HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/6/198811111 Ilk
Tuesday, December 6, 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,
December 6, 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 William G. Collins, II, Acting County Administrator; Charles
P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and
Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend Paul Hauenstein, Christ the King Lutheran Church,
Sebastian, gave the invocation, and Attorney Vitunac led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Scurlock requested the addition of the following
items to today's agenda:
Discussion of selection of County Administrator (as Item 9A)
Direction on Equipment Request Made by Judges (as Item 9B)
Approval of Bonds for Tax Collector, Director of
Elections, Clerk and Sheriff -{-Item P - Consent Agenda)
Later in the meeting emergency items were added in regard to
a suit against the bonding company for the electronics provider
for the Jail and also,a discussion regarding opening the King's
Highway bridge.
On MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the
addition of the above listed items to the agenda.
L DEC 61988
rDEC 61988
BOOK
ri) 7751
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 1, 1988.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 1, 1988,
as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Wheeler requested that Item H be removed from
the Consent Agenda for discussion, and Chairman Scurlock
requested the removal of Item K.
A. Reports
The following report was received and placed on file in the
Office of Clerk to the Board:
Inspection Report, County and Municipal Detention
Facilities,
2nd Annual Follow-up Inspection, IRC Jail, 10131(88
B. Reappointments to Public Library Advisory Board
The Board reviewed memo from Commissioner Eggert:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: ' Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert (j
DATE: December 6, 1988
SUBJECT: Public Library Advisory Board
Please reappoint to the Public Library Advisory Board for
4 -year terms the following people:
Donna Green
John Holmes
Patrick B. Lyons
Jean Versteeg
2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously reappointed
Donna Green, John Holmes, Patrick B. Lyons, and Jean
Versteeg, to the Public Library Advisory Board for
4 -year terms.
C. Out -of -County Travel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Out -of -County Travel for Commissioner Wheeler to
attend the Florida Association of Counties Policy
Committee Meeting in St.. Petersburg, 12!8/88.
D. Appointments to Transportation Planning Committee
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the appointment of_Sandra Bowden to the Transporta-
tion Committee as the School Board's representative
and the appointment of Gene Waddell as their Alternate
Representative.
E. Resignation from Marine Advisory Committee
The Board reviewed the following letter:
Gary C. Wheeler, Chairman '468
Marine Advisory Committee
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Gary,
Please accept my resignation from the Marine Advisory
Committee effective upon receipt of this letter. I find it
difficult to have to resign because this committee has been
one of the hardest working and productive committees I have
3
DEC 1988
BOOK 75 PAGE 254
Pr -
DEC lsza`.
BOOK 75 fact25 5
had the priviledge of being on. You as the chairman have
worked the hardest of all and have set a fine example to
the committee members as well as other committee chairmen.
My reasons for the above resignation are personal and
have nothing to do with the subject matter of the committee
or thther members.
Thank you for the oportunity to serve on the Marine
Advisory Committee.
Sincerely, .7L „
E.E."Ned" Potter
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously accepted
the resignation of E. E. "Ned" Potter from the
Marine Advisory Committee.
F. Resignation from Beach
The Board reviewed letter from George Gross, Coastal
Resources Manager:
OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
November 21, 1988
City of Vero Beach
1053 -20th PLACE - P. O. BOX 1389
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA - 32961-1389
Telephone:
461 lk
')CNA NQy1088 •
O *41
RDefl O
s4
/0/y/�, c4
eW CP -
da
Mr. Gary Wheeler, Vice Chairman
The Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
HAND - DELIVERED
Dear Gary:
The purpose of this letter is to quickly'nullify the current sensationalism
of inferring that two members of the Indian River Preservation and Restoration
Committee have violated the "Sunshine Law".
You, as a County Commissioner and Chairman of this committee, as well as the
staffs of the city and county, have more important and productive uses of
your time than being concerned with this allegation. Although I can assure
you the allegation is unfounded, and an investigation will support this
contention, it is of paramount importance that the trust and faith of the
public be maintained in governmental agencies. Therefore, in order to preclude
any doubt, and further inference of collusion on voting and policy matters
which might result in mistrust of the actions of the committee, I hereby tender
my resignation from your committee.
4
I am thankful to have had the opportunity to serve with you and to use my
engineering and managerialexperience to assist our community in developing
positive steps toward preserving the beaches in Indian River County. I wish
to assure you I will still be available to assist the committee in any manner
that I can, whether this is serving on the Technical Advisory Sub -Committee
or in attending and discussing your agenda items.
Sincerely,
G rge lI. Gross, P.E.
astal Resources Manager
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously accepted
the resignation of George Gross from the Beach
Preservation and Restoration Committee.
G. A provat of Bond for Supervisor of Elections
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
signature of all Board members on the Bond of Ann
Robinson, Supervisor of Elections.
COPY OF SAID BOND IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
H. Budget Amendment #011 - Ag Extension Auto Maintenance
The Board reviewed memo of OMB Director Baird:
DEC'.
L
5
POOK 75 FADE 256
DEC 6 M83
B00K. 15 57
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: November 17, 1988
6
SUBJECT: BUDGETI:AMEI4DMENT 011 -
AG EXTENSION AUTO. MAINTENANCE
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Agriculture Extension vehicle was involved in a small
accident and received approximately $2,000 in damages. We have
rceived a check from the Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company in
the amount of $1,076_ on September 9, 1988 to pay for part of the
cost of repair. The attached budget amendment appropriates funds
in the Agriculture Extension budget.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached Budget
Amendment.
Commissioner Wheeler asked what kind of insurance we have on
such vehicles and wished to know how much the deductible was.
Acting Administrator Collins noted that the deductibles are
higher now that we are self-insured, but it was pointed out that
this accident happened prior to that.
The Chairman suggested that the Budget Amendment be approved
subject to Commissioner Wheeler receiving a satisfactory answer.
ON MOTION -by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment #011 subject to Commissioner
Wheeler being satistied re the insurance deductible.
OMB Director Baird later entered the meeting and reported
that the deductible was about $500, but we were able to have the
vehicle fixed for the amount the insurance company sent us.
6
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER:
011 •
DATE: November 17, 1988
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSES
GENERAL FUND --- _ _
Aq. Extension/Auto. Maintenance
001-212-537-034.64
$1,076.00
0
REVENUE
GENERAL FUND
Cash Forward October 1
001-000-389-040.00
$1,076.00
0
I. Budget Amendment #013 - Traffic Engineering Automobile
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Baird:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: November 18, 1988
SUBJECT: :BUDGET'_ AMEflDMENT =013 -
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AUTOMOBILE
CONSENT AGENDA
"/
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Board of County Commissioners authorized the purchase of an
automobile for Traffic Engineering prior to the end of the fiscal
year (September 30, 1988). The vehicle just arrived requiring
the county to pay $8,659 in the new fiscal year. The attached
budget amendment appropriates funds.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached Budget
Amendment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment #013 for purchase of an automobile
tor Traffic Engineering as recommended by the OMB
Director.
7
DEC 6 1983
hh-
BOOK 75 F�,r_..E 258
DEC 6
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
J r`\ LE 25
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER:
013
DATE: November 18, 1988
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSES
ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND
Traffic Eng./Automobile
111-245-541-066.42
$8,659.00
0
REVENUE
GENERAL FUND
Cash Forward October 1
111-000-389-040.00
$8.659.00
0
J. Cancellation of Bid #438 - Tree lrirrmming Service
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Ambler:
TO:
William G. Collins II
Acting County Admini�tr.tor
THRU: H.T. "So
Director of
Services
FROM.
Ambler, T.P.M.
Purchasing Manager
DATE: November 17, 1988
FILE:
SUBJECT:—
CANCELLATION OF BID#438
TREE TRIMMING AND CUTTING
SERVICES
1s_�
MV REFERENCES:
1. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
In October a Bid was awarded to Q1Al ity Tree Services for
Tree Trimming and Cutting Services as needed by the Road
and Bridge Department. This contractor performed two jobs
for the County and has been unable to respond to recent
requests because of serious injury to his lead foreman.
2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
It is the opinion of the Purchasing Department and the Road
& Bridge Department that this service is tooimportant for us
to wait until this contractor is again able to perform on his
contract. IRC Bid #438 contains a cancellation clause on Page
2 of the Special Conditions to cancel with 30 days notice.
Section 21 of our General Conditions allows the Board to seek
liquidated damages up to 25% of the bid price for default and
states that the bidder shall lose eligibility to transact bus-
iness with the Board for a period of one year.
3. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that we cancel Bid #438 and suspend Quality Tree
Services from transacting with the County for a period of one
year. Because of the circumstances we do not recommend seeking
liquidated damages. Discussions with Quality Tree services
indicates that they are in agreement with this.
8
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously canceled
Bid #438 tor Tree Trimming and Cutting Services and
suspended Quality Tree Services from,_transacting with
the County for a period of one year as recommended
by staff.
K. Bid #89-32 - Wood Waste Grinder
The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Dean:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: November 29, 1988
THRU: William G. Collins
Acting. County Administrator
SUBJECT:
FILE:
AWARD OF IRC BID #89116
WOOD WASTE GRINDER
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: REFERENCES:
H. T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
General Services
1. DESCRIP'T'ION AND CONDITIONS:
There were sixteen requests -for bid sent out and on November
16, 1988 three were received.
All bids received were sent to the Utility Department for
review and recommendation. Their comments are attached
for your perusal.
2. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The low bid was submitted by Fuel Harvesters Equipment, Inc.
and met all specifications.
3. FUNDING:
Funding for this equipment was provided for by the recent Solid
Waste Bond Issue.
4. ON:
Staff recommends that Fuel Harvesters Equipment, Inc. be awarded
the bid and authorization be given to issue the Purchase Order.
Chairman Scurlock questioned the very large disparity
between the low bid of $120,000 and the two others submitted
which were $256,000 and $280,000 and asked whether the extra
9
DEC 6 1988
Frk.GE260
DECFr-
1988
POD' 75
equipment the more costly grinder comes with is not necessary for
the operation.
General Services Director Dean explained that we specified
that the machinery must be able to be loaded with a front end
loader, and the more costly equipment cannot be loaded that way
but must have special equipment to be loaded from the rear.
Commissioner Eggert asked Mr. Dean is really satisfied with
this piece of equipment, and he advised that he has talked to
three counties using it and all have been satisfied with the work
it does.
Commissioner Bird wished to know if the other two companies
make the smaller piece of equipment, and Mr. Dean stated that
they do not.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #89-32 for the Wood Waste Grinder to the low
bidder Fuel Harvesters Equipment, Inc. (FHE) in
plus $7,000 addendum
the amount of $120,000/s recommended by staff per
the following Bid Tabulation:
10
rn
C)
0
03
r.,
IND
TAD
./m'
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
(IPi`
n/ /
4. �� q ?.� 4iC O
-1
_ _ \/ r�\`BID
1. G�
, 4/ f �(`
�Gv p '
\ -�i' C tl
\� .`\� �� �_`
�Q lJi
QIRC
r �BID
Av
�U ��
(I,
/�\v yvv
//u/
NO.
BID #89-32NOV.16,
DATE OF _ PENING
1988
TITLEc
WOOD WASTE GRINDER`
C///
%
(� 4 ,
} l v
1 �`
(
SEM DESCRIPTION
NO.
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UM/
• .1. WOOD WASTE GRINDER
A "AidaSO
�/
45/16
j�
&;i
��
! "� 8t
_'
4
n^/'
r4 8/1/
^�
)OVf��
�/
u
�j
j 8t
J
% n
��IQ 8ic
,I
/10 8
(/
�/
Ir, RI "J
/�
ttQ Alb
�j/ h
$ PJ Iti
I
A(0 3W
did
� R7
iCf'
Ioe
,
AS PRP SPRCTPTCATTONR
,/MB
1 EACH
1
2.. DELIVERY
DAYS ARO
3 . WARRANTY
7» ""p
614,04,-6,,
DAYS
4. PAYMENT TERMS
f%ci <!)
2/r /0
NFT 30 MruTMr1M.
At c
5. DISCOUNT ON PARTS AFTER
WARRANTY I
"-.0 -
ip?
FROM LIST.
'
•
,
1
.
1
DEC 61988
BOOK
L. Final Plat Approval - Vero South PRD Phase One
The Board reviewed memo from Staff Planner Wiegers:
J f;':GE 763
TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert eat]. g, CP
Community Devel6pm t Director
40
41)
THROUGH: Stan Boling, ACP
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Robert E. Wiegers, Staff Planner
Current Development
DATE: November 28,_ 1988
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR VERO SOUTH PRD PHASE ONE
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 6, 1988.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Vero South PRD Phase One is a proposed 16 lot phase of a total 252
townhouse unit subdivision located on the south side of Oslo Road,
west of the 20th Avenue extension. The zoning classification of
the site is RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential -6 (up to 6 units/
acre), and the land use designation is LD -2, Low Density Residen-
tial 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The proposed building density for
the overall Vero South Development is ±4.3 units/acre.
At its regular meeting of January 22,1986 the Board of County
Commissioners granted conceptual PRD plan approval for the overall
development. Subsequently, at its regular meeting of April 10,
1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary PRD
approval for Phase One of this project.
After preliminary PRD approval was granted, the developer obtained
a land development permit from the Public Works Department and
commenced construction of all required subdivision improvements
for Phase One of this project.
The project's developer, John McGuire, is now requesting that
final plat approval be granted to the Vero South PRD Phase One
plat and has submitted:
1. a final plat, substantially in conformance with the approved
preliminary PRD plat.
ANALYSIS:
All required Phase One improvements have been constructed, inspec-
ted and approved by the Public Works and Utilities Department.
All conditions of the conceptual and preliminary plan have been
satisfied; therefore, all applicable requirements for final plat
approval have been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval to the Vero South PRD Phase One Subdivision.
12
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously granted
Final Plat Approval for Vero South PRD Phase One
Subdivision as recommended by staff.
M. Final Plat Approval - 83rd•Drive Road Plat
The Board reviewed memo from Staff Planner Wiegers:
TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County
Commissioners
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Chief, Current Development
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
j , R: •ert M.
FROM: Robert E. Wiegers, Staff Planner W Community
Current Development
/
//I // 1
Kea 1.9 • "CP
Deve opm-'' t Directc
DATE: November 28, 1988
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR 83RD DRIVE ROAD PLAT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 6, 1988.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The subdivision ordinance, as amended July 17, 1985, allows for
the platting of unimproved private road rights-of-way if there is
no subdivision of property (as defined in the ordinance). Under
these provisions the platted private rights-of-way, though exempt
from road and drainage requirements, must meet County standards in
regards to the following:
1. relationship to existing streets and drives;
2. location; and
3. dimensions (widths and lengths)
Creating such private road rights-of-way provides parcels with
frontage on privately dedicated (owned and maintained) roads. The
creation of road frontage allows for building permits to be issued
on parcels that currently have no dedicated road frontage, and
provides the -necessary space and layout for possible future
improvements that can satisfy county road, drainage, and utility
requirements.
The owners, Joseph Williams and Thomas Whittington, are now
requesting final plat approval for the 83rd Drive Road Plat, and
have submitted the following:
1. A final plat substantially in conformance with the approved
preliminary plat.
At its regular meeting of October 13, 1988, the Planning and
Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval for this
project.
ANALYSIS:
The owner is platting this private road right-of-way in order to
establish the required amount of road frontage for a parcel of
13
DEC 6 1988
F•/rs
Joy ! 5' F' 26 a:
DEC 6 'c98
BOOK 75 FAC[ 265
property to be created in the future. The private road will be
established in such a way so that both owners may continue to use
it in the future. The road plat terminates in a cul-de-sac
because the future extension of the road is not desirable.
A private property owners' association has been formed to own and
maintain the road right-of-way, and the County Attorney's office
has approved it as to legal form and sufficiency. No subdivision
of property, as defined in the subdivision ordinance, is to occur.
All applicable County regulations have been satisfied in regards
to final plat approval. .
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval for, the 83rd Drive Road Plat.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously granted
Final Plat Approval for 83rd Drive Road Plat as
recommended by staff.
N. Special Acts for 1/25/89 Legislative Delegation Meeting
The Board reviewed and made note of the following letter
from County Attorney Vitunac which was submitted for information
purposes:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Board of Country Conmi ss i oners
= _
v ..;.••••••0 .N
CCELO
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
November 30, 1988
SPECIAL ACTS FOR JANUARY 25, 1989
LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION MEETING
Board Meeting December 6,
1988
At the reques
proposed Spec
should be in
staff has no
Board has any
for presentati
t of State Representative Dale Patchett, all
ial Acts for the 1989 Florida Legislature
his office by December 21, 1988. The County
proposed Special Acts this year, but if the
my office would be pleased to prepare the bill
on to the Legislative Delegation.
0. Release of County Liens
The Board reviewed memo from the County Attorney's Office:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
6
FROM: Lea R. Keller, Ceunty Attorney's Office
DATE: November 30, 1988
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 12/06/88
RELEASE OF COUNTY LIENS
I have processed the following releases and request
permission for the Chairman to execute them:
Release of Assessment Lien - BRESLIN
Lot 5 of SUNNYDALE ACRES SUBD.
Release of Assessment Lien - GORDON
Lots 15 & 16 of LITTLE PORTION SUBD.
Release of Assessment Lien - McCULLOUGH
Lot 19 of BREEZEWOOD PARK SUBD
Release of Assessment Lien - SCIOS
Lots 25 and..26 of LITTLE PORTION SUBD.
Release of Assessment Lien - COON & KEARNAN.
Lots 27 and 28 of LITTLE PORTION SUBD.
Release of Assessment Lien - SOMMERS
Lots 21 and 22 of SUNNYDALE ACRES SUBD.
Release of Assessment Lien - PROVENZANO et al.
Lots 2, 3 and 4 of LITTLE PORTION
Back-up information for the above is on file in the County
Attorney's & Utilities Department Offices.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the Release of Liens listed
above.
COPIES OF SAID RELEASES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
BOARD.
15
DEC 6 1988
LI0IG 7 F'A L 2GG
DEG C 198E
P. Approval of Bonds for Elected Officials
BOOK 75 P,1;r 267
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
signature of all Board members on the Bonds of
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk; R. T. "Tim" Dobeck,
Sheritt; and Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector.
COPIES OF SAID BONDS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
BOARD.
PUBLIC HEARING - CO -INITIATED REZONING TO OCR ENTRANCE TO VISTA
ROYALE GARDENS
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Doily
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
aper published
al
says
aBeachIndian Rivethat he is Business Manager Vero
unty, Florida;Flothat he attached copy of advertisement,
eroIn being
a
in the matter of E)f
!----ROTIDs �wWC NEARING"—`'"�'
Notice of hewing Initiated by IndianCowMaw 1
etorac�.rtlu adoption d�lbed LM
ikon: CL, Limited Commercial District to OCR, .
• Guice. Commercial and Residential Olatrlct. The •
subject property Is located east of U.S. Highway
I *1 and south o1 Indian River Boulevard, and r .j
Q�� cn7 mimed by, Villa Praprtia al A
R,oeTim subject property H described a
Th. wastrnnio 400 feet of the ballades h
aoPear.;^ try DA. O;` •r
II` r A PARCEL LYING IN PORTIONS OF Ty
r' ' SECTION 18 TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH,
RANGE 40 EAST AND RECTION 13 • C
TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH RANGE 3d '!
EAST, MORE PARTICULARLY DE-
" SCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING • '
�• t
AT
THE WEST
BEING�THENEAST
QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 0
13) RUN SOUTH 88.83.24' EAST,•
• ALONG THE QUARTER SECTION LINE.
' 05.01'00': WEST 878.30 FEET TO THE
NORTHERLY HIGHT-OF-WAY UNE OF
, THE H 74 1 RELIEF CANAL; THENCE
.SOUTH 71.11'36" WEST. ALONG SAID
I .• RIGHT-OF•WAY 824.83 FEET TO THE
- __ Court, was pub- y • HIGHWAY NO. 1 AND
TO FONT OY OF N
In the ,THE CLAVE CONCAVE
i5 V,e/41 ��i HAVING A RADIUS OF 884839 FEET'
Ittihad in Said newspaper In the issues of i BEARS SOUTH 73•.8'03- 7yEST
Athan' 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 al 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 Milani further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose oI securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn 10 and subscribedb`•re this, . day oi D..10
(SEAL)
Nultay PuWk, :�wu of Meal.
My Commission Expk.s lune 2g, IR•
Dasa..Oro I. sew. insmsa.., I..
16
! MO THROUGH W • HICH A RADIAL UNE
• THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY
l:,,SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL
. 1072.81 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF
• ••4ANGLE OF 8.23'08"1 THENCE RUN
i NORTH 37.32'08' EAST. 107.54 FEET
g. •TO A POINT ON A NON- TANGENT.
S. • CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY HAV -
NG A RADIUS OF NEW FEET AND
r BEARS "NORTH 101�WEEST
THENCE RUNET _ NORTHEASTERLY!
:
Community Development Director Keating made the staff
presentation:
TO. •William G. Collins DATE:November 21, 1988 FILE:
Acting County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Atier—
•..er Ke -ti , . r-:
SUBJECT:
Planning & Devel•pme Director
FROM: Robert M. Loeper AWL
REFERENCES: INITIATED REQUEST
TO REZONE 10.5 ACRES FROM
CL TO OCR AT THE ENTRANCE
TO VISTA ROYALE GARDENS
Staff Planner
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of December 6, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
This is a county initiated request to rezone 10.5 acres of land
from CL, Limited Commercial District to OCR, Office, Commercial,
and Residential District. The subject parcel is situated at the
entrance of the Vista Royale Gardens condominium complex on U.S.
1; the location is south of Indian River Boulevard, and north of
the south relief canal. The subject parcel is a portion of a
larger 17.9 acre tract.
° Chronology of Past Actions
This request was initiated by staff at the direction of the Board
of County Commissioners. The Board's directions were the result
of a considerable number of controversial land use reviews
involving the overall 17.9 acres, of which this parcel is a part.
The following is a brief chronology of recent activities relating
to the subject parcel. -
1) July 1987 - Site plan approval request for a shopping
center, including an administrative permit approval
request for a department store, submitted for 17.9 acre
parcel.
2) January 1988 - Residents of Vista Royale Gardens and
Vista Royale approach Board of County Commissioners
concerning commercial development of site. Board
directs staff to initiate comprehensive plan
amendment/rezoning for 17.9 acre parcel from
Commercial/CL to MD-2/RM-10.
3) March 1988 - Planning and Zoning Commission denies site
plan and comprehensive plan amendment/rezoning
requests.
4) Applicant appeals site plan denial; staff appeals land
use change denial.
5) April 1988 - Board of County Commissioners denies site
plan appeal, citing traffic and safety concerns as
reason for denial.
6) April 1988 - Board of County Commissioners approves
transmittal of land use change request to Department of
Community Affairs for mandatory review.
17
DEC 6188
EkDOK `ib mE.zOL)
DEC 6 1988
BOOK I ` FAE 69
7) September 1988 - Board of County Commissioners approves
land use amendment for easternmost 7.4 acres of site
from Commercial/CL to MD-2/RM-10. Concern over
remaining CL zoning and potential traffic and safety
impacts leads Board to direct staff to initiate
rezoning from CL to OCR for remaining 10.5 acres of
commercial land.
October 13, 1988 - The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-3
to deny the requested rezoning to OCR. This request was appealed
by the Vista Civic Association.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of°the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. -.`Thi '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 currently zoned CL and is vacant; the
property contains the remnants of the old McKee Jungle Gardens
tourist attraction. To the north of the subject site across
Indian River Boulevard is the Walmart Department Store zoned CG,
General Commercial. West of the subject site is U.S. 1 and the
FEC Railroad. South of the subject site is a shopping plaza
zoned CL. East of the subject parcel is the remainder of the
subject site; this portion had its land use and zoning amended to
MD-2/RM-10 in September. This area is densely vegetated and also
contains remnants of the tropical garden.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as a
portion of the U.S. 1 Commercial Corridor. The areas north and
south of the subject site also lie within the corridor. The land
east of the subject site has an MD -2 land use designation.
Transportation System
The subject site has access to U.S. 1, designated as a major
arterial on the county's Thoroughfare Plan. In addition to the
U.S. 1 frontage, the site is bisected east and west by the main
access road to the Vista Royale Gardens condominium complex. To
the north of the access road/U.S. 1 intersection is the U.S.
1/4th St./Indian River Boulevard intersection.
The U.S. 1/4th St./Indian River Boulevard intersection does not
currently meet the county's minimum level of service standards.
One traffic count performed in January, 1988 showed that at that
time the intersection was operating at an LOS "E" during peak
season, peak hour. LOS "E" is defined as unstable traffic flow
and delays. It may be possible for this intersection to operate
at a peak season/peak hour. LOS "D", as required under County
ordinances even with the development of a large project on the
subject property; however, substantial modification to the
intersection would be required. It has also been demonstrated
that this level of service can only be maintained by utilizing
the access road/Indian River Boulevard connector road.
Utilization of this road and the main entrance would increase
commercial/residential traffic intermixing, with the added
impacts referenced above.
18
Environment
The Comprehensive Plan does not designate the subject site as
environmentally sensitive, nor does the site contain isolated
wetlands. However, consideration should be given to the rare
tropical vegetation in existence on the site. It is staff's
opinion that this vegetation will be impacted regardless of how
the site is developed. However, a smaller scale project would
have less impact and offer a greater opportunity to protect and
preserve some of the vegetation. In the case of the OCR
district, the minimum open space requirement is 30% as compared
with +20% for the. CL zoning district.
Utilities
The site has access to public water and wastewater facilities.
Analysis
The proposed rezoning from CL to OCR is essentially a change from
retail zoning to office zoning for the subject site. In
assessing this proposal, it is necessary to consider several
factors. First, the type of development likely to occur with
each of the two zoning possibilities must be considered. Second,
the traffic impacts of projects buildable under each of the
zoning districts must be considered. Finally, compatibility
between the possible zoning designations for the subject property
and adjacent areas must be considered.
In projecting the type of development likely to occur on the site
with each of the two zoning designations, several development
characteristics must be considered. One major development
characteristic is the difference in structure type between office
buildings and retail structures. While retail structures are
usually limited to one story, offices are usually multi -story.
That results in more square feet of office use than retail use
for the same site. Two other characteristics, both parking
related, also affect development. Because of higher parking
rates, retail facilities need more area on the site for parking
than a comparably sized office building. The second factor is
that offices can provide parking spaces on the first floor of a
multi -story building, while retail facilities cannot feasibly do
that. The net effect of these differences is that the amount of
office space that could be built on the subject site is almost
triple the amount of retail space that could be developed on the
site.
The development differences between retail and office uses also
affect traffic impacts. While on a square foot basis using an
average daily rate, retail uses attract substantially more trips
than office uses, the development characteristics allow
construction of three time; as much office than commercial on the
same parcel. As a result, total traffic would be similar for
either retail or office development of the site. Because of the
high PM peak hour rate for offices and the high capture rate for
retail during the PM peak, office development of the subject site
would have more of an impact on the roadway system at the most
critical time than would retail development.
The final factor to consider in assessing the two possible zoning
designations for the subject site is compatibility. Unlike most
commercial property, the subject site contains an access easement
for a large residential development. This forces the mixing of
residential traffic with site traffic, a condition discouraged by
the county. Other factors making retail commercial less
compatible with adjacent residential development than are offices
include the amount of truck traffic, the extended hours of
operation, the amount of activity, lights, noise, odors, and
DEC 6 1988
19 BOCK ib Pt1,r 970
BOOK _ 75 RA 971
other factors. Mitigating any impacts from site development on
the existing condominium development, however, is the existence
of the undeveloped portion of the subject property which was
recently rezoned RM -10. Since this area is presently
undeveloped, the site design for the residential site can
incorporate buffers to reduce adverse impacts.
The close proximity of the subject site to two major arterial
roadways and a rail line does not lend this site to strictly
residential development. However, due to traffic constraints, a
large scale retail commercial development at this site could
have greater adverse .impacts than a professional office
development. For that reason, OCR zoning for this site would be
appropriate.
•
•
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the
subject site be rezoned from CL to OCR.
t
8th ST
. 1. •i_1—��•»
d
COIF 10,
S—•
•
MAK
RM -10
..-moi•';.r
-
J"
... -• . 1 T ~
I
[:i...• — -
+.. •• 1- - - - __
airs
•
.•
1•
•ot.• 1141* t
GOV. LOT 3
DI>11E 1
COMM 2RCI L
►•D PLAU
1N 1 C 1
ti
RM -10
[•s! - s
SUBJECT PROPERTY
GOV.:
—7 -0 -ARK
12 1 11 10
1
.m"
g11D 12 a to
00!11 ��
p t•[11 I
M • 1 w.04<'''''''''''
0A
TM liOlg '
. ., 100
. •
—..•
.----
--
i � .`�� 101 f
/ 100,
I •'.1i 1 ao
- lot I1
_ r� 7--__-10,8'.
_ - •.t• •, .• 1011 1 a• �, s 1.11
-- , h \ 101 A 1103 4 ''��-.. •, 111
.. \ s --•I -=-_ ,
••
. � `•w as ``••/ , i• 1 _ A
1111 ^`�� .. .`/� iat•� •_.-. •.'. •
111 / / ••a• • '• • �,``.
1,4
71
s11 1 • J, �/ `♦ / 1' .♦ �..
:1 18 / 0)' \ ►11�. \ 11•••e.
112 ,-.. /C -r 4 N/.\♦ , 1 .,/•
N., •N• •,...
1111 `�% \\ 01 '�/ ♦Y. T• \ r'
•
♦ 11t \ .1 .t •• ! ' t 11• \ % 117
♦
`., I.
son,
n•♦•` 80 )1 `v i'1 ••a qua• / •1 •11 31 1 1111 /A "'"'% (
1' .
1 \ / / .�\ 1111 \
.1 •
n••
V 1111 / . \
1ST •t
7
CH
-
r
- 8
Z
M
I e
7
i
11 1
20 •
•
-� DIXIE HI$ ILfN
20
VISTA ROYALE
CONDO
.4:
Chairman Scurlock commented that the memo says the OCR
minimum open space requirement is 1O% greater than that required
for the CL zoning district, and it seems staff is trying to
indicate there would be more open space with OCR.
Director Keating believed there could be, but when you
consider retention requirements, setbacks, etc., a lot of the
minimum open space is dictated by other requirements and 20%
compared to 30% is not a big handicap.
The Chairman noted that the memo also says that retail uses
attract substantially more trips than office uses; however, the
development characteristics allow construction of three times as
much office space as commercial on the same parcel, and as a
result when you get to total traffic, it seems that staff is
saying their analysis indicated the traffic levels would be
similar. He wished to know if that is still their position.
Director Keating confirmed that it is, but the difficult
thing about looking at hypothetical situations is that there are
so many uses that can be allowed that really have different
characteristics.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that obviously you can take a
particular piece of property and use every possible vehicle to
maximize your utilization while realistically, that couldn't
happen, and he wished to know if the information presented by the
owners of Vista Properties at the Planning & Zoning Commission
meeting was a worst case scenario or a reasonable one.
Director Keating felt it is not unusual to consider an
office building going to 3 stories in height or to look at retail
being limited to a single story and he, therefore, believed their
presentation was reasonable. He felt that probably the most
overriding characteristic here is the compatibility issue and
also the compatibility of the access requirement.
Chairman Scurlock wished to clarify that when the Commission
said we have an interest in looking at OCR, it was because we
were trying to find the most reasonable solution with the least
DEC 6 '0E8
21
PIO ` 5 F �E 272
DEC 61988
BOOK b or,E 273
impact. He personally has always viewed OCR as a less intense
district that is more compatible to have next to residential, and
now he is hearing some conflicting statements which makes him
wonder where he was wrong.
Director Keating believed the Chairman was correct in his
perception of OCR as less intense because with retail you can get
a more intense use in that you have more truck traffic, longer
hours, etc.
Commissioner Eggert advised that what has her concerned now
is that when property owners from Vista call and tell her what
they want to see there, they talk about such things as the
Village Shoppes, but those would only be allowed in commercial
zoning. She asked that Director Keating make it clear just what
kind of retail can be put in OCR and what can be allowed in CL.
Director Keating reviewed the commercial uses allowed in
OCR, explaining that there are two general categories - General
Office and Financial Services, which would include professional
offices, banks and health services, and the other category is
Business Services, which basically are a lot like office uses
themselves - advertising agencies, insurance agencies, office
equipment, research facilities, and TV and broadcasting
facilities. Under Special Exception uses there is a provision
for accessory retail uses. Those uses cannot be free standing
but have to be included within another building, and these are
generally carry -out restaurants, limited sales and personal
services.
Commissioner Eggert asked if a carry -out restaurant would
include a deli type of thing, and Director Keating confirmed that
it would, but it would have to comprise no more than 20% of the
ground floor area of the structure in which it is located. The
difference with CL is that the commercial uses are much more
extensive and cover a much wider range. The site plan submitted
earlier was in compliance with CL, except one of the uses was an
administrative permit use and that was the department store use.
22
Chairman Scurlock realized we are discussing a zoning issue,
not a site plan, but in staff's memo it states that "It has also
been demonstrated that this level of service can only be main-
tained by utilizing the access road/Indian River Boulevard
connector road. Utilization of this road and the main entrance
would increase commercial/residential traffic intermixing, with
the added impacts referenced above." On the site plan that is in
the court process right now, it was his particular position that
he would not support intermixing that traffic, and as one
Commissioner, he has very strong concerns about intermixing and
using that entrance into Vista Gardens. Therefore, he is not
sure that is an option.
Director Keating felt possibly staff should not have in-
cluded that statement, but without that intermixing, he believed
you could not meet the service level.
Chairman Scurlock believed the option that is still avail-
able is to reduce the intensity so that you can maintain the
service level. He noted that there has been some question as to
why we are having this meeting today while there is a lawsuit
going on, and he would like the County Attorney to distinguish
between the two issues involved.
County Attorney Vitunac confirmed that, in one sense, there
are two separate issues. This is a straight rezoning which
should be considered as any other rezoning. The fact that there
is a lawsuit will somehow affect the development of this land,
and that is all we can say at the present time. For today's
issue, however, the Commission should forget the lawsuit.
Chairman Scurlock then opened the public hearing, explaining
the process to be followed and requesting that those authorized
to represent groups speak first.
Attorney Gary Brandenburg came before the Board representing
Vista Properties of Vero Beach, Inc., and advised that their
mission is to convince the County Commission and residents that
if the Commission takes this action today, it is not based on any
23
DEC 6 1988
BOOK .75 ['AGE 274
DEC
BOOR 75 FAGS 275
good zoning theory and that it will create more problems for the
county and residents than if it were left alone. Attorney
Brandenburg reviewed the history of the subject property in
detail, contending that as far back as records show, this
property always has been zoned commercial. He referred to the
adoption of the Comprehensive Use Plan and how when the developer
subsequently asked that the Commission designate ten acres as
Commercial, they designated 20 acres instead. He described in
detail how the developer, in reliance on the Commission's action,
then put in Vista Villas to serve as a buffer for the commercial
and built a very expensive wall down the middle of the property
to totally separate that area.
Mr. Brandenburg continued that the owner then searched for
someone to develop the commercial property, and that individual
presented a plan that no one liked, which plan was denied and is
in court today. He felt the reason they are here today was
because of overreaction to a site plan that no one liked. He
believed it is clear that everyone recognizes this front property
should not be residential but should be either CL or OCR and the
only issue is whether there is really a difference in the two
zoning categories that would affect the decision. They feel
there is not and urge the Commission to leave it alone and allow
it to come back with an appropriate site plan. Attorney
Brandenburg pointed out that back in March of 1988 when the
entire 19 acre site was submitted for site plan approval, staff
analyzed it under all the county ordinances and indicated it met
all the requirements; so, it is difficult now to imagine that a
commercial project half that size at much less intensity will run
afoul of the Comprehensive Plan requirements and ordinances, and
it does not, in fact, do that.
Mr. Brandenburg then addressed the drainage issue, stressing
that if the property all went to residential that would not help
the drainage situation and contending that the flooding situation
resulting from Hurricane Floyd in 1987 related to the completion
24
of Indian River Boulevard, and, therefore, the people should look
to the County for a remedy. He noted that it appears the biggest
concern, which he felt is a false concern, is the traffic issue.
The traffic will have to meet the county's traffic standards
ordinance, and the county's own staff shows that by virtue of
this rezoning, it would be possible to put in almost triple the
amount of square footage of offices as you could of retail, which
actually would show an 11% increase in the traffic that could be
generated as a result of the down zoning. He believed an even
more important point is co -mingling of traffic at the entrance,
and if the office development generates more traffic, there will
be more co -mingling.
Attorney Brandenburg expressed surprise that Mr. Barkett can
represent the Home Owners Association on this situation because
he wrote the agreement for the county that provided for the
acquisition of the little one acre tract that is part of this
rezoning, and an exhibit to that agreement showed specific access
that connects into the entrance to the Gardens Association. The
Association saw that and agreed to it, and at the time they did,
the entire 19 acres was commercial. It, therefore, hardly seems
feasible to think that the county and the Gardens folks thought
that if they agreed to it, that it wouldn't be reasonable for the
developer to rely on the agreement they had in writing and move
ahead with a development scheme for this property. Even more
than that, the concern here is the intermixing. The development
scheme for the front property has always anticipated access off
U.S.I., and he felt that the people in the Gardens would think
that was a negative because in order to get to a property that is
almost in their backyard, they would be forced to go out onto
U.S.I. The access to the little square one acre tract
obviously has to be off the entrance road. It can't be anywhere
else; so, if traffic' is really a concern of the County
Commission, they would not be zoning this to a category that
25
DEC 6 1988
6.,______
ROOK:
75 F,f;E 276
p �y e
DE C `988 BOOK 6 5 .E E 277
7
would create more traffic, allow more intermixing, and also bring
the additional traffic at the worst times of day.
Attorney Brandenburg next addressed the fairness issue
relating to how the Commission has treated all other properties
in the area, i.e., the WalMart property which was approved to its
maximum; Perkins that was approved to its maximum; the Schlitt
property which has exactly the same characteristics and was
approved for 7,800 sq. ft. of CG; and at the same P&Z meeting,
that Commission spent four minutes to approve 150,000 sq. ft. of
commercial one mile on down the road without any argument at all.
He, therefore, did not teel that traffic is an issue but that it
is being used as an excuse. He further found it interesting that
the residents most affected by this particular piece of property
have not even appealed it; the appeal is not by the Garden's
Association but by the Vista Civic Association whom Mr. Barkett
represents. Attorney Brandenburg contended that when you look at
the Land Use pattern in the area, if anything, this area is
becoming more commercialized rather than going to offices. If
they had to put in a three-story office building here, obviously,
they would try to put in an attractive building, but who would
rent it.
Attorney Brandenburg believed the Board will hear many un-
related factors today, such as the brochures people saw when they
bought their property, which brochures talked about preservation
of certain areas. He claimed the fact is that every single
brochure showed this area either as commercial or not included.
He contended that the residents over the years have confused the
language saying that approximately.1/3 of the property is to be
preserved as nature as intending it to be this property, but it
was not and, in fact, that property is still there today and
still preserved - the 55 acres directly east of the Gardens'
development and that property runs down to the river.
Chairman Scurlock asked if that is environmentally
sensitive land, and Mr. Brandenburg confirmed that it is and
26
always was. Regarding shops such as The Village Shoppes, he
noted that if you really want them, you have to leave the zoning
the way it is, and that is what they are requesting. Mr.
Brandenburg then introduced their planning consultant, Mr. Park.
Jim Park, senior planner with Gee & Jensen, spoke of his
long experience in both the public and private sector and noted
that he is having difficulty trying to find something to commend
the zoning proposed. There can be two findings made to justify
a change in zoning - either a change in circumstances or an
error, and presumably there is either one or the other in this
case. However, the proposed zoning must pass three tests -
reasonableness, fairness, and consistency with good planning
practice and principles. The first question is does this
property as it is situated lend itself to office uses better than
commercial uses in consideration of the various other
circumstances. Here again, we see clearly the commercial
activity to the north, a major node to the south, industrial
zoning to the west, and other negative land uses for ottice
development in the area such as a muffler shop and other heavy
commercial uses which are a way of life on many sections of
U.S.I. You need to look for a land use that can survive in that
kind of environment, and office development needs a somewhat
protected environment to survive.
Mr. Park believed Mr. Brandenburg has already touched on the
fairness issue and how the owner previously provided buffering in
reliance on the zoning as it appeared on the zoning maps. As to
reasonableness, whether a compromise Land Use solution is in the
best interests of everyone is debatable. Mr. Park did not see
that the success of the project could be assured for an office
development at that location, and he believed it is in the best
interests of the county to assure a quality development that
would be successful and marketable. Mr. Park then presented a
graph comparing development under CL with development under OCR,
noting that in OCR you can have 21 times the floor area that
•
27 !TR
DEC 19
..�.:E2`78
DEC 6 1938
BOOK 75 F' 6E 279
would be allowed under CL, and there could be something more than
a 50% increase in the number of cars parked on site.
Chairman Scurlock believed it is the intent of the developer
to market the tract; so, at this point there actually is no way
to determine exactly what is going to happen except within
certain parameters, i.e., the low end and the high end. He
wished to know it that is right.
Mr. Park agreed that is about right.
Chairman Scurlock asked if any analysis was done on the
possibility of downsizing if it were possible not to allow co -
mingling of traffic and how that would impact any development
under either district.
Mr. Park said they did not make such an analysis. He
honestly felt the co -mingling of traffic would not be a consider-
ation at all in an office development. -
Michael Byrd, traffic engineer with Kimley-Horn, advised
that he thoroughly analyzed this over the past year in conjunc-
tion with staff. With the 101 acre site analysis, it showed that
the entire site can load directly onto U.S.1. and no connection
to Indian River Boulevard is needed to provide for an acceptable
level of service. the little out parcel obviously would have to
access the entrance drive and co -mingle.
Chairman Scurlock asked if that was the case prior to the
other rezoning, and Mr. Byrd stated that at one point it defin-
itely was; they ran the numbers and the intersection worked
without any improvements, but later the traffic volumes had
increased significantly, and it did not work without major
intersection improvements. They definitely do need the major
improvements to develop the site, and with them, they can take
the entire parcel and load it onto U.S.1 and meet the standards
of the traffic ordinance.
Chairman Scurlock asked if the county staff concurs.
Public Works Director Davis advised that back when the
initial plan was reviewed, there was still an issue re the 1st
28
St. SW connection to U.S.I, which is unsignalized. We did
communicate with Kimley-Horn and ask what the effect would be of
not utilizing that link on the system and diverting that traffic
to the 4th St. corridor. He was not fully convinced that they
had utilized the 4th St. corridor to the full extent, and further
noted that this development plan did not anticipate the Oslo
South development when they were running these numbers. The
corridor is changing yearly.
Mr. Byrd stated that at one point they did look at re-
stricting movements on 1st St. because of the lack of signaliza-
tion and loading 4th St. They did not look at the access road,
and he contended it is a totally separate issue from the
situation at the Boulevard.
Director Davis explained that what we are looking at is
diverting 1st St. traffic to 4th St. and deleting the connection
from the Boulevard to the commercial parcel, and if both of these
scenarios were reanalyzed, then staff could analyze whether the
U.S.I connection can handle the commercial zoning in its entirety
or not. He did not believe both scenarios were looked at
together and did not believe all the interrelations were
analyzed.
Acting Administrator Collins pointed out that we cannot
really look at this until a specific site plan is presented. We
now are just dealing with the zoning issue and whether this is
appropriate for OCR or CL, and everything still is hypothetical
because we don't know if we will see a site plan with a 3 -story
building or one story, etc., and he further noted that you can go
to 35' in either the CL or OCR district.
Chairman Scurlock commented that where he sees another
controlling factor is the fact that what you maximally can do
under either district is still limited by this transportation
element. With the restriction of not co -mingling, he would like
a simple comparison of what you could do under either district.
29
DEC 6 1988
KO 75 OLE 280
BOOK 75 F,,,GE.281
Mr. Byrd stated that with retail at single story and offices
at 3 stories, or 80,000 sq. ft. of retail versus 200,000 sq. ft.
of office, retail would produce 315 new trips while the offices
would produce 350, or a 11% increase. In dealing with this
reduced land use as opposed to what they had with the Boulevard
Shops, he is comfortable with the level of improvements they had.
Mr. Byrd felt it all comes down to 3 -story versus 1 -story.
Commissioner Bowman believed CL has more truck traffic than
OCR, and the Chairman again emphasized that no one really knows
just what this will be because they are going to try to market
the property.
Discussion continued, and Public Works Director Davis asked
if Mr. Byrd is saying that without the Indian River Boulevard
connection, the U.S.I. connection could work only if it is
signalized.
Mr. Byrd stated that he was not and emphasized that you must
have the warrants to permit the signalization. Warrants were
developed specitically to tell us whether or not there is enough
traffic congestion and delay to warrant interrupting U.S.I.
traffic. He further pointed out that the DOT's policy is that
they won't put up a signal until the development is built and the
trattic is actually there,
Further discussion ensued about the previous site plan for
the Boulevard Shops which was 160,000 sq. ft. and now we are
looking at 80,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Bowman noted that the
first site plan called for a development about the size of three
WalMarts. She felt without a traffic light here, no one will be
able to get out onto U.S.1., especially if we get a big
sub -regional mall at Oslo Road.
Attorney Brandenburg requested that he be given an oppor-
tunity to rebut after the other presentations are made.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Attorney Bruce Barkett came before the Board representing
Vista Civic Association, which is an organization consisting of
30
owners of over 1,000 units. He felt the Chairman hit the nail on
the head and that the main point is that OCR is a Tess intense
use. He then cited what the OR District is intended to do,
emphasizing that it is designed to be compatible with residential
areas and to be less intense than commercial.
Commissioner Wheeler asked how he could refute the statement
that with the various usages that can be put in there, OCR has
the potential of generating 11% more traffic, and therefore, how
can it be said it is a less intense use.
Attorney Barkett believed that what was presented was a worst
case office scenario compared to a best case commercial use - a 3
story office building compared to a 1 story retail site. Sec-
ondly, he felt that Mr. Brandenburg backtracked a lot here saying
they are going to build an attractive office building, when at he
the P&Z meeting what he threatened was that as long as they have
to put in an office building there, it is going to be three
stories high, bulky, more of an eyesore and less aesthetically
pleasing than a commercial area would be. Attorney Barkett then
asked Director Keating to explain why OCR is a less intense use
than CL.
Director Keating noted that there are a lot of ways you can
look at the intensity of OCR versus CL, and he believed Mr. Byrd
will admit that they used traffic numbers generated at the worst
time of day as the average daily traffic count. Mr. Keating felt
one of the points we probably will be addressing in the new
Comprehensive Plan is that we don't have anything like floor area
ratios in our ordinances right now; what we do have is a lot of
other criteria that limits the total size.
Chairman Scurlock commented that if in our ordinances we
have provided you can do three times as much in OCR, he believed
staff will be getting instruction from the Board to change that
very quickly.
Attorney Barkett next addressed the traffic generated by CL,
citing "captive" traffic," where people see a shop in a retail
31
DEC 6 1938
L.
BOOK 75 FACE 282
DEC''
BOOK 75 F' GE 283
area and just decide to drop in as compared to making a specific
trip to an office area, and debate continued at length re traffic
generated, access, intermixing, etc.,
Attorney Barkett noted Attorney Brandenburg has managed to
attack a lot of those present in this room today. At the P&Z
meeting Mr. Brandenburg twice made references about this Board
and questioned their motivations, speculating that the
county -initiated rezoning was an attempt by the Board to punish
the developer for presenting a site plan they didn't like.
Later he questioned whether staff's recommendation was an attempt
to appease the Board. Attorney Barkett continued that today
Attorney Brandenburg also questioned his integrity in repre-
senting Vista when he earlier had written an agreement regarding
the access road. Attorney Barkett stated that he personally had
no problem with his writing that agreement and doubted any other
lawyer present did, and he did not think those kind of
representations have a place in this except they do show the
extent to which this developer is prepared to go to get what he
wants with regard to this property.
Attorney Barkett continued that in regard to the tests for
justifying a rezoning, there obviously have been many changes in
this area - Indian River Boulevard has opened; traffic has
increased tremendously while U.S.I. has remained unimproved, and
the development on U.S.I. has been dramatic.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan is designed to be updated, and we accordingly are
required'to analyze our capital improvement programs and their
cost effectiveness. As all of these factors change, he believed
we are mandated to look at zoning as a part of this. We did have
concerns about the traffic increase, and he takes a little bit of
offense at the intimation that the Commission is doing this re-
zoning with some concealed purpose. We took this step because of
great concern about the satety and welfare of our community and
32
EMI
that is why we asked staff to look at OCR. We didn't tell them
they had to do anything other than just look at it.
Commissioner Eggert commented that in her many years of
working with the Planning Department, she has never known them to
do anything just to appease either the Planning & Zoning
Commission or this Commission.
Commissioner Bird disagreed with the remark that the devel-
oper is trying to get something for his property. He pointed out
that the developer is trying to keep something he has had for
many years, and there is quite a difference.
Attorney Barkett next addressed the second test for justify-
ing a rezoning, noting that the first test, which is whether or
not there has been a change in the community that has affected
this property, has been proven. The second test is whether an
error was made in the last rezoning of the property, and he
believed that is definitely the case. The developer originally
represented that if this were allowed to stay commercial, they
would put up something elegant like the Village Shoppes, and
their attorney, Gordon Johnston came before the Board and made
many representations about establishing an attractive neighbor-
hood type commercial area and also assured the Board that they
would not develop the area of the gardens, trees, etc., into
total commercial. He, therefore, argued that the Board should
go back to what should have been done in the first place and put
in a less intense use that still would allow profitable develop-
ment.
Chairman Scurlock agreed that the Board's original decision
to expand the commercial acreage was based on Mr. Johnston's
representations.
Attorney Robin Lloyd next came before the Board on behalf of
Vista Royale Gardens Property Owners Association. He explained
that they did not appeal the ruling simply because they knew that
the Vista Civic Association was doing so. He stressed that a
fact that seems to have been overlooked is that Vista Gardens
33
POOK 75 PAGE 284
r DEC J v
BOOK ,l 17':.;E 285
Trail is the only entrance to his clients' property. That
involves 1,200 people, and to say that peak hours will affect
them in relation to their travels and an OCR type use is totally
incorrect since they are mainly retired people. Their concern is
the constant traffic all day and all night that a commercial use
would bring about. As to the issue of fairness, Mr. Lloyd did
not feel the Commission should overlook common sense. If every
property in the county went by the rule that since it has been
commercial 50 years, it should never change, then everything down
to the St. Lucie County line would be a strip center. Mr. Lloyd
then referred to the old brochure which invites residents "to
enjoy nature's miracles in their own backyard" referring to the
exquisite gardens and ponds, 150 varieties of trees, wildlife,
etc., and states that they have reserved 1/3 of the site to be
reserved as undisturbed "Florida hammock."
Discussion ensued regarding the definition of hammock, which
is property that is higher than the land surrounding it, and,
therefore, could not possibly refer to the wetlands along the
river.
Attorney Lloyd continued that one of the uses allowed under
CL is convenience stores, and everyone is aware of the problems
we have with those. He also believed no one has mentioned that
OCR is seldom used on weekends. Mr. Lloyd continued to argue the
compatibility of OCR rather than CL.
Raymond Cox, 60 Woodland Drive, president of Vista Civic
Association, wished to clarify that they represent property
owners in both Vista Gardens and Vista Royale in about equal
numbers. He advised that something that has helped him visualize
this whole project is that it was indicated that it could be
about the size of the Vero Mall. The Vero Mall has two entrances
and exits on U.S.2 and now has a nice signalized exit on 12th
Street. He then envisioned the normal traffic from that size
retail development constricted by the'bridge over the South
Relief Canal, stressing that although the DOT has that bridge on
34
r
their charts, it is not in their current 5 year plan. Also, the
4th Street traffic light is synchronized with the railroad and
that impacts stacking on the Boulevard when a train goes by. He
further noted that Mr. Brandenburg indicated there was no objec-
tion made to the recent 150,000 sq. ft. shopping center that was
approved one mile down the road, but the people know there is an
80 acre commercial node there, and it is working beautifully
because that is located where it should be. Mr. Cox telt that
traffic andsafety is the problem, and drainage is a minor
problem. He urged adoption of the OCR zoning.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard. There
were none.
Attorney Brandenburg gave his closing argument, thanking the
Board and residents for their patience. He felt all the comments
directed in favor of the downzoning seem to be aimed at questions
such as buffering, etc., that normally should be addressed at
site plan time. Mr. Brandenburg described the buffering already
provided on the site, which includes a wall, a row of town homes,
plus a golt course,and believed there is no other site in the
county where so much buffering was required. He further noted
that when Mr. Barkett wrote the agreement on behalf of the county
with regard to the entrance, it provided that the access to the
Gardens was limited to a right -in and right -out only, and it is
limited that way whether it is CL or OCR. Mr. Brandenburg
believed they have shown that there will be at least and probably
more cars under OCR and that they have shown that all the
traffic, particularly all the truck traffic, that can access the
commercial site will access off U.S.1. He also believed the
county is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan and
taking a look at all intersections; he was sure that in that
process the county will treat all fairly and felt that would be
the time to solve the traffic problems and let this developer
have another chance to submit a plan that will meet everyone's
requirements.
35 LcolyF 5 PAGE, 2036'
DEC 6198
DEC
2
BOOK
75 Fi:cE 287
The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard
and thereupon declared the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bird believed there was a very good presenta-
tion made by both sides, and he did not know of any rezoning that
has received as much input and research as this one has. He
noted that he has dealt with many rezonings over the year and one
of the basic principles he goes by in starting his analysis of
such rezonings is property rights - the right given us by the
Constitution for an individual to own, develop and enjoy his
property. This developer owned this property for many years as
commercial property and he is asking to retain what he has had
for many years. Commissioner Bird stressed that if the facts
would indicate to him that any rezoning is contrary to the public
health, safety and welfare and that can be proven conclusively,
then only would he agree to take away t -he property owner's rights
to develop this property to its highest and best use in his
opinion. It has not been clearly demonstrated to him that the
present CL zoning is adverse to the public health, welfare and
safety, and he personally, therefore, believed the property
owner's rights should prevail. Commissioner Bird stated that he
is totally opposed to mixing the traffic at the Vista Gardens
entrance and believed we will have to address those concerns
through the site plan process. He did agree with Mr. Brandenburg
that the site is extremely well buffered from the existing
residential in the area; it is bordered by commercial on both
sides; and he knew of no other piece of property along U.S.1
presently zoned OCR. He did not think it is a real good place
tor 10 acres of offices; it certainly is not a place tor resi-
dential, and the only thing left is our most limited commercial
area, which is CL.
Motion offered by Commissioner Bird to deny the
rezoning of the subject property from CL to OCR
died for lack of a second.
36
Commissioner Wheeler commented that he is probably as frus-
trated as Commissioner Bird. He agreed property rights are
important, but when you look at the brochure and the salesmanship
that was used, the property rights of the residents living behind
the project are important also. In regard to comparing this with
Vero Mall, that mall has three entrance and exits and stili their
traffic is definitely a problem.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to adopt Ordinance 88-46 rezoning
10.5 acres of land at the entrance of Vista Royale
Gardens to OCR.
Commissioner Eggert noted that she has been terribly torn
by the conversations she has had with residents and what they
seem to have told her they wanted versus what they would get in
OCR. She also agreed the owner of this property has certain
rights, but when she considered the public safety, health and
welfare, she felt we must have the least intensive use there that
we can within reason.
Chairman Scurlock commented that he was the swing vote on
this particular issue when he was 37; now he is 43 and believed
he has learned something since. He believed the Board had good
intentions; they were swayed by The Village Shoppe proposal and
expanded the commercial acreage so that could be done. Now the
facts have changed. Mr. Ewing is not going to develop this
property; he is going to market it. Chairman Scurlock felt his
commitment is to the community. You have to balance rights with
responsibility, and he does believe this would be an unsafe
situation for that whole corridor. The decision a number of
years ago was not a correct decision; he was wrong then; and he
now will support the Motion oftered by Commissioner Wheeler as he
felt OCR will provide a reasonable use of the property.
DEC b 1988
37
800K 75 ME 288
Commissioner Bowman stated that her opinion has never
changed. She does not feel that CL is the highest and best use
of that property. The highest and best use is something like the
wetlands in the back that will continue to produce and nourish
our river for hundreds of years.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion
to adopt Ordinance 88-46 rezoning to OCR. It was
voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commissioner Bird
voting in opposition.
ORDINANCE NO. 88-46
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR THE
PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD
AND THE SOUTH RELIEFjCANAL AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE VISTA
ROYALE GARDENS CONDOMINIUMS, AND PROVIDING FOR AN 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 rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, The 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:
38
DEC 6 1988
.BOOK 75 FAGF.289
r
DEC 6198
BOOK 75 rnF.290
A PARCEL LYING IN PORTIONS OF SECTION 18,_TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH,
RANGE 40 EAST AND SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39
EAST, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 18 (ALSO
BEING THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13) RUN SOUTH
89°53'24" EAST, ALONG THE QUARTER SECTION LINE, 274.36 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 05°04'00" WEST, 975.30 FEET. TO THE NORTHERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE SOUTH RELIEF CANAL; THENCE SOUTH
74°14'36" WEST, ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY 524.93 FEET TO THE
EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 AND TO A POINT ON
THE CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 9649.39 FEET
AND THROUGH WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS SOUTH 73°45'03" WEST;
THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY 1072.61 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID
CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6°22'08"; THENCE RUN NORTH
37°32'06" EAST, 107.54 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON- TANGENT
CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 647.96 FEET AND
THROUGH WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS NORTH 4°01'20" WEST; THENCE
RUN NORTHEASTERLY 108.28 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE
THROUGH THE CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9°34'29" TO A POINT ON THE
QUARTER LINE OF SAID SECTION 13, THENCE NORTH 89°47'53" EAST,
ALONG SAID QUARTER SECTION LINE 501.31 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Be changed from CL, Limited Commercial District to OCR, Office,
Commercial and 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 6th day of December,
1988.
This ordinance was. advertised in the Vero Beach
Press -Journal on the 14thday of November 1988, for a public
hearing to be held on the 6th day of December, 1988, at which
time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Wheeler
seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and adopted by the following
vote:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Nay
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By `/ • `I
Don C. Scu ock, Jr.hairman
ATTEST BY: 7
FREDA WR GHT, Cl
a.
39
SELECTION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Chairman Scurlock believed each Commissioner now has
interviewed each of the six candidates. He personally has
identified his top three choices; although, he found it very hard
to choose between them as he was impressed with all of them. He
ranked his choices as follows;
1. Chandler
2. Smith
3. McCowan
Commissioner Eggert listed her choices as:
1. Chandler
2. McCowan
3. Smith
Commissioner Bird listed his choices as:
1. McDowell
2. Smith
3. Chandler
Commissioner Bowman listed her choices as:
1. Chandler
2. Smith
3. McCowan
Commissioner Wheeler listed his choices as:
1. Smith
2. McCowan
3. Chandler
Commissioner Wheeler noted that although he ranked his
choices in the above order, he really thought all three are
absolutely great candidates, and Commissioner Bowman agreed that
all are very well qualified.
Chairman Scurlock asked that the Board decide on two top
candidates to be further checked into before reaching a final
decision.
Discussion ensued, and it was.agreed to further investigate
Mr. Chandler and Mr. Smith.
Commissioner Bird wished to know whether we are entitled to
ask Mercer/Slavin to do any further checking now that we are down
to a short list of two.
Acting Administrator Collins advised that they are not
obligated, but he believed they are flexible. He felt if the
40
DEC 61988
BOOK 75 FAG[ 291
.BOOK f" E. �? 2
DEC 661988
Board had picked a candidate that wasn't on the short list
submitted by Mercer/Slavin, they would do further checking, but
the two named were on that list.
Chairman Scurlock believed Mercer/Slavin has done a
background check on both Mr. Chandler and Mr. Smith, but noted
that he personally wanted to .drive down to Hollywood and talk to
some people and determine their reaction to Mr. Chandler.
Discussion followed about also traveling to Hilton Head to
check on Mr. Smith, and Commissioner Wheeler stated that he would
like to go to both locations and personally check on the
candidates.
Interested citizen William Koolage recommended that one or
more Commissioners visit the communities where these candidates
have worked.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized out -
of -County travel for any Commissioner to travel to
either Hollywood or Hilton Head to do further investi-
gation of Messrs. Chandler and Smith.
The necessity for expediting a choice came up, and it was
agreed to try to have this ready in time for action at next
Tuesday's meeting.
Commissioner Wheeler offered to fly three on his plane to
Hilton Head, and it was felt this would not violate the Sunshine
Law if a reporter was included. Newsman Elliot Jones volunteered
his services.
FRIZZELL ARCHITECTS PRESENTATION ON PHASE 111 OF JAIL
the Board reviewed memo from Project Manager Doug Wright:
41
TO: William Collins DATE: November 16, 1988 FILE:
Acting County Administrator
1->113
FROMDoug Wright pe -
: Project Manager
Phase III, Indian River County Jail
SUBJECT: Frizzell Architects Pre-
sentation to Board on
Phase III of Indian River
County Jail
REFERENCES:
Frizzell Architect requests that approximately thirty minutes
be set aside for a presentation to the Board of County Com-
missioners on plans for Phase III of the Indian River County
Jail at the scheduled meeting of December 6, 1988. Project
costs will also be discussed in some detail for consideration
by the Board..
Subsequent to the presentation, the architect and the Project
Manager would like direction as to time frames for advertise-
ment for bids and identification of the funding source for this
project.
A copy of the cost estimate as prepared by Construction Cost
Systems is attached to this memorandum. It should be noted
that the projected total of the project is $4,728,024if a mid-
constructuon date of August, 1989 occurs. If bids are not taken
until the month of January, a maximum twenty-four month construc-
tion period would be approximately January, 1990. This would
cause the project costs to increase the total in the neighbor-
hood of $4.8 million as Construction Costs Systems notes the
County can expect a 0.30% escalation factor for each month be-
yond the August 1989 mid -construction date.
Staff requests the Board of County Commissioners permit Frizzell
Architects to make the planned presentation, examine the cost
estimates and then provide direction for how timely the project
should proceed.
Ronald Sebring, Project Manager for Frizzell Architects,
believed the Board is familiar with the proposed plan for Phase
HI from presentations at previous meetings. They have finished
the construction documents and specifications and would like
Board approval so they may release them to bid, and he would just
like to point out some changes that have occurred. He advised
that they have reviewed these drawings with Mr. Wright and
Captain Reese and staff. They have received some comments re
some changes, and they are asking for approval contingent on
those being taken care of. First, they are adding some
42
DEC 'iS88
ROOK 75 PAGE 293
BOOK
75 F.,cE 2J47
additional parking spaces as required by Code, and Carter &
Associates have prepared drainage plans.
The Chairman stated he only would be interested in hearing
about any major design change or significant cost increase.
Commissioner Bird wished information on the cost figures,
and Mr. Sebring advised that the estimate at the time they
completed construction documents was a little over 4.7 million;
The construction industry is currently experiencing an inflation
factor in the construction industry of about 3/10% per month, but
we are still talking between 4.7 and 4.8 million.
Commissioner Bird believed they had passed out a sheet that
had an estimated cost of 6.3 million, and Mr. Sebring explained
that the figures he is talking about are simply construction
costs and do not include any additional fees, equipment or
furnishings, etc.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that the bond issuance costs
are $300,000 alone; so, if you could pay cash based on a 14 Sales
Tax, you can see dramatic savings on the front end immediately,
and it would eliminate the interest that would be paid over a 30
year financing period.
Commissioner Bird asked that Commissioner Wheeler refresh
his memory and convince him of the urgency of continuing with the
third phase of the Jail at this time.
Commissioner Wheeler explained that the critical need is
because we have people being arrested and turned back on the
street again tor a lot of minor crimes. About 90% of the inmates
we are housing are felons, and one of the advantages to moving
ahead is that we can then take Phase ll, which is minimum
security, and start having the Judges hand down some sentences
for lesser offenses that include some punishment related to the
crime. As to bed space, a week or two ago we had possibly 40
beds available due to the fact that because of the earlier
overcrowded situation, the Judges have been trying to keep people
out of the system, and he would like to see them put more people
43
in. We have been averaging 180-212 inmates, and our maximum
capacity is 236.
Chairman Scurlock felt the answer to some extent is the lead
time. Although you are talking about 38-40 beds being available
now, when you consider a referendum, bidding, construction, etc.,
you are talking about 21 years before you can occupy the
tacility, and we will need those beds.
Commissioner Wheeler stressed that we are in a position
where we are making do to keep felons that should be in maximum
security in minimum security right now, and the Phase III project
is maximum security..
The Board returned to discussion of proposed changes in
design, and Chairman Scurlock believed one of the major design
changes that increased costs was the kitchen. There were also
some changes in the admitting area and -the clinic and medical
area. He asked if the kitchen as proposed will be adequate for
all future phases.
Mr. Sebring stated that it should be adequate as it is
designed to serve 1,200 meals per sitting. They do not have all
the equipment in to serve that many at this point, but they are
providing the space for it to be installed in the future. They,
will put in enough equipment to serve at least 600 per sitting.
John Silver reported that, including Future Pods E and F,
the total anticipated future inmate capacity is 1,200.
Commissioner Wheeler stressed that he went through two years
of study to come up with projections on inmates and still fell
far short. We do not want to keep on doing this.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that if we don't have a core
situation that is adequate to begin with, it is harder and harder
to add to it. It is much cheaper to put it in in the beginning.
Commissioner Bird wished to know about the staffing needs
for this addition as he did not want any surprises this time.
Captain Reese advised that approximately 56 additional staff
will be required for Phase III. We have 88 now.
44
DEC 6 1988
BOO 75 Fl: c 295
DEC E laE
BOOK
�....
b Da ? E
�r%
Commissioner Eggert asked how many of the 56 would be
Correctional Officers, and Captain Reese stated about 50.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that we are talking about an
extra one million payroll, and that is what is scary.
Chairman Scurlock honestly felt that at some point the
County Commissioners of Florida are going to have to look at the
administrative rules and possibly challenge the ratio of officers
to inmates.
Commissioner Bird was overwhelmed by the future prospect of
housing over 1,000 inmates in a community with a projected
population of 100,000, and noted that would be about 1% of the
population.
Captain Reese advised that St. Lucie County, which has only
25,000 or so more people than we do, is starting to build a new
pod and they already have 600 inmates. Captain Reese stressed
that in ten years we have had a 700% increase in our inmate
population. Today he is within 3 or 4 from being over capacity,
and within a/month or two, we will be over capacity.
Commissioner Bird then wished to know what it costs to feed
a prisoner, and Captain Reese stated about $1.10 a meal. Phase
111 will hold 140 prisoners.
Commissioner Wheeler felt the only things that may be
questionable are the support facilities, and he is comfortable
that they should be large enough that we can grow into them. He
again stressed the need for a place to put these offenders and
get them off the streets.
Commissioner Bird continued to discuss the manpower required
and whether we can get anything in writing about it from the
D.O.C.
Captain Reese advised that he does have those requirements
set out in writing. He pointed out that running the jail is a 24
hour operation, and it simply requires a lot of manpower, especi-
ally with the mandated programs and the supervision required.
He noted that some of the positions they need are cooks. Right
45
now they are doing approximately 300 meals three times a day..
they also have a tremendous amount of laundry; they are required
to give the prisoners 3 towels when they come in the facility.
We have been cited for not giving them sutticient towels.
Discussion continued, and the Chairman believed the direc-
tion from the Board is that the Architects should be prepared to
go out to bid in March after we learn about the referendum.
Commissioner Bird assumed that in this design, they have
learned from past mistakes with the acoustics, floor coverings,
etc. and those mistakes would not be repeated.
Owner's Representative Doug Wright advised that we have had
a pretty good working relationship but have some real concerns
still to be addressed, especially the electronics and he wanted
to get that right before they come to the Board.
DISCUSS ACTION AGAINST ELECTRONICS PROVIDER FOR PHASE II
Attorney Vitunac informed the Board there is another item to
be discussed relating to the jail. Mr. Dean has written another
memo requesting that we file a suit against the bonding company
tor the electronics provider for Phase II. The jail doors still
are not working and our warranty expires in a month.
Captain Reese confirmed that the doors are completely down
in Phase II and they are on manual control.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added the
above matter to the agenda..
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
the County Attorney to take whatever action is
necessary to solve the problem with the electronics
at the Jail.
116
DEC 1988
'oo 75 F GE29
DEC a BOOK 75 FACE: 98
Mr. Sebring commented that they'had discussed that problem
with Captain Reese and thought they had reached a solution, but
obviously that isn't happening. They will go back and look to
see what the County's recourse is, but they do agree the County
should go to the bonding company. They also want to visit with
Buford Goff a little further and get more information about what
he has proposed so they can feel comfortable we will not have the
same problem again.
KITCHEN EQUIPMENT FOR JUDGES
The Board reviewed memo from Chairman Scurlock:
TO:Board of County CommissionerDATE:December 2, 1988 FILE:
FROM:Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
SUBJECT: Kitchen equipment for
Judges
REFERENCES:
Judge Smith's secretary contacted me today. During the renovati-on of
the Judges' quarters, a kitchen was constructed. It didn't meet the
fire code. The Judges are now asking that a microwave and refrigerator
be substituted for the stove.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Judges' request be approved.
Commissioner Wheeler commented that the memo says this is a
kitchen unit for the Circuit Court Judges, and he asked if the
County Judges and other staff have access to it or is this just a
private kitchen for three judges.
Building Superintendent Lynn William did not know but
advised that it is within the Circuit Judges' suite.
47
Commissioner Wheeler stated that he would hate to put us in
a position where in several weeks we may have to buy equipment
for the County Judges and then the Bailiffs, etc. He wondered
what they have been doing for the last twenty years, what the
need is, and if we are setting a precedent.
Chairman Scurlock clarified that at the budgettime the
Commission approved at least a kitchen unit. Apparently now the
composition of the kitchen is changing based on the Fire Code.
Commissioner Bird asked what expenditure is involved. He
was informed that it is about $880, and it is not an additional
budget item. It was further explained that there is no stove
there now and because of the Fire Code one is not allowed, which
is why they want the microwave instead.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
CONSULTANT RANKINGS FOR THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PROJECT
Director Keating made the staff presentation:
TO: William G. Collins, II-
Acting County Administrator
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICPRMK
Community Development pirector
DATE: November 29, 1988,6
a
SUBJECT: CONSULTANT RANKINGS FOR THE TRAFFIC
CIRCULATION PROJECT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 6, 1988.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
On September 20, 1988, the Board. of County Commissioners approved
and authorized the chairman to sign a joint participation
agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
This agreement serves as a mechanism for FDOT to provide the
County with $33,000 for transportation planning. These funds
were authorized by the legislature to facilitate the County's
transition to MPO status.
48
DEC 1988
!WK /5 FnE2ii
DEC 6 BOOK t) FAGF 300
Besides approving the joint participation agreement, the board
also authorized the staff to prepare and distribute an RFP for
the work funded by the agreement. As prepared by the staff, the
scope of services for the RFP involved not only general
transportation planning for the County but also preparation of a
traffic circulation element meeting the state's comprehensive
planning requirements.
On October 14, 1988, the staff advertised the RFP and notified
consultants. In response to the RFP, eleven firms submitted
proposals. The consultant selection committee, composed of
Commissioner Maggie Bowman, Bill Collins, Jim Davis, Bob Keating,
and Mike Tako (FDOT), then met on November 18, 1988, and selected
five firms for presentations to the committee.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The selection committee met again on November 28, 1988, to hear
presentations from the shortlisted firms. Based upon the
presentations and the initial submittal, the committee then
ranked the top three firms. These firms in the order of their
ranking are:
1. Wilbur Smith & Associates
2. Gannett Fleming
3. Tipton Associates, Inc.
It is now the board's responsibility to act on this
recommendation. If the committee's recommendation is approved,
the staff will negotiate a contract with Wilbur Smith &
Associates. If an acceptable agreement cannot be reached with
Wilbur Smith & Associates, negotiations would then proceed with
the second ranked firm.
Because the scope of services for the project has already been
prepared and the funding provided by FDOT is already in place
(with a cap of $33,000), negotiation of a contract should be a
procedural matter. For this reason, it would be advantageous for
the board at this time to authorize the chairman tosign a
contract consistent with the scope of services specified in the
RFP and within the specified budget ($33,000) for the project.
Taking this action would be helpful in meeting- the timeframes
specified for the project -- timeframes necessary for the County
to meet its comprehensive -plan deadlines.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the consultant selection committee's proposed ranking of firms
for the traffic circulation project. The staff also recommends
that the board authorize the staff to negotiate and the chairman
to sign a contract which is consistent with the scope of services
specified in the RFP and within the specified budget for the
project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the staff unanimously approved the
selection committee's proposed ranking of firms in the
order listed above; authorized the staff to negotiate
and the Chairman to sign a contract consistent with the
scope of services in the RFP and within the specified
budget.
GRAND HARBOR'S REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN EXTENSION FOR HARBOR VILLAGE
The Board reviewed memo from Staff Planner John McCoy:
TO: William G. Collins II
Acting County Administrator
THROUGH:
FROM: John W. McCoy
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: November 15, 1988
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keat' A
Community Devel pme ' erector=
Stan Boling,40
AICP
Chief, Current Development
SUBJECT: GRAND. HARBOR'S REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN EXTENSION FOR THE
HARBOR VILLAGE
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 6, 1988.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On November 12, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved
a major site plan application submitted by Grand Harbor. Approval
was given to construct a 223,306 sq. ft. mixed use project at 2000
49th Street located around the Grand Harbor marina. The project
consists of commercial, office and residential uses.
Due- to market timing/analysis concerns as well as consideration of
architectural changes, Grand Harbor has been unable to commence
construction prior to the expiration of the approved site plan.
However, if no construction has begun by November 12, 1988, the
site plan approval will lapse unless otherwise extended by the
Board of County Commissioners. The applicant submitted its
request for site plan extension prior to the expiration date of
the approved site plan as required by the site plan ordinance.
Therefore, the extension request is still timely.
No regulations have changed since the time of site plan approval
that would affect the proposed project.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 23.2(G)(2), Appendix A of
the Zoning Code, Grand Harbor is requesting a full 1 year exten-
sion of the approved site plan. It•has been the policy of the
Board to grant extensions to projects which conform to current
codes.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Grand Harbor's request for a one year
extension of the approved site plan; the new expiration date to be
November 12, 1989.
51
DEC 6 1988
BOOK 75 F' GE 3O1
Pr -
DEC 6'688
BOOK, 75 FAGS 30
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously granted a
one year extension of the approved site plan for
Harbor Village as requested by Grand Harbor.
ASSESSMENT FOR ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE (EST. OF J. DiPIERRO)
The Board reviewed memo from Code Enforcement Officer Heath:
TO: William G. Collins, II
Acting County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert eati g,;/ fC.P
Community DeveIopme t director
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois, Chief
Environmental Planning
FROM: Charles W. Heath eG4
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: November 1, 1988
SUBJECT: Estate of Joseph DiPierro,
Deceased, Public Nuisance;
Assessment for abate
RE: CV -88-09-611
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of December 6, 1988.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On June 28, 1988, code enforcement staff posted a Notice of Public
Nuisance, and sent a copy of the same to the Estate of Joseph
DiPierro, Deceased, whose sole heir is a minor male child,
Nicholas DiPierro, age 5, whose mailing address is in care of
Florence C. Sudbrock, Guardian, 1470 17th Street, S.W., Vero
Beach, Florida, concerning the accumulation of garbage, trash,
debris, junk unserviceable vehicles and vehicle , parts on the
property in Dixie Gardens Subdivision. The respondent was cited
for the accumulation of an unserviceable vehicle, discarded
building materials, household garbage, junk, trash, and debris, in
violation of Section 13-18(b)(1), Public Nuisance, of the County
Code of Laws.and Ordinances, which prohibits the accumulation of
said articles on any parcel of property within Indian River
County.
The junkyard violation was not remedied within the thirty (30) day
time period. Therefore, in accordance with Section 13-19(b), of
the County Code, County personnel (ie: Road and Bridge Division)
abated the nuisance, with costs to be assessed against the proper-
ty owner.
Section 13-21 of the County Code requires that the cost of abate-
ment for the accumulation of the unserviceable vehicle, vehicle
parts, household garbage, junk, trash, discarded building mate -
52
rials, and debris shall be calculated and reported to The County
Commissioners, who, by resolution, shall assess such costs against
the subject property. This matter is presented herein to the
Board for consideration to adopt said resolution.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Section 13-21(a), Public Nuisances, of the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Indian River Count' specifically reads as follows:
"After abatement of nuisance by the county, the cost thereof
to the county as to each lot, parcel or tract of land shall
be calculated and reported to the board of county commission-
ers. Thereupon, the board of county commissioners, by
resolution, shall assess such costs against such lot, parcel
or tract of land. Such resolution shall describe the land
and state the cost of abatement, which shall include an
administrative cost of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per lot.
Such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid.
The assessment shall be due and payable thirty (30) days
after the mailing of notice of assessment after which inter-
est shall accrue at the rate of twelve (12) per cent per
annum on any unpaid portion thereof."
Cost for equipment use, landfill dumping fees, and labor, as
indicated by the Road & Bridge Division, plus the $75.00 adminis-
tration cost calculates to be:
2 - Supervisors @ $8.05/hr. ea. x 3 8/hr. days = $ 386.40
10 - Laborers @ $4.77/hr. ea.. x 3 8/hr. days = 1,144.80
Flatbed Truck @ $24.00/hr x 3 4/hr. days = 288.00
Dump Truck @ $35.00/hr x 3 4/hr. days = 420.00
Landfill Charges (copies attached) = 534.21
$2,773.41
75.00
Administrative Cost $2,848.41
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
proposed resolution assessing $2,848.41 in abatement costs, in
accordance with Section 13-31(a), of the Indian River County Code
of Laws and Ordinances.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 88-124 assessing. costs of nuisance
abatement on Lot 14, Dixie Gardens Subdivision
(Est. of Joseph DiPierro).
53
DEC 61988
tet' �5 303
t^OOK �PA E.
DEC
.ti•
f;l 3EJ4
RESOLUTION NO. 88- 124
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ASSESSING COSTS
OF COUNTY ABATEMENT BY REMOVING GARBAGE, TRASH,
JUNK AND DEBRIS FROM LOT 14, DIXIE GARDENS
SUBDIVISION, PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 21, SUCH ASSESSMENT
BEING A BINDING OBLIGATION UPON THE PROPERTY UNTIL
PAID.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has determined that the regulation of the accumulation of
garbage, junk, trash, and debris is in the public interest and
necessary for the healti, safety and welfare of the citizens of
Indian River County; and.
WHEREAS, Indian River County • Ordinances No. 87-33, ^•",P tbll.ic
Nuisances," defines as a public nuisance the accumulationof
garbage, trash, junk, .and debris, and unserviceable vehicle or
parts; and
WHEREAS, the accumulation of garbage, trash, junk, debris,
and unserviceable vehicles and vehicle parts existed on property
owned by the Estate of Joseph DiPierro, Deceased, whose sole heir
is a minor male child, Nicholas DiPierro, age 5, whose mailing
address is in care of Florence C. Sudbrock, Guardian, 1470 17th
Street, S.W., Vero Beach, Florida, such property having a legal
description as follows: Dixie Gardens Subdivision, Lot 14, Plat
Book 4, Page 21, of the Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has determined that landowners are responsible for abating
public nuisance existing on their property;'and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Nuisance calling for the abate-
ment of the described nuisance was sent to the owner(s) by
certified mail, and notice -was posted on the subject property for
30 days, in accordance with Section 13-23, " serving of notice,"
of the County Public Nuisance Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the landowners of the subject property failed to
abate the described nuisance within 30 days of the posted and
mailed notice; and
WHEREAS, Section 13-19(b) of the County Public Nuisance
Ordinance (No. 87-33) authorizes the County Administrator to
direct County personnel to abate a public nuisance if the nuisance
is not abated by the landowner within 30 days notice; and
WHEREAS, the Coliiity Administrator 'has authorized County
personnel to abate 'the described nuisance; and
WHEREAS, the County Road and Bridge Division has, as of
October 17, 1988, abated the herein described accumulation of
garbage, trash, junk, debris, unserviceable vehicles and vehicle
parts nuisance; and ,
WHEREAS, Section 13-21(a) of the County Public Nuisance
Ordinance provides that, after abatement of a nuisance by the
County, the cost thereof shall be calculated and reported to the
Board of County Commissioners; thereupon, the Board, by resolu-
tion, shall assess such costs against the subject property, such
costs to include an administrative fee of seventy-five dollars
($75.00) per lot; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of equipment use, labor, and adminis-
trative fee for County abatement of the herein described nuisance
is determined to be two thousand eight hundred forty eight dollars
and forty-one cents (2,848.41); and
54
RESOLUTION NO. 88- 124 -'.C3�i11'�D•
WHEREAS, Section 13-21(c) of the County Public Nuisance
Ordinance provides that the assessment shall be due and payable
thirty (30) days after the mailing of a notice of assessment,
whereby if the owner fails to pay assessed costs within the thirty
(30) days, a certified copy of the assessment shall be recorded in
the official record books of the County, constituting a lien
against the property, subject to twelve (12) percent per annum
interest;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT R SOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION-
ERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:'
1) The foregoing recitals are adopted and ratified in their
entirety.
2) The costs of county abatement of the herein described
accumulation of garbage, trash, junk, debris, and
unserviceable vehicles and vehicle parts nuisance,
totaling an amount of $2,848.41, is hereby assessed
against Lot 14, Dixie Gardens Subdivision presently
owned by the Estate of Joseph DiPierro, Deceased, whose sole
heir is a minor male child, Nicholas DiPierro, age 5, whose
mailing address is in care of Florence C. Sudbrock, Guardian,
1470 17th Street, S.W., Vero Beach, Florida, 32962
3) The $2,848.41 assessment shall be due and payable to the
Board of County Commissioners thirty (30) days after the
mailing of a notice of assessment to the landowners,
after which, if unpaid, a certified copy of the assess-
ment shall be recorded in the official record books of
the County, constituting a lien against the described
property, subject to twelve (12) percent per annum
interest.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commission-
er Bowman , seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and
adopted on the 6th day or December , 1988, by the follow-
ing vote:
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn Eggert Aye
Commissigner Gary Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 6th day of December , 1988
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Don C. Scur ock, Jr ' hairman
ATTEST:
Count Cler v
e_.
55
DEC 6 198
L O0F 75 fAcE 305
BOCK 75 PA E JJ6
ASSESSMENT FOR ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE (LOMAS MORTGAGE CO.)
The Board reviewed memo from Code Enforcement Officer Heath:
TO: William G. Collins, II
Acting County Administrator
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
e
Robert . Keati g, =� P
Community Developme, Director
Roland M. DeBlois, Chief't
Environmental Planning Section
Charles W. Heathe6(,
Code Enforcement Officer
November 9, 1988
SUBJECT: LOMAS MORTGAGE COMPANY PUBLIC NUISANCE;
ASSESSMENT FOR ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE
REF: TM#88-140/CV-88-10-660
DIS:CHEATH/Lomas
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of December 6, 1988.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On August 1, 1988, code enforcement staff sent a Notice of Public
Nuisance to the Lomas Mortgage Company, and also posted said
notice on the subject property, concerning the overgrown weed
condition of their property in the Laurelwood Subdivision. The
Respondents were cited as maintaining their property in violation
of Section 13-18(a)(1), of the County Code, which prohibits the
accumulation- of weeds and grasses in excess of 18 inches in
height within a platted subdivision (where the lots are at a
minimum of 50% developed).
The weed and grass violation was not remedied within the thirty
(30) day time period. Therefore, in accordance with Section
13-19(b), of the County Code, County personnel (ie: County Road &
Bridge Division) abated the weed and grass violation, with the
costs to be assessed against the property owner.
Section 13-21 of the County Code requires that the cost of a
County weed nuisance abatement shall be calculated and reported
to the County Commissioners, who, by resolution, shall assess
such costs against the property. This matter is presented herein
to the Board for consideration to adopt said resolution.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Section 13-21(a), Public Nuisance, of the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Indian River County specifically reads as follows:
"After abatement of nuisance by the county, the cost
thereof to the county as to each lot, parcel or tract
of land shall be calculated and reported to the board
of county commissioners. Thereupon, the board of
county commissioners, by resolution, shall assess such
costs against such lot, parcel or tract of land. Such
56
resolution shall describe the land and state the cost
of abatement, which shall include an administrative
cost of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per lot.
Such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until
paid. The assessment shall be due and payable thirty
(30) days after the•imai-ling 'of the notice of assessment
after which interest shall accrue at the rate of twelve
(12) per cent per annum on any unpaid portion thereof."
Costs for equipment use, labor, and land fill charges, as
-indicated by the Road & Bridge Division, plus the $75.00
administrative fee calculates to be:
Equipment:
Labor:
Landfill Charges
Administrative Fee
TOTAL:
$390.00
319.28
22.04
75.00
$806.32
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
proposed resolution assessing $806.32 in abatement costs, in
accordance with Section 13-21 (a), Public Nuisance, of the Code
of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County.
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 88-125 assessing costs of nuisance
abatement on Lot 134, Laurelwood Subdivision,
Unit 3 (Lomas Mortgage Co.)
57
tkOOK 75 EAE 307
BOOK 75 F,1rE 308
RESOLUTION NO. 88- 125
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ASSESSING COSTS OF COUNTY
WEED NUISANCEABATEMENT ON LOT 134, LAURELWOOD SUBDIVI-
SION UNIT NO. 3; SUCH ASSESSMENT BEING A BINDING
OBLIGATION UPON THE PROPERTY UNTIL PAID.
WHEREAS, they Board•of County commissioners of Indian
River County has deteriined that the regulation of the accumu-
lation of weeds is in the public interest and necessary for the
health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Indian River
County; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County Ordinance No. 87-33,
"Public Nuisances," defines as a public nuisance weeds in excess
of 18 inches in height on a lot contiguous to a residential
structure and within a platted residential subdivision where the
platted lots are at a minimum of 50% developed; and
WHEREAS, weeds in excess of 18 inches in height
existed on property owned by Lomas Mortgage Company, such proper-
ty having a legal description as follows: Laurelwood Subdivision
Unit No. 3, PBI 10-58, Lot 134; and
WHEREAS, THE Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County has determined that landowners are responsible for
abating public nuisances existing on their property; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Nuisance calling for the
abatement of the described nuisance was sent to the owner (s) by
certified mail, and notice: was posted on -the subject property for
30 days, in accordance with Section 13-23, "serving of notice, "
of the County Public Nuisance Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the land owners of the subject property
failed to abate the described weed nuisance within 30 days of the
posted and mailed notice; and
WHEREAS, Section, 13-19(b), of the County Public Nui-
sance Ordinance (No. 17-33) authorizes the County Administrator
to direct County pe±`"s'bnnel to abate a public nuisance if the'
nuisance is not abated by the•.landowner within 30 days of notice;
and
WHEREAS, the County Administrator has authorized County
personnel to abate the described nuisance; and
WHEREAS, the County Road & Bridge Division has, as of
November 07, 1988, abated the herein described weed nuisance; and
WHEREAS, Section 13-21(b) of the County Public Nui-
sance Ordinance provides that, after abatement of a nuisance by
the County, the cost thereof shall be calculated and reported to
the Board of County Commissioners; thereupon, the Board, by
resolution, shall assess such costs against the subject property,
such costs to include an administrative fee of seventy five
dollars ($75.00) per lot; and
58
WHEREAS, the total cost of equipment use, labor, and
administrative fee for County abatement of the herein described
nuisance is determined to be eight hundred and six dollars and
thirty-two cents ($806.32) and
WHEREAS, Section 13-21(c) of the County Public Nuisance
Ordinanceprovides that the assessment shall be due and payable
thirty (30) days after the mailing of a notice of assessment,
whereby if the owner fails to pay assessed costs within the
thirty (30) days, a certified copy of assessment shall be
recorded in the official record books of the County, constituting
a lien against the property, subject to twelve 412) percent per
annum interest;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION-
ERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1) The foregoing recitals are adopted and ratified in
their entirety.
2) The costs of county abatement of the herein described
weed nuisance, totaling an amount of $806.32 is hereby
assessed against Lot 134, Unit 3, of the Laurelwood
Subdivision presently owned by the Lomas Mortgage
Company, ATTN: Bankruptcy Department, whose listed
address is P.O. Box 660725, Dallas, Texas 75266.
3) The $806.32 assessment shall be due and payable to the
Board of County Commissioners thirty (30) days after
the mailing of a notice of assessment to the landown-
ers, after which, if unpaid, a certified copy of the
assessment shall be recorded in the official record
books of the County, constituting alien against the
described property, subject to twelve (12) percent per
annum interest.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Bowman,. and seconded by commissioner
Wheeler , and adopted on the 6t day of
December , 1988, by the following vote:
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Commissioner Margaret Bowman
Commissioner Richard Bird
Commissioner Carolyn Eggert
Commissioner Gary Wheeler
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 6th day of December , 1988
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN,RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
G
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.f9hairman
ATTEST:
59
DEC 1980
Approved as
and
By
Sharon Phillip Brennan
Asst County Attorney
form
gal Su !:'
mot( 75 F'A,E 309
BOOK 75 FgE J1fl
ASSESSMENT FOR ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE (PLUMMER STRICKLAND)
The Board reviewed memo from Code Enforcement Officer Heath:
TO: William G. Collins, II
Acting County Administrator
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
"4'0'
Robert M. Keats g,
Community Developmei"Director
Roland M. DeBlois �0
Chief, Environmental /P/lanning
Charles W. Heathe,�,d. /n
Code Enforcement Officer
November 1, 1988
SUBJECT: PLUMMER STRICKLAND, PUBLIC NUISANCE;
ASSESSMENT FOR ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE
It is requested that the data herein be given formal consid-
eration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of December 6, 1988.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On May 27, 1988, code enforcement staff sent a Notice of Public
Nuisance to Plummer Strickland, concerning the hazardous, dilap-
idated mobile home, garbage, junk, trash and debris. The respon-
dent was cited as maintaining his property in violation of
Section 13-18(b)(1), Public Nuisance, of the Code of Laws and
Ordinances, which prohibits the accumulation of unserviceable
vehicles, vehicle parts, garbage, junk, trash and debris.
The certified letter of notice was returned as undeliverable.
The code enforcement staff then posted notice on the subject
property, as set forth in Section 13-23 of the County Code,
giving the respondent thirty (30) days to remedy the violation.
The violation was not abated within the prescribed thirty (30)
day time period. Therefore, in accordance with Section 13-19(b)
of the Public Nuisance Ordinance, .County personnel (ie: Road &
Bridge Division) abated the nuisance violation, with costs to be
assessed against the subject property.
Section 13-21 of the Public Nuisance Ordinance requires that the
cost of the nuisance abatement shall be calculated and reported
to the Board of County Commissioners, who, by resolution, shall
assess such costs against the subject property. This matter is
presented herein to the Board for consideration to adopt said
resolution.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Section 13-21(a), Public Nuisances, of the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Indian River County specifically reads as follows:
"After abatement of nuisance by the county, the cost
thereof to the county as to each lot, parcel or tract
60
of land shall be calculated and reported to the board
of county commissioners. Thereupon, the board of
county commissioners, by resolution, shall assess such
costs against such lot, parcel or tract of land. Such
abatement, which shall include an administrative cost
of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per lot.
Such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid.
The assessment shall be due and payable thirty (30) days
after the mailing of notice of assessment after which
interest shall accrue at' the rate of twelve (12) per cent
per annum of any unpaid portion thereof."
i g
Costs for equipment use, landfill dumping fees, and labor, as
indicated by the Road and Bridge Division, plus the $75.00
administrative cost calculates to be:
Equipment:
Labor:
Landfill Charges
Administrative cost:
TOTAL:
$1,060.00
537.92
1,339.26
$2,937.18
75.00
$3,012.18
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
proposed resolution assessing $3,012.18 in abatement costs, in
accordance with Section 13-21(a), of the Code of Laws and Ordi-
nances of Indian River County, Florida.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 88-126 assessing costs of nuisance
abatement on parcel number 25-33-39-00006-0040-00015.1
(Plummer Strickland)
61
DEC 6 1988
NO 75 otil311
DEC
ti•
BOOK
e
RESOLUTION NO. 88- 126
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ASSESSING COSTS
OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT OF A HAZARDOUS, DILAPIDATED
MOBILE HOME ON PARCEL NUMBER 25-33-39-00006-0040-
00015.1; SUCH ASSESSMENT BEING A BINDING OBLIGA-
TION UPON THE PROPERTY UNTIL PAID.
FACE 312
WHEREAS, the Board'of County Commissioners of Indian
River County has determined that the regulation of the placement
of an unserviceable vehicle is in the public interest and neces-
sary for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Indian
River County; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County Ordinances No. 87-33,
"Public Nuisances," defines as a public nuisance any unservice-
able vehicles, vehicle parts, junk, trash, and debris; and
WHEREAS, an accumulation of an unserviceable vehicle,
vehicle parts, junk, trash, and debris, existed on property
owned by Plummer Strickland, such property having a legal
description as follows: Indian River Farms Company Subdivision
PBS 2-25, West 40 feet of the South 100 feet of the West 10
acres of the East 20 acres of Tract 4, (OR Book 493, PP 219);
and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County has determined that landowners are responsible for
abating public nuisances existing on their property; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Nuisance calling for the
abatement of the described nuisance was sent to the owner by
certified mail, and returned undeliverable, and notice was then
posted on the subject property for 30 days, in accordance with
Section 13-23, "serving of notice," of the County Public Nuisance
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the landowner of the subject property failed
to abate the described nuisance within the 30 days of the posted
notice; and
WHEREAS, Section 13-19(b) of the County Public Nuisance
Ordinance (No. 87-33) authorizes the County Administrator to
direct County personnel to abate a public nuisance if the
nuisance is not abated by the landowner within 30 days of notice;
and
WHEREAS, the County Administrator has authorized County
personnel to abate the described nuisance; and
WHEREAS, the• County Road & Bridge Division has, as of•
October 25, 1988, abated the.herein described nuisance; and
WHEREAS, Section .'13-21(a)'of the County Public Nuisance
Ordinance provides that, after abatement of a nuisance by the
County, the cost thereof shall be calculated and reported to the
Board of County Commissioners; there upon, the Board by resolu-
tion, shall assess such costs against the subject property, such
costs to include an administrative fee of seventy-five dollars
($75.00) per lot; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of equipment use, landfill
dumping charges, labor, and administrative fee for County abate-
ment of the herein described nuisance is determined to be three
thousand twelve dollars and eighteen cents, ($3,012.18); and
62
WHEREAS, Section 13-21(c) of the County Public Nuisance
Ordinance provides that the assessment shall be due and payable
thirty (30) days after the mailing of a notice of assessment,
whereby if the owner fails to pay assessed costs within the
thirty (30) days, a certified copy of the assessment shall be
recorded in the official record books of the County,
constituting a lien against the property, subject to twelve
(12) percent per annum interest;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION-
ERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1) The foregoing recitals are adopted and ratified in their
entirety.
2) The costs of County abatement of the herein described
hazardous and dilapidated mobile home, accumulation of junk,
trash, and unserviceable vehicles and vehicle parts nui-
sance, totaling an amount of $3,012.18, is hereby assessed
against parcel number 25-33-39-00006-004000015.1, being
Indian River Farms Company Subdivision, PBS .2-25, West 40
feet of the South 100 feet of the West 10 acres of the East
20 acres of Tract 4 (OR Book 498, PP 219), owned by Plummer
Strickland, whose last known address is Route #1, Box 41,
Vero Beach, Florida 32961.
3) The $3,012.18 assessment shall be due and payable to The
Board of County Commissioners thirty (30) days after the
mailing of a notice of assessment'to the landowners, after
which, if unpaid, a certified copy of the assessment shall
be recorded in the official record books of the County,
constituting a lien against the described property, subject
to twelve (12) percent per annum interest.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commis-
sioner
Bowman.
-Eggert
seconded by Commissioner
and adopted on the 6th day of
December 1988, by the following vote:
Commissioner Scurlock
Commissioner Bowman.
Commissioner Bird
Commissioner Eggert
Commissioner Wheeler
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and"''a1dopted .this 6th , day of December ,•
1988.
Approved as to form
and egal uffi ncy
By
Sha'rofi Phillips B? I nan
Asst County Attorney
63
..DEC 6 1"':),09
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By i c.
Don . Scu ock, Jr
Chairman
BOOK 75 PAGE 313
DEC 3lc)
BOOK 15 AGE 314
DEMOLITION OF UNSAFE STRUCTURE IN SMITH PLAZA SUBDIVISION
The Board reviewed memo from Building Director Rymer:
TO: William G. Collins, II
Acting County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
LL�61L
Robert M. Keat}ng a _ ALCP
Director, Community Development Department
DATE: November 28, 1988
SUBJECT: Demolition of Unsafe Structure
FROM: Ester L. Rymer, Directo
Building Division
It is requested that the information herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of, County Commissioners at the next
regularly scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
The structure located at 4735 34th Avenue, Smith Plaza Subdivision
(Parcel # 22-32-39-00007-0070-00017.0) is considered unsafe as de-
fined in Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 4,
Article II, Section 4-16.
It is the opinion of the inspector and the Building Official that
said structure is beyond practical repair and is a public nuisance;
therefore the structure has been condemned. Appropriate condemnation
cards have been posted on said structure.
The owner was initially notified on May 10, 1988, that repairs were
required on the structure, and was given thirty days to make neces-
sary repairs. The owner failed to make any repairs, and on October
11, 1988, he was given official notice to repair or demolish the
structure within thirty days. To date no work has been done.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Indian River County Code, Chapter 4, Article II, Section 4-21,
gives the Board of County Commissioners the authority to cause such a
building or structure or portion thereof to be demolished, secured or
required to remain vacant. Chapter 4, Article II, Section 4-22 gives
the Board of County Commissioners the authority to remove the struc-
ture as stated in 4-21, and cause a lien to be filed of record for
the costs of removal against the owner of the building.
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of. County Commissioners declare said
structure a nuisance, and order the building to be demolished by the
County Road and Bridge Department.
After removal, in accordance with referenced Ordinances of Indian
River County, staff recommends a lien be filed of record for the
costs of removal against the owner or person in charge of said prop-
erty.
64
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously declared the
above described structure a nuisance; ordered it to
be demolished by the County Road and Bridge Depart-
ment; and authorized a lien to be filed for the costs
of removal as recommended by staff.
DEMOLITION OF UNSAFE STRUCTURE IN DIXIE GARDENS SUBDIVISION
The Board reviewed memo from Building Director Rymer:
TO: William G. Collins, II
Acting County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
-s
Robert M. Ke.a.tj g,_ ICO-
Director, Community Development Department
DATE: November 28, 1988
SUBJECT: Demolition of Unsafe Structure
FROM: Ester L. Rymer, Directo
Building Division
It is requested that the information herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at the next
regularly scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
The structure located at 426 6th Avenue, S.W., Dixie Gardens Subdivi-
sion (Parcel # 24-33-39-00005-0020-00019.0) has suffered severe fire
damage and is considered unsafe as defined in Indian River County
Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 4, Article II, Section 4-16.
The Building Division has received numerous complaints from the sur-
rounding property owners.
It is the opinion of the inspector and the Building Official that
said structure has been destroyed beyond practical repair and is a
public nuisance; therefore the structure has been condemned. Appro-
priate condemnation cards have been posted on said structure.
Attempts to notify the owner at the address listed with the Property
Appraiser's office by certified mail have failed, and the Post Office
has no forwarding address. A second address was obtained from City
65
DEC 6196
nor 75 ,,,,,E 315
DEC 6 1988
BOOK 75 FACE 316
of Vero Beach Utilities, and a certified letter mailed to that ad-
dress was returned as well. Attempts were made to deliver the notice
to the owner at her place of employment, but she was either not in or
the business was closed during its normal working hours. A legal no-
tice was placed in the Vero Beach Press Journal on November 14th and
again on November 18th (copy attached). On November 22, 1988, the
owner was reached by telephone, and a notice mailed to her work ad-
dress. The owner had read the notice in the paper.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Indian River County Code, Chapter 4, Article II, Section 4-21,
gives the Board of County Commissioners the authority to cause such a
building or structure or portion thereof to be demolished, secured or
required to remain vacant. Chapter 4, Article II, Section 4-22 gives
the Board of County Commissioners the authority to remove the struc-
ture as stated in 4-21, and cause a lien to be filed of record for
the costs of removal against the owner of the building.
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners declare said
structure a nuisance, and order the building to be demolished by the
County Road and Bridge Department.
After removal, in accordance with referenced Ordinances of Indian
River County, staff recommends a lien be filed of record for the
costs of removal against the owner or person in charge of said prop-
erty.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously declared the
above described structure a nuisance; ordered it to
be demolished by the County Road and Bridge Depart-
ment; and authorized a lien to be filed for the costs
of removal as recommended by staff.
DEMOLITION OF UNSAFE STRUCTURE AT 1041 10TH LANE
The Board reviewed memo from Building Director Rymer:
66
TO:
William G. Collins, II
Acting County Administrator
DEPARJMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
.Robert M. Keating
Director, Community Development Department
DATE: November 29, 1988
SUBJECT: Demolition of Unsafe Structure
FROM: Ester L. Rymer, Director
Building Division
It is requested that the information herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at the next
regularly scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
The structure located at 1041 10th Lane, Vero Beach, (Parcel #
12-33-39-00013-0120-00000.1) is considered unsafe as defined in In-
dian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 4, Article II,
Section 4-16.
It is the opinion of the inspector and the Building Official that
said structure is beyond practical repair and is a public nuisance,
therefore the structure has been condemned. Appropriate condemnation
cards have been posted on said structure.
The property is in the estate of Frances J. Radabaugh. The estate
was notified on two occasions that the property must be brought up to
code or demolished. Attached is a letter from the personal represen-
tative of the estate in which we were advised that the estate has no
funds to demolish the structure.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
The Indian River County Code, Chapter 4, Article II, Section 4-21,
gives the Board of County Commissioners the authority to cause such a
building or structure or portion thereof to be demolished, secured or
required to remain vacant. Chapter 4, Article II, Section 4-22 gives
the Board of County Commissioners the authority to remove the struc-
ture as stated in 4-21, and -cause a lien to be filed of record for
the costs of removal against the owner of the building.
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners declare said
structure a nuisance, and order the building to be demolished by the
County Road and Bridge Department.
After removal, in accordance with referenced Ordinances of Indian
River County, staff recommends a lien be filed of record for the
costs of removal against the owner or person in charge of said prop-
erty.
DEC 1988
67
MY 75 PACE 317
DEC G
800K
75 P,,rE3187
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously declared the
above described structure a nuisance; ordered it to
be demolished by the County Road and Bridge Depart-
ment; and authorized.a lien to be filed for the costs
of removal as recommended by staff.
PERSONNEL POLICY MANUAL
Acting Administrator Collins reviewed the following memo
from Personnel Director Price, noting that right now we are
operating based on a 12 year old manual:
To: Board of County Commissioners Date: 11-29-88
Thru: William Collins -Acting Administrator
From: Jack Price -Personnel Director
Sub: Policy Manual
In every organization it is necessary to establish a framework
within which the efforts of employees can be directed in a manner
which will advance both the objectives of the organization and
the interests of the individual. Every employee needs to know
where he stands with his employer and what is expected of him.
Personnel policies that are improperly formulated or
administered, or that fail to keep employees informed concerning
all areas of management policy, create misunderstanding,
mistrust, and inefficiency. Properly formulated and administered
personnel policies create a working environment conducive to
productivity and personal job satisfaction.
The requirement that we become more uniform in establishing and
administering personnel policy has been necessitated by the
increasing number of employees, by the expanding number of
employee benefits provided by the County and by the growing role
of the Federal and State governments.
We should prepare an administrative manual to serve as a guide
and reference for members of management at all levels. It will
not serve as additional bureaucracy to slow Indian River County's
progress, but as a tool for management so progress will be
facilitated. We can remain appropriately flexible and still act
in predictable and consistent ways.
Any policy, however properly formulated, is only as good as its
implementation, and the key to the implementation of policy is
the supervisor who is responsible for and in direct contact with
each group of employees. These are the individuals who must
translate these principles into action and it is upon them that
we depend for the successful development of a productive and
harmonious working environment for employees.
68
We recognize that some critical deficiencies exist in the areas
of written guidelines, communication of policy, and supervisory
development in general. The style chosen for the proposed
administrative manual is one which complements supervisory
training. The review process detailed below leads directly from
the development of policy units into management training
sessions.
The administrative manual will be divided into 9 units, each of
which contains common topics. These units are:
1. Introduction
2. Employment (includes hiring provisions)
3. Pay Practices
4. Reimbursement of Employee. Expenses (includes Florida
Statute #112)
5. Employee Benefits
6. County Premises and Work Areas (includes safety/risk
management)
7. Absence from Work
8. Personal Conduct (includes disciplinary provisions)
9. Miscellaneous (includes grievance procedure)
The proposed plan is to write, review, modify and introduce the
administrative manual on a unit by unit basis. This approach is
recommended because those involved in the process (all management
employees) would have difficulty committing the time required to
learn and implement the entire manual at one time.
The steps are as follows:
1. Personnel writes the policy chapters, after which they are:
2. Copied to department heads for comment.
3. Modified as needed by Personnel.
4. Copied to the Board for comment and approval.
5. Modified, copied and prepared for issuance by Personnel.
6. Used as Management Development meeting topics (every
chapter).
7. Issued to management employees for daily use.
Once the administrative manual is complete, preparation of an
Employee Handbook will be the natural next step. The handbook
will be a simplified version of the administrative manual,
designed more as a clear statement of what the County and
employees should expect from each other than as a discussion of
the theoretical aspects of management.
Both the administrative manual and employee handbook should be
viewed as dynamic documents which are updated continuously either
as management alters policy or as the law requires. Probably a
loose leaf document will be most practical as it allows change
without a major reprinting effort.
The time needed to produce and introduce all units of the
administrative manual is difficult to predict. Obviously the
effort will be affected by other projects. The need is clear and
the sooner we begin, the sooner the benefits will show.
Mr. Collins and I have discussed the overall status of our County
government team. The organization is ripe for further
development. Good dedicated employees are on board and with some
concentrated effort the team can be moved forward as one of which
the citizens will be even more proud. Mr. Collins and I
evaluated 25 tasks for Personnel to undertake and these will
contribute to that progress. Key among those is the
administrative manual.
Your approval of the task as a priority and of the general
approach recommended will be appreciated.
69
DEC '' 1988
GOOK . /b F,10E 319
7ROOK 5 FA r.,E 3 0
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
staff recommendation in regard to the preparation
of an administrative manual.
FINAL ASSESSMENT - 21ST AVE. & 22ND AVE. FROM 2nd ST. TO 4TH ST.
Director Davis reviewed memo from Civil Engineer Michelle
Terry:
TO: Hon B of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Ralph N. Brescia, P.F.
County Engineer? I ��
Q. x
FROM: Michelle A. Terry, CET
Civil Engineer_
SUBJECT: Final Assessmentifok 21st Avenue and 22nd Avenue from
2nd Street to 4th Street
DATE: November 16, 1988
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The paving of the above roads have been completed. Listed
below is a comparison of the preliminary estimate and the final
costs to the homeowners._ It is noted that all construction cost
are under the original estimates:
Road
21st Avenue
22nd Avenue
Prelim. Est. Final Cost
$40,470.00
$40,470.00
$24,454.2622
$24,416.8869
The final assessment roll has been prepared and is ready to
be delivered to the Tax Collector. Assessments are to be paid
within 90 days or in two equal installments, the first to be made
twelve months from the due date and the second to be made
twenty-four months from the due date at an interest rate of 12%
established by the Board of County Commissioners. The due date
is 90 days after the final determination of the special
assessment.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Since the final assessment to the benefited owners will be
less than computed on the preliminary assessment rolls, the only
alternative presented is to approve the final assessment rolls.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the final assessment rolls for the
paving of 21st Avenue and 22nd Avenue from 2nd Street to 4th
Street be approved by the Board of County Commissioners and that
they be transferred to the Tax Collector's office for collection.
Funding to be from the Petition Paving Account #173-214-541.
70
ON MOTION by Commission Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the
Final Assessment Rolls for the paving of 21st and
22nd Avenues between 2nd Street to 4th Street and
directed that they be transferred to the Office of
the Tax Collector for collection at the interest
rate of 12%.
ADDED ITEM - DISCUSSION RE KING's HIGHWAY BRIDGE
Commissioner Bird requested the addition of an emergency
item in order to discuss the status of the King's Highway Bridge.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
addition of the above item to the Agenda.
Director Davis reported that yesterday afternoon the con-
tractor paved the approaches to the bridge and the deck. The
only remaining items are some approach guard rails and some
safety devices prior to opening. People have been calling
wondering when the bridge would be open for traffic. The bridge
could be opened with the shoulders barricaded, but it is the
position of the County Attorney and Acting Administrator that we
should continue to keep the bridge closed until all safety
devices and guard rails are installed.
The Chairman noted that having that bridge closed is
certainly an inconvenience, and Commissioner Bird agreed. This
bridge already has been closed for months; it could be closed
another few weeks; and he felt we should just put up the
barricades and slow the traffic down.
Commissioner Bowman believed we probably should consult our
Risk Manager.
71
DEC 6 1988
BOOK 75 F'AGE 321
DEC Fi988
75 [AGE 322
Acting Administrator Collins expressed his opinion that the
bridge should stay closed because the contractor will want us to
waive all his liability. We have moved into a partial self-
insurance program and we should not be taking on any more risks.
County Attorney Vitunac confirmed that was the opinion of
the County Attorney's office also.
Discussion continued re expediting the opening of the
bridge, and Commissioner Bird wished to know a time frame.
Director Davis advised that the contract time is very close
to completion; so, the contractor should be working as quickly as
he can. He believed it will be another 2 to 3 weeks.
Commissioner Bird still felt with proper barricades it could
be made safe for traffic.
Motion made by Commissioner Bird to open the King's
Highway Bridge died for lack of a second.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, Commissioner Bird voting in opposition,
the Board by a 4 to 1 vote directed that traffic be kept
off the King's Highway Bridge until safety devices and
guard rails can be installed and that this be done as
quickly as possible.
APPROVAL OF MASTER AGREEMENT WITH BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION
The Board reviewed memo from the Utility staff:
72
TO:
ACTING COUNTY ADMINISTTOR
WILLIAM G. COLLINS, II
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILIYJ`SERVICES
FROM: WILLIAM F.McCAIN
PROJECTS ENGINES
DEPARTMENT OF UT CITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MASTER AGREEMENT WITH
BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION
DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 1988
BACKGROUND
Several months ago, Indian River County undertook a selection
process to shortlist various engineering consultants. The firm of
Boyle Engineering Corporation was shortlisted under the
classifications listed on the first page of the Master Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
The Utilities staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the signing of the attached Master Agreement
with the aforementioned firm.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to authorize the Chairman to
sign the Master Agreement with Boyle Engineering
Corporation as recommended by staff.
Chairman Scurlock asked if we have had any problem with
Boyle Engineering in terms of timeliness or in submitting bills
for things that should have been included under the general scope
of services.
Director Pinto could not say he has been 100% pleased with
Boyle. He noted that we are in a position now that we want to
finish up the Water Master Plan, and then he felt we can address
whether we want to give them, more work or not.
Chairman Scurlock commented that he would like to send
them a message that while the Master Agreement has been approved,
there was some discussion and it was not approved that quickly.
Director Pinto pointed out that we also have a Master
Agreement with #2 and #3 on the short list.
73
DEC 6 1988
BOOK 75 PAGE 323
DEC
•
�•
BOOK
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
/5 PAGE 324
PROFESSIONAL CIVIL ENGINEERING MASTER AGREEMENT
WATER STORAGE TANKS - DEVELOPERS TO IRC UTILITIES
PLAN REVIEW FOR PROJECTS SUBMITTED BY DEVELOPERS TO IRC UTILITIES
WATER MASTER PLAN
COMPUTER ANALYSIS - WATER
COMPUTER SOFTWARE UTILITIES
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 6th day of December
1988, by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of
the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and
BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION, 320 EAST SOUTH STREET, ORLANDO,
FLORIDA, 32801-3515, hereinafter referred to as the "Engineer",
WITNESSETH
That the COUNTY and the ENGINEER, in consideration of their
mutual covenants, herein agree with respect to the performance of
professional civil engineering and land surveying services by the
ENGINEER and the payment for those services by the COUNTY as set
forth below and in individual work orders. This Agreement shall be
referred to as the "MASTER AGREEMENT" under which future work orders
will apply.
The ENGINEER shall provide professional engineering and such
other related Aervices as defined in the work authorization for the
COUNTY in all phases of each project as described in an individual
work authorization prepared by the County Department' of Utility
Services. The ENGINEER shall serve as the COUNTY's professional
representative for the •project as set forth in each work
authorization, and shall give professional engineering and water
and/or sewer system advice to the COUNTY during the performance of
the services to be rendered.
SECTION I - PROJECT LIMITS
The project limits shall be identified in individual work
authorizations prepared by the Department of Utility Services and
approved by the ENGINEER.' Each 'work authorization will be
SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD IN
ITS ENTIRETY.
74
GIFFORD AREA SEWER PROJ., CONTRACT #3, CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
SEWAGE COLLECTION/TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
The Board reviewed memo from the Utility staff:
TO:
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI
WILLIAM G. COLLINS, II
ACTING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ICES
FROM: ERNESTINE W. "WILLI'IS
MANAGER OF PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER NO. 1, GIFFORD AREA SEWER PROJECT
CONTRACT #3 - IRC PROJECT #US -85 -07 -CCS
SEWAGE COLLECTION/TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
DATE: NOVEMBER 29, 1988
BACKGROUND
Contract #3, Sewage Collection and Transmission System of the
Gifford Area Sewer Project is nearing completion. This contract
includes construction of approximately 106,000 linear feet of
gravity sewer, 390 manholes, 9 pump stations, 37,600 linear feet of
force main sizes 6" to 18" in diameter, service laterals, valves, 4
road borings, one canal crossing, appurtenances, complete
restoration, and general site work. The work has moved along
progressively well. In fact, the contractor is about eight months
ahead of schedule. However, there are some necessary modifications
which involve some additions and deletions as explained in the
attached Change Order #1.
ANALYSIS
The increase in contract price to make these necessary changes,
coupled with a reduction in contract price due to elimination of
some force main and County road restoration, results in a net
increase to the referenced Contract #3 of $110,942.54.
If there is any contract overrun, it will be absorbed by the County.
RECOMMENDATION
Charlie Hudnell of Farmers Home Administration, West Palm Beach, has
verbally given authorization to proceed with this change order. The
staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends the Board of
County Commissioners approve Change Order No. 1.
Acting Administrator Collins advised that this project
actually is 8 months ahead of schedule.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
75
DEC 6
BOOK 75 FACE 325
DEC
BCI F 75 F?. [ 32
Change Order No. 1, Gifford area Sewer Project,
Contract No. 3, as recommended by staff.
Form FmHA 424-7
(Rev. 6-11-80)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AOL JLTURE. FORM APPROVED OMD No. 0575.0043
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION ORDER NO.
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
Farmers Home Administration Funding
1
DAT £
11/2/88•
STATE
Florida
CONTRACT FOR
Gifford Area Sewer Project. Contract No. 3
OWNER
COUNTY
Indian River
ndian River County Board of County Commissioners
To......................Douglas ..N....Higgins .t...Inc.
.......... _.........._.._..-.. .-__-_..__.._........_.._--
(Cenrr.ctor)
You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the contract plans and specifications: .
•
Description of Changes
(Supplemental Plans and Specifications Attached)
See Attached Item Numbers 1,2
73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82
87,88,89,90,91.
See Attached Items Numbers 34
JUSTIFICATION:.
DECREASE
in Contract Price
INCREASE
in Contract Price
,3,4,15,71, 72
,83,84,85,86,
,38,48,62,70
TOTALS
NET CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE
SEE ATTACHED
$
$173,468.00.:...:_.._
$ 284,410.54
110 t942 :.�4
•
The amount of the Contract will be (i)Am:easled) (Increased) By The Sum Of: One hundred ten _ thousand .
nine hundred forty-two and 54/100
The Contract Total Including this and previous Change Orders Will Be:
six hundred sixty and 04/100
Dollars($' 110,942.54 ),
Five million seventy-two thousand
- Dollars (S5 r 0.72 , 660.04
The Contract Period Provided for Completion Will Be (;tnnto®setlb(Dito Said) (Unchanged): Days.
This documentwil become a supplement to the contract and all provisions will apply hereto.
Requested - or"c.- / di / 4/7 r
(own.,) �(jDat.)
Recommended Q QjQce 4 's%AP A 111 ill 88
r ncr',J reh cr/Engineer) (Dal
)r7
Accepted i/6 V r
(Connector) (Dar.)
Approved By FmHA
• (Name and Title) ,
(Dat.)
LThIs Information will be used as record of any
nges to the original construction contract.
Number copies repulreds 4
Time to completes S0 min.
No NNW montes or other benefits may be paid out under this
program unless this report Is completed and filed as required b)
existing law and regulations 17 C.F.R. Part 1924).
CHANGE ORDER COMPLETE WITH ATTACHMENTS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD.
GIFFORD AREA SEWER PROJECT, CONTRACT #3, CHANGE ORDER NO. IA -
SEWER LATERALS TO SERVE VACANT LOTS
The Board reviewed memo from the Utility staff:
TO:
ACTING COUNTY ADMINIATRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILIES
WILLIAM G. COLLINS, II
FROM: ERNESTINE W. WILLIAMS
MANAGER OF PROJECT' ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
DATE: NOVEMBER 29, 1988
SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER NO. 1A, GIFFORD AREA SEWER PROJECT
CONTRACT #3 - IRC PROJECT #US -85 -07 -CCS
CONSTRUCTION OF SEWER LATERALS TO SERVE VACANT LOTS
BACKGROUND
On June 14, 1988, the Board unanimously approved installation of
sewer laterals to serve vacant lots and authorized preparation of
the necessary Change Order.
The additional cost of constructing these laterals to serve vacant
lots is $42,200.00 as is indicated in the attached Change Order #1A.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 1A, Gifford Area Sewer Project,
Contract No. 3, as recommended by staff.
77
DEC 198
BOOK 75 PACE 327
DEC
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
BOOK 75 FACE 328
Page
1
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1A
DATE: 11/2/88
ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE $299,712.50
REVISED CONTRACT PRICE $341.912.50
JOB NAME Gifford Area Sewer Project Contract No. 3
OWNER:
Sewage Collection and Transmission
Indian River Countv Board of Countv Commission
'
UNIT
ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE
T
ORIGINAL
UNITS
ORIGINAL
TOTAL
PRICE
UNIT
CHANGE
PRICE
CHANGE
REVISED
TOTAL
PRICE
NON -PVD COUNTY ROAD
6" THK BASE COURSE
(19' WIDE) ALT "A"
57. IF & WEHRE DIRECTED
5.50
28075
LF
154,412.50
--
--
$154,412.5
NON -PVD COUNTY ROAD
6" THK BASE COURSE
(21' WIDE) ALT "A"
58. 'IF & WHERE DIRECTED
6.00
3000
LF
18,000.00
--
--
18,000.0
NON -PVD COUNTY ROAD
1" THK ASPHALT
(18'WIDE) ALT "A"
59. IF & WHERE DIRECTED
4.00
28075
LF
112,300.00
--
.
--
112,300.0
NON -PVD COUNTY ROAD
1'" THK ASPHALT
(20' WIDE) ALT "A" . .
60. IF & WHERE DIRECTED
5.00
3000
LF
15,000.00`
--
--
15,000.0
ITEMS 1 THRU 56 AND 61 THRU 91 TO BE PAID WITH FARMER'S HOME ADMINISTRATION FUNDS
4" PVC LATERALS
92. (0' - 8') TO VACANT LOTS
250,00
--
--
+20
+5,000.00
5,000.0
4" PVC•LATERALS
DEEP CUT (8+') TO
93. VACANT LOTS .
-•
380.00
--
--
+20
+7,600.00
7,600.0
6" PVC LATERALS -
94. (0' - 8') TO VACANT LOTS
300.00
--
--
+40
+12,000.00
12,000.0
6" PVC LATERALS - DEEP CUT
95. (8+') TO VACANT LOTS
.
440.00
--
--
+40
+17,600.00
17,600.0!
TOTALS
+42,200.00
341,912.5(
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FUNDS ONLY
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1A ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE: $ 299,712.50
DATE: November 2, 1988 REVISED CONTRACT PRICE: $ 341,912.50
JOB NAME: GIFFORD AREA SEWER PROJECT, CONTRACT #3
SEWAGE COLLECTION/TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
OWNER: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
78
**************************************************w**way********wit***w*
The amount of the Contract will be INCREASED by the sum of:
Forty-two thousand two hundred and 00/100 dollars (842,200.00).
(written amount)
The Contract total including this Change Order will be:
Three hundred forty-one thousand nine hundred twelve and 50/100
(written amount)
Dollars ($ 341,912.50 ).
The Contract Time provided for Project Completion will be UNCHANGED
( ) Days.
This document will become a supplement to the Contract and all__
provisions will apply hereto.
q,.`- G Eco.
*********************,R*************************************************
CONTRACTOR:
ENGINEER:
OWNER:
Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc.
DATE: ///00df
DATE:
11 1 SINS
DATE: A:12 - "8r
Indian River County til. Dept.; Terrance G. Pinto, Director
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION:,
DATE:
WATER LINE EXTENSION - U.S.#1 FROM 10TH ST. TO SOUTH RELIEF CANAL
The Board reviewed memo from the Utility staff:
DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 1988
TO:
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINT , e
DIRECTOR OF UTILI SEI ACES
WILLIAM G. COLLINS, II
ACTING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:
WILLIAM F. MCCAIN
PROJECTS ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WATER LINE EXTENSION ON U.S. #1
FROM 10TH STREET TO THE SOUTH RELIEF CANAL -
PROJECT NUMBER UW-8705DS.
BACKGROUND
The Department of Utility Services has plans and construction
documents finalized for the above referenced project. We have also
put the preliminary assessment roll in place. The Florida
Department of Transportation (FOOT) is also ready to do a road and
drainage improvement project along the same route as our water line
extension. Due to the redundancy of restoration work involved with
79
DEC 6 1988
(;OOK 75 FACE 329
DED
Boa 75 G E.:33O
these projects, we have decided to engage in a joint venture on
these projects between Indian River County and the FDOT.
ANALYSIS
The preliminary assessment roll set the project construction cost at
$208,475.00. Approximately $28,000.00 dollars can be eliminated
from our assessment due to the elimination of restoration involved
with our project. The cost estimate using FDOT cost estimating
figures is $150,400.39. To enter into a joint agreement with the
FDOT, we must execute the attached Joint Project Agreement and adopt
the attached County Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Indian River
County Board of County Commissioners approve the aforementioned
action.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 88-127 approving a joint project agree-
ment with the F.D.O.T. for the water line extension
on U.S.#1 from 10th St. to the South Relief Canal.
FORM 723-44
1-03
PAGE 1 OF 1
•
aiwaa .r rLVMwA ue rnHHI MeN 1 Ur'INANbVONTATION
DIVISION OF PRECONSTRUCTION AND DElSjlf}�I. 8 8 - 12 7
COUNTY RESOLUTION jj�V ��JJ 88
UTILITY INSTALLATIONS
COUNTY
SECTION
'UTILITY JOB NO.
STATE ROAD NO.
COUNTY NAME
PARCEL & R/W 'JOB NO.
88
010
6901
5 (U.S.(1)
Indian River
1(R/W N/A)
• A RESOLUTION REGARDING UTILITY JOINT - PROJECT AGOEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF '
Indian River SNI) THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;
AU1'IIURILING TIIE EXECUTION OF SUCII AGREEMENTS; AND AUTHORIZING THE PLACING OF FUNDS WITH
THE STATE OF FLOIUDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE UTILITY
INSTALLATION.
RESOLUTION NO. 88-127
\ I I ER EAS, the State of Florida Department of Transportation is constructing, reconstructing
or otherwise changing a portion of the State Ilighway.System, between 10th St. on U.S. 1
and South Relief Canal , which 5'hall call for the installation of new COUNTY WATER
facilities over and/or under said highway,
1N1) WI1ERE.\S, the COUNT'' requires additional Water
capacity in certain locations within the construction limits of this project,
AND WHEREAS, the COUNTY has heretofore. authorized that plans and specifications be pre-
pared for the installation of said new COUNTY facilities over and/or under said Highway,
AND WI IEREAS, the plans and specifications have been prepared and approved by MASTELLER.
& MOLER ASSOC. Engineering Company and the COUNTY Engineering Department; such plans and
specifications to be made a part of the Department's highway construction contract,
80
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY
OF INDIAN RIVER , FLORIDA:
That the COUNTY of INDIAN RIVER enter into a JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT
with the State of Florida Department o f Transportation for installation by the DEPARTMENT of said
new COUNTY facilities designated as Utility Job 88010 , Section 69d1, 1
Parcel 1 , R/W Job N/A , and that th6 COUNTY assume all costs incurred•
in the respective utility installations, which costs are estimated to be $ 150,400.39 ;'and,
That the Chairman and Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners be authorized to enter into
such agreements with the State of Florida Department of Transportation for the installatioh of said
new COUNTY facilities, and,
That the estimated costs of such utility installations as set forth above be paid in advance to the
State of Florida Department of Transportation in accordance with such utility installation agreement.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
6th December 8 '
County, Florida, in regular ,lession, this
ATTEST: AaL-
Clrrk of iFtofY(e 7;' /
day of , 198`_,.
asioncre
s0 rt -7o• e,.•
CTWinnan of le Board of Co
ty Commissioners
COPY OF SAID AGREEMENT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO
BOARD. 7,�'• •,�
DISCUSSION RE AUTO SAFETY INSPECTIONS
Chairman Scurlock advised that Commissioner Bowman asked
that the following matter be put on today's agenda:
81
DEC 6 1988
BOOK 75 PACE 3:31
PO
DEC
State of Florida
DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES
BOOK75 FE:3:32
LEONARD R MELLON
Executive Director
Neil Kirkman Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Chairman of the Board o
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
028/920
93,^17/?..1
�,�?
ti NOV 1088 vC
4>
c:11 RECEIVED
ca
254 BOARD COUNTY N
d, COMMISSIONERS p_4to
The Honorable Don Scu
Dear Mr. Scurlock:
32960
ovember 21, 1988
Commissioners
BOB MARTINEZ
Governor
JIM SMITH
Secretary of State
BOB BUTIERWORTH -
Attorney General
GERALD LEWIS
Comptroller
BILL GUNTER
Treasurer
DOYLE CONNER
Commissioner of Agriculture
BETTY CASTOR
Commissioner of Education
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Commissioners _L
Administrator
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
Community iev.
Utilities
Finance
Other
Chapter 88-129, Laws of Florida, (the "Clean Outdoor Air
Law"), establishes mandatory motor vehicle emissions inspections
beginning in 1990 for motor vehicles registered in air pollution
"nonattainment" areas. Currently, Dade, Broward, Palm Beach,
Duval, Pinellas and Hillsborough counties are so designated. The
law allows any other county to become a part of the inspection
program by a majority vote of its governing body requesting the
Department to provide for inspection in that county. In order
for a county to participate in this program the Department must
receive a copy of the county ordinance requesting inclusion in
the inspection program no later than January 10, 1989. The
Department has determined that this deadline is necessary in
order to complete the contracting process and implement the
program by 1990. Therefore, I am asking you to determine whether
your county wishes to participate in this program and if it does
to forward a copy of the ordinance in time to be received by
January 10, 1989. I have enclosed a copy of a suggested model
ordinance for your consideration.
If you have any questions please call or write me.
Sincerely,
te
CHARLES J. BRRANTLEY, Di ector
Division of Motor Vehicles
Telephone: 904/488-6084
The Chairman commented that he did not know the cost of
anything involved with this and did not know that we have enough
information to make an intelligent decision on it.
Commissioner Bowman stated that she would like to see this,
and also auto inspection in general, brought before our
Legislative Delegation. She noted that this just relates to
82
emissions and she personally would like to make motor vehicle
inspections mandatory in the State of Florida.
Chairman Scurlock suggested that we defer this matter for
further discussionand debate to another agenda before the
Legislative Delegation is scheduled to meet, and the Board
agreed.
FIREARMS RANGE COMMITTEE REPORT
Commissioner Bird reviewed the following report:
'FIREARMS"RANGE COMMITTEE
Talmage Rogers owns a piece of property 4 miles west of I-95 north
of Route 60. St. John's River Water Management District has a piece
of property that he might be willing to swap this property for.
There are 6004 acres in the proposed sites with a 2 lane dirt road
leading to it. On the north side of the property are the Berry Groves;
East is Corrigan's property; and to the south are the Banack Groves.
The property is fairly wet and marshy. There is an electric power
line that comes up to the south grove.
The Committee agreed that this property could be filled in and diked
for use as a firearms range, andthey recommended that the Commission
move forward with negotiations to acquire the property.
It was suggested that a master plan be done, and broken down in phases.
A field trip will be scheduled for the Committee members to go out in
air boats to view the site more closely.
It was felt that the interim range at the old stump dump would not
be adequate to serve the public, but it is needed now for the Sheriff'•s
Department. When the new range is constructed, the interim range could
be used for specialty uses in addition to the public range.
The Committee asked that an update on cost estimates for the interim
range be obtained, and recommended that construction be started on it.
Major Roy Raymond is to be liaison and work with Jim Davis on this.
It was recommended that SJRWMD be asked to reserve the site for use
as a firearms range, and that work be started by providing elevations,
etc.
Commissioner Bird advised that SJRWMD is interested in
making the swap described if the County indicates this would be a
suitable site. The Committee would like an indication from the
Board as to whether they feel the site might be suitable and also
an indication that they should continue negotiating and do some
cost estimating. This is for the main firearm's range.
DEC 1988
83
BOOK 75 ME 333
BOOK 75 PAGE 334
Commissioner Bird continued that there is a second range, an
interim range for the Sheriff's Department on the old stump dump.
The Sheriff needs a range desperately, and they would like to see
us proceed to develop that range for their people to use at least
on an interim basis, and possibly the public could get some use
of it on a supervised basis.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to ask SJRWMD to consider making the subject
property west of 1-95 available to the county for
the ultimate firearm's range site.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously directed
the Director of Public Works to come up with a cost
estimate for preparing an interim firearm's range
on the old Stump Dump site at 8th Street and bring
it back to the Board.
NORTH COUNTY COMMUNITY LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION GRANT
Commissioner Eggert reviewed the following memo which she
believed is self-explanatory:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert CYC
DATE: December 6, 1988
SUBJECT: North County Community Library Construction Grant
Please approve and give permission for the chairman to sign
the application and resolutions with their accompanying papers
for the $200,000 grant budgeted by the state for the North County
Community Library. The backup material is on file in the
Commission office.
811
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 88-128 authorizing the execution of the
documentation required to obtain the grant from the
Division of Library Services for the North County
Library.
RESOLUTION NO. 88-128
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
DIVISION OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES
REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1988-89 RELATING TO THE NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY.
WHEREAS, Indian River County has been offered a library
construction grant of $200,000 from the State of Florida,
Department of State, Division of Library and Information
Services (State) and to obtain this grant must submit a
completed grant application;
WHEREAS, as part of the grant application Indian River
County must complete the certification of application
attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A" and an "Assurance
of Compliance with the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare Regulation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964" which is attached as Exhibit "B"; and
WHEREAS, the grant application must include an
authorization for submission of the application, an
assurance that the required 50% match will be available and
unencumbered at the time of grant award, the name of the
person authorized to sign the application, assurance that
funding is sufficient and will be available in order that
the project will result in a completed library building, and
assurance that upon completion of the project sufficient
funds will be available to operate such facility,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
is authorized, to execute the certification of application
shown as Exhibit "A."
85
DEC
1988
BOOK j� f !,cEOoti
8001( 75 rAGE 336
2. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
is authorized to execute Form HEW -441, attached as Exhibit
"B," which is assurance of compliance with the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare Regulation under Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
3. .The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
is authorized to submit the grant application.
4. The 50% match, i.e., $200,000, will be available
and unencumbered at the time of grant award.
5. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
Don C. Scurlock, Jr. is authorized to sign the application.
6. Indian River County assures the State that the
County has fee simple title to the land on which the library
will be built and has the unconditional right to use the
land and building for a public library.
7. Indian River County assures the State that
sufficient funding will be available in order that the
project will result in a completed library building.
8. Indian River County assures the State that upon
completionof the project sufficient funds will be available
to operate the facility.
The resolution was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Eggert , and the motion was seconded by
Commissioner Wheeler and, upon being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Vice -Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared, the resolution duly
passed and adopted this _6th day of December 1988•
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest
By __ on .-Cur o
Chairman
FTTa-Wr gFi-t , c -r
86
•
CERTIFICATION OP APPLICATION
1 certify that this. Public Library Construction Grant Application of
the Indian River County. North County Community Library
(name of applicant)
Is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, that the applicant will comply with ell
requirements of the Law; will furnish such reports and Information and follow such
procedures as may be required: Iv the Department of State, Division of Library and
'.M •
Information Services; and that all 'funds received for the project will be expended solely
for the purposes for which .granted and any such funds not so expended, Including funds
lost or diverted to other purposes, shall be paid to the Department 1:State, Division of
Library and Information Services.
DEC 98
C.
gnetllre o O ice Aut
Application
Don C. Scurlock, Jr..
yped Name of Official
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners •
Tule
S.ecr• II}1Px',6 r 1 QRR
Date
IEXHIB1.T "A"
.11 •.
87
•
infion It.v!! Cs
Approved
Dale
A drnln.
tO& L
/o-'
legal.
(�92
I V 14 I
Budget t
1
Va4 -6 8
Dept.
Risk Mgr.
BOOK
7
1 ,�r-
0 F..IJt m P
ti•
DEC Nj
BOOK r0 75 1 . cE 338
ASSURANCE OF'COMPLIANCE WITiI TIIE DEPARTMENT OF.
HEALTNTITLE Yl OF THE CIVIL RIOiITS ACT OF 1964
gDUCATION, AND WELFARE REGULATION. UNDER
.
Indian River County
North County Community- Library (hereinafter called the "Applicant").
(Name of Applicant)
HEREBY AGREES THAT It will comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(P.L. 88-352) end all requltements Imposed by or pursuant to the Regulation of the
Department of Health, Education, end Welfare (45 CFR Part 80) issued pursuant to Chet title,
to the end that, In accordance with title Vi of that Aet end the Regulation, no person In the
United Statee shall, on the • ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation In, be dented. the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under
any program or nativity for Which the Applicnnt receives Federal financial assistance from
the Department! and HEREBY GIVES ASSURANCE THAT It will Immediately take any
measures necessary to effeetU6te. this agreement. . ..'
If any real property or structure thereon is provided or improved with the aid of Federal
financial assistance extended to the Applicant, bbl the Department, this assurance shall
obligate the Applicant, or In the case of any transfer of such properly, any transferee, for
the period during which the 'teal property or structure is used for e'purpose for which the
Federal financiai assistance Is extended or for another purpose Involving .the provision of
similar services or benefits:. If any personal property Is so provided, this assurance shall
obligate the Applicant for the period during which it retnins ownership or possession of the
property. in ell other cases,.this assurance sl',nll oblignte the Applicnnt for the period during
which the Federal financial assistance is extended to it by the Department.
THIS ASSURANCE Is given In consideration of and for the purpose of obtnining any and all
Federal grants, loans, contracts, property, discounts or other Federal financial assistance
extended after the date hereof to the Applicnnt by the Department, including installment
payments after such date on account of applications for Federal ftnnnciat nsslstnnce which
were approved before such date. The Applicant recognizes end agrees that such Federal
financial assistance will be extended in reliance on the representations end agreements made
in this assurance, and that the.United States shall have the right to seek judicial enforcement
of this assurance. This 'assurance is binding on the Applicnnt, its successors, transferees, end
assignees, and the person •or persons whose signatures appear below are authorized to sign
this assurance on behalf of the Applicant.
Dated _ December 6, .1988
pp'i cent) Don
County Commission Offices
Administration Building.
1840 25th Street,
•
Vero Beach, FL 32960
lApplieant's mailing address) .4.1.4'
•
By _Chairman of the Board of County Comms. -
(President, Chnlrmen or8oard, or comparable
authorized official)
HEW -4i 1
(12-64)'
EXHIBIT "B"
88
a •I
Intim River Ce.
Admin.
Legal
8udgel
e Dept.
Risk Mgr.•
Approved
o6 c..
Date
la -2
Id,ze".1l►
1.
DEC 6 1988
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 88-129 certifying that the library will
available to the public on a non-discriminatory
basis and that the County Library System is operated
as a department under the control of the Board of
County Commissioners.
RESOLUTION NO. 88- 129
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA, TO
THE STATE OF FLORIDA CERTIFYING •THAT THE COUNTY
OPERATES A PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM AS A FUNCTION OF
COUNTY GOVERNMENT.
WHEREAS,Indian River County has applied for a grant
from the State of Florida for the development of Its library
system;
WHEREAS, one df'the conditions of the library grant Is
that the County provide documents showing that the library
Is a public facility; and
WHEREAS, Indian River'County has chdsen to provide a
public Ilbrary funded by taxes •raised through the General
Fund under the Board of County
Commissioners,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, that:
1. This resolution certifies that Indian River County
provides'•a public library available, to ..the residents of
Indian River County on a non-discriminatory basis funded
from'ad valorem taxes raised under the General Fund of the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian Rlver•County.
2. Thls resolution further certifies that the Indian
River County. Library System Is operated as a department
under the control. of the Board of County Commissioners
acting through Jts County Administrator.
The resolution was moved. for adoption by Commissioner. .%
Eggert , and,the'motion was .seconded by
Commissioner
Wheeler and; upon being, put ' to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
'Vice -Chairman Gary C. Wheeler.. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commlssloner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
The Chairman•thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 6th day
of December , 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY --6on . 5-
89 Chairman
BOOK 75 PGE 39
DEC u
PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT BUILDING
Commissioner Eggert reviewed the following:
mu r� 5 i'AGE 34O
TO:
DATE: November 30, 1988 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
SUBJECT: Public Health Department
Building
Carolyn R. Eggert J(REFERENCES:
County Commissioner
As you are aware, the Public Health Department is in
desperate need of clinical space and medical office space. The
Primary Care/Public Health Department Building Committee felt the
need is too great to wait to do something until a new Health
Department Building is finished.
As an interim step, we would like to take the $500,000 from
the State and purchase the Fika and Cappelen buildings just south
of the current Health Department. They would need some
remodeling for offices. This would open up the current Health
Department to more clinical use. Money for remodeling would come
from the Health Department Trust Fund. A local architect would
be needed for remodeling plans. Those funds could come from the
$50,000 still in the County's Health Department Funds. The
purchase of this property would cover needs for the next 5 years
or so and give the Health Department about 19,000 square feet.
Then a new Health Department Building of 35,000 square feet -
probably built on the land designated for it to the north of our
Administration Building -would need to be started at a cost of 3}
to 4 million dollars. The current Health Department, the Fika,
and the Cappelen building would be assets that the County could
then use or sell.
We request that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the concept of purchasing the Fika and Cappelen buildings,
authorize appraisals to be made and prices negotiated with the
sellers of the buildings. Those negotiated prices are then to be
brought to the Board of County Commissioners for final approval
to purchase.
Dr. Berman came before the Board and testified to the
urgency of the Health Department's need for more space.
Commissioner Eggert explained that while she would like the
Board to approve the concept described so we can move along and
determine that the buildings are structurally sound, etc., all
this is conditioned on the State approving what we are doing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
90
concept of purchasing the Fika and Cappelen buildings,
and authorized appraisals to be made and prices nego-
tiated to be brought back to the Board for final
approval, all of this being conditioned upon the
State's approval.
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES
Agreement with Kenneth and Brenda Earnheart and James and
Doris Jordan in regard to replacement of a failing drainage
culvert and reconstruction of a carport, etc., is hereby made a
part of the Minutes as approved at the Regular Meeting of October
18, 1988.
AGREEMENT
This agreement is between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a
political subdivision of the State of Florida, and KENNETH
L. EARNHEART and BRENDA E. EARNHEART, his wife and JAMES
ROBERT JORDAN and DORIS MAY JORDAN, his wife.
WHEREAS, KENNETH L. EARNHEART and BRENDA E.
EARNHEART, his wife and JAMES ROBERT JORDAN and DORIS MAY
JORDAN, his wife, are {he.owners of the following described
property, conveyed to them by John Ji.''Fitzgerald, a single
adult, by virtue of a Warranty Deed recorded on May 20, 1987
in O.R. Book 0768 at Page 2408, Public Records of Indian
River County, Florida:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of the
following described land on the shore of
the Indian River: Commencing at an iron
pipe on the North edge of the paving of
the road leading from State Road Number
Four to the Town of Roseland and on the
centerline of the Old Dixie Highway run
South 20 degrees 08 minutes East along
the centerline of the Old Dixie Highway
a distance of 1068.63 feet for Point of
Beginning; thence run North 59 degrees
09 minutes East to the shore of the
Indian River; thence Southeasterly on a
straight line along the shore of the
Indian River a distance of 200 feet;
thence South 59 degrees 09 minutes West
91
DEC 61988
L -
BOOK 75 PAGE 341
BOOK 75 f CF 342
to the center of OId Dixie Highway;
thence North on the centerline .of the
OId Dixie Highway to the Point of
Beginning; said property being in Lots 5
and 7, Section 25, Township 30 South,
Range 38 East, Indian River County,
Florida;
And run in a Southwesterly direction
along the South line of said above
described land to the East right-of-way
of the Dixie or U.S. No. 1 Highway, and
from said point run in a Northwesterly
direction. along said East right-of-way
for a distance of 100 feet, and from
thence run in a Northeasterly direction
parallel to the South line of said above
described land to the Indian River, and
from thence Southeasterly on a straight
line along the shore of the Indian River
a distance of 100 feet to the Point of
Beginning; said land being a strip of
land 100 feet North and South, lying
between U.S. Highway No. 1 and the
Indian River; all of the above described
lands situate lying and being in Indian
River County, Florida.
WHEREAS, there Is a falling drainage culvert on
the property;
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby agree that:
1. Indian River County Is hereby given permission
to do test borings along the culvert line on the
above-described property to determine Its exact location and
any points of failure.
2. Indian River County Is authorized to repair
and replace the failed. culvert.
3. Indian River County agrees to remove and
reconstruct the carport and CBS•structure currently situated
over the culvert, at no expense to Kenneth L. Earnheart,
Brenda E. Earnheart, James Robert Jordan and Doris May
Jordan, or to pay the fair market value of the Improvements,
If the owners so elect.
Date : 4.9/ 0-7/Pr-
Date : /,(1,z/P 1
Date : /A/7.y.7,P1
Date: I..aAgla
Date:i��i�jlf�
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
• BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
92
By bon
Chairman
Renn`e`t�'ii am ea ���h— •%
7�ne�s a'o6er�7i rg2i4114—
y�
or s ayy oral�g
0
LETTER OF ELECTION
We, KENNETH L. EARNHEART, BRENDA E. EARNHEART,
JAMES ROBERT JORDAN and DORIS MAY JORDAN hereby elect to
accept from Indian River County four thousand two hundred
dollars ($4,200.00) which we acknowledge to be the fair
market value of the improvements consisting of a carport and
CBS structure currently situated over a drainage culvert
which the County seeks to repair and replace. This election
is made in consideration of the County's further guaranty to
replace our well at the County's expense in the event that
any damages to the well are caused by the construction of
the drainage structure being replaced.
It is understood that,all outside contracting for
the replacement of the structure and temporary relocation of
the water pump will be our responsibility, and that the
County will remove the existing structure and debris and
will restore and sod the construction area upon completion
of the culvert replacement.
Date: 4v1,6L11
__
Date: ( 72(2
__
Date: /;AVIrk
Date: /1/8d?
Date: /7A-26'2
DEC 6 1988
L
4nie6 L. am eart
93
rends .Earnheart
INDIAN RIVER•COUNTY
By : d'P`-'R'c" >
IGi I, Liam of ins II
Acting County Administrator
ROOK 7' PAGE :343
DEC 198
BOOK 75 PACE 3447
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 12:24 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
94