COMP PLAN TO ENLARGE OSLO ROAD & 27TH AVE. COMMERCIAL NODE
& REZONE APPROX. 2 ACRES (COUNTY -INITIATED)
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:
MAR 15 1988
51
BOOK
71 WE 220
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 0176, l_O'
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of r d
/9v a
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed rore a thi
(SEAL)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Inch n River County, Florida)
'NOTICE — PUBUC HEARING °
Notice of hearing initiated by Indian River
County to consider the adoption of a County or-.
dinance . rezoning land from: RM -8, Multiple -
Family Residential District to CL, Umited Cont-
mercial District. The subject property Is located•
on the east side of 27th Avenue and south of 5th
Street S.W.
The subject property is described as :`.
,The north 285.64 feet of the following ,. ,.
•,'described parcel, :. • . _; • -
A parcel of land situate In Tract 12; o-
Se
tion 23, Township 33 south, Range 39 •
east, 'according to Indian River Farms.
Company Subdivision. as recorded In
Plat Book 2. Page 25, of the Public
Records of SL Lucie County, Florida; ,:s•
said lands now lying and being In Indian
• River County, Florida more particularly
• described as follows: . `
Commencing at the northwest corner of
• said Tract 12, proceed S 00°00'00" E
'along the west line of Tract 12 a dis-
tance of 30.08 feet; thence N 89°4813" •
E along the south right of way line for In-
dian River Farms Drainage District Canal
' E-7 (30' wide) a distance of 25.00 feet to
the Point of Beginning; thence proceed 11
N 89°48'13" E along Indian River Farms .
Drainage District Canal E-7 south right 4• •
of way line a distance of 304.98 feet ' •,•.
thence S 00°00'07": E a 'distance of
1299.25 feet to a point on the south line ,
• • of Tract 12; thence S 89°45'48" W along '
the south Inc of Tract 12 a distance of
305.00 feet to a point on the east right of
way line of 27th Avenue; thence N
00°00'00" E along said east right of way
• • line a distance of 1299.46 feet to the .
Point of Beginning. i
A public hearing at which parties In Interest •
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com- •
missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, March
15,1988 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 testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Don C. Scurlock, Chairman
Feb. 22, 1988 .• .
Planner David Nearing made the staff presentation:
52
iMAR 15 1988
BOOK
,E 221
TO: Charles P. Balzcun DATE :February 24, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
((PCP
P SUBJECT:
opm Director
THRU: Gary H. Schindler irt,
Chief, Long -Range Planning
Robert M. Loeper b(L
FROM: staff Planner, Long-RangIREl i ES:
COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST
TO AMEND THE COMPREHEN-
SIVE PLAN TO ENLARGE THE
OSLO ROAD AND 27TH AVE
COMMERCIAL NODE FROM 58
TO 60 ACRES AND REZONE
APPROXIMATELY 2 ACRES
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 15, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The County is initiating a request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan by redesignating 2 acres from LD -2, Low Density Residential
2 (allowing up to 6 units/acre), to Commercial, and to rezone
from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6
units/acre), to CL Limited Commercial District. This application
is considered a request to enlarge the Oslo Road and 27th Avenue
node from 58 to 60 acres.
On October 21, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners voted to
approve the enlargement of the Oslo Road and 27th Avenue node
from 50 to 58 acres and extend the boundaries to 5th Street S.W.,
which included the subject parcel, and directed the staff to
transmit the request to the State Department of Community
Affairs.
On February, 17, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners approved
the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoned the subject property
from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6
units/acre) to CL, Limited Commercial. However, it was
determined that it was only possible to act on 7.1 acres, and the
remaining 2 acres of land were deleted. At that time the staff
was instructed to initiate- proceedings to enlarge the 'node to
include the remaining 2 acres.
On September 10, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission, voted
unanimously to recommend the enlargement of the node by 2 acres,
and the rezoning of 2 acres from RM -6, Multiple -Family
Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) to CL, Limited
Commercial for inclusion in the node.
On October 27, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4-0
to authorize staff to transmit the proposed land use amendment to
the state for review.
On January 13, 1988, the Planning Department received
from the State of Florida Department of Community
pursuant to section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. There
comments regarding this action.
comments
Affairs,
were no
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
53
WAR 15 1988
BOOK 71 F :,E 222
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is presently undeveloped. There is vacant
land zoned CL, located south of the subject property. There are
commercial establishments and vacant land, zoned CL, located west
of the subject property. North of the subject property is
undeveloped property zoned RM -6. The property to the east of the
subject site is also undeveloped and zoned RS -6, Single -Family
Residential District (up to 6 units/acre). Approximately 15
acres of the node are presently being utilized for commercial
activities.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property is presently designated as LD -2, Low -Density
Residential 2 (allowing up to 6 units/acre) on the Comprehensive
Plan and is located adjacent to the Oslo Road/27th Avenue
Commercial Node. The property to the south and west of the
subject property is part of the Oslo Road /27th Avenue
Commercial node. The land located west of -the node is designated
as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). The
land to the north and east of the subject property is designated
as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre).
Inclusion of the subject property into the commercial node would
establish a natural feature boundary for the node, and it would
produce a more unified development pattern with the existing
commercially zoned land to the south. Therefore, it would
enhance the usefulness of the subject parcel.
Transportation System
The subject property has direct access from 27th Avenue,
classified as an arterial, and 5th Street S.W., classified as a
secondary collector on the County Thoroughfare Plan. The
additional 2 acres of commercial development would not create a
significant impact on the level -of -service "A" that presently
exists along 27th Avenue.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
Utilities
A County watermain runs along the north side of Oslo Road.
wastewater facilities are available at the present time.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation staff recommends that the
Comprehensive Plan be amended to include the subject property in
the commercial node and rezone to CL, Limited Commercial.
54
MAR 15 1988
Nor 71 FM E 223
IR r
W W
m 0:
W C)
CZ Q
1
�CN
0 {.i.
Q10 I RM -6
LL
311u4U a
W12m3
N
13
14
2
TR 10
a
E
TR.9
R 0 1ILL 1
C 8
6T14 ST. SW
4
a F
20714 AVE
G
SITN AVE.
A
H
1-
N
1_ _J
--- 7 P ST 31t -
TR.I6
e
CL
5th ST. S.W.
MEFSON AV
OSLO RD
L
---} -REBEL R
TR.I2
SUBJECT -
PROPERTY
I�
j
1
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard.
Marie Simmons, 3126 3rd St., wished to know what this
property was zoned before the County initiated the rezoning, and
Planner Nearing advised that it is currently RM -6 and will be
until the Board takes final action.
Mrs. Simmons believed this action is to square off the node.
She noted that originally the node went to Oslo Road, and she
owns five acres on Oslo which she purchased for commercial usage
in 1981. The County initiated the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
and rezoned her property to RS -3 and then upgraded it to RM -6,
and she protested because she wanted to have her property
commercial as it was originally because she had it sold. Mrs.
Simmons felt she should be included in the node before someone
else is taken into it because she was originally commercial. She
55
MAR 1b 1988
BOOK 71 WE 224
informed the Board that her property is located between 30th and
31st Avenue on the north side of the road next to Charles Chips.
Chairman Scurlock explained that the Commission could not
consider her request today; it would have to be included in the
next submission for amendment of the Comp Plan, probably in July.
Mrs. Simmons just wanted to have it on the record that she
is here today and this is her statement.
Chairman Scurlock suggested that Mrs. Simmons write the
Planning staff and ask them to initiate that action at the
appropriate time.
The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard.
and thereupon closed the public hearing on the rezoning.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
staff recommendation to amend the Comprehensive Plan
to include the subject property in the commercial
node and rezone same to CL, Limited Commercial.
Ordinance to rezone said property will be adopted
after the overall ordinance approving the Compre-
hensive Plan amendments is adopted.
AMEND COMP PLAN TO ENLARGE 1-95/CR 512 INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL NODE
(COUNTY -INITIATED)
Director Keating made the staff presentation:
P R 15 1988 56 B00K 71 Fa [ 25
TO: Charles Balczun
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
DATE: March 1, 1988 FILE:
SUBJECT:
ert M. Ke. ng,CP
Planning & De elopment Director
THRU: Gary Schindler 16
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM:Robert M. Loeper t REFERENCES:
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST
TO AMEND THE COMPREHEN-
SIVE PLAN TO ENLARGE THE
I-95/C.R. 512 INDUSTRIAL/
COMMERCIAL NODE FROM 650
ACRES TO 665 ACRES
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 15, 1987.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The County is initiating a request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan by enlarging the Commercial/Industrial node at the I-95 and
County Road 512 interchange from 650 acres to 665 acres. The
property proposed to be included is located on the north boundary
line of the node between the Hetra Electronics plant and I-95.
On January 15, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
boundaries for a 240 acre commercial/industrial node at this
interchange.
On July 29, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners enlarged the
node to 650 acres.
On March 26, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered
revised node boundaries reflecting the increased node size. At
that time, the Commission amended the staff's proposed node
boundaries by deleting 15 acres located in the northern part of
the proposed node and adding 15 acres of land on the south side
of County Road 512. The Commission also recommended that the
County initiate proceedings in July to increase the size of the
node in order to add back the 15 acres which they had excluded
from the proposed node.
On May 5, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
boundaries for the 650 acre node as proposed by the Planning and
Zoning Commission, and directed staff to examine the possibility
of increasing the node's size by 15 acres and including the 15
acres removed at the north end of the node.
On September 10, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission
unanimously recommended the enlargement of this node by 15 acres,
for the inclusion of the subject property.
On October 27, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4-0
to authorize staff to transmit the proposed land use amendment to
the state for review.
On January 13, 1988, the Planning Department received comments
from the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA),
pursuant to section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The DCA response
reflects comments received by the Department from the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council, and those comments are as
follows:
Both of these industrial/commercial nodes are in close
proximity to I-95 with item 89 located at an interchange and
item 94 at a projected interchange location. The reasoning
offered for these nodes at these locations is twofold: they
have good access potential and currently not adjacent to
57
NAR AR 19 8 BOOK 71 F'A E 226
potentially incompatible land uses. Urban services such as
water and sewer are to be provided on a project by project
basis. The intent of the County plan is to place priority
for the provision of urban services to those areas that are
or will be principally residential.
The intent of the urban service area is to assure that a
full range of urban services are provided to new
developments and to further assure that state, regional, and
local government growth management objectives are met in a
timely and efficient manner. Furthermore, this policy is
intended to prevent urban sprawl, leap frog development and
development which due to its location, would increase the
cost of service provision to the public. Council policy
encourages urban infill and maximizing the use of existing
urban facilities and infrastructure.
The objectives provided in the twofold test of access and
lack of incompatible adjacent uses do have merit. However,
questions relating to leap frog development as well as
concerns of infill have not been addressed. It would appear
that the question that needs to be answered in this regard
is how will these two nodes along with their proposed
expansions ultimately tie into the developing coastal areas.
of the County. Until such a time as this larger question is
answered, approval of development on these parcels would not
be consistent with Council policy.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is undeveloped, and is surrounded by
undeveloped property to the north, south, east and west. The
subject property is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural District
(up to 1 unit/5 acres). The surrounding property on all sides is
also zoned A-1.
Future Land Use Pattern
The current land use designation for the subject property is AG,
Agricultural (allowing up to 1 unit/5 acres). The property to
the south and east lies within the current boundaries of the
commercial/industrial node, while property north and west is
designated AG, Agricultural (allowing up to 1 unit/5 acres).
The Regional Planning Council has through the State Department of
Community Affairs expressed concern that the change of land use
of this parcel could lead to leap frog development and not
utilize public facilities and infrastructure to their fullest.
Although the Council did not formally object to this proposed
amendment, it indicated that the proposed amendment was not
consistent with its urban service area policy. Basically, this
policy requires that any new urban type development be located
within an urban service area that is, or will concurrent with
development be, provided with the full range of urban services.
According to the Regional Planning Council's policies, develop-
ment at interstate interchanges should be limited to uses
necessary to serve the interstate, i.e. gas stations, motels,
restaurants, and other similar uses. Unless the interchange is
within an urban service area, major employment or residential
58
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71 EE 227
developments should not be located there. The intent of this
policy is to create a compact development pattern, reducing urban
sprawl, leap -frog development, inefficient growth patterns, and
other characteristics.
The Regional Planning Council chose only to comment on, rather
than object to, the proposed amendment for several reasons.
First, the County's existing comprehensive plan has not yet been
updated to comply with the 1985 growth management act and there-
fore has not had to meet requirements of consistency with
regional policies. Second, the staff indicated that urban
services are programmed for this area in the future. And, third,
there was no project proposed for the site necessitating the
action.
For the proposed amendment, the DCA/Regional Planning Council
comments do not affect the Board's decision. Although the
comments demonstrate inconsistency with the Council's policy, the
proposed amendment does comply with County policy. As proposed,.
the amendment would constitute only a minor enlargement of an
existing node; it is located in an area with sufficient traffic
capacity; it will not create strip commercial development; it
will not result in the creation of incompatible land uses; and it
is not located in an environmentally sensitive area. In addi-
tion, this amendment is consistent with the County Commission's
intent to provide nodal areas sufficient in size to accommodate
industries requiring large campus type locations and needing good
transportation access. For those reasons, the staff supports the
proposed amendment.
The Regional Planning Council's comments, however, provide an
indication of the type of comments which will be sent to the
County upon review of the comp plan update - due in September of
1989. AT that time, this issue will assuredly rise again. To
include the I-95/CR 512 node in the new comp plan without objec-
tion from the region and the state, the commission will need to
include this area in a designated urban service area and ensure
that urban services will be provided concurrent with development.
Transportation System
The subject parcel has no access to a county road; however, the
Thoroughfare Plan is proposed to be amended to include sub-
division collector roads through which the property will have
access. The existing interchange at County Road 512 and I-95
provides access to one of the major north -south transportation
systems for the State of Florida.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensi-
tive, nor is it located on the sand ridge or 10 mile ridge
aquifer recharge area. However, the property is located in the
100 -year flood -plain as depicted on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
for the area, and is therefore subject to occasional flooding.
Special engineering techniques will be required at the time this
property is developed in order to comply with the County's Flood
Protection and Stormwater Management Ordinance.
Utilities
The subject property does not have public water or wastewater
facilities at this time and is not located within a designated
Urban Services Area. The Hetra Manufacturing plant does have a
utilities system capable of expanding to accommodate future
development within the node.
59
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71 wE 2LLJ
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the
Comprehensive Plan be amended to enlarge this node by 15 acres,
for the inclusion of the subject property.
rim 1-95/C.R.512
Commercial/Industrial Node
AREA TO BEINCLUDED
s A•
N- m a:'t+a�- ��
L 131 _a 0052Aratmv
NODE BOUNDARY
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard.
Fred Mensing, resident of Roseland, believed everyone is
aware of the problem of lack of places for people to work in this
county, and he urged the Board approve this amendment so we can
seek proper industrial development. Mr. Mensing stressed that we
need a solid industrial base so we are not taxed out of existence
and believed at one time it was recommended this node be
increased to 1,000 acres.
Attorney Chris Marine came before the Board representing the
estate of Carson Platt, owner of the acreage being discussed. He
believed the comments made by the DCA and Regional Planning
60
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71 Fg-t 229
Council were simply comments and that if they really wanted to
solidly oppose this, they would have. Attorney Marine continued
that this Land is presently undeveloped, but he understood there
is industrial development stirring in this area.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved staff
recommendation to amend the Comprehensive Plan to
enlarge the t-95/CR 512 Industrial Commercial Node
from 650 acres to 665 acres. Said amendment will be
included in the overact ordinance adopted when all
Comprehensive Plan amendments have been acted on.
AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONE RIVER EDGE SUBDIVISION
(COUNTY -INITIATED)
The hour of 9:05 o'clock having passed, the Deputy Clerk
read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached,
to -wit:
61
MAR 15 1988
L_
BOOK 71 o,F 2,30
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 ! 1 ) e÷. 4iudzd.�
in the / Court, was pub-
id--Zcmhcf £.„7,l f 577
Iished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
'Sworn to and subscribe¢peforp meth'
(SEAL)
D.19 1f
iliess Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, In' -n River County, Florida)
•s,,';.::,
' NOTICE—PUBLIC HEARING `
Notice of hearing initiated by Indian River
County to consider the adoption of a County or-
dinance assigning a zoning district designation
of RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to
6 units/awe) to the River Edge Subdivision re-
cently deannexed from the. City of Sebastian.
The subject property 1s located west of Roseland
Road and east bf the Sebastian River.
The subject property Is described as:
Ail of River Edge Subdivision as re-
' corded in Plat Book 8, page 81 of Indian
. River County records, of Indian River
County, Florida.. Said lands now Tying
and being in Indian River County
A public hearing at which parties in Interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, March
15. 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 testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is based.
Indian River County
• Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Don C. Scurlock, Chairman
Feb. 22, 1988 -
Planner David Nearing made the staff presentation, explain-
ing that this is the result of an act allowing the deannexation
of the River Edge Subdivision from the City of Sebastian:
62
MAR 15 1988
L_
BOOK 71 f1Gc 231
TO:
Charles P. Balzcun
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
�,r• SUBJECT:
Planning & Deve opm-• Director
Ade, '
•..ert M. et
DATE: February 25, 1988 FILE:
THRU: Gary Schindler J`44
Chief, Long -Range Planning
Robert M. Loepergi`
FROM: staff Planner, Long-RancR7Fat✓ES:
COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST
TO AMEND THE COMPREHEN-
SIVE PLAN AND ZONE THE
RIVER EDGE SUBDIVISION
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 15, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The County is initiating a request to establish a land use
designation of LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2, (up to 6
units/acre), and to establish zoning of RS -6, Single -Family
Residential District for the River Edge Subdivision located on
Roseland Road approximately 1.5 miles southwest of U.S. 1 in
Roseland.
On May 29, 1987, the Legislature of the State of Florida passed a
special act permitting the deannexation of the River Edge
subdivision from the City of Sebastian, thereby placing it under
the jurisdiction of Indian River County. Because this property
does not currently have either a land use or. zoning designation,
it is necessary for the Board of County Commissioners, based upon
a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, to
establish appropriate land use and zoning designations.
On September 10, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a
vote of 5-0, recommended the establishment of a land use
designation of LD -2, Low -Density 2 (allowing up to 6 units/acre)
and zoning of RS -6, Single -Family Residential up to 6 units/acre
for the River Edge Subdivision.
On October 27, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4-0
to authorize staff to transmit the proposed land use amendment to
the state for review.
On January 13, 1988, the Planning Department received comments
from the State of Florida Department of Community Affiars,
pursuant to section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. There were no
comments regarding this action.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is subdivided into 49 lots. Substantial
building has taken place in the subdivision, with only 7 vacant
lots remaining. Upon buildout, the gross density will be less
than 3 units per acre. There is also a tract of commonly owned
land which is used as a community park and contains a dock. The
area to the north and south of the subject property and west of
Roseland Road is vacant land zoned RS -1, Single -Family
MAR 15 1988
63 BOOK 11 F'ACE232
Residential District, allowing 1 unit/acre, while property to the
north of the subdivision, and east of Roseland Road is vacant
land zoned RS -3, Single -Family. Property to the east which is
within the City of Sebastian is zoned industrial.
Because the average lot size is 8,000 square feet, staff feels
the RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre)
zoning is necessary to avoid future complications. A less
intense designation would create nonconforming lots, which could
impose hardship if any structure were ever destroyed.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the land north and south, which
is west of Roseland Road as RR -1, Rural Residential (allowing up
to 1 unit/acre). The land to the north, and east of Roseland
Road, is designated LD -1, Low -Density 1, (allowing up to 3
units/acre). Property to the east within the City of Sebastian
has an industrial land use designation.
Transportation System
The subdivision is accessible to Roseland Road which is
designated a primary collector road on the County Thoroughfare
Plan.
Environment
The subject property is on the Sebastian River; however, because
of modifications made when the subdivision was developed, the
area is no longer environmentally sensitive as defined by County
criteria. The subdivision, however, is in three flood zone
areas. Beginning at Roseland Road and proceeding towards the
Sebastian River for approximately 500 feet is zone C. The
remaining 1/3 of the subdivision is in zones A and B, the "A"
zone being within the 100 year flood plain, and subject to
occasional flooding.
Utilities
The River Edge utility system which was operating in a state of
disrepair when this action was initiated, has been taken over by
the County Utilities Department.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the
Comprehensive Plan be amended designating a land use of LD -2,
Low -Density 2 (allowing up to 6 units/acre) and zoning of RS -6,
Single -Family Residential up to 6 units/acre for the River Edge
Subdivision.
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard. There were
none, and he thereupon declared the public hearing on the
rezoning closed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved staff
recommendation to amend the Comprehensive Plan by
64 BOOK 71 F'' :: 2:33
MAR 15 1988
designating a Land Use
of LD -2 for
subject property and
approved zoning River Edge Subdivision RS -6.
to rezone said property will be adopted after
overall ordinance approving the Comprehensive
amendments is adopted.
Ordinance
the
Plan
AMEND COMP PLAN TO ENLARGE 1-95/SR 60 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE
(COUNTY -INITIATED)
Staff Planner Nearing made the staff presentation:
TO: Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
/
Ro•ert M. Keat
Planning & Deveiopm
t
DATE: March 3, 1988
SUBJECT:
Director
THRU: Gary Schindler "ft/
Chief, Long -Range Planning
David C. Nearing 0(Jvnn
FROM: Staff Planner, Long-RangREEEEEICES:
FILE:
COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST
TO ENLARGE THE I-95/S.R.
60 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
NODE FROM 650 ACRES TO
795 ACRES
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 15, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The County Planning Department is initiating a request to amend
the County's Comprehensive Plan by enlarging the I-95/S.R. 60
Commercial/Industrial node from its current size of 650 acres to
795 acres, a total of 145 acres. The proposed locations for
expansion are: a) a 25 acre parcel along the north side of S.R.
60 from 85th Ct. east approximately 1700 feet and extending north,
for a depth of 650 feet, b) A parcel located approximately 600
feet south of S.R. 60 which is approximately 900 feet in width
and 2000 feet deep, bounded on the east by I-95; c) a 60 acre
parcel situated approximately 600 feet south of S.R. 60
approximately 1300 feet in width and 2000 feet deep which is
bordered on the west by 98th Avenue.
On March 3, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners voted to
approve the boundaries for the I-95/S.R. 60 node which
encompassed a total of 650 acres. However, the motion to approve
also included direction for staff to examine the possibility of
enlarging the node to include the three previously described
parcels. The intention of the Board was to square off the
previously approved boundaries, and to avoid a situation where
residential development would be forced to locate where it would
be surrounded on three sides by industrial and commercial
development.
LMAR 15 1988
65
BOOK " 71 [1',E 234
On September 10, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5-0 to recommend approval of this request.
On October 27, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners vote 4-0
to transmit this request to the DCA for review and comment.
On January 13, 1988, the DCA responded to this request with a
statement of no objections.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Normally when staff reviews a request to enlarge a node an
examination of the recent development activity and level of
interest are examined. Additionally, staff looks at the
long-range implications of the increase in acreage upon the area
in relation to anticipated development patterns.
Because of the location of this node at the intersection of two
main state wide transportation corridors, it is believed that
this will be a primary location for commercial and industrial
development. Several new industrial developments have been
proposed for the industrially zoned properties along 98th Avenue,
south of S.R. 60, and additional interest has been shown in other
areas of the node. This node is located at the west end of the
S.R. 60 corridor which has a large amount of multifamily zoning,
is provided with public water and sewer, and is anticipated to be
a main growth area for the unincorporated portion of the County.
Current Land Use Patterns
The first parcel located north of S.R. 60 and east of 85th Ct.
contains 12 nonconforming mobile homes and vacant property zoned
RM -6, Multi -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre).
The property east contains a mobile home park zoned RMH-8,
Residential Mobile Home District (up to 8 units/acre). The
property north is vacant and zoned RM -6. The property west of
the subject parcel contains several single-family homes and
vacant lots zoned CL, Limited Commercial. South of • the subject
parcel across S.R. 60 is vacant land zoned CG, General
Commercial.
The use of the second parcel is currently vacant land and groves
zoned RM -6 and A-1. To the east of the subject property is I-95.
To the west of this property are groves zoned IL, Light
Industrial District. North of the subject property are groves
and a single-family residences zoned CG, General Commercial.
South of the subject parcel are groves zoned A-1, Agricultural
District (up to 1 unit/5 acres).
The third parcel currently contains an air strip and groves, and
is zoned A-1. To the west across 98th Avenue are several
industrial uses such as Ramp Master zoned IL. To the south of
the subject property are groves zoned A-1, with groves also lying
east zoned IL, and north zoned CG.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the first subject property as
MD -1, Medium Density Residential (allowing up to 8 units/acre).
The lands lying north and east are also designated as MD -1. The
lands west and south across S.R. 60 lie within the 'current
boundary of the I-95/S.R. 60 Commercial/Industrial Node.
66
L
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71 f, E 235
The Comprehensive Plan designates the second and third properties
as MD -1, as is the land south of them. The lands north, east,
and west lie within the Commercial Industrial Node.
Transportation System
The first subject property has access to the south onto S.R. 60,
classified as an arterial road on the County's Thoroughfare Plan,
and also to 85th Ct. to the west classified as a local road.
The second parcel has access to the south to undeveloped 16th
Street classified as a local road. -
The third parcel has access to the west to 98th Avenue classified
as a primary collector road, and to undeveloped 16th Street to
the south. The County is currently in the process of improving
98th Avenue.
Since all existing roads in the area are currently at a level of
service "A", a large surplus of road capacity exists. Any
impacts to the transportation system which will occur as a result
of development of the subject properties will be addressed during
site plan or subdivision review.
Environment
The three subject properties are not considered environmentally
sensitive land. The first and second are also not located within
flood prone areas, however, the third property abutting 98th
Avenue is within an area subject to occasional flooding. This
property will oro the County's speciaengineering
Protection ando Stormwater
meet the
requirements for
Management Ordinance.
Utilities
Public water and wastewater are available along S.R. 60 up to the
I-95 interchange.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, and the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve this request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan by enlarging the I-95/S.R. 60 Commercial/Industrial Node
from 650 to 795 acres.
S.R. 60 / 1-95
Commercial/ Industrial Node _
lJlitira.. �-. ..«y
'[. =
CJ A-1 Ut 6rr -P
�rrrr.._
RS -1
Ail'
•
MAR 15 1988
RMFj-
B
"Va. .r
AREAS TO BE INCLUDED
67
--
A-1
NODE BOUNDARY
BooK 71 FK,E 236
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard.
Attorney Chris Marine came before the Board representing #14
Corporation, owner of a portion of the easternmost parcel on the
north side of SR 60, and spoke in favor of the node being
increased.
The Chairman determined that no one further wished to be
heard.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved staff's
recommendation to amend the Comprehensive Plan by
enlarging the I-95/SR 60 Commercial/Industrial Node
from 650 to 795 acres. Said amendment will be in-
cluded in the overall ordinance adopted when all
Comprehensive Plan amendments have been acted on.
AMEND COMP PLAN TO ENLARGE OSLO ROAD/74TH AVE. COMMERCIAL/
INDUSTRIAL NODE (COUNTY -INITIATED)
Staff Planner Nearing reviewed the following, stressing that
it is felt this should be done now to avoid future residential
encroachment:
L MAR 15 1988
68
BOOK
�!1 F', : E 2:37
TO: Charles P. Balczun DATE: March 3, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
1
R::ert M. Ke,t n•, AI
Planning & Develo•men
reSUBJ ECT:
THRU: Gary Schindler ~*/J
Chief, Long -Range Planning
David C. Nearin
FROM:
Staff Planner, long-RangREFEREIVgCES:
COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST
TO AMEND THE COMPREHEN-
SIVE LAND USE PLAN EN-
LARGING THE OSLO ROAD/
74TH AVENUE COMMERCIAL/
INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM 450
ACRES TO 690 ACRES
Is reques e• a e •a a erein presen e• •e gi e
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 15, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Planning Department has initiated a request to amend the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan by enlarging the Oslo Road/74th
Avenue Commercial/Industrial node from 450 to 690 acres. The
property proposed for inclusion is located between 82nd and 74th
Avenues and south of 5th Street S.W.
On March 3, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners voted to.
establish the boundaries for the 450 acre node. Due to the
interest by property owners in the area and the need for addi-
tional land for future industrial development, the Board, as part
of its approval motion, directed staff to examine the possibility
of expanding this node.
On September 10, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4-1 to recommend denial of this request. Their recommendation
was based on their opinion that expansion of this node was
premature at this time, and future expansion should be based on
demand demonstrated by development.
On October 27, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4-0
to transmit this request to the DCA for their review.
DCA COMMENTS
On January 13, 1988, the DCA responded to this request as
follows:
With the exception of Items 89 and 94, the proposed amendments do
not appear to be in conflict or inconsistent with the policies
contained in the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Items 8.9 and 94 are requests to change land from an agricultural
designation to a commercial/industrial designation. Both of
these requests would expand existing identified commercial/indus-
trial nodes, however, they do not lie within the urban services
boundary shown in the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan. -
Lying outside of the urban services boundary of the County plan,
they do not fall within the urban services area of the Regional
Comprehensive Policy Plan (RCPP). A conflict then arises in that
such a designation is allowed outside of the urban service
boundary in the County plan but would not appear to be compatible
with the RCPP. The urban service area of the RCPP generally
recognizes all locally permitted land uses where there will be a
full range and level of urban services at the time of
development.
69
MAR 15 198
BOOK7:1 Fri E 2;38
Both of these industrial/commercial nodes are in close proximity
to I-95 with item 89 located at an interchange and item 94 at a
projected interchange location. The reasoning offered for these
nodes at these locations is twofold: they have good access
potential and currently not adjacent to potentially incompatible
land uses. Urban services such as water and sewer are to be
provided on a project by project basis. The intent of the County
plan is to place priority for the provision of urban services to
those areas that are or will be principally residential.
The intent of the urban service area is to assure that a full
range of urban services are provided to new developments and to
further assure that State, regional, and local government growth
management objectives are met in a timely and efficient manner.
Furthermore, this policy is intended to prevent urban sprawl,
leap frog development, and development which due to its location,
would increase the cost of service provision to the public.
Council po4cy encourages urban infill and maximizing the use of
existing urban facilities and infrastructure.
The objectives provided in the two fold test of access and lack
of incompatible adjacent uses do have merit. However, questions
relating to leap frog development as well as concerns of infill
have not been addressed. It would appear that the question that
needs to be answered in this regard is how will these two nodes
along with their proposed expansions ultimately tie into the
developing coastal areas of the County. Until such a time as
this larger question is answered approval of development on these
parcels would not be consistent with Council policy.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN
Currently, this node is largely undeveloped, the principal
occupants being the Ocean Spray processing plant, a truss
manufacturing plant, and the Hercules pectin processing' plant.
Adjacent to the node on agriculturally zoned property is a
recently completed citrus packing plant. While not in the node,
the packing plant abuts the node, and the use is similar to node
uses.
Currently, the area proposed to be included in the expanded node
is zoned A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres). The
property north and east is vacant and zoned A-1. The property to
the west of the subject parcel is vacant and currently zoned
RS -1, Single -Family Residential District (up to 1 unit/acre).
The property south of the subject area is vacant and zoned CG,
General Commercial, and A-1.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates the subject property
as AG, Agricultural (allowing up to 1 unit/5 acres). The land
north and east is also designated as AG. The land south of the
subject site is within the currently defined Oslo Road/74th.
Avenue node. The property to the west is designated RR -2, Rural
Residental 2 (allowing up to 1 unit/acre).
MAR 15 1988
70 BOOK - 71 F,Gr 239
Transportation System
The subject property will have access to 74th Avenue, classified
as a primary collector on the County's Thoroughfare Plan; 82nd
Avenue, classified as a secondary collector; and 5th Street S.W.
to the north, also classified as a secondary collector. The
eventual build -out will have a substantial impact on the
thoroughfare system; however, the level of service on the
existing roads in the area is currently at a level of service
"A", and each has a large percentage of unutilized capacity
remaining. Any development impacts on the transportation system
will be addressed during the site plan or subdivision review and
approval process.
Environment
This area is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is
it in a flood prone area.
Utilities
The area is not currently serviced by public water and wastewater
systems. However, this area is within a service area for the
Southwest Regional Wastewater plant situated on 8th Street West
of 82nd Avenue. This service area encompasses from 26th Street
to the North, South to Oslo Road, and from I-95 East to 43rd
Avenue. Eventually this plant will be a 4MGD treatment facility.
Phase two is scheduled to commence in the next two to three
years. Phase two will expand the facility to a 2MGD system.
ANALYSIS
The Regional Planning Council has through the State Department of
Community Affairs expressed concern that the change of land use
of this parcel could lead to leap frog development and not
utilize public facilities and infrastructure to their fullest.
Although the Council did not formally object to this proposed
amendment, it indicated that the proposed amendment was not
consistent with its urban service area policy. Basically, this
policy requires that any new urban type development be located
within an urban service area that is, or will concurrent develop-
ment be, provided with the full range of urban services.
According to the Regional Planning Council's policies,
development at interstate interchanges should be limited to uses
necessary to serve the interstate, ie. gas stations, motels,
restaurants, and other similar uses. Unless the interchange is
within an urban service area, major employment or residential
development should not be located there. The intent of this
policy is to create a compact development pattern, reducing urban
sprawl, leap -frog development, inefficient growth patterns, and
other characteristics.
The Regional Planning Council chose only to comment on, rather
than object to, the proposed amendment for several reasons.
First, the County's existing comprehensive plan has not yet been
updated to comply with the 1985 growth management act and there-
fore has not had to meet requirements of consistency with
regional policies. Second, the staff indicated that urban
services are programmed for the area in the future. And, third,
there was no project proposed for the site necessitating the
action.
For the proposed amendment, the DCA/Regional Planning Council
comments do not affect the Board's decision. Although the
comments demonstrate inconsistency with the Council's policy, the
proposed amendment does comply with County policy. As proposed,
the amendment is located in an area with sufficient traffic
capacity; it will not create strip commercial development; it
will not result in the creation of incompatible land uses; and it
71
MAR 15 1988
BOOK - 71 PAGE 240
is not located in an environmentally sensitive area. In
addition, this amendment is consistent with the County
Commission's intent to provide nodal areas sufficient in size to
accommodate industries requiring large campus type locations and
needing good transportation access. For those reasons and the
additional reasons discussed below, the staff supports the
proposed amendment.
Normally, when the County staff looks at a node being considered
for expansion, one key issue is the recent activity in the
subject node. Another issue is the interest which has been
expressed in the subject node. In the case of the Oslo Road/74th
Avenue node, the truss plant went into production within the last
two years and is currently proposing expansion, and the adjacent
citrus packing plant has recently come on-line. Also within the
last two years, the Oceanspray facility has gone through
expansion, and Hercules has completed renovations. A great deal
of interest has also been expressed in this node, including a
recently submitted request to rezone 34+ acres lying within the
current boundaries from CG, General Commercial District to IL,
Light Industrial District. This request received a
recommendation for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission
at their regular meeting of October 8, 1987.
Another characteristic to be considered is the location of this
node, especially its proximity to I-95 and Oslo Road.
Eventually, the State FDOT will construct an interchange at Oslo
Road and 1-95. This interchange will then provide the node with
direct access to a major north/south state transportation.
corridor. The access will increase the attractiveness to this
area, and it can be anticipated that development will then
increase at a rapid rate.
Because of demand for industrial and commercial uses in this area
expected to arise from an I-95 interchange, there is a need to
ensure that the buildout acreage of the node is protected from
residential encroachment. Once residential development estab-
lishes itself in an area, expansion of a node near the area of
residential development is difficult. Therefore, it is often
desirable to ensure that adequate node acreage is reserved. On
the other hand, if too large an area is proposed for node use,
inefficient and undesirable land development patterns occur.
If the proposed node expansion is approved, it will assist in
establishing a future development pattern in this area which will
provide for an orderly transition from residential to commercial,
as well as provide ample room for future commercial and indus-
trial development.
The Regional Planning Council's comments, while not directly
affecting the proposed amendment, do provide an indication of
the type of comments which will be sent to the County upon review
of the comp plan update - due in September of 1989. At that
time, this issue will assuredly rise again. To include the Oslo-
Rd./74th Avenue node in the new comp plan without objection from
the region and the state, the Commission will need to include
this area in a designated urban service area and ensure that
urban services will be provided concurrent with development.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, and fully respecting the
Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation of denial, staff
recommends that the Board of County -Commissioners approve this
request as presented.
72
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71 FA[ E 241
Oslo Rd. & 74th Ave SW
Commercial / Industrial Node
AREA: TO BE INCLUDED
L
Node Boundary
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard.
Fred Mensing spoke in favor of enlarging the node.
The Chairman determined that no one further wished to be
heard.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved staff's
recommendation to amend the Comprehensive Plan by
enlarging the Oslo Road/74th Ave. Commercial/Industrial
Node from 450 acres to 690 acres. Said amendment will
be included in the overall ordinance adopted when all
Comprehensive Plan amendments have been acted on.
73
MAR 15 1988
BOK 71 i'AGE 242
AMEND COMP PLAN BY ESTABLISHING AN MXD ON THE EAST SIDE OF U.S.1
NORTH OF THE CITY LIMITS (COUNTY -INITIATED)
Planner Nearing made the staff presentation, stressing that
staff feels the DCA's concerns can be addressed through the site
plan provisions of the Code:
TO:Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
114,7/
Robert Mea e
DATE: March 3, 1988 FILE:
P SUBJECT:
COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN BY ESTABLISHING AN
Community DeveldpmeDirector MXD, MIXED USE DISTRICT ON
THE EAST SIDE OF U.S. 1
THRU: Gary Schindler
Chief, Long -Range Planning
David C. FROM: Staff Plannering �`C REFERENCES: Mlsc%dc
0
It is requested that the information presented herein be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 15, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & LOCATION:
By direction of the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning
staff has initiated a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan by
creating an MXD, Mixed Use District, east of U.S. 1. More specif-
ically, the MXD area is proposed to include approximately 29 acres
of land located approximately 600 feet south of 36th Street and
east of the east City limits of Vero Beach running south to the
north city limits and extending east approximately 900 feet.
On April 14, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners reviewed a
request by Penn Mobile Partnership to change the land use desig-
nation of a 180+ x 700+ foot parcel located within the subject
area from MD -1, Medium Density Residential 1 to MXD. As part of
their motion to approve transmittal of that request to the State
Department of Community Affairs, the Board directed the staff to
examine the possibility of establishing an MXD district to include
other properties located in the general area. This direction was
due to the fact that there is currently a 200 foot deep strip of
land along U.S. 1 which is zoned commercial and lying within the
City of Vero Beach. Enabling a similar zoning to be established.
east of this strip would reduce the possibility of strip commer-
cial development by permitting the development of larger, more
manageable projects.
On September 10, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5-0 to recommend approval of this request.
On October 27, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4-0
to transmit this request to the DCA for their review comment.
On January 13, 1988, the DCA responded to this request. They had
no opposition to the request, however, they did have some comment
generated by DOT review. This concern is as follows:
MAR 15
988
74
BOOK I ,� fr:E 243
Prior to the approval of any development associated with
Item 91, the appropriate analysis should be completed
demonstrating that U.S. Highway One and the surrounding
network of roads has the available capacity to accommo-
date the additional trips. This analysis should also
demonstrate that an acceptable level of service can be
maintained on the roadway at buildout of the area.
This concern will be addressed in the section of this item dealing
with the transportation system.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a description
of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding
areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility sys-
tems, and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quali-
ty.
EXISTING LAND USE PATTERNS:
Currently, the subject area contains a used auto sales, most of
which lies within the City, and vacant land zoned RM -6, Multi -
Family Residential (up to 6 units/acre). To the east lies vacant
land zoned RM -6. To the south lie single-family lots within the
City zoned RM -10/12, Multi -Family Residential District (up to
10-12 units/acre). To the north lies the Hospital/Commercial Node
containing assorted medical related businesses and offices, the
hospital and a total life care facility, zoned MED, Medical
District. To the west in the City are several single family
residences and the used car sales zoned C -1B, General Commercial
Trades and Services.
Most of the unplatted lots extend over 650 feet east of the city
limits. Normally when boundaries are established for a zoning or
land use district it is desirable to follow property lines in
order to avoid dividing property into different districts. When
establishing boundaries for land use districts, it is also
desirable to establish boundaries in a uniform pattern and depth.
After examining this area, it was found that following property
lines would not permit a uniform depth from the city limits. For.
this reason, a depth of 900 feet was chosen to include the depth
of all metes and bounds lots along U.S. 1. This depth includes
portions of some larger tracts; however, these portions are of a
sufficient size to permit a reasonable development if a rezoning
were ever proposed.
FUTURE LAND USE PATTERNS:
Currently, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates the entire
29 acres as MD -1, Medium Density Residential -1. The land to the
east is also MD -1. The land north of the subject parcel is part
of the Hospital/Commercial Node. The property south is medium.
density residential within the city, and the land within the 200
foot strip of city land along U.S. 1 is commercial.
In discussion with the City of Vero Beach Planning Department, it
was agreed that, because of the split jurisdiction between the
County and City, it would be advisable to do a small area type
plan of study for this area to ensure coordinated development.
TRANSPORTATION:
Currently, the level of service (LOS) for this segment of U.S. 1
is LOS "A"; however, the LOS for the surrounding intersections is
LOS "D" or "E". For this reason, the County Traffic Engineer
strongly recommends that traffic concerns be a major consideration
V1AR 15 1988
75
BOOK 71 rAGE 244
in commercial rezoning requests in this area. It will be neces-
sary for the County and City Planning staffs to work closely to
ensure that all adverse impacts of additional traffic will be
minimized.
As previously stated, the DCA expressed the same concerns as the
Traffic Engineer, These concerns can be adequately addressed
through the site plan provisions of the County Code. According to
these provisions, an applicant can be required to provide a
traffic impact analysis study when the project will
generate/attract 1000 or more average annual daily trips, or is
located in a critical transportation corridor. Because the DCA
comment was generated by DOT review, the Traffic Engineer has
determined that this section of U.S. 1 qualifies as a critical
corridor.
UTILITIES:
This area is currently serviced by the City of Vero and the County
for water and wastewater service.
ENVIRONMENT:
This land is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it
located within an area considered to be flood prone.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis performed, and the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve this request to establish a Mixed Use
District east of U.S. 1.
MAR 15 1988
SUBJECT PROPERTY •
76
NUR,71 PAGE 245
none.
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard. There were
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved staff's
recommendation to amend the Comprehensive Plan by
establishing an MXD on the east side of U.S.1. Said
amendment will be included in the overall ordinance
adopted when all Comprehensive Plan amendments have
been acted on.
AMEND COMP PLAN REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 145 ACRES OF WINTER
BEACH FROM LD -2 TO LD -1 (COUNTY -INITIATED)
Planning Nearing made the staff presentation advising that
staff opposes the proposed amendment as they have all along:
TO: Charles Balczun
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
DATE: March 4, 1988
Ro ert M. Keatinfj, A P SUBJECT:
Community Development Director
��%
THROUGH: Gary M. Schindler /`',y
Chief, Long Range Planning
FILE:
COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN REDESIGNATING APPROX-
IMATELY 145 ACRES OF
WINTER BEACH FROM LD -2,
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
2 TO LD -1, LOW-DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL 1
FROM: David C. Nearing/? REFERENCES:
Staff Planner
Cty. Int. WB Memo
BETTY2
It is requested that the information presented herein be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 15, 1987.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County planning staff has initiated a request to the
Comprehensive Plan to redesignate approximately 145 acres of land
located in Winter Beach from LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2
(allowing up to 6 units/acre), to LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1
(allowing up. to 3 units/acre). The subject property lies south of
North Winter Beach Road, north of South Winter Beach Road, and
east of the Lateral G Canal.
On November 13, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0
to approve the Winter Beach Small Area Plan.
77 BOOK 71 F, GE 246
MAR 15 1988
After several attempts to rezone property lying within the
boundaries of the small area plan were denied, the Board directed
staff to reassess the small area plan. On July 23, 1986, the
Board amended the Winter Beach Small Area plan for land between
the FEC Railroad and 58th Avenue.
On October 21, 1986, the Board rezoned approximately 250 acres of
Winter Beach from RS -6 Single -Family Residential District (up to 6
units/acre) to RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3
units/acre).
On February 17, 1987, the Board voted to amend the Comprehensive
Plan for the previously mentioned 250 acres, redesignating it from
LD -2 to LD -1, and directed staff to initiate a comprehensive plan
amendment for the property involved in this request.
On May 5, 1987, the Board approved a rezoning from RS -6 to RS -3
for the subject property. Additional actions are outlined in the
attached chronology of events which have taken place in Winter
Beach.
On September 10, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended denial of this request. The Commission felt that the
current LD -2 designation was appropriate for this area.
On October 27, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners voted 3-1
to transmit this request to the DCA for their review and comment.
The DCA presented no opposition to this request in their January
13, 1988 response.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip-
tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur-
rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and
utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ-
mental quality.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property consists of undeveloped land, a church, and
several single-family dwellings zoned RS -3. North of the subject
property, across North Winter Beach Road, are single -Family
dwellings and undeveloped land zoned RM -6, a plant nursery zoned
RS -3, and undeveloped land zoned IL. Further east is the F.E.C.
Railroad. South of the subject property, across South Winter
Beach Road, is undeveloped land zoned A-1, a church and
undeveloped land zoned RS -6, undeveloped land zoned RM -6 and IL,
and two industrial buildings zoned IL. West of the subject
property, across the Lateral "G" Canal, are single-family
residences and undeveloped land zoned RS -3.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the
land south and immediately east of it as LD -2, Low -Density
Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). Further to the east is the
100 acre South Winter Beach Road Industrial node and the U.S. #1
MXD, Mixed Use Corridor (up to 6 units/acre). The land north and
west of the subject property is designated as LD -1, Low -Density
Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre).
The Winter Beach Precise Land Use Map, as amended by the Board of
County Commissioners on July 23, 1986, designates the subject
property as LD -1 with an appropriate zoning of RS -3.
It is staff's opinion and consistently has been staff's opinion
that the current LD -2 land use designation is appropriate for this
property. The RS -3 zoning in place on the subject property is
AR 15 1988
78
BOOK 71 f GF 247
consistent with the land -use designation, and a change in land use
designation is not required for control of density in this area
for the immediate future. This is due to the fact that several
other control methods are available, including rezonings, and
state environmental controls.
There are a number of reasons why the staff has consistently
recommended that the LD -2 designation remain in place. One is
that the County's growth has been in a linear pattern. The major
growth and higher population densities in the County have occurred
parallel to the U.S. 1 corridor. Development along this corridor
has occurred due to the proximity of the area to major service
areas and transportation access. This pattern of higher density
in the eastern part of the County and lower densities to the west
is reflected in the County's Comprehensive Plan and is encouraged
to continue. This is consistent with the County's objective to
have a more compact development pattern, a system which permits
more efficient provision of urban services, and avoids the
complications of urban sprall.
With the future projected growth rates for Indian River County,
staff anticipates intense growth pressures. Eventually these
growth pressures will require additional lands to be developed at
higher densities in areas where urban services are available.
According to the comprehensive plan, the Winter Beach area lies
within an urban service area scheduled for development between the
year 1991-2000. However, the Utilities Division anticipates
having a water treatment plant in the Hobart Park area on line
within the next two years and, with- the soon to be expanded
Gifford plan, this proposed time frame will probably be changed to
a less distant period, such as 1988-90.
In addition to urban services, the Winter Beach area has a good
transportation network, being accessible to two main east/west
collector roads. These roads are capable of carrying a large
volume of traffic through the north county area and linking this
area to major north/south roads such as Kings Highway. This
linkage also enables the area to be highly accessible to the
remainder of the County.
A substantial portion of the subject area consists of threatend
coastal sand pine scrub habitat. While staff feels that this
habitat should be preserved, it is staff's opinion, based upon
available research, that only acquisition can protect the
resource. Staff feels that a density reduction will not save the
scrub.
Transportation System
The subject property has access to North Gifford Road designated
as a primary collector on the County's Thoroughfare Plan and South
Gifford Road classified as a secondary collector. Several local
roads also extend north and south into the property of of the
collectors. All roads are at a current level of service "A".
Environment
Approximately 80 percent of the subject property consists of
excessively drained soils and is considered to be located in the
coastal sand ridge primary aquifer recharge area. The subject
property is not located within a flood -prone area.
Utilities
County water and wastewater facilities are not currently available
for the subject property.
-79 BOOK 71. FAGE248
AR 15 1988
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, and the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners deny this request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan.
• SUBJECT PROPERTY
w
§
none.
RS -6
1
! LD
_2
A-11 .A-1
NODE
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard. There were
Chairman Scurlock stated that he agreed with staff's recom-
mendation and he would vote against this amendment as he has
consistently.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, Chairman Scurlock voting in opposition,
the Board by a 4 to 1 vote directed staff to amend the
Comprehensive Plan by redesignating approximately 145
acres in Winter Beach from LD -2 to LD -1. Said amendment
will be included in the overall ordinance adopted when
all Comprehensive Plan amendments have been acted on.
tvIAR 15 1988
80
Boa 71 PACE 249
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance
88-14 rezoning 2 acres owned by Chauncey Hatch, Jr., and
now included in the Oslo Road/27th Ave. Commercial node,
from RM -6 to CL, Limited Commercial.
ORDINANCE NO. 88- 14
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP
FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency
and subsequently made
request; and
WHEREAS,
The
on such matters,
a recommendation
has held a public hearing
regarding this rezoning
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined
that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
A parcel of land situated in Tract 12, Section 23, Township
33 south, Range 39 east, according to Indian River -Farms
Company Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 25, of
the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida; said lands
now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Tract 12, proceed
S 00°00'00" E along the west line of Tract 12 a distance of
30.06 feet; thence N 89°48'13" E along the south right of
way line for Indian River Farms Drainage District Canal E-7
(30' wide) a distance of 25.00 feet to the Point of
Beginning; thence proceed N 89°48'13" E along Indian River
Farms Drainage District Canal E-7 south right of way line a
distance of 304.96 feet; thence S 00°00'07" E a distance of
1299.25 feet to a point on the south line of Tract 12;
82
IiAR 15 1988
BOOK 71 FADE 251
thence S 89°45'48" W along the south line of Tract 12 a
distance of 305.00 feet to a point on the east right of way
line of 27th Avenue; thence N 00°00'00" E along said east
right of way line a distance of 1299.46 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
Be changed from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District to CL,
Limited Commercial.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this
of March , 1988.
15th day
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By
Vice Chairman
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance
88-15 zoning River Edge Subdivision RS -6.
ORDINANCE NO. 88- 15
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP
FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as,the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this zoning
request; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
zone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined
that this zoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this zoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
MAR 15 1988
L
83
BOOK 71 FA E 252
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
All of River Edge Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 8,
page 81 of Indian River County records of Indian River
County, Florida. Said lands now lying and being in Indian
River County.
Be established as RS -6, Single -Family Residential District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this
of March , 1988.
15th day
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By
Vice Chairman
LANDCLEARING/TREE REMOVAL VIOLATION: Ken Puttick BUICK-CADILLAC
Environmental Planner Roland DeBlois reviewed the following:
MAR 15 1988
84 Boor 71 PACE 253
TO: Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
DATE: February 29, 1988 FILE:
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
o bert M. Ke ng ICP SUBJECT: LANDCLEARING/TREE REMOVAL
CommunityDevelo mt Director VIOLATION: KEN PUTTICK
p BUICK-CADILLAC, INC.
THROUGH: Michael K. Miller /14K14
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois ° REFERENCES: CV -88-o3-198
Staff Environmental Planner
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on March 15, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
On December 7, 1987, County staff observed that the west
portion of parcel number 12-33-39-00000-3000-00010.0 had been
cleared, prior to the issuance of County landclearing or tree
removal permits. The area cleared is approximately 1.12 acres
in size; the overall parcel is the site of Ken Puttick Buick -
Cadillac, Inc., 1401 U.S. Highway One, owned by Mr. Ken Puttick.
A site tree survey done in 1985 indicates that 10 protected
trees (6 oaks and 4 pines) were removed as part of the unper-
mitted landclearing activity. The tree survey was done as part
of an Ennessy Buick -Cadillac site plan application for the
cleared property that was approved by the County in August
1985, but has since expired due to lack of implementation by
the applicant.
A tree removal permit was issued on July 11, 1985, in conjunc-
tion with the approved 1985 site plan, which allowed for the
removal of only one protected oak; the remaining 9 protected
trees were to be preserved as part of the open space area of
the site. The tree removal permit expired on January 11, 1986.
Ken Puttick Buick -Cadillac has recently received approval for a
site plan of the cleared property similar to the plan previously
approved for Ennessy Buick -Cadillac in 1985. The newly approved
site plan is for an automobile storage lot as an accessory use
to the existing automobile dealership.
The recent site plan for Ken Puttick Buick -Cadillac differs
from the 1985 plan in that more paved storage area was approved;
since the property had been cleared, there was no
call for tree preservation considerations in the site plan
approval process. Had the property not been illegally cleared,
however,staff would have recommended the preservation of 9 of
the 10 removed protected trees, as reflected in the approved
design of the expired 1985 site plan.
ALTERNATIVE & 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) per tree and landclearing activity or by imprisonment in
the County jail for up to sixty (60) days, or both.
MAR 15 1988
85
Based on the illegal landclearing and number of protected trees
that could have been saved, staff requested on December 21,
1987, that Mr. Puttick submit a voluntary payment of $5,000.00
and obtain after -the -fact permits. Voluntary payment as
requested by staff has not been submitted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider
obtaining a voluntary payment of $5,000 dollars, and require
the planting of 6 oaks and 4 pines on the subject property. In
the event that any said agreement is not forth -coming, staff
recommends the Board of County Commissioners grant staff the
authorization to pursue available remedies in County Court.
Planner DeBlois noted that this is unique in that the site
was site planned under the previous owner. Under the previous
plan only one of the trees was slated for removal.
Commissioner Eggert wished to know why we are asking for ten
instead of nine if they could take one out, and Planner DeBlois
explained there were 10 protected trees on the site as identified
by a tree survey under the previous site plan. That expired and
so did the tree removal permit issued for one of those trees.
Commissioner Bird asked if there is no present site plan
approved, and Planner DeBlois confirmed that there is, but it
went through the process and was approved after the trees had
already been removed.
Chairman Scurlock wished to know how many of the trees can
go under the new site plan, and Planner DeBlois explained that
the new site plan was approved on the premise that the site was
cleared and there were no trees on site; so, they are allowed a
little more impervious surface because there is no need to design
around the trees, which had been removed illegally.
Ken Puttick informed the Board that all he can say is when
he purchased the car agency, he was told there was a plan
approved to take the trees out and to clear, and he got bids to
do so. He did not see the site plan before to know that some
trees had to stay and some didn't. Mr. Puttick continued that
when he realized he had created a problem, he hired Carter &
Associates to do a plan on drainage, etc., and that is the plan
that got approved. If he had realized it was not that way
MAR 15 1988
86
BOOK 71 Fa.E 255
before, he would gone through the process that got done now being
approved the way it is. Mr. Puttick felt if he had done it
first, it would have been the way it came out now; so, he did not
understand the reason for all this.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that if he had gone by the
original site plan approved, there still would have been nine
trees there. He asked staff if Mr. Puttick had come in to do a
new site plan and the trees were still there, if they still would
have recommended that nine trees remain and one could be removed.
Director Keating confirmed that they would and advised that
the site plan approved a few weeks ago is very similar to the one
approved when Mr. Ennessy had it.
Commissioner Wheeler wished to know why Planning is
recommending they plant four pine trees as he felt pines make a
mess.
Planner DeBlois explained that six oaks and four pines were
removed and he simply recommended replacement with trees
identical to those removed. He had no problem with requiring all
oak trees.
Fred Mensing, interested citizen, commented that he is in
the land clearing business himself. He noted that Planning has
held a seminar on land clearing, and he believed contractors
doing this type of work alt know that you need to see some
paperwork before clearing. Mr. Mensing, therefore, felt someone
else is equally guilty of negligence, and that Mr. Puttick, as
the victim of circumstances, should get some relief.
Commissioner Bowman agreed we probably should go after the
land clearing outfit, and Chairman Scurlock noted that we have
authorized staff to readdress the Tree Protection Ordinance just
because of this.
Commissioner Bird wished to know if we can require replace-
ment of some trees as part of the site plan.
Director Keating stated that site plan has been approved and
meets all the landscape ordinance provisions. Staff just
MAR 15 1988
87 BOOK 71 FAGE 256
recommended these additional trees as part of the tree violation.
Planner DeBlois advised there were actually about 50 trees
on the site, but about 40 were palm trees.
Chairman Scurlock believed if you want to park cars there,
you certainly don't want to park them under trees, and Planner
DeBlois informed him that the oaks and pines that were to be
saved on the previous site plan were mostly in the open space
buffer areas.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the
staff recommendation with the exception that they
substitute oaks for the four pines.
GOLF CLUB - RATE STRUCTURE REVIEW & RECOMMENDED SUMMER PROGRAM
Administrator Balczun reviewed memo from Golf Director
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: February 10, 1988 FILE:
THRU: Charles Balczun
County Administrator
Joseph Baird
Budget Director
SUBJECT:
FROM: REFERENCES:
Bob Koma ri netz
Director of Golf
PRESENT RATE STRUCTURE
REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED
SUMMER PROGRAM
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS
I have met with two different groups of county residents within the last
month concerning the rate structure at Sandridge Golf Club. After
reviewing the present rate structure and revenues thru February 5, 1988,
the staff feels that it would be impossible to change the present rates set
forth thru April 30, 1988. Analyzing the revenues through that period, we
feel that it would not be financially prudent to introduce a special
discount program at this time.
RECOMMENDATIONS
My recommendation is that we introduce the summer rate structure, a copy of
which is enclosed. This will satisfy both our financial needs and our
county residents. I have listed our year-to-date revenues. Revised
estimates are included, that should accommodate the 1987-88 approved
revenue budget.
88
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71 PV)-- 257
SANDRIDGE GOLF CLUB
RATE SCHEDULE
JANUARY 1, 1988 THRU APRIL 17, 1988
GREENS FEE CART FEES TOTAL
18 HOLES 15.00 2 in a cart -9.00 ea. 24.00
9 HOLES 7.50 2 in a cart -5.00 ea. 12.50
SPECIAL, 18 HOLES WITH CART AFTER 1:00 p.m. 22.00
RESIDENT WITH I.D. CARD
18 HOLES
9 HOLES
13.00 2 in a cart -9.00 ea. 22.00
6.50 2 in a cart -5.00 ea. 11.50
SPECIAL, 18 HOLES WITH CART AFTER 1:00 p.m. 20.00
18 HOLES FULL CART --1 IN A CART 12.00
9 HOLES FULL CART --1 IN A CART 7.50
SPECIAL FULL CART --ADD 3.00
WALKING AND 9 HOLE PLAY PERMI'rru. BEFORE 8:30 a.m. BACK 9 ONLY AND AFTER 2:00 p.m.
PRO SHOP HOURS JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 7:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m. DRIVING RANGE CLOSES AT 4:30
MARCH THRU APRIL 7:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. DRIVING RANGE CLOSES AT 5:00
APRIL 18, 1988 THRU MAY 1, 1988
18 HOLES
9 HOLES
GREENS FEE
CART FEES TOTAL
9.00 2 in a cart -6:00 ea.
15.00
4.50 2 in a cart -4.00 ea. 8.50
SPECIAL, 18 HOLES WITH CART AFTER 1:00 p.m. 14.00
RESIDENT WITH I.D. CARDS
18 HOLES
9 HOLES '
7.00 2 in a cart -6.00 ea.
13.00
3.50 2 in a cart -4.00 ea. 7.50
SPECIAL, 18 HOLES WITIH CART AFTER 1:00 p.m. 12.00
WALKING AND 9 HOLE PLAY PERMITTED BEFORE 8:30 a.m. BACK 9 ONLY AND AFTER 2:00 p.m.
PRO SHOP HOURS --7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. --DRIVING RANGE CLOSES AT 6:00 p.m.
MAY 2, 1988 THRU OCTOBER 31, 1988
WEEKDAY RATES
GREEN FEES CART FEES TOTAL
18 HOLES 9.00 6.00 per rider 15.00
9 HOLES 4.50 4.00 per rider 8.50.
SPECIAL, 18 HOLES WITH CART AFTER 12:00 p.m. 11.00
RESIDENTS WITH I.D. CARDS
18 HOLES (walking) 7.00 7.00
- 9 HOLES 3.50 3.50
SPECIAL, 18 HOLES WITH CART ALL DAY 9.00
FLAG CARD --18 HOLES WITH CART 10.00
WALKING PERMI'T'TED ANY TIME!!
89 BOOK 71 DU 258
MAR 15 1988
WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS
GREEN FEES CART FEES TOTAL
18 HOLES 9.00 6.00 per rider 15.00
9 HOLES 4.50 (after 1:00) 4.00 per rider 8.50
SPECIAL, 18 HOLES WITH CART AFTER 1:00 p.m. 11.00
RESIDENT WITH I.D. CARDS (BEFORE 12:00 p.m.)
18 HOLES
9 HOLES
7.00 6.00 per rider
3.50 (after 1:00) 4.00 per rider
SPECIAL, 18 HOLES WITH CART (AF'ihR 12:00)
FLAG CARD --18 HOLES WITH CART AFTER 12:00 p.m.
NO WALKING UNTIL AFTER 1:00 p.m.
JUNIORS --17 YEARS OF AGE OR UNDER
JANUARY 1st THRU APRIL 17th, 1988
APRIL 18th THRU OCTOBER 31, 1988
13.00
7.50
9.00
10.00
WEEKDAY WEEKEND
AFTER 2:00 p.m. AFTER 2:00 $1.00
ANYTIME AFTER 2:00 $1.00
ANY OTHER TIMES NOT SPECIFIED NORMAL GREENS FEE WILL APPLY!!!
PRO SHOP HOURS --7:00 a.m.-6:30 p.m. --DRIVING RANGE CLOSES AT 6:30 p.m.
OTHER SERVICE RATES
COUNTY RESIDENTS I.D. CARDS--$25.00--AFTER APRIL 15th --$15.00
I.D. CARDS EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 30, 1988
COUNTY RESIDENT I.D. CARD HOLDERS ADDITIONAL DISCOUNTS
1) HANDICAP SERVICE --$3.00
2) DRIVING RANGE CLUB --$12.50
3) 10% DISCOUNT ON PRO SHOP MERCHANDISE ON PURCHASE OF $20.00 OR MORE.
RENTAL CLUBS --18 holes --7.50
9 holes --4.50
DRIVING RANGE BALLS --small bucket $ 1.00
Driving Range Club --20 buckets $15.00
PULL CARTS --$1.00
STARTING TIMES TAKEN 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE
GOLF LESSONS AVAILABLE BY APPOINTMENT
ALL RATES SUBJECT TO 6% FLORIDA STATE SALES TAX
90
MAR 15 1988
i6._
BOOK 71
Chairman Scurlock felt that from what he hears what seems to
have everyone aggravated is paying $25.00 for a County Resident
card. We, of course, want the golf course to be self-
supporting; so, he wished to know what impact it would have if we
got rid of the card and simply said bring in your driver's
license or voter's registration, etc., to prove county residency.
Director Komarinetz noted it isn't the money obtained from
the cards that is important; it is the need to make it simple for
staff to determine who is a county resident.
Commissioner Eggert believed a lot of people have Florida
driver's licenses who are not Florida residents.
The Chairman asked how much money we took in on the $25.00
charge for the cards, and Director Komarinetz stated only about
$3,500 to date. He informed the Board that this card was a
recommendation from the National Golf Foundation, but he felt
possibly the $25.00 charge may be too high. He emphasized that
we are not looking to make money from the card per se.
Commissioner Bird felt that the actual issuance of the card
does help staff quite a bit and saves time, and he would rather
see us tower the price of the card to $10 or $15 than do away
with it.
Chairman Scurlock noted if that is a possibility, he would
like to try it, and he further believed that the majority feel
that there should be a wider separation in rates between
residents versus non-residents, even to the extent that if they
had to pay a little more in the summer, they would be supportive
of that, and he would like to take another look at the
differential between resident and non-resident.
Commissioner Bird reported that right now a county resident
will pay about $23.00 in the winter and $9.00 in the summer. He
agreed that is a big spread and possibly, they should pay a
little more in the summer and something Tess in the winter.
Director Komarinetz advised there is also a "FLAG" card
which is offered in most golf courses throughout Florida, with
91
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71 FA E.26O
which card you can play golf for $10. The county card gives even
a little better break, and we offer both the "FLAG" card and
county resident card. In winter it is the volume that is
important, and we are looking to put the maximum amount of
players on the course.
Chairman Scurlock believed in the summer months, they have
had a negative cash flow of $15,000 a month; so, if you don't
bring in the revenue during the winter, the negative summer flow
catches up with you real quickly.
Commissioner Bird agreed that actually is what is happening
right now, and even though the rates do seem high, the fact of
the matter is that the golf course is playing 220-260 players a
day at $25 a person. Those players are tickled to death to have
the facility available and are not complaining about the rates,
and it is enabling the course to generate a tremendous amount of
revenue during the prime winter months to carry us over the slow
summer months when we can afford to let local people play at very
reasonable rates.
Commissioner Bird felt what Director Komarinetz has done is
taken his yearly budget and projected what he needs to come out
with a balanced budget. He, therefore, would like the Board to
approve the Golf Director's recommendation and possibly give some
consideration to lowering the price of the card to $10 for the
summer instead of $15, but finish out the fiscal year we are in
now and with these thoughts in mind in the next fiscal year take
a look at the overall rates, and maybe there can be some
adjustment in the winter for county residents.
e 1988
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the
Golf Director's recommendation to introduce the summer
rate schedule and Commissioner Bird's suggestions as
set out above.
92 BOOK - 71 Fr! CE 261
DIVING RIGHTS AT GOLF COURSE
Administrator Balczun reviewed the following:
TO:
Members of the Board of
County Commissioners
DATE: March 3, 1988 FILE:
THRU: Mr. Charles Balczun SUBJECT: Diving Rights
County Administrator
FROM: Bob Komarinetzk•l/
REFERENCES:
Director of Gol
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
It is a normal practice of golf courses to contract out the Diving Rights
to retrieve ,golf balls frau the lakes on the course. As explained in
the attached contract this will be an additional revenue source for
Sandridge Golf Club.
RECOMMENDATION
I have known International Golf Co. and their reputation for many years
and recommend that we contract for their services.
ON MOTION By Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the
contract with International Golf Co. to retrieve golf
balls.
SAID CONTRACT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES WHEN FULLY
EXECUTED AND RECEIVED.
GOLF PRO SHOP PURCHASES
Administrator Balczun reviewed the following:
93
111AR ib 1988
BOOK 71 [Au -262
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: March 7, 1988 FILE:
FROM:
Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
SUBJECT:
REFERENCES:
GOLF PRO SHOP PURCHASES
BACKGROUND
As part of its services to customers, Sandridge Golf Course offers golf
related merchandise for sale to the public. Merchandise must first be
purchased by us.
A question arises as to whether our purchases of merchandise should be let
out for bids.
ANALYSIS
There are essentially two methods for acquisition of this merchandise
contracts resulting from bidding or direct purchases.
A retail operation of this nature as well as the array of brand names do
not lend themselves to bidding. Additionally, it is virtually impossible
to develop specifications for an item which is unique (i.e. a Titleist golf
ball is a Titleist golf ball and obviously is not any other kind of golf
ball
)•
Our objective is to provide a reasonable variety of golf related items for
retail sale.
RECOMMENDATION
I request that the Board of County Commissioners concur with me that such
purchases be exempted from our normal bid requirements pursuant to the
provisions of Section 2-2a of our Purchasing Procedures.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to exempt
the pro shop purchases as described from our normal
bid requirements as recommended by staff.
SEA OAKS PRD - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FLOOD PLAIN DISPLACEMENT
REQUIREMENT
The Board reviewed memo of Drainage Engineer David Cox:
94
16._MAR 15 1988
Bog 71 FACE 263
TO:
Charles P. Balczun DATE: February 26, 1988 FILE:
County Administrator
THROUGH:
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo
FROM: Dave Cox +-
Drainage Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Waiver Flood
Plain Displacement
Requirement Ordinance 87-12
Sea Oaks PRD
REFERENCES: Letter from Kevin
McAdams, P.E., Beindorf
& Associates 12/23/87
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Beindorf and Associates on behalf of the developer of Sea
Oaks PRD is requesting a waiver of the "Cut and Fill" balance
requirement of the Stormwater Management and Flood Protection
Ordinance. Sea Oaks PRD received conceptual PRD Plan Approval
from the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting
of February 23, 1988 and is located between the Indian River and
SR A1A approximately one mile South of CR 510. The Engineer for
the project states 7,200 cubic yards of fill would be placed
below elevation 4.0 ft. within the 100 year flood plain of the
Indian River.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Since the Indian River in this location is an estuarine
environment, and the project engineer has stated that all other
design requirements of Ordinance 87-12 will be met, staff has no
objection.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that a waiver to the flood displacement
requirement be granted to Sea Oaks PRD.
Commissioner Bowman questioned the cumulative effect of
granting such waivers, and Public Works Director Davis advised
that they have asked St. Johns River Water Management District
about this but they don't really have a handle on it. They feel
that in a lagoon type situation that filling some of the fringes
will not have a negative impact on the flood plain itself.
Commissioner Bowman believed eventually we may regret this
and wondered if we should be so eager to allow these exceptions.
Director Davis explained that they used the language from a
model flood plain ordinance that was developed through the
University of Florida dealing with the filling of flood plain
areas around a river. Then we got tremendous comments from
local engineers saying that since we have such a wide lagoon type
MAR 15 1988
95
BOOK 71 FK,E2G4
system in the Indian River, the language really is not that
applicable, and we went with this waiver. Director Davis
believed it will take St. Johns to look at the multi -county area
to determine the overall effect.
Commissioner Bowman felt possibly the Marine Resources
Committee should look into this.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously granted a waiver
of the flood displacement requirement to Sea Oaks PRD.
PURCHASE OF DOT TYPE III ASPHALT FROM ASPHALT PAVERS, INC.
The Board reviewed memo of the Public Works Director:
TO: Charles P. Balczun,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, PE
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Request to Purchase DOT Type III Asphalt from
Asphalt Pavers, Inc.
REF. LETTER: Letter dated March 7, 1988 to Albert VanAuken from
Asphalt Pavers, Inc.
DATE: March 8, 1988
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Asphalt Pavers, Inc., Ocala, F1., is resurfacing I-95 under DOT
contract north of SR60. A temporary asphalt plant has been
constructed on 98th Avenue to serve this project. In speaking
with the Company's project manager Asphalt Pavers will resurface
County road with DOT Type III asphalt for $34/ton. The current
County contract is $36.15/ton (Dickerson Florida, Inc) and
$35.15/ton(MacAsphalt) in the North County only.
At the present time, the Road and Bridge Division has
approximately $352,000 (balance on 2-25-88) budgeted for paving
materials. The following resurfacing projects are needed:
Lindsey Road - 58th Avenue to US 1(2.3 miles)
Cost = $60,000
Lateral "A" Road - SR 60 to Cherry.Lane
Cost = $30,000
Miscellaneous Small Jobs - $14,000
96
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71 F., E265
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The county advertised for annual bids in October, 1987. At that
time, the new asphalt plant was not in the County. Staff
presents the following alternatives:
Alternative No. 1
Re -advertise for bids and select low bidder. Cancel the
current annual bid if lower bids are received.
Alternative No. 2
Purchase Type 3 asphalt in place for $34/ton
Pavers, Inc.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that
staff be authorized to
Pavers, Inc. without
re -surfacing of Lindsey
(66th Avenue), and various
from Asphalt
Alternative No. 2 be approved and that
purchase Type 3 asphalt from Asphalt
going to bid Also, authorize the
Road and portions of Lateral "A" road
small projects.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved Alterna-
tive No. 2; authorized staff to purchase Type 3 asphalt
from Asphalt Pavers, Inc., without going to bid; and
authorized the resurfacing of Lindsey Road and portions
of Lateral "A" (66th Ave.) and various small projects.
PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF NORTH BEACH WATER COMPANY
Utilities Director Pinto reviewed the following:
97
(BAR 15 198
BOOK 71 F`H266
TO)3oard of County CommissionerOATE: March 8, 1988
FILE:
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF
NORTH BEACH WATER COMPANY
FROM: CHARLES P. BALCZUN REFERENCES:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BACKGROUND
The North Beach Water Company currently serves approximately 500
customers on the north barrier island with a plant currently capable
of producing 500,000 gpd with potential to produce 2.5 mgd.
Under the terms of the company's franchise agreement, the county
can purchase the system in 1990 for approximately $5.6 million.
The Utility wishes to sell the system now and as a result, the
County has been negotiating its purchase. The negotiated price
at this time is $3.1 million.
ANALYSIS
The County's policy has been to acquire such privately held
utilities and to expand its regional and sub -regional water and
wastewater facilities. Acquisition of this system will assist
us in implementing that.policy.
Acquisition costs are to be financed by issuance of long term
debt instruments underwritten by a surcharge of approximately
$13 per month per customer. Since customers of the company now
pay approximately $13 per month less than the County's own custo-
mers, the surcharge would result in customers of the private
utility, subsequent to acquisition, paying approximately the
same as current County customers.
RECOMMENDATION
Conceptually approve the proposed purchase agreement and schedule
the statutorily required public hearing.
Commissioner Bird felt that conceptually it would seem it
would be a good deal, but he understood the process requires a
public hearing, and hoped at that time we would have a chance to
develop some additional information, such as some type of
appraisal, etc., to verify this is a justifiable purchase price.
Chairman Scurlock advised that we have done all those
appraisals on the system. The original cost of the system was
almost 6 million, and while we very much disagreed they should
98
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71. FME267
have spent that much, it was documented. Under the franchise
agreement entered into, purchase times are set out in the 7th and
12th years. There was a depreciation allowed of 31% per year up
to 2L%, which would have allowed us to acquire the system in the
7th year for 3.64 million, and we negotiated from their 6 million
figure way down to 3.1 million.
Utilities Director Pinto noted that the statute we have to
follow to purchase a utility under Chapter 125.341 sets out very
specific criteria which we must establish to justify the
purchase.
Chairman Scurlock advised that on these acquisitions we have
made two commitments; the first being that any acquisition would
not have any adverse impact on the existing customers, and
secondly, that the rate structure presently charged would be
maintained as much as possible, or possibly reduced, and that is
where we came up with the maximum surcharge of $13.00. He
advised that we have a meeting scheduled with the property
owners.
Director Pinto noted one other important point that we run
into with all private utility companies is that their rate
structures are lower because they are heavily subsidized by the
developers; so, you are not looking at what the real numbers
would be if that developer were to pull up stakes and leave. He
noted that on two occasions the North Beach Water Company has
been in for a proposed rate increase which never got going, and
they are presently losing about $40,000 a year.
Commissioner Bird asked if it is their philosophy on these
acquisitions that the existing customers by the surcharge will
pay for the system without negatively impacting the other users
of the county utility system.
Chairman Scurlock stated absolutely and noted that in this
case that customer is mainly the developer. Sea Oaks only has
140 units sold and the balance of the 1500 ERUs reserved
basically is the developer.
MAR 15 1988
99
No71 FACE 268
Commissioner Bird asked if the $13.00 surcharge causes the
existing customers to pay more than they are paying presently.
Chairman Scurlock explained that their present base facility
charge is significantly higher than ours, their consumption
charge is higher than ours, and the county structure is broken
down a little differently. Based on 10,000 gallons usage, which
is low for the beach, you have a differential of about $3.00 a
month, but as the usage goes up they will actually see a
reduction based on 25,000 gallons.
Commissioner Eggert hoped as we are taking these systems in
that staff is looking at the total affect on our system over the
years.
Director Pinto confirmed we are having an accounting firm do
a full blown study and set up a computer program to look at rate
structures in accordance with proposed debt service over 20
years.
Chairman Scurlock felt one significant thing this will
accomplish is that the entire barrier island will have a
governmental entity to look to for reliability of service.
Another factor is that with utilities you have a certain ability
to control and plan for your growth on the island. He further
noted that we have a significant disagreement with North Beach
Water on their line extension policy and this will eliminate that
problem.
Commissioner Bird asked if it will be demonstrated at the
public hearing whether we anticipate we can operate the system
within our overall system at a profit or a loss.
Director Pinto advised that it will be demonstrated that it
can carry itself, and Chairman Scurlock confirmed the rate
structure will carry itself and the surcharge is for the funding
source for the acquisition.
Commissioner Bowman asked how large an area a potential 2.5
million gpd will serve, and Director Pinto believed that should
serve all the way to the inlet if the densities don't change.
100
MAR 1.5 1988
BOOK 71 F' E 269
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously gave conceptual
approval of the contract with North Beach Water Company
and authorized staff to schedule the required public
hearing for April 12, 1988.
SELECTION OF LIBRARY SITE
Commissioner Eggert discussed the recommendations of the
Library Advisory Board and the Site Subcommittee, as follows:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Commissioner Carolyn R. Eggert
Chairman, Public Library Advisory Board
DATE: March 10, 1988
SUBJECT: Public Library Advisory Board's Recommendations for
Main Library Site
On March 9, 1988, there was a meeting of the Public Library
Advisory Board who made the following recommendations, in order
of their priority, for the main library site:
1. Indian River Boulevard/South
(across from Fairlane Harbor)
2. Catron Site - Configuration 2C
3. Catron Site - Configuration 2A
4. Catron Site - Configuration 2B
5. MacArthur/Davis Site
6. Civic Arts Center Site
7. Indian Oaks
8. SR #60 & 28th Avenue
9. Indian River Boulevard North Site
(across from Power Plant)
10. Old Jail Site
11. Grace Lutheran Church Site
12. Proposed Health Department Site
The Public Library Advisory Board kindly requests that the
Board of County Commissioners review their recommendations and
make the final selection.
Commissioner Eggert requests that three sites in at least
two different locations be chosen and ranked so that if the first
site does not work out, the Board can go to the second.
101
BAR 15 1988
800K 71 FA,,E 270
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
and
Public Library Advisory Board
FROM: Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Chairman, Public Library Advisory Board
DATE: March 9, 1988
SUBJECT: Library Sites
On March 22, 1988, the Site Subcommittee ranked the library
sites as follows:
Site Acres Zoning
1. Catron Site
(Alt.B)
2. Catron Site
(Alt.A)
3. Catron Site
(Alt.C)
4. IR Blvd.S.
(Fairlane)
Land + Demolition /Total
or Lot
3.0 POI** $850,000/$968,400
5.0 P0I/R-1*** $750,000+70,000/938,400
3.5 POI/R-1*** $650,000/768,400
$400,000 to 500,000/
3.8/5 RM -10 584,400
5. MacArthur/Davis 4.69
6. Civic Arts Ctr. Flex.
7. Indian Oaks 4.0
8. IR Blvd.N. 2} +
(Power Plant)
9. Grace Lutheran
R-2;RM
10/12
$1,200,000/1,334,400
P-2 $ -0- /276,300
CL
POI;RM-
2 10*
2.09
on
site
10. SR60/28th Ave. 3.8
11. Old Jail Site
12. County Health
Department Site
R-2;RM-
10/12 &
C2 -A
POI;R-1***
4.28 R-1(to be
rezoned)
3.2 H; R-1***
$400,000/571,000 +
traffic costs
$810,000/894,400
$710,000 + 82,000/
900,300
$650,000/760,400
$ -0- /360,800
$110,000/190,900
* Total includes land plus onsite/offsite preparations and
improvements (rough estimates only).
Requires amendment to POI ordinance - about two
months if approved.
Requires amendment to POI ordinance; Comp Plan amendments
and rezoning - about five months if approved.
102
MAR 1$ 1988
BOOK. - 71 p, -r 271
Commissioner Eggert informed the Board that the Public
Library Advisory Board at this point favors building a one-story
library because of being restricted to 35,000 sq. ft. To make it
two-story would take our assignable space down to about 25,000
sq. ft. instead of 28,000. They liked the two story building when
they were looking at the downtown site and thought they possibly
could go up to 40,000 sq. ft. She continued that to be able to
build a 35,000 sq. ft. library and have sufficient parking they
will need 3.08 acres. This will allow no expansion. Four acres
would allow them to expand to a 50,000 sq. ft. building with
appropriate parking. They have budgeted $750,000 for land, and
if they choose a parcel more expensive than that, it will have to
come out what is allotted for such things as furniture or
computers. Commissioner Eggert advised that the estimations
for building are based on a cost of 70 per sq. ft., which is
adequate but in no way Tush, and impact fees also must be
considered.
Commissioner Eggert then reviewed the starred items and went
over the various time periods involved with parcels that would
have to be rezoned or would require Comprehensive Plan
amendments. She stressed that the zonings, the cost, and the
35,000 sq. ft. single story library are the most important things
to keep in mind. She then asked Planner Stan Boling to review
the various parcels briefly.
Planner Boling proceeded to review the following sites:
MAR 15 1988
103 goo' - 71 rAuE.272
CJI
w
1
0
v
1,1
Site
(1)
Grace Lutheran
Block [property
owners: Grace
Lutheran Church;
Nancy Moon].
Frontage
Major Rd: 21st
Street (260');
frontage on 22nd
Street, 16th and
17th Ave.
Activity Center:
Downtown
Acreage
2.09 on-site;
.9 available
off-site for
parking; Total
useable = 3
acres.
2 story library
POTENTIAL MAIN LIBRARY SITES [35,000 sq. ft. facility]
Zoning
R-2; RM -10/12
and C2 -A. Library
use allowed, no
changes necessary.
Land Use
Compatibility
In mixed area:
single & multi-
family res.,
churches, offices
and commercial.
On-site/Off-Site
Preparation
-trees to preserve
fill: minimal
alley to abandon
possible utilities
relocation (water
and wastewater
traffic: widen
intersection radii,
provide sidewalks
remove structures
(church, houses,
businesses)
tenant lease problems
**Note: T.I.F. credits would apply,
Costs
a) land acq:
b) razing:
(lib. site
and parking
site)
c) fill:
d) utilities:
relocation
e) traffic/
sidewalks
f) util. fees:
g) traffic fees:
h) other (tenant
lease buyout):
Estimated Total:
$710,000 - S792,000
82,000
12,000
13,000
20,000
2,500
60,800**
unknown
$900,300 +
tenant costs/
$930,700* +
tenant costs
reducing or eliminating impact fees charged
(2)
Catron
Note: Parcel
configuration
flexible:
Three basic
alternatives.
Major Rd: S.R. 60
(326' to 615');
frontage on 23rd
and 25th Ave.;
19th Street front-
age available.
Activity Center:
S.R. 60 Corridor
Alt. A (5.1 acres POI/R-1)
Alt. B (3.0 Acres POI)
Alt. C (3.5 acres POI/R-1)
3.0 to 5.1
available
on site:
ALT: 5.1 ac.
ALT: 3.0 ac.
(2 story rec.)
ALT: 3.5 ac.
P.O.I. in north
i; R-1 (single-
family) in south
Library use
currently not
allowed. Changes
necessary: City
Rezoning and/or
Zoning Text
amendments.
$750,000 land cost + 70,000 addt'l lot = $820,000
$850,000 land cost [NOTE: small parcel with 50' building setbacks]
$650,000 land cost NOTE:
Within single-
family neighbor-
hood. Some
office/commercial
uses front S.R.60
in the area. Com-
patibility with
single-family
neighborhood
questionable.
trees to preserve,
exotics to remove
fill: some needed
traffic: depending
upon alternative
S.R 60 turn lane
and decl lane
25th & 23rd Ave.
widening
sidewalks
possible signalization
at S.R. 60
a) land acq: 650,000/750,000/850,000
b) addt'l lot (Alt. A only) 70,000
c) utilities:
d) traffic/
sidewalks: 50,000
e) util. fees: 7,600
f) traffic fees: 60,800
Estimated
Total:
Alt. A $938,400/$968,800*
Alt. B $968,400/$998,800*
Alt. C $768,400/$798,800*
figures for on-site/off-site preparation and improvements are rough estimates only.
*projected T.I.F. increase
Site
Frontage
(3)
MacArthur/Davis Major Rd: 20th Street
(south leg of Twin
Pairs: 645') 320'
on 10th and 9th
Avenues; 645' on
19th Street.
Activity Center:
Twin Pairs Corridor.
LEA22
4.69 acres
(entire
block)
POTENTIAL MAIN LIBRARY SITES [35,000 sq. ft. facility]
Zoning
R-2; RM -10/12,
Library use
allowed, no
changes necessary.
Land Use
Compatibility
In mixed area: single
and multiple family
residential; offices
and commercial.
On-site/Off-Site
Preparation
fill: probable
substantial
amount needed
traffic: 9th
Ave. and 19th
Street paving,
possible 10th
Ave/20th St.,
intersection
improvement,
provide sidewalks.
Costs
a) land acq:
b) fill:
c) utilities:
d) traffic/
sidewalks:
e) utility fees:
f) traffic fees:
$1,200,000
16,000
50,000
7,600
60,800
Estimated Total: $1,334,400/$1,364,800*
(4)
Old Jail Site
Major Rd: 17th Ave.
(*425').
Activity Center:
16th Street School/
Recreation Area.
*4.28 acre
area (ex-
cludes other
surrounding
user areas
such as the
Sunshine
Rehabili-
tation Center
and Vol.
Ambulance
Squad).
R-1 (single-
family);
Library use not
currently allowed.
Necessary change:
City Zoning text
amendment.
Note: City may
initiate re-
zoning to
institutional
use district.
In mixed area: single
and multiple family
residential, public
and institutional
uses.
- fill: some needed
- remove structures
(jail and other
buildings)
- traffic:
a) land acq: $ 0
b) fill: 12,000
c) utilities:
d) traffic/
sidewalks 3,300
e) utility fees: 2,500
f) traffic fee: 43,000
g) raze structures/
landfill: 300,000
Estimated Total: $ 360,800/$382,300* .
NOTE: figures for on-site/off-site preparation and improvements are rough estimates only.
*projected T.I.F. increase
1
m
trq
CLD
00
00
0i
Site
(5)
I.R. Blvd.
North (across
from Power Plant).
Site includes
City site (2.5
acres) in combi-
nation w/one of
two other parcels:
-Bradley: [3.0
acres on 17th St.)
-Papin: (2.0 acres
on 18th St.).
NOTE: Bradley
does not wish
to sell for a
library use.
Frontage
Major Rd: I.R. Blvd.
(*615') & 17th St.
(260' to 585');
frontage on 18th St.
(325') available
with Papin property.
Activity Center:
I.R. Blvd. Corridor.
Acreage
City/Bradley
comb. = 5.5
acres.
City/Papin
comb. = 4.5
acres.
Irregular
shape.
POTENTIAL MAIN LIBRARY SITES [35,000 sq. ft. facility]
Zoning
POI and RM -10
Note: site comb.
splits City/County
jurisdiction.
County juris.
zoned RM -10
allows library;
City zoned P.O.I.
does not. Necessary
change: City zoning
text amendment.
Land Use
Compatibility
In mixed area: multiple
family & mobile home
residential, heavy
public utilities uses,
commercial.
On-site/Off-Site
Preparation
- fill: some needed
- utilities:
- traffic:
Costs
a) land acq: City Site:
Bradley (est.):
Papin (est.):
City/Bradley:
City/Papin:
b) fill:
c) utilities:
d) traffic/sidewalks:
e) utilities fees:
f) traffic fees:
$600,000
315,000
210,000
$915,000
810,000
16,000
Unknown
7,600
60,800
Estimated Total: City/Bradley: $999,400/
$1,029,800*
City/Papin: $894,400/
$924,800*
(6)
I.R. Blvd. South
(across from
Fairlane Harbor)
Major Rd: I.R. Blvd.
(500'). Activity
Center: I.R. Blvd.
Corridor.
3.8 acres
useable area
of total 5
acre parcel.
RM -10/12. Library
use allowed. No
change necessary.
In mixed area: multiple
family, single-family
and mobile home res.,
heavy utilities uses,
commercial.
- fill: some needed
- utilities:
- traffic:
- appraisal needed
to settle selling
price.
a) land acq (est.): $400,000
b) fill:
c) utilities:
d) traffic/sidewalks:
e) utilities fees:
f) traffic fees:
to $500,000
16,000
Unknown
7,600
60,800
Estimated Total: $584,400/$614,800
NOTE: figures for on-site/off-site preparation and improvements are rough estimates only.
*projected T.I.F. increases
-a
Ca
CDQ
lowat
--9
IND
Site
(7)
SR 60/28th Ave.
(north side of
SR 60)
Frontage
Major Rd: S.R. 60
(263'); 28th Ave.
(627'). Activity
Center: SR 60
Corridor.
Acreage
3.8 acres
POTENTIAL MAIN LIBRARY SITES [35,000 sq. ft. facility]
Zoning
POI and R-1
(single-family
res). Library
use not allowed.
Necessary change:
City rezoning
and/or City
Zoning text
amendments.
Land Use
Compatibility
Predominently single-
family res. area.
Compatibility with
single family homes
is questionable.
On-site/Off-Site
Preparation
Costs
- fill: some needed a) land acq:
- utilities: b) fill:
- traffic: c) utilities:
- remove structure: d) utilities fees:
residence e) traffic fees:
f) traffic/sidewalks:
$650,000
12,000
7,600
60,800
30,000
Estimated Total: $760,400/$790,800*
(8)
Indian Oaks
(portion of
proposed comm.
subd. located
on south side
of SR 60, east
of 58th Ave).
Parcel config-
uration flexible.
Major Rd: SR 60
(280'); possible
frontage (400' to
600') on future subd.
road. Activity
Center: SR 60
Corridor.
4.0 to 4.5
acres.
CL (limited
commercial).
Library use
allowed.
Vacant; planned for
limited commercial
and office uses.
- fill: needed
- utilities:
(infrastructure
improvements
needed)
- traffic
a) land acq:
b) fill:
c) utilities:
d) traffic:
e) utilities fees:
f) traffic fees:
$400,000
16,000
100,000
Unknown
6,000
49,200
Estimated Total: $571,200 + traffic
improvements/
$630,300* + traffic
improvements
NOTE: figures for on-site/off-site preparation and improvements are rough estimates only.
*projected T.I.F. increase
Site
(9)
County Admn.
(behind Co.
Admn. Bldg.).
Frontage
Major Rd: 27th St.
(±560'); Activity
Center: Current
Administration Bldg.
area.
Acreage
3.2 acres
contiguous
(w/r-o-w
aband).
Irregular
shape: plus
0.9 acres
adjacent for
overflow
parking.
Total use-
able: 4.1 acres.
POTENTIAL MAIN LIBRARY SITES [35,000 sq. ft. facility]
Zoning
H (Hospital,
institutional)
and R-1 (single
family res.).
Library use not
allowed. Necessary
change: City re-
zoning or City
Zoning Text
Amendment.
Land Use
Compatibility
In mixed area: single
family res., institu-
tional, commercial
nearby.
On-site/Off-Site
Preparation
- fill: some needed
- r -o -w to abandon
- structures to
remove: small
residential
- traffic:
- utilities:
Costs
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
land acq.
razing
fill
utilities
traffic/sidewalks
utilities fees
traffic fees
S110,000 (max. set. costs)
500
12,000
Unknown
7,600
60,800
Estimated Total: $190,900/$221,300*
+ traffic/sidewalk costs
(10)
Civic Arts
Center (Mem.
Island).
Major Rd: Beachland
Blvd. (entire Arts
complex).
flexible;
"to meet
Co. needs".
P-2, park
district.
Library uses
allowed.
In institutional
uses area.
- fill: some needed
- utilities
- traffic
a) land acq.
b) fill:
c) utilities:
d) traffic/sidewalks:
e) utilities fees:
f) traffic fees:
$ 0
$100,000 to $150,000
Unknown
7,600
118,700
Estimated Total: $276,300/$276,300*
+ traffic/sidewalk costs
NOTE: figures for on-site/off-site preparation and improvements are rough estimates only.
*projected T.I.F. increase
1) Grace Lutheran Parcel - Planner Boling noted we would want the
entire block cleared and the tenant problem still exists in the
corner stores.
Commissioner Eggert asked if Planner Boling had rechecked
and still feels the space is too tight to put in a 35,000 sq. ft.
building and allow those stores to stand, and Planner Boling
confirmed that is his opinion.
Chairman Scurlock asked if he felt it still would be too
tight if they used the Baptist Church parking, and Planner Boling
stated it would be very difficult; it could be done, but you
would run very tight on your open space and while you could meet
the minimum parking required by the City, you could not have as
much parking as the library consultant advised.
The Chairman noted that when the stores are gone, you would
have the parking, and Planner Boling agreed ultimately you could
do it.
Commissioner Eggert commented that leaving the stores also
affects how you would place the library, which may or many not be
of concern.
2) Catron Parcel - Planner Boling reported that the owner is now
flexible about the amount of site that could be used for the
library, and there are three options with varying frontages on
SR60 and accesses on 23rd and 25th Avenues.
3) McArthur/Davis Parcel - the asking price of 1.2 million is the
same, and they do not wish to sell any less than the entire site.
The Chairman felt that site is out based on price.
4) Old Jail Site - this is a little over 4 acres and would
accommodate any of the plans or expansion to 50,000 sq. ft.
The Chairman asked if that site has access to 20th Avenue,
and Chairman Eggert confirmed that it does.
109
L»VARi5 1988
BOOK 71 FA ,i 7S
5) I.R.Boulevard North - This is part of the City property that
was considered with The Promenade, and other parcels adjacent to
it would have to be acquired. Mr. Bradley, owner of an adjacent
three acres, is not interested in selling them for library use,
and as far as dealing with willing sellers -at this point, the
configuration is very difficult to work with, as well as the
asking price.
6) I.R.Boulevard South - This parcel is also within the City and
located across from Fairlane Harbor. The entire site is shown to
be 5 acres, but that includes some of the canal and road R/W, and
staff feels about 3.8 acres is available.
Commissioner Eggert commented that Public Works Director
Davis felt we would have to take very careful soil borings and we
might need a tremendous amount of fill. If we had to go to
pilings, there would be a 9-10o increase in the actual
construction cost.
Chairman Scurlock suggested we eliminate that site.
7) SR60/28th Ave. (west of child care center) - There is an
existing house on the site, which is zoned R-1 in the back and
P.O.1. in the front along SR 60.
Commissioner Bird noted that we have not heard much
discussion about this and asked about the configuration of the
site.
Planner Boling advised that you have a 50' setback from the
residential property in the rear, and there is also a 75' setback
from SR 60.
8) Indian Oaks (south of SR60, east of King's Highway) - Chairman
Scurlock felt this parcel is too far west and suggested it be
eliminated.
Commissioner Bird agreed it is too far from the beach
residents.
WAR 15 1988
110
Fr
BOOK 71 : 279
9) County -owned parcel behind Administration Building - This is a
triangular shaped piece with some condemnations to be settled.
Commissioner Eggert believed this is an extraordinarily
difficult site, and could be eliminated as far as she is
concerned.
Commissioner Bird agreed that we need to keep this property
for future governmental purposes.
10) Civic Arts Center (City owned property at Memorial Island) -
Chairman Scurlock stated this could be eliminated as far as
he is concerned, and Commissioner Eggert advised that she has
received a petition with about 500 signatures of those opposing
the Civic Arts Center site. (Said petition is on file in the
Office of Clerk to the Board.)
Chairman Scurlock suggested that the Board cull the list to
eliminate sites they feel are not worth further consideration.
Commissioner Bird was not sure he would rule out the Indian
River Boulevard south location entirely, but if he put it in, he
would want some in depth consideration by experts of just how
buildable it is since it is awfully low. He actually was not
that enthusiastic about the site.
Board members agreed this site should be ruled out.
Commissioner Eggert asked if the Board wished to leave in
all three Catron site alternatives, and Chairman Scurlock wished
to leave in only Alternative C, the least expensive.
Commissioner Bird asked if there is any possibility of
negotiation to better the price.
Attorney Vitunac advised that some very hard negotiations
were carried on last time, and all three property owners in the
final running refused to budge another inch on the price.
However, it is possible some things may have changed since then.
Commissioner Eggert noted we still have to have an appraisal
and a public hearing and no matter what we do, she trusted we
111
MAR 15 1988
L
BOOK 71 FnE 2S0
would base our closing on this property on being able to
accomplish any of the zonings, etc., and an approved site plan.
Commissioner Bird suggested that on the Catron site they
pick out the configuration they want, state the price they can
afford to pay, and then negotiate.
Chairman Scurlock felt the biggest problem with that site is
that we have no assurance we can build a library there for the
next 6-8 months, and Commissioner Bird agreed a contract would
have to be made contingent on rezoning, etc.
Commissioner Eggert noted that what she would like the Board
to do at this time, if they wish to choose three sites, is make
sure they are at least in two different locations.
Chairman Scurlock stated that as one Commissioner he would
pick the Grace Lutheran site as his first choice, the Old Jail
site second, and the least expensive Catron site third.
Commissioner Bowman believed we need the four acres. She
was sure we will eventually have to expand the library to 50,000
sq. ft., and did not feel it would be economical to put ourselves
on a small plot where we cannot expand. There are only a few
sites that provide 4 acres, and we have eliminated Indian Oaks
because it is too far west. She, therefore, would consider only
the Catron site and the old Jail site, and since she wanted to
put the least money on the real estate and keep the most for the
building and the equipment, she would rank the jail site first.
Commissioner Eggert, in fairness to the people on the
Library Planning Committee and the Site Committee, wished the
Board to be aware that while former Commissioner Pat Lyons is
supportive of the old Jail site, the rest of the members would
like to see almost any site but the old Jail. Their reasons are
that they are concerned about vandalism in that area and drugs
and concerned that after 2:30, when school lets out, the library
will become a babysitting association; also, it is felt there are
enough books in that area right now. She stressed that the
committee feels very deeply about this, but it seems Police Chief
AVIA R 15 1988
1 1 2 BOOK 71 F'nF 281
Gabbard does not share these concerns, and many people with young
families feel this is the best location.
Commissioner Bowman felt you will have drugs and vandalism
and all these problems no matter where you go, and Commissioner
Wheeler believed these concerns are management problems.
Commissioner Wheeler had a question about showing a zero for
property value for the jail site when you approve a bond. His
point is that there is some value on that property, and he would
like to know what it is.
Commissioner Eggert advised that it has been carried at a
value of $400,000 for insurance purposes.
Discussion continued at some length regarding the time delay
that would be related to the rezoning required for the 5 acre
Catron site and the fact that we would have to buy an additional
lot with that site for an estimated $70,000.
Commissioner Wheeler stated that other than price, he did
not see any advantage to putting off this decision. He expressed
his preference for the Old Jail site for various reasons, i.e.,
to get rid of the old jail, because the site is adjacent to
schools and in the hub of the downtown area, and because the
price is right. He was willing to make a Motion to choose the
old Jail site, and stated the only way he would back off from
that site would be if people would be a lot more serious about
negotiating price on the Catron property. He felt the Catron
site is better except for price, but believed people will go to
the library no matter where it is.
Commissioner Bird agreed that people want to go to the
library, but felt the Jail area is congested already with the two
schools and with all the school activities. He also did not feel
the access is that great.
Considerable discussion continued about the advantages and
disadvantages of the Jail site, and Commissioner Wheeler agreed
there is some validity to the argument about congestion but felt
that could be alleviated. As far as the other concerns about
113
MAR 15 1988
BOOK -
1 28
baby-sitting, vandalism, etc., he reiterated that is a management
or police problem and he did not see any abnormal amount of
vandalism in that area.
Commissioner Bowman noted that she would rather see kids
hang out in a library than in video centers.
Chairman Scurlock still favored the Grace Lutheran site, but
did not believe that will happen; so, he liked the Jail site as
his second choice.
Commissioner Bird felt the Grace Lutheran site is too small.
Nancy Moon, owner of the Grace Lutheran site, came before
the Board, noting that she has never spoken to the Board before,
but she has heard some comments made that the first site would
have gone through if it wasn't for her.
Board members did not feel that had been said, but Chairman
Scurlock confirmed that he personally had commented to Mrs. Moon
that if she hadn't gone back on her original offer, the Board had
already made their decision.
Commissioner Eggert interjected that she had made an error
before that last vote, which was that in considering that site
originally, she just plain forgot to include the traffic impact
fees. It seems those amount to a sum of $138,000, and that would
have made a big difference to her pricewise in the site in the
first place.
Mrs. Moon noted that besides expenses, which she does not
know about, she still felt the same reasons the Board voted in
favor of the Grace Lutheran site before still exist now. The
only thing standing in the way before were the leases, and that
has changed and there has been a reduction in price from the
amount voted on before. She further noted that one thing that
wasn't taken into consideration was an additional $50,000 that
would be received by the county from the leases as they exist.
Mrs. Moon emphasized there was tremendous support of this
location from all factions. Every member of the City Council
still stands by that site, and from the date the Board voted on
GEAR 15 1988
1 1 4 BOOK- 71 mE 283
it in November, a lot of things have happened downtown just
because of a promise of a commitment from the county. The
Redevelopment Committee was formed; the Historical Society is
holding a seminar and a vote will be taken on whether to put
$25,000 into the redevelopment of downtown.
Mrs. Moon continued to present the advantages of the Grace
Lutheran site, stressing the natural transition from residential
to commercial and her belief that the library would halt the
rapid deterioration of the downtown area. She noted there was
opposition to this site last time because of the trees and
existing businesses. She agreed the man shouldn't be put out of
business, but advised he intends to retire in the fall of 1991 in
any event and by the time the library is built, there will be
only one year remaining on his lease. Mrs. Moon urged that the
County let that building stand for now and let that business
continue. This would only require a temporary change in the
parking and as the library is built and gets near completion,
that lease will become less valuable, and in the meantime County
will be getting rent of $1,000 a month. Mrs. Moon pointed out
that she has reduced the price $50,000 and the lease will be
worth $50,000, which is $100,000, and she continued to make an
impassioned plea for placing the library on her site as a
commitment to the redevelopment of the downtown area.
Chairman Scurlock agreed with Mrs. Moon.
Commissioner Bird stated that his problem with this
property, besides the trees and the existing tenants, is its size
which leaves no room for expansion. He is 100% committed to
downtown revitalization, but did not want to sacrifice the
library by putting it on a site that is inadequate.
Commissioner Wheeler had a similar concern. The cost is up,
and he did not like the idea of the idea of trying to design a
library around existing buildings. He also did not know how you
could do that and save the oak trees.
MAR 15 1988
1 1 5 BOOK 71 F E 284
Sam Pascal, member of the Public Library Advisory Board, in-
formed the Board that the general concern of the people he talked
to on the Site Committee and the Library Planning Committee is
that the library will be built to service the county for at least
30 years. By the same token, all the studies they had from the
various professionals invariably discourage a library next to a
school complex. He spoke at length of the desperate need for the
library, his personal support of the Grace Lutheran site for all
the reasons stated by Mrs. Moon, and his belief that having the
library there will be the beginning of the renewal of the
downtown area.
Bill Nelson, resident of Rockledge, mentioned the property
on south Indian River Boulevard owned by Strazzulla Brothers. He
felt it is about 54 acres, and believed they want a million and a
half for it all. He felt there even could be the possibility of
some donation of property and suggested that this be looked into.
Fred Mensing, resident of Roseland, felt that the Grace
Lutheran downtown site presents too many long range problems and
expressed his feeling that the taxpayers would be best served to
get rid of the old jail and put the library there.
William Koolage, 815 26th Ave., felt it is wrong to use the
library as a building stone for the City at this point in time.
It was his opinion that what they have started to do with the
Redevelopment Authority is the way they should go, and it is
going to take them a good while. Mr. Koolage stated that the
Catron property had been his first choice, but now he would
support the Jail site with its low cost as number one, Catron
number two, and the Grace Lutheran site number three. He
emphasized that the reduced cost of the jail site would allow
more money to be used for books, computers, etc., and he urged
the county to move without hesitation and approve the jail site.
116 BOOK - 71 F',,,E 285
MAR 15 1988
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler
Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner
opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1
the old jail site as the best all
the library.
, SECONDED by
Bird voted in
vote approved
around site for
Commissioner Eggert commented that while she voted for this
site reluctantly, she will work enthusiastically for the library
wherever it lands.
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Commissioner Eggert wished the Board to be aware that she
has regretfully had to inform the City of Vero Beach that she is
unable to accept a position on the new Community Redevelopment
Agency because she has been informed that there is a statute
which prohibits a public office holder from holding two offices
at the same time.
The City of Vero Beach Council can makes
themselves part of the agency, but she cannot as a County
Commissioner hold the two jobs.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
Commissioner Bowman reviewed the following summary:
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
March 9, 1988 MEETING
1. 4 -Way Stop, Old Dixie at 45th Street:
The Committee approved the staff recommendation to install
beacons on the Old Dixie stop signs to supplement the same.
The estimated cost ($1,800 plus electric costs) can be
absorbed within the FY87-88 Traffic Engineering Division
budget.
MAR 15 1988
117
BOOK ` �q
1 p,,r,rt-.286
2. Signalization Study, 17th Street/Indian River Blvd.:
The Committee approved staff recommendations to
(a) Maintain left -turn phasing at the intersection;
(b) Change the Indian River Blvd. left -turn signals to
"protected -only" (green arrows) phasing; and
(c) Request the FDOT to lengthen the westbound left -turn
lane on 17th Street, and concur with the phasing
recommendations.
3. Amendments to the Thoroughfare Plan, Transportation Element,
Comprehensive Plan:.
The Committee approved staff -initiated recommendations and
applicant requests to amend the Thoroughfare Plan with the
following exceptions:
(a) Do not add 87th Street as a subdivision collector
between US -1 and the Wabasso Causeway (CR -510);
(b) Do not delete 101st Avenue as a collector between
87th Street and CR -512; and
(c) Make minor modifications to the Thoroughfare Plan map
to reflect the. proposed amendments as described.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved acceptance
of the above report.
SECRETARIAL/CLERICAL POSITION - BUILDINGS & GROUNDS DEPT.
The Board reviewed the following memos:
TO: William Blankenship
Director of Personnel
FROM:
DATE: January 27, 1988 FILE:
SUBJECT:
Perry J. Mattes0°1
Ass' t. County Admi ni st rato 'REFERENCES:
REQUEST FOR POSITION
NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR
BUILDINGS & GROUNDS
CLERICAL SUPPORT
ATTACHED MEMO FROM
LYNN WILLIAMS
DATED JAN. 21, 1988
The attached memo makes a strong case for Lynn Williams' need for clerical
support staff on a regular, full-time, permanent basis. Additional points
I wish to make to his argument are:
1. Buildings and Grounds needs to assume the responsibility for
physically keeping the records and documents relative to all
leases for and of Indian River .County real property.
MAR 15 198
ih._
118 BOOK - 71 FALL 287
2. Our telephone system needs more monitoring, record keeping,
general training for the use thereof, and general babysitting
than Mr. Williams singularly has time for.
3. In order to avoid the severe maintenance problems Indian River
County has experienced with Phases I and II of the new jail, Mr.
Williams will need to be more involved with the construction of
Phase III.
4. The courier service which I hope to establish will probably
demand more of Mr. Williams' management skills and time.
In short summary, Lynn Williams needs office help!
Would you please, at your earliest convenience, begin the process which
will culminate in a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners for
their decision to establish a new position as defined by the Personnel
Division.
Thanks for your help.
TO: Perry J. Mattes DATE: January 21, 1988 FILE:
Ass't. County Administrator
illiams, Supt.
ldings and Grounds
SUBJECT:
REFERENCES:
SECRETARIAL/CLERICAL
POSITION - BUILDINGS
AND GROUNDS
It is increasingly apparent that the Building and Grounds Division is in
need of a secretarial/clerical position. With the expansion of the jail,
the Sheriff's Administration and the related activity both warranty and
operational, clerical work has increased to a point that I am submitting
the following proposal for your consideration.
I have, for the past several years performed filing, record keeping and
related clerical duties as a part of my duties. Typing has been handled by
the secretary of the Department Head to which I reported. Generally the
telephones were forwarded to the secretary as well.
Since our assignment to the Administrative Services Department, Margaret
Gunter has helped with my typing. However, the telephones have not been
forwarded due to the number of calls and my typing is third priority
(rightly so).
My proposals:
Option I. a) Request permission to reclassify an existing unfilled
custodial position. Reassignment of John Guiliano (day
maintenance) from the Courthouse to the Administration Building
has worked very well and I feel he can handle both buildings (day
maintenance) concurrently.
b) Establish salary consistent with similar positions within
County.
c) Unused funds from unfilled custodial position (12 months) can
be pro -rated to cover secretarial position for 8 months
(remainder of FY 87-88).
MAR 15 988 119 BOOK 71 fnE 288
Option II.a) Request permission to use funds available due to attrition
and positions held from hire. My projections show that at least
$25,000 exists that can be used for this purpose.
b) Establish salary consistent with similar positions within
County.
c). This would then become a request for a new position.
Listed below is justification for the preceeding proposals:
1) Obviously a secretary would provide telephone answering. There
are several times throughout the day when the division telephones
are not manned. Staff is not sufficient nor do I feel it is
practical to assign a tradesworker to answer the telephone.
2) Recordkeeping for the protection of warranty status of Phase II
and the Sheriff's Administration Building must be improved
from it's present state.
3) As recommended in my memorandum of 1-20-88 reference the tele-
phone system, communications training should be instituted along
with monitoring of the County's networking.
4) Improvement of maintenance records will enhance the divisions
ability to prepare, justify and control our budget.
My recommendation is to accept Option I as outlined. There is adequate
space within my office and a typewriter would be the only equipment that
may require a capital expenditure. I would appreciate the opportunity to
discuss this further should you require additional information.
Chairman Scurlock felt there needs to be some clarification
since this particular position was not authorized in the budget.
Although, there are unexpended funds in the budget that could
cover this cost, he felt this needs Board approval. The Chairman
believed we also are involved in hiring some Kelly Girls or
part-time personnel and felt any position that is not in the
budget needs Board authorization, including part time employees.
Commissioner Eggert believed there is still some misunder-
standing of how we did the budget, which is line item by line
item, and while she understands how the Personnel Director would
like to make more of the personnel decisions, and possibly this
is something we should discuss going into the next budget, that
was not what we set up this time. She further noted that she has
a problem over the long haul with temporary help, Kelly Girl type
- people who move in and out of the system without a lot of tight
controls on it.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that the documents from
Buildings & Grounds Superintendent Lynn Williams clearly indicate
MAR 15 1988
120
BOOK 71 Fu -. 289
that there was a reclassification involved and that it should be
acted on by the Board, and he did not understand why it never got
to the Board.
Personnel Director William Blankenship informed the Board
that he will take the responsibility for that. He noted that he
is used to working in an environment where the County
Administrator of the County Manager or City Manager is the chief
administrative officer and as such can make these type decisions
to move within the budget; albeit, not to create a new position
and not to go over the amount of funds to be expended. Mr.
Blankenship explained that in this situation, he received the
recommendation from Mr. Williams endorsed by Assistant County
Administrator Mattes, and went ahead and contracted with the Job
Training Partnership Program. The paperwork was initiated and
sent to the Administrator for his signature whereupon he sent it
back and asked if this is okay. Mr. Blankenship advised that he
told the Administrator it was because we were not going beyond
our budget constraints and we were not increasing the number of
total authorized positions. He continued that, in fact, until
yesterday morning, they had no real idea how many positions were
authorized. He was sure this is in the budget, but they had no
real control on it, and he has now initiated a position control
management report wherein every position in the county is
assigned a number once the budget is approved.
The Chairman noted that is all inconsistent with the memos.
The memo from Mr. Williams listed three options and specifically
talked about reclassification and that memo went to Mr. Mattes
and then Mr. Mattes' memo to Mr. Blankenship said "Will you
please at your earliest convenience begin the process which would
culminate in a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners
for their decision to establish a new position as defined by the
Personnel Division." The Chairman felt that is very clear.
Administrator Balczun stated that he would answer that. He
did not feel it is clear, nor think that it is inconsistent. The
MAR 15 1988
121
BOOK 71 D E 290
staff works for him, and he disagreed with the proposal. He did
not intend to create a new position until it has been justified
to him. If and when it is justified to him, he will present it
to the Board, but just because a superintendent or manager
somewhere in the system chooses to make a request, does not mean
we have to willy-nilly follow and do it.
Chairman Scurlock believed the girl has been hired, and if
the Administrator disagreed, how did she get hired? The basic
question is how do we hire someone when it is clear from all the
memos that there was no authorization.
Mr. Blankenship stated that he was not aware that the Board
of County Commissioners managed to the level of approving every
position, but the Chairman pointed out that Mr. Williams and Mr.
Mattes were aware of the procedure because they said that would
have to happen, and he felt they would have informed Mr.
Blankenship.
Mr. Blankenship stated that he doesn't tell them how to do
their jobs and he doesn't appreciate their telling him how to do
his. He does not tell Mr. Williams that he needs to construct a
cabinet of certain materials. It is his judgment as to the best
manner in which he should proceed.
Commissioner Eggert felt that is fine except there is a way
to do things in the county and a way not to do them, and she
believed Mr. Mattes pointed out what is the way to do it in the
county now.
Commissioner Wheeler commented that he is getting more
confused about this situation and wanted to see if his under-
standing of all that has taken place is correct. He believed
Administrator Balczun works for the Board; Mr. Mattes works for
the Administrator; and Mr. Blankenship works for the Administra-
tor or Mr. Mattes as his representative. There was an error made
as admitted by Mr. Blankenship, and it appears he proceeded to
hire someone after Mr. Mattes requested him to go to the Board.
Commissioner Wheeler did not even know if we should be reviewing
MAW 15 19 8
•
122 +�
BOOK1 FA;E 291
this as he felt it is an administrative problem, but as long as
it is here, he will question it. He wished to know why, if Mr.
Blankenship disagreed with Mr. Mattes' position, he didn't go to
the Administrator and ask how he wanted you to handle it.
Mr. Blankenship stated he did go to the Administrator and
advised him that we could do this within the constraints of the
budget.
Chairman Scurlock believed the Administrator overruled Mr.
Mattes said go ahead and hire the person. The Chairman advised
that when he found out this new person was hired, he went to Mr.
Balczun and asked how this happened, and Mr. Balczun advised him
that he was misled on this issue.
Mr. Blankenship stated that he would freely admit that he
misinformed the Administrator based on his understanding of the
situation.
Administrator Balczun felt the issue is whether or not prior
to the end of the 13 week contract period with JTPA we will
recommend to the Board that a full time position be created. We
are not in that position now, and he is not fully convinced that
is a position we want to keep.
Chairman Scurlock felt there is one more step. He wished to
know where they got the authority to hire these part time people.
We have one in Purchasing now with no funded position. In fact,
he believed that person left and was replaced. He wished to know
how many part-time people we have on staff that have not been
approved in the budget.
Mr. Blankenship stated they have none right now.
Chairman Scurlock asked if there was none in Purchasing as
he was told they were replaced.
Mr. Blankenship understood that person left Friday, and he
did not know who told the Chairman they were replaced, but noted
he is the only one who can authorize that with Kelly. He
explained that we use Kelly or any other temporary service when
we have an immediate need to fill. He gets calls from
123
1!1 A R 1_5 1988
BOOK
71 FgE 292
departments who need someone to replace personnel out on an
extended illness, etc. Mr. Blankenship noted that he has been in
the personnel business a number of years and has had that
flexibility to operate, and if he doesn't have it and has to come
to the Board each time to do this, he felt it will stymie his
operation.
Commissioner Bird believed there are two situations here.
If it is a short term absence that needs to be filled, possibly
the Personnel Director and Administrator should have the
authority to fill that position for a short period of time, but
if it is a new position, either permanent or temporary, it should
come to the Board.
Chairman Scurlock noted that in this instance the request in
the budget was for more janitorial staff and now we end up hiring
a secretary and not a janitor. Possibly a secretary is
justified, but where does this stop? He pointed out there are
17 positions in Public Works that have been funded from October
1st, over $300,000 sitting there, and just because there are
funds there does that give the ability to go out and use them for
other positions. The Chairman noted he would say no because
that is not our budget position.
Administrator Balczun advised that they say no also, and he
asked that we not make this something more than it is. He felt
that management does need a bit of flexibility. He did not
think, and he is not suggesting this at this time, that they
should be subject to micro -management. He did feel that when a
department suggested that they have a particular need, that they
should be allowed to be somewhat creative, and they did that with
JTPA. The Administrator emphasized that there is nothing
anywhere verbally or in writing that says they intend that this
be a full time position.
Chairman Scurlock believed that JTPA assumes we will
continue with that person, and he felt there is a commitment to
hire them after the 13 weeks are up.
MAR 15 1983
124 BOOK71 PA�,E r 293
Discussion ensued regarding the intent of the JTPA contract.
Personnel Director Blankenship noted they are evaluating that
person's performance, and Administrator Balczun pointed out that
doesn't say we can't use the person somewhere else in the system.
He reiterated that he was not altogether sure we want this
position.
Chairman Scurlock felt the bottom line is that when we go
through the budget process this next year, it will be clear
exactly what we fund and what we don't fund, and if the Board
hasn't voted for it, it doesn't get done until it is brought back
to the Board. He did not think that is micro -management. He
felt that is good management, and the Commission has taken that
line item approach for the last 15 years because they are
concerned.
Discussion continued at length as to why this position
didn't come back to the Board, and the Administration explained
that it did not because they weren't willing to create a full
time position.
Commissioner Wheeler noted that they brought in a secretary
where Mr. Williams had never had one, and he felt that is
creating a new position. As far as having some leverage is
concerned, he agreed with Commissioner Bird that they need some.
Administrator Balczun did not feel they should have the
leverage to create new positions. He noted that step two deals
with one of the problems which is typical of any agency which
does not have an official position control mechanism, and
historically this county has not had one. The Personnel
Department staff has just completed the development of a
computerized position control mechanism. Half the time it is
almost impossible to develop an allocation listing positions, and
we now have that by control number, by function, by title and by
name, and every fiscal year as soon as the budget is approved,
all those positions automatically will be programmed into the
position control system.
MAR 15 1988
125 BOOK 71 PAGE 294
Chairman Scurlock believed we have always had that since the
budget book tells us in detail what positions are created in
every department, how many are funded, when they are to be phased
in, and if they are to be part-time.
Mr. Blankenship agreed that is an elaborate manual presenta-
tion, but nobody could tell you on a moment's notice what
positions were vacant, and that is what they have created. As a
matter of fact, no person can be hired in the county now unless
they have a position control number assigned.
Commissioner Eggert believed our financial officer always
knew what was in the budget and what wasn't, and the Chairman
wished to know why OMB Director Baird is not on the circulation
list for new hires any longer since it is his job to monitor that
we are following the budget that was passed.
Mr. Blankenship advised that when he came to work for the
county in August, we had four pieces of paper which passed for
authorizing people on the system, and to his knowledge, Mr. Baird
never received any of those prior to his coming. Subsequently,
they have changed the forms, and Mr. Baird is not in the loop for
signature.
Commissioner Eggert believed Mr. Baird always was included
in there somewhere, and now that Mr. Baird is working directly
for the Board, she felt it is all the more important that he
should receive that information as he should be informed about
anything that goes on in this county that affects the budget in
any way.
Mr. Blankenship noted that they have just created a report
that does Mr. Baird's job for him and tells him what he has
authorized.
Chairman Scurlock asked OMB Director Baird if he was ever in
the "loop."
Director Baird informed the Board that he did previously
sign on these new hire reports. He also furnished a list of all
the employees at budgettime that was attached to the budget
126
MAR 15 1988
BOOK 71 PAGE 295
package. He confirmed that they haven't been forwarding these
forms to his office lately, but that could have been a change in
procedure. He informed the Board that Mr. Blankenship was
having a problem, not just with the new hires, but the existing
employees, and Mr. Blankenship asked for copies of the budget
showing each detailed position so he could develop a control
mechanism in his office because we used to have to look it up
whenever the request came through the Budget Office.
Commissioner Eggert stated she had no problem with any of
that, but she did feel the OMB Director's office should be kept
informed of what is going on.
Mr. Blankenship stated that they can create a new hire
requisition form that they can route through the Budget Office.
Administrator Balczun noted that Mr. Baird receives a copy
of the weekly list of every position for which we are recruiting.
Commissioner Eggert felt that is fine, but hiring the people
is what affects the budget, and Administrator Balczun asked if
hiring them isn't too late.
Chairman Scurlock commented that list is how he found out
that they were hiring someone who wasn't authorized, and that is
how all this discussion came about.
Commissioner Bird inquired how we stand now. Does Super-
intendent Williams have a secretary instead of a janitor on a
temporary basis that is as temporary as the JPTA contract is?
Administrator Balczun advised that they wanted approval of
that position solely as a JTPA. At this point he is not willing
to go beyond the JTPA concept.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis -
Eggert, the Board unanimously approved a JTPA person
for the office of the Buildings and Grounds Superin-
tendent on the basis discussed above.
MAR 15 1988
127
BOOK 71 FACE. 296
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT
Commissioner Bird reviewed the following:
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
MARCH 10, 1988
Fairground Mudbogging Lease Renewal
The Committee unanimously recommended that the County
Commission renew the lease for mudbogging events at the
Fairground reducing the rental amount to $500/event, and instead
of monthly events, reduce the number of events to at least 4
events per year.
Request for Transportation of Children from Sebastian to Roller
Skating Rink in So. County area
The Sebastian representative asked the County to provide
transportation for children in Sebastian to come to the Roller
Skating Rink on Friday nights and Saturday afternoons. He also
asked the County to provide the funds for the transportation.
Pat Callahan will check with'the School Board to see what their
policy is for using their buses and drivers for this type of
activity.
Request to remove picnic pavilions from Round Island because of
vandalism
In the past year and one-half there has been continuous
destruction at the Park. The Sheriff's Office cooperates, but
cannot leave someone at the Park on a full-time basis. It was
recommended to use the Park as an observation point on the ocean
side and dismantle and remove the pavilions. Tabled until the
next meeting.
User Fee and Revenue Study
The Committee reviewed the Parks User Fee and Revenue Study.
The Committee wanted another month to review the report, so
action was withheld until the April Parks and Recreation meeting.
Commissioner Bird noted that he personally sees the request
to dismantle and remove the pavilions at Round Island Park as a
last resort. He further advised that he felt the Committee is
doing an excellent job in reviewing the User Fee and Revenue
Study and believed they will set us on the right path for the
future.
MAR 15 1988
128 -BOOK 71 FaGE 2D 1
NORTH COUNTY FIRE
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment the
Board of County Commissioners would reconvene acting as the
District Board of Fire Commissioners of the North Indian River
County Fire District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:12 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
MAR 1b198
Clerk Chairman
129
goy 71 ME 298