HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/1988Tuesday, December 13, 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 13, 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, 11, Acting County Administrator; Charles
P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph
Baird, OMB Director; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Administrator
Collins led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Scurlock requested the addition to today's Agenda
of a public discussion re the objection raised by the residents
of Rockridge Subdivision to the closing of 16th Street between
3rd Avenue and Indian River Boulevard.
Commissioner Wheeler requested the addition of a discussion
concerning his appointment to the Vero Beach Community
Redevelopment Agency.
Commissioner Bird requested the addition of a status report
on the charging of fees at the Sebastian Inlet State Park.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously added
the above items to today's Agenda.
GOOK
DEC 131988
3 X45
E. e.,n
DEG 13 1998
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
fIQQF 75 PALE 4
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of November 8,
1988 or November 15, 1988. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of 11/8/88 and
11/15/88, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Audit Report
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to
the Board:
Audit of the Office of Public• Defender,
19th Judicial Circuit
FY ended June 30, 1987 & June 30, 1988
B. Approval of Out -of -County Travel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
out -of -county travel for Commissioners and appropriate
staff to attend NACo Legislative Conference, March 4-7,
1989, in Washington, D.C.
C. Occupational License Taxes Report
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/2/88:
MEMORANDUM .
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
DATE: December 2, 1988
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be
informed that $7,046.39 was collected in occupational license
taxes during the month of November 1988, representing the
issuance of 252 licenses.
.,Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously accepted
the above Occupational License Taxes Report.
D. Budget Amendment #014 - FEMA Grant
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/5/88:
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
December 5, 1988
BUDGET AMENDMENT 014 -
F.E.M.A.;GRANT
CONSENT AGENDA
Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Joyce Johnston, Director of Welfare, has successfully obtained a
$50,130.00 grant from F.E.M.A. for the purpose of giving welfare
applicants certain living expenses, such as prescription drugs,
temporary rent and food. In addition, Ms. Johnston was able to
obtain $1,103.00 for administrative costs associated with the
F.E.M.A. program funding,.that will be used to defray certain
operating expenditures in the Welfare Department.
F.E.M.A. Funds
Food
Shelter
Utilities
F.E.M.A. Funds
Food
Shelter
Utilities
F.E.M.A.
Granted
(10%)
(68%)
(22%)
Granted
$ 5,013.00
34,088.00
11,029.00
Administrative Costs
TOTAL
RECOMMENDATION
$50,130.00
1,103.00
$51,233.00
A budget amendment is needed in order to allocate these funds to
their proper account. Please consider budget amendment 014 which
follows this page.
3
DEC 13 1988
75 FACE 347
DEC 1 -
BOOK 75 ,GE 348
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment #014, as recommended by staff.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER:
014
DATE: November 18, 1988
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number .
Increase
Decrease
1.
REVENUE
General Fund -- - T :' --
Welfare/FEMA Grant
001-211-564-011.13
$51,233.00
0
EXPENSE -
General Fund/Welfare/Overtime
001-211-564-011.13
$ 500.00
0
General Fund/Welfare/FICA
001-211-564-012.11
$ 38.00
0
General Fund/Welfare/Retirement
001-211-564-012.12
$ 68.00
0
General Fund/Welfare/Travel
001-211-564-037.02
$ 200.00
0
General Fund/Welfare/Postage
001-211-564-037.03
$ 97.00
0
General Fund/Welfare/Supplies
001-211-564-037.04
$ 200.00
0
General Fund/Disbursement
001-211-564-037.09
$50,130.00
0
E. Budget Amendment #016 - Unemployment Compensation Charges to
the County
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/7/88:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: December 7, 1988
SUBJECT: =UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
CHARGES TO THE COUNTY
BUDGET AMENDMENT - 016
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
FROM: Leila Miller
Budget Analyst / ?/L"
CONSENT AGENDA
Description and Conditions
The State of Florida, Department of Labor has charged Indian River
County for Unemployment Compensation payments to former employees.
A budget amendment is required to reflect these payments.
4
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve budget
amendment 016 to refund Unemployment Compensation payments, funding.._
to come from contingencies. -
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment #016, as recommended by staff.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB. Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER:
016
DATE: December 7, 1988
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
,;,
General Fund_ " :.. .
BCC/Unemployment Compensation
001-101-511-012.15
$ 108.00
$ 0
Animal Control/Unemplov.. Comp.
001-250-562-012.15
$ 268.00
$ 0
Parks/Unemployment Compensation
001-210-572-012.15
$ 69.00
$ 0
Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$ 0
$ 445.00
M.S.T.U.
Planning &
Development/Unemployment Comp.
004-204-515-012.15
$ 1.00
_
$ 0
Reserve for Contingency
004-199-581-099.91
$ 0
$ 1.00
F. Dept. of Utility Services - Employee Priority
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/5/88:
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 1988
TO: WILLIAM G. COLLINS, II
ACTING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PTNTO •"
iA
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES S
FROM: JEFFREY K. BARTON
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
EMPLOYEE PRIORITY
BACKGROUND:
The approved budget for Fiscal Year 1988-89 has an existing unfilled
position of Location Chief/Easements ($15,050.00). The work load in
5
DEC 13 1988
3
car �
49
BM 75PAH
DEC 13''r8B
ElaoK 75 ME 350
�Q
sur Customer Services office has exceeded beyond our expectations.
An increase in walk-in customers along with the acquisition of North
Beach Water Company and the Gifford Sewer System connections and
assessment rolls has caused us to re-evaluate the personnel needs
within the Utilities Department.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Utility Services requests that the Board
Commissioner approve , the addition of a Customer
Representative for Fiscal Year 1988-89 in place of the
Chief/Easements position. No additional funding will be
for the Fiscal Year.
of County
Service
Location
required
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the addition of a Customer Service Representative for
FY 1988-89 in place of the Location Chief/Easements
position; no additional funding required.
G. Renewal of Lease - 2001 Building •
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/5/88:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: December 5, 1988
SUBJECT: RENEWAL OF LEASE - 2001 BUILDING
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
4)
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County currently leases office space at the 2001 Office and
Shopping Complex for the following departments:
Suite 109 - Veteran's Services
Suite 205A & 205C - Soil and Water Conservation
Suite 302 - Housing Authority/Rental Assistance
Suite 303 - Agriculture Extension
Suite 305 - Youth Guidance
The lease for this facility is due for renewal on December 31,
1988.
6
ANALYSIS
The present lease at the 2001 Building is $33,660 ($5.77 per
foot) and the renewal rate is 35,016 ($6.01 per foot).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners renew the
lease with Edgar L. Schlitt, Trustee, for another year.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
a one-year renewal of the lease with Edgar L. Schlitt,
Trustee, for rental of office suites at the 2001
Building, as recommended by OMB Director Baird.
LEASE AMENDMENT WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
(NOW RECEIVED AND PUT ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD)
H. Scheduling of Public Hearing for DRI for Proposed Harbortown
Center Mall (SHOPCO)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/6/88:
TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Ro ert 1C. Keati)ng F . ICP
Community Develop nt Director
FROM: Stan Boling A1,
Chief, Current Development
DATE: December 6, 1988
_(I
+t �
i&e24-jfig
SUBJECT: SCHEDULING PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED HARBORTOWN CENTER
MALL (SHOPCO) DRI
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 13, 1988.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Since last May, The Shopco Group has been actively involved in the
D.R.I. review and approval process for a proposed regional mall at
7
DEC 131988
Boot 75 PAGE 351.
DEC 1 x`88
BOOK 75 PAGE 352
d.S. #1 and 53rd Street (currently the Whisper Lakes golf course
site). The Shopco Group has also filed with the County a compre-;
hensive plan amendment and rezoning application, which is exempt
from normal submittal timeframes when applied for in conjunction
with a DRI. The DRI application for development approval (ADA)
has undergone review for informational and analysis content by the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council staff with input from
County staff and state agencies. The Regional Planning Council
has now officially certified that the ADA is sufficient for review
and consideration and has scheduled Council consideration of the
DRI for its December 16, 1988 meeting. Pursuant to Florida
Statutes 380.06(11), the Board of County Commissioners is now
required to schedule a public hearing date at which it will
consider the DRI ADA.
ANALYSIS:
The Board is required to schedule the DRI hearing so that the
hearing date can be advertised at least 60 days in advance of the
hearing. Along with the 60 day advertising- requirement, the
hearing date should also accommodate concurrent consideration of a
comprehensive plan amendment/rezoning request which has been filed
by the Shopco Group.
Staff's research indicates that a February 28, 1989 hearing date
would meet the requirements of the Florida Statutes, would meet
all applicable County requirements to allow concurrent review of
the DRI/comprehensive plan amendment/rezoning requests, and would
allow staff adequate time for review. The resulting review
timeframe would be as follows:
1. December 16, 1988: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
considers the DRI request, and issues a report and
recommendation to the County.
2. January 26, 1989: Planning and Zoning Commission considers
the DRI/comp plan/rezoning requests.
3. February 28, 1989: Board of County Commissioners considers
the DRI/comp plan/rezoning requests.
Please refer to attachment #2 which further outlines the review
process for a DRI/comp plan/rezoning request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners set a
hearing date of February 28-, 1989 for consideration of The Shopco
Group DRI request.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously set a
hearing date of February 28, 1989 for consideration of
the Shopco Group DRI request.
8
DISCUSSION ON JUNGLE TRAIL
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 12/1188:
VERO STATION 1916
Indian River County
HISTORICAL
SOCIETY
INC:
P.O. Box 6535
Vero Beach. FL 32961
December 1, 1988
Mr. William G. Collins II
Acting County Administrator
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: JUNGLE TRAIL - HISTORIC AND SCENIC CORRIDOR
Dear Mr. Collins:
Our Society has been increasingly concerned about our historic and
scenic Jungle Trail. By this letter, we ask to be placed on an early
Commission agenda to discuss our concerns.
As you know, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted in 1982
designates Jungle Trail from Winter Beach Road North across S.R. 510 to
State Road A1A as a historic and scenic road. In long range plana of
another element of the same plan, it is noted as a scenic corridor. An
implementing ordinance was prepared and adopted in 1985 with provisions
for a management plan to be established by County staff to preserve the
historic and scenic integrity of Jungle Trail.
We have been assured by our County Commission in public meetings
that they recognize this Trail as historic and scenic. They required the
deeding of road right-of-way by the Polo Club and on another occasion in
discussions about subdivision collector designations, they assured us
that the Comprehensive Plan designation of historic and scenic would
supercede any other designation.
To this date the management plan for Jungle Trail has not been set
out in writing, but the encroachment continues into the scenic and
natural beauty of Jungle Trail. We recognize the fact that tremendous
development pressures have created a constant controversy about Jungle
Trail. Therefore, we would urgently ask that this County!s commitment be
reaffirmed and our Historical Society be reassured by this: Commission to
instruct the professional staff to immediately draft criteria for
preserving the historic and scenic integrity of this unique treasure -
Jungle Trail.
Our Society looks forward to working with you as we accomplish' this
goal of a Historic and Scenic Corridor.
DEC 13 1988
Sincerely,
t(L....AaP
Mrs. Millie Bunnell
President
9
BOOK 75 ME:353
l'"
DEC 13 98
BOOK 75 PA,E 5
Chairman Scurlock understood that the developer of Indian
Trails just recently submitted a plan to the Town Council of
Indian River Shores for improvements, landscaping and other
items.
Administrator Collins explained that under Ordinance 88-26
there is a provision that guidelines for the maintenance of the
scenic and historical roads be developed by the Parks and
Community Development Division. The Definition Section of that
scenic road ordinance defines a protected area as being a 30 -ft.
area parallel to and abutting the right-of-way line. He felt the
Historical Society's primary concern is that a lot of the
development along Jungle Trail is intruding into that 30 -ft.
protected area. The ordinance also provides for a prohibi 'ion on
clear cutting vegetation, but it allows some selective cutting of
species that aren't protected. However, parallel with that, it
requires planting strips of native vegetation to replace the
exotics that are cleared away. The Historical Society is also
concerned that some of the clear cutting that has been going on
has not been accompanied by that replanting of native vegetation
in order for Jungle Trail to maintain its scenic characteristics.
Chairman Scurlock asked if this is a Code Enforcement
problem, but Administrator Collins felt the difficulty is that
the guidelines really have not been developed,. He recommended
that we allow a couple of weeks for public input from the
Historical Society and any other interested groups on setting the
criteria for these guidelines on the maintenance of Jungle Trail.
Then have staff work on that input, and come back with a set of
criteria which might be applied to.any selective cutting which
would require as a condition of the clear cutting or selective
cutting, the replanting of native vegetation. to addition, it
would have to revegetate the 30 -ft. protected buffer, rather than
just replanting a 4 -ft. strip or whatever is normally required by
our landscaping ordinance.
10
Commissioner Bird asked where the 30 -ft. measurement begins
and ends, and Administrator Collins explained that the
definitions of the scenic road ordinance state that the protected
road area shall mean and refer to the area 30 feet parallel and
abutting the right-of-way lines on •any scenic, historic road.
Chairman Scurlock asked•the status of the County's
application for a shoreline stabilization permit, and Public
Works Director Jim Davis advised that 5 years after we submitted
our application to the DER, they finally issued us a shoreline
stabilization permit along what was then called River Bend and is
now called Coralstone. However, Coralstone filed at that same
time for some permits to stabilize the shoreline in that area,
and he was not sure which plan we were proceeding under. At
least we have our permit to do that section of Jungle Trail. In
regard to the other section that has been underquestion more
recently along Indian River Shores frontage, our inspector has
been monitoring the clearing in that area, and we have a video
here if the Board wishes to see it. Basically, however, there
has been an encroachment into the right-of-way along Indian
Trails Subdivision, and vegetation has been removed and fill has
been dumped along there. We have been in communication with the
developer, and have requested that the fill be moved out of the
right-of-way.
Jeannie Bresett of the County Engineering Dept. reported
that the developer has been responsive. We met with the owner of
the project, the consultant and some people from the Historical
Society at Indian River Shores Town Hall. They are supposed to
be in the process of removing the fill that they dumped in the
right-of-way there, and we are monitoring their progress.
Millie Bunnell, President of the Indian River County
Historical Society, first wanted to make it clear that the
designated scenic, historical road also includes that part of
Jungle Trail north of CR -510. Secondly, Ordinance 85-64 was
11
DEC 1988
BOQN Ha 35:5
DEC 13 igaj
Boor 75 PAGE 356
adopted with provisions for a road management plan, which has not
been developed as yet. The Historical Society is asking that
the County move forward and develop the management plan so that
we can avoid what has happened just recently. They would be glad
to work with staff in any way possible in getting public input,
and ask that the County develop the management plan as soon as
possible.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board direct staff to
develop a, management plan for Jungle Trail, which has
been designated as a scenic and historic road.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bowman noted that a
management plan would not be retroactive, and wanted to know
about the 30 -ft. buffer violation that already has occurred.
Chairman Scurlock understood that staff is in contact with
the developer, and they have submitted a plan to take corrective
action.
Director of Planning Robert Keating explained that we are
dealing with two projects along Jungle Trait -- Coralstone, which
is in Indian River Shores, and Sea Oaks, which is further to the
north in the unincorporated part of the County. Coralstone
actually had an encroachment into the 40 -ft. maintenance easement
(the County's right-of-way), and they have submitted a plan to
Engineering to get a permit to revegetate the right-of-way. The
Planning Dept. is looking at that from the standpoint of whether
or not the vegetation is adequate.. Sea Oaks have come in and
received a permit to put a fence in the protected area, which is
one of the allowable encroachments into the protected area, and
they have submitted a revegetation plan along with that which has
been approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Director Keating said he had been of the opinion all along
that the scenic roads and trails ordinance was sufficiently
12
detailed so that it could be worked with, and didn't realize
until recently that there is a desire to keep some vegetation in
place along Jungle Trail that is not native, such as some of the
exotics that are deemed undesirable in other parts of the county.
Commissioner Bird wondered whether when we say leave it
natural, are we going to just let nature have its way and allow
whatever vegetation to grow there, such as Brazilian pepper
trees, or are we going to try to encourage the replacement of
those with more desirable types of species.
Mrs. Bunnell felt that is exactly what this discussion and
input will bring up and decide. She wished to advise the Board
that she had attended the meeting in Indian River Shores with the
developers and engineers, and was satisfied with the plans they
have come up with to correct the problem.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
Chairman Scurlock felt the direction of the Board is to
direct staff to develop a management plan in a timely fashion,
and Director Keating advised that they could schedule a workshop
for early January, get it to the P & Z in late January, and bring
it to the Board in early February.
DISCUSSION RE CLOSING OF 16TH STREET (ROCKRIDGE)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/9/88:
DEC 1988
13 BaZQli /5 FACE 357
r -
DEG
1988
aoa 75 WA :358
4..R7147.14E P95etty aunztl olrsumiaionigne.
1421 5th A.venpe
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960
.December 9, 1988
William Collins
Acting County Administrator
County Administration Bldg.
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Mr. O;ollins :
The residents of the Rockridge area are deeply concerned
regarding the sudden closing of 'Rockridge ?'ouleva.rd (16th
Street) between 3rd Avenue and Indian River Boulevard late
Wednesday afternoon, December_ 7th.
There was no 'warning of intent to dead-end this highly
traveled Tmblic road that has been in use for the past
30 or more years.
Our .Association board members have received numerous calls
regarding this abrupt action and we are at a loss in ex-
plaining why, where or how orders for the closing of this .
road were initiated.
Without access between 6th Avenue and Indian River Boulevard,
the impact -on traffic will increase on both dangerously
narrow 6th -Avenue and 17th Street: We are also concerned
that traffic along 3rd Court will increase, especially so,
when properties are developed south of 13th Street and our
Rockridge area.
We have requested a public hearing at the earliest possible
date.
ROCKRIDGE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
ulie Livesa
President Ethel Duffy, Secretary
Bill Nelson, spokesman for the Rockridge Property Owners
Association, expressed their concern about the closing of 16th
Street between 3rd Avenue and Indian River Boulevard. They tried
to find out why the barricades were installed. last Thursday, but
nobody knew anything about it except City Engineer Cliff Suthard,
who could not be reached. They became very frustrated and came
back to the County to talk to Public Works Director Jim Davis,
14
who told them that this is not a county project and that he had
Informed the City that he had no objection to the road being
closed off. Mr. Nelson felt all of this could have been avoided,
because just last night he got a call from Louis Schlitt, who is
purchasing the abutting property from the City, saying that he
didn't want the street closed either. Mr. Schlitt said that Jim
Davis had told him that the people in Rockridge wanted it closed.
Mr. Nelson emphasized that the reason why so many people are here
today is that they don't want 16th closed. They had a special
meeting in Rockridge last night, and everyone agreed that they
want 16th Street kept open.
Chairman Scurlock felt that the misunderstanding and
confusion in this matter might be due to some discussions in the
past where Rockridge residents have objected to people cutting
through roads in their community, and perhaps this was
interpreted as a situation that would occur if that road
continued to be in place.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board authorize a letter to
be written to the City asking them to rethink the
position on closing 16th Street in light of the fact
that there is strong opposition from the Rockridge
community and, apparently, no opposition from the owner
of the property.
Under discussion, Mr. Nelson asked if it was possible to get
that piece deeded as a road, but Chairman Scurlock advised that
decision would be made by the City.
Mr. Nelson asked if the letter could include the request for
the removal of the barricades.
15
DEC 13 1988
BOOK
ME 359
DEC 198
aaaK 75 PAGE 3b0
COMMISSIONERS EGGERT and BIRD modified their Motion
to include the request that the City please consider
removing the barricades while the matter is being
resolved.
Louis Schlitt, buyer of the property in question, believed
that they had a fairly good meeting with both the City engineers
and the County engineers. The gngineers outlined what they felt
was a concern to the citizens of both the City and the County,
and they have reviewed the idea of trying to look at how to
develop the project. to have the least impact on the community,
primarily Rockridge. They felt it was best to cut that road off
and have ail of their ingress and egress from Indian River
Boulevard. It was very complicated to engineer that corner, and
they suggested the entrance be moved down on Indian River
Boulevard. He then had asked the engineers if the development
could have access from 16th Street so that people could go both
ways, but they didn't feel that would be the answer. Mr. Schlitt
felt it probable that something could be worked out if they were
to get with the engineers and representatives of Rockridge. He
believed that they were interested in the needs of the community,
and that is why they did what they did. Unfortunately, it was
misconstrued, and he felt they would apologize for this. As far
as the road goes, that is a serious question, because technically
it doesn't exist on paper. How it could be there and not have
any easements or records of it is mystifying to many people. Mr.
Schlitt emphasized that they are anxious to get the matter
resolved so that they can get a closing on the property, as it
has been difficult to write the title insurance because of this
cloud. He stated that he would call the City and the County
together and invite representatives of Rockridge and see what
they can do to work the issue out.
16
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
Carl Wagner, a resident of Rockridge, was greatly concerned
about the stormwater drainage problems in Rockridge, and felt the
ditch should be opened up between 16th Street and the 3rd Avenue
Canal.
Chairman Scurlock felt that drainage issue will have to be
addressed, and hoped it also would be discussed at the meeting
with the City.
Commissioner Bird advised that Director Davis has been
working with the DOT on this matter, and the County even has gone
in there and done some cleaning of that ditch. He felt it was in
better shape than it was.
ORDINANCE ADOPTING A FALSE FIRE ALARM PENALTY
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 Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA.
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach In Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter of"t/) aUoz, 4,40.
in the Court. was pub.
lished In said newspaper in the Issues of �� �(.7' 4 —
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office In Vero Beach, in said Indian River Court.
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
%. advertisement; and afflan, further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. J �
Sworn to and subscribed before me this _..c�.7 — day of �/i = 19 JS f
(SEAL)
DEC 131988
/WirelMININKCiOrfeliM4A
atiCrrrnhr r r.,I WA 1v.,.gzt
1y.1r Owfo'-i�NM4 WMA
17
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Board of County Commissioners of tndlan
River ryhereby provides
a Public Hea scheduled for 9:05 9:05 on
December 13, 1988, to discuss s proposed ordi-
nance relating to Indian River County entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
FLORIDA. ADOPTING A FALSE FIRE ALARM
ORDINANCE WHICH PROVIDES FOR REGIS-
TRATION OF ALARM SYSTEMS AND PENAL-
TIES FOR CERTAIN FALSE FIRE ALARMS AND
OTHER PROVISIONS.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision.
which may be made at this meeting wig creed to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed-
ings Is made. which includes testimony and evi-
dence
embe2which the 5.1988 .malbtJmed.
N
600K Ifs F? L,L 361
DEC 1 X988
1300K
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/13/88:
FAGE362
TO:
Board of Fire Commissioners
South County Fire District
FROM: John Allen, Fire Chief
South County Fire Distr
DATE: December 7, 1988
RE:
FALSE FIRE ALARM ORDINANCE
Board Meeting December 13, 1988
Attached is the final draft of the fire alarm ordinance to
be reviewed for final approval by the Board. This ordinance
was advertised in the Press Journal newspaper for a public
hearing on December 13, 1988.
Attorney Vitunac advised that since this will apply to the
North County Fire District also, we need to hear from
Administrator Doug Wright.
Mr. Wright advised that the Fire Inspector had a few areas
of concern, which he felt could be worked out, and he had no
objections to the. Ordinance.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 88-47, adopting a false fire alarm ordinance
which provides for registration of alarm systems and
penalties for certain false fire alarms and other
provisions.
18
ORDINANCE NO. 88- 47
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ADOPTING A FALSE FIRE ALARM
ORDINANCE WHICH PROVIDES FOR
REGISTRATION OF ALARM SYSTEMS AND
PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN FALSE FIRE ALARMS
AND OTHER PROVISIONS.
BE IT ORDAINED by Indian River County, acting through
its Board of County Commissioners, as follows:
SECTION 1. INTENT
This Chapter is intended to protect the health,
safety, and welfare of the people of Indian River County by
preventing the misuse of fire protection resources caused by
false alarms and telephone alarm devices, thereby allowing
these resources to be accessible and available in the event
these resources are truly needed by members of this
community.
SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this Chapter, whenever any of the
following.words or terms are used herein, they shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in this Section:
(a) ALARM shall mean any device which is used in a
building or premises for the detection of fire
and smoke and which when activated emits a
sound, signal, or message to alert others,
whether emitted on or off the premises or to
the central office of an alarm business.
(b) ALARM BUSINESS shall mean any person engaged in
the licensed business of selling, leasing,
monitoring; maintaining, servicing, repairing,
altering, replacing, moving, or installing any
alarm for any building, place, or premises.
(c) ALARM USER shall mean any person, business,
institution or corporation using an alarm or
occupying and controlling a premises or
building, or a portion of a premises or
building, served by an alarm.
1
DEC 1 .;1988
roI�K 5 rAc,E 363:
DEC'
BOOR
75 F,,C;E 64
(d) CLASS "A" ALARMS shall mean all those alarms
activated by fire or smoke or in response to
fire and includes alarms activated solely by an
act of nature not contributed to by faulty
design, maintenance, installation, or use.
(e) FALSE ALARMS shall mean all activated alarms,
responded to by the fire department which do
not qualify as class "A" alarms, including, but
not limited to, alarms activated through
inadvertence, neglect, accident, alarm testing,
or faulty installation or maintenance.
SECTION 3. NOTIFICATION REQUIRED
A. The alarm user shall notify the fire department of
the fire alarm in service and shall provide the following
information:
(1) Name, address, and telephone number of the
alarm user.
(2) Address and telephone number of the alarm
user's premises or building to be served by the
alarm.
(3) The name, address, and telephone number of the
person or persons in charge of the premises or
building serviced by the alarm.
(4) The name, address, and telephone number of the
person or entity installing the alarm.
(5) The name, address, and telephone number of the
person or entity monitoring the alarm.
(6) The name, address, and telephone number of the
person or entity providing maintenance and
repair service to the alarm.
(7) An agreement by the alarm user, binding upon
the alarm user's heirs and successors in
interest, to promptly pay or lawfully contest
any penalties assessed against the alarm user
for an excessive number of false alarms as
described in this ordinance.
2
B. An amended application shall be filed within 10
days after any change in the information provided in the
application. Upon such amendment, a new alarm permit shall
be issued.
SECTION 4. EXCESSIVE FALSE ALARMS DECLARED A PUBLIC
NUISANCE
The emission of more than three false alarms within
any six-month period of time is excessive and constitutes a
serious nuisance, and is hereby declared to be unlawful and
a violation of this ordinance. No person shall allow,
permit, cause, or fail to prevent the emission, for any
reason, by any alarm used by him, or any alarm serving a
premises or a building occupied and controlled by such
person, of more than three false alarms within any
six-month period of time.
SECTION 5. FALSE ALARM SERVICE CHARGE;
For response by the fire department to excessive false
alarms, the alarm user shall be charged a service fee by
the County of $25.00 for the first false alarm in excess of
three false alarms in any six-month. period, $50.00 for the
second false alarm to excess of three in any six-month
period, and $100.00 for the third and each successive
additional false alarm in excess of three in any six-month
period. The Fire Chief shall determine whether a false
alarm has occurred and the frequency of such false alarms,
and the County shall notify alarm users of amounts owed to
the County and shall make demand therefor, pursuant to the
provisions of this ordinance.
The County Attorney may proceed by a suit in a court of
competent jurisdiction to collect said charge after demand
therefor has been made by the County and the payment thereof
refused by the alarm user.
SECTION 6. INTERFERENCE WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE
COLLECTION
TRUNK LINES PROHIBITED; ALARM BUSINESS
CENTRAL OFFICE REQUIRED; IDENTIFICATION
REQUIRED
DEC 'i988
3 floor. 75 FADE 365
'1
DEC 13 `ii983
BOOK 15 F'AGE 366
(a) No person shall use or cause to be used any
telephone or electronic device or attachment
that automatically selects a public primary
telephone trunk line of the fire department or
any other department or bureau of the County
and then reproduces any prerecorded message to
report any fire or other emergency.
(b) No person shall provide a private alarm service
system programmed to a central alarm reception
office unless such central office is staffed at
all times, 24 hours a day, including holidays.
(c) Any staff member of a private alarm service
system reporting an alarm activation to which
fire response is requested shall identify
himself and state the name and telephone number
of the alarm business by which such response
is requested.
SECTION 7. AUDIBLE ALARMS
All alarms which may be heard in any public place shall
be maintained to ensure proper functioning in the event of
an emergency due to fire.
SECTION 8. ENFORCEMENT THROUGH CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
In addition to other methods of. enforcing County
Ordinances, the fire department may initiate action before
the Code Enforcement Board of the County to obtain
compliance with this ordinance and payment of service
charges assessed by the County. The Board shall have the
authority to place a lien against the property served by a
fire alarm in the amount of all assessed service charges.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 13th
day of December , 1988.
4
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press
Journal on the 25th _day of November , 1988, for a
public hearing to be held on the 13th day of December
1988, at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Bowmanseconded 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 Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Attest:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORID
Byl-2:10,,,c-
5.511—C.
__ p,,,, �.
6onC. Scur oc
Chairman
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of
Florida, this 19th day of December , 1988.
Effective bate: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 22nd day of December , 1988, at
10:30 a.m./p.m. and Ti led in the Orflce of the Clerk to
tfie Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida.
5
DEC 6 j988
Indian Riva Ca
Approved
Date
Admin.
6) 6..0
''
a-re-ztu
11:7&
Legal
Budget
(1111,11-6)
la- :
Dept.
V.‘r
1 -21.Z W
Risk Mgr.
R
F6��JL 0
i:t
DEC
BOOK0, !CE 368
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE ON GSA CONTRACT -RESOLUTION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/1/88:
DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1988
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: WILLIAM G. COLLINS
ACTING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" D
DIRECTOR OF GENE
RVICES
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE ON GSA CONTRACT -RESOLUTION
Although not required by bid regulations as outlined in the Florida
State Statues the Indian River Board of County Commissioners has set
forth policies and guidelines for formal bidding to promote good
business practices.
In the preparation and execution of bids for purchase of commodities
in excess of $2,500.00 the following exceptions are provided:
1. Supplies and services already on existing contracts.
2. Sole source items.
3. Items furnished by the blind. —
4. Emergency purchases.
5. County Administrator approval on service contracts.
6. County Administrator approval on Blanket Purchase Orders.
The United States Government bids commodities on a periodic basis
very similar to the State of Florida in order to obtain the best
price on the best merchandise. This system is called GSA
contracting. It is not uncommon for local governments to take
advantage of these prices and make purchases using these GSA
contracts. As an example a lot of communications equipment is
listed on these contracts and it would behoove the County to take
advantage of the reduced pricing.
Since GSA contracts are not listed as an exception to the bidding
procedures as listed in the purchasing guidelines, and use thereof
would be a definite benefit to Indian River County, a proposed
resolution has been presented to the Board for their perusal along
with a staff recommendation for approval.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 88-132, authorizing purchase from the
General Services Administration (GSA) Contract list
without competitive bidding.
24
Commissioner Bird hoped that in addition to purchasing from
the federal and state contracts, we make every attempt to buy
locally whenever we can get a competitive price.
General Services Director Sonny Dean stressed that has and
will continue to be our policy. A good example of that is that
we always buy our automobiles locally.
DEC 13'WO
25 ND ocE. 36
DEC 13 1988
BOOK 75 FAGE 0
RESOLUTION NO. 88-132
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AUTHORIZING PURCHASE FROM THE GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION (GSA) CONTRACT LIST WITHOUT
COMPETITIVE BIDDING.
WHEREAS, the United States Government maintains a
"GSA Contract List" which is prepared after competitive
bidding, and offers a competitive bid price for the
merchandise on the list; and
WHEREAS, State agencies are authorized to purchase from
this list without further competitive bidding; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County could likewise save time
and money by purchasing certain items from the GSA Contract
List if it did not have to go through additional local
bidding procedures,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The County Purchasing Department and any other
County department authorized to purchase items are
authorized to purchase items from the GSA Contract List
without additional local bidding.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Wheeler , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Bowman 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 ..3th day of _December . 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest
By
--Dori'c cur 1 ock,
Chairman
26
REQUEST BY SAINT SEBASTIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR USE OF 134TH
STREET SOUTH OF ROSELAND ROAD
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/5/88:
TO: William G. Collins I1
Acting County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director.
SUBJECT: Request by Saint Sebastian Catholic Church for Use of
134th Street South of Roseland Road
REF. LETTER: Rev. Joseph LeSage to James Davis dated 11-22-88
DATE: December 5, 1988
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In March, 1988, the residents of 134th Street requested that the
unpaved road (134th Street) be closed at it's southern terminus
due to large volumes of traffic being generated by the Saint
Sebastian Catholic Church. On April 25, 1988, this matter was
considered by the Board of County Commissioners. At that time,
staff was requested to communicate with the Church to determine
if the Church would be willing to participate in paving 134th
Street. Upon further discussion, the Church preferred the road
be closed and the County installed non-movable barricades at the
end of the public right-of-way.
In November, 1988, the Sebastian City Council received additional
complaints regarding traffic congestion at the Church's connection
to US 1 in Sebastian. The Church and Public Works Department i
staff had further discussions, resulting in the Church agreeing
to donate $10,000 towards the road paving subject to the Church
being allowed to maintain a proper fence type barricade at the
end of the road so that it could be opened at times when events
were held at the Church and closed at other times (see attached
letter from Rev. LeSage dated 11-22-88).
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Based upon benefit, staff is of the opinion that the Church's
offer to pay $10,000 towards the road paving is reasonable. The
alternatives are as follows: -
Alternative No. 1
Schedule a public hearing for Special Assessment Paving of
134th Street in Roseland. At that time, local residents
would be able to voice their opinion. Accept the Church's
contribution of #10,000 if paving is approved.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the request, leave the road unpaved and permanently
barricaded.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby a Special Assessment
Public Hearing is recommended. No funding is considered at this
time.
27 BOOK 75 Dai /1
DEC 13>n8
SEC
BOOK 75 PAGE •372
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative #1, as set out in the above memo.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 - KINGS HIGHWAY BRIDGE - UTILITY HANGERS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/2/88:
TO: William G. Collins II
Acting County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Directorcv
SUBJECT: Change Order No. 2
Kings Highway Bridge Utility Hangers
1 14
DATE: December 2, 1988
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County Utilities Department is request"that water and sewer
line hangers be constructed by the contractor (Murphy Construction
Co.) on the new Kings Highway Bridge. The hangers will cost
$4,500 and the work is requested in the attached Change Order No.
2.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that Change Order No. 2 be authorized for the
Chairman's signature. Funding to be from #471-000-169-045.00,
Utility Department account.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order #2, funding to be from Utility Dept.
account #471-000-169-045.00, as recommended by staff.
28
No.
CHANGE ORDER
2
Dated November 7, 1988
Owner's Project No. Engineer's Project No. 88-167
Project King's Highway Bridge, Phase I
Owner • Indian River County
Contractor Murphy Construction op. Contract Date August 1. 1988
Contract For King's Highway Bridge Replacement at N. Relief Canal
!b• Nature of the Change Addition to the contract to furnish labor, equipment
and materials as necessary to fabricate and install
. five (5) Double Hot Dipped Galvanized Steel Brackets
to carry 20" water main.
Lump Sum $4,500.00
The changes result in the following adjustment of Contract'Price and Time:
Contract Price Prior to this Change Order $ 273.323.44
Net (Increase) CionmIMISHBEt resulting from this Change Order $ d,gnn_nn
Current Price Including This Change Order $ 277,823.44
•
Contract Time Prior to this Change Order
Net (Increase) (Decrease) resulting from this
Change. Order
-75-
-0-
•
Current Contract time including this Change
Order
+75 -
Calendar Days.
Calendar Days
Calendar Days.
The above changes are approved:
4.1
By:
Date:
The above changes are accepted:
DEC i
29
:,(7[AM
By:
NSTRUCTION CO.
C. tr.ctor
Date:
ACCEPTED BY:
1 i Krol
Date: "15°16?-...*
POOK
75 fA;E 373
DEC
BOOK ! j FAGS 3 74
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION ORDER 2-88 - U.S. #1 AT
38TH LANE AND U.S. #1 AT 85TH STREET
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/30/88:
TO: William G. Collins II
Acting County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.j
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Traffic Signal Maintenance and Operation Order 2-88
US 1 - at 38th Lane
US 1 at 85th _Street:_
REF. LETTER: William A. Lewis, DOT, to James Davis dated
11-17-88
DATE: November 30, 1988
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The DOT has submitted four copies of a Traffic Signal Maintenance
and Operation Order to update the agreement between• the County
and DOT for maintenance of the US 1/38th Lane and US 1/85th
Street intersections. This is a routine instrument used
throughout the State.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends authorizing the Chairman's or County
Administrator's signature. There is not funding to be
considered.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Traffic Signal Maintenance and Operation Order and
authorized the Chairman's signature, as recommended by
staff.
30
A.
P of 2
State of Florida Department of Transportation
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE 6 OPERATION
ORDER NO. 2-88
D.O.T. DISTRICT
4
PUBLIC BODY (MAINTAINING AGENCY).
Indian River County
COUNTY
Indian River
B. 1. All signalized intersections and signal systems covered
by this order -are referenced to an agreement of record
dated July 21, 1980 between the Department and
Public Body and no supplemental agreement is required.
2. The Public Body is hereby authorized and requested to
undertake the maintenance and operation of two (2)
signalized intersections on the State Highway System as
listed in part C of this order. .The following previous-
ly numbered and dated orders shall remain in effect and
are not altered by this order.
Identification of Type of Equipment and Installations to
be Maintained.
(PART C IS ATTACHED)
APPROVALS
PUBLIC BODY
ACKNOWLEDGED
AND APPROVED: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Signature:
Don C. Scurlock,
Title: Chairman
ACKNOWLEDGED
AND APPROVED:
Signature:
Date: 12/13/88
, cP,eoVED
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Oper/at`ions Engineer
Copies: District Traffic Operations Office
State Traffic Operations Office
Public Body
OECi31988
Date: 42-2/ -88
BOOK 75 F.{GE 375
DEC ` 08
PART C . '
• T....mil
BOOK 75 PAGE 376 .
PAGE 2 OF 2
SECTION
Number
Street Names
SR -5 at 38 Lane
Pre-
Timed
/ctuated
icro-
rocesso,Other
Inter -
Connected.
88010
88010
SR -5 at 85 Street
r
I,
i
•
SPECIAL EQUIPMENT to be operated and maintained:
LONE PALM PARK SUBDIVISION - FINAL ASSESSMENT (WATER)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/5/88:
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 1988
TO:
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO .
FROM: JEFFREY K. BARTON
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: LONE PALM PARK S/D - FINAL ASSESSMENT
27TH AVENUE WATER MAIN EXTENSION BETWEEN 13TH & 14TH STS.
INDIAN RIVER'COUNTY PROJECT NO. DS -245
WILLIAM G. COLLINS, II
ACTING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND:
At the Board of County Commissioners meeting held on February16,
1988, the Board passed Resolution No. 88-17 setting the preliminary
assessment roll for the project. The project was to become part of
the City of Vero Beach Water System upon completion.
The project has been completed and the City of Vero Beach has paid
all bills relating to the project.
ANALYSIS:
The final assessment totals $43,117.60 and is below the preliminary
assessment of $45,012.10, which represents a total savings of
$1,894.50.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the
County Commissioners approve the Final Assessment Roll
project and authorize the Utilities Department to bill the
owners of Lone Palm Park Subdivision their assessment
attached Final Assessment Roll.
DEC 13 kA
32
Board of
for this
property
from the
DEC 1
BOO1' 75 r'AH 378
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 88-130, certifying "as -built" costs for
certain water improvements made to Lone Palm Park,
designated as Project DS -245 and other construction
necessitated by such project.
Jeff Barton, Assistant Utilities Director, introduced Harry
Asher, who will be taking his place at the end of the month when
he leaves to take office as County Clerk.
33
ti•
RESOLUTION NO. 88-13o
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CERTIFYING
"AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR CERTAIN WATER IMPROVEMENTS
MADE TO LONE PALM PARK, DESIGNATED AS PROJECT
DS -245 AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH
PROJECT; PROVIDING FORMAL COMPLETION DATE, AND
DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST.
WHEREAS, the Board .of County Commissioners of Indian
River County determined that the water improvements for the
property located with boundaries as described in this title,
designated as Project No. DS -245, were necessary to promote
the public welfare of the county; and
WHEREAS, on Febrary 16, 1988, the Board held a public
hearing at which time and place the owners of the property
to be assessed appeared before the Board to be heard as to
the propriety and advisability of making such improvements;
and
WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County
Commission adopted Resolution No. 88-12 which confirmed the
special assessment cost of the project to the property
specially benefited by the project in the amounts listed in
an attachment to that resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified
the actual "as -built" cost now that the project has been
completed and has recommended modifying Resolution No. 88-12
proportionately downward,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. Resolution No. 88-12 is modified as follows: The
completion date for Project No., DS -245 is declared to be
November 3, 1988; and the last day that payment may be made
avoiding interest and penalty charges is 90 days after
passage of this resolution or Monday, March 13, 1989.
2. The final assessment roll for the project listed in
Resolution No. 88-12 shall be as shown on the attached
Exhibit "A."
DEC 13ca9
34 apci( 75 PnE 379
DEC 1(
POCK 75 FAGE:jso
RESOLUTION NO. 88-130
3. The assessments as shown on the attached Exhibit
"A" shall stand confirmed and remain legal, valid, and
binding first liens against the property against which such
assessments 'are made until paid.
4. The assessments shown on attached Exhibit "A" will
be recorded by the County on the public records of Indian
River County, and the lien shall constitute prima facie
evidence of its validity.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Fgc3r,rt and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Aird 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 13th day of _JlecemhPr • 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLO'IDA
Attest'c=9/st:-°-^141-6(-j
Freda i gfit
By
35
Don i✓.—•cur ock
Chairman
ti•
OWNER
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
LONE PALM PARK SUBDIVISION
27TH AVENUE WATER MAIN EXTENSION
FROM 14TH STREET TO 13TH STREET
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. DS -245
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AREA(SO.FT) AMOUNT
ST.PIERRE ENTERPRISES LONE PALM PARK S/D(0.2583095) 7,581 $1,887.67
P.O.DRAWER 308 UNIT 1, LOT 6, BLOCK 1
VERO BEACH,FL 32961-0308
BOLOGNA,SALVATORE E. & LONE PALM PARK S/D
PATRICIA ELLEN LOT 7, BLOCK 1
5919 GOLDEN EAGLE CIRCLE
PALM BEACH GARDENS,FL 33410
SHRIEVE,VICK E.&
MILDRED H.
2646 13TH PLACE
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
WASHBURN, JAMES A. &
BRENDA G.
2626 13TH PLACE .
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
ALEXANDER, WILLIAM E
1336 26TH AVE.
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
EDMISTEN,ROBERT C. &
LORRAINE Y.
1360 27TH AVENUE
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
G L G HOMES, INC.
P. O. BOX 32
SEBASTIAN, FL 32958
FEDELE, JOSEPH A.
2625 13TH PLACE
VERO BEACH,FL 32960
RYAN,TIMOTHY F. &
2605 13TH PLACE
VERO BEACH,FL 32960
WHALEN, JAMES F. &
2690 13TH STREET.
VERO BEACH,FL 32960
WELLER, KERMIT E. &
1376 28TH AVENUE
VERO BEACH,FL 32960
VETTER, JOHN J. &
1335 27TH AVENUE
VERO BEACH,FL 32960
TOTAL ASSESSMENT:
LONE PALM PARK S/D
LONE PALM PARK S/D
LOT 9, BLOCK 1
. LONE PALM PARK S/D
LOT 10, BLOCK 1
LONE PALM PARK S/D
N 1/2 OF LOTS 11 & 12,
BLOCK 1
LONE PALM PARK S/D
S 1/2 OF LOTS 11 & 12,
BLOCK 1
LONE PALM PARK S/D
LOT$•13 & 14, BLOCK 1
LONE PALM PARK S/D
LOT 15, BLOCK 1
LONE PALM PARK S/D
LOTS 16, 17, & 18
BLOCK 1
LONE PALM PARK S/D
LOTS 1'THRU 6, INCLUSIVE
& LOTS 9 &:10, BLOCK 3
LONE PALM PARK.$/D
LOTS 7 • & 8, BLOCK 3
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 6" AND 8" LINE
TO BE PAID BY CITY OF VERO BEACH:
TOTAL:
=====_
DEC 1
36
7,581 $1,887.67
7,581 $1,887.67
7,581 $1,887.67
7,581 $1,887.67
7,590 $1,889.91
7,590 $1,889.91
15,410 $3,837.09
7,504 $1,868.50
22,914 $5,705.59
59,250 $14,753.25
15,000 $3,735.00
BOOK
$43,117.60
1,932.00
$45,049.60
75 FgE 381
DEC 1
BOOK. 75 PAGE • 82
COUNTY GROVE FRUIT SALES - BIDS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/3/88:
DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1988
TO:
THRU•
FROM:
WILLIAM G. COLLINS, II
ACTING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PIN
DIRECTOR OF UTILITV'SERVICES
JOHN F: LANG dr _'
ENVIRONMENT S ECIALIST
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: COUNTY GROVE FRUIT SALES - BIDS
BACKGROUND:
The Department of Utility Services has a 60 -acre grove located at
the West Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant site. The fruit
bids received to date for our red and white grapefruit crop have
been slightly more than half of previous offerings. The crop sale
has been bid out twice. The last bid generated a single response
and that response was from Golden Gem Growers for a bulk price of
$34,238.00. The second bidding preempted the first, resulting in a
lowering of projected sales revenues.
ANALYSIS:
The,grove has approximately 12,000 boxes of fruit on the trees this
year. The fruit in our grove this season is maturing late. This
has affected our bids and has resulted in bids based upon immature
fruit as well as the fact that we have included freeze protection
clauses in our bids. = =_
The traditional method of sales from a grower to a buyer (either a
packer or processor) has been for the grower to assume
responsibility for freezes and high winds. There are three possible
courses of action, with two options, at this time. They are:
1. Accept the $34,238.00 bid from Golden Gem Growers which hasn't
any harvest deadline, which may affect next year's crop.
2. Rebid - utilizing either Option #1 or Option #2 below.
3. Negotiate directly with Golden Gem, utilizing either Option
or Option #2.
OPTION #1:
OPTION #2:
#1
Base the sale of the fruit on a per variety, per
box basis on the tree, cash, net 30 days, with a
harvest deadline and a minimum cash price.
Base the sale of the fruit on a per variety, per box
basis on the tree with a 50% price rise share for the
grower, cash, net 30 days, with a harvest deadline,
with or without a guaranteed price.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Utility Services has bid out the sale of fruit
twice. Golden Gem Growers has participated in this process twice
and they are the only firm to do so. The staff of the Utilities
Department recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize direct negotiation with this firm, utilizing Option #2.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Option #2, as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 88-44 RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF
THE NORTH BEACH WATER COMPANY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/7/88:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Jr
l..` —b ., P. v .
•..•��n.: Via.. J
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: December 7, 1988
RE: ATTACHED RESOLUTION WHICH AMENDS
RESOLUTION #88-44 RELATING TO THE
PURCHASE OF THE NORTH BEACH WATER CO.
Board Meeting December 13, 1988
The original bond resolution, passed by the County on August
2, 1988, which authorized the purchase of North Beach Water
Company by the issuance of not -to -exceed $4,000,000 in water
revenue bonds needs to be amended as shown on the attached
resolution prepared by our bond counsel.
The amendments were made necessary by the County's decision
to temporarily fund the purchase by the issuance of bond
anticipation notes secured by the sale of bonds within three
to five years and the decision to fund the permanent bonds
with a surcharge to the residents of the former North Beach
Water Co. franchise territory.
Staff recommends adoption of the resolutionso that it can
be used in the closing on the bond anticipation notes, which
closing is scheduled for Thurdsday, December 15, 1988.
Attorney Vitunac advised that all this does is allow junior
liens to be issued rather than surcharges. It really is not
significant, but it is important to the underwriters.
DEC i3 1
88
38
LOOK 5 FAGS JoJ
DEC 13 1952
BOOK 75 PAGE :384
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 88-131, amending Resolution 88-44 to
authorize the temporary funding of the purchase by
the issuance of bond anticipation notes secured by the
sale of bonds within 3 to 5 years and funding of
permanent bonds with a surcharge to the residents of
the former North Beach Water Co. franchise territory.
39
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
RESOLUTION NO. 88-131
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING RESOLUTION NO. 88-44
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ENTITLED:
"A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING
FOR THE PURCHASE OF A SUBREGIONAL WATER TREATMENT AND
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING $4,000,000
WATER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1988, OF THE COUNTY TO PAY
THE COST OF SAID SYSTEM; PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE
REGISTERED OWNERS OF SAID BONDS; PROVIDING FOR THE
PAYMENT THEREOF; MAKING CERTAIN OTHER COVENANTS AND
AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF SAID BONDS;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE."
BY ADDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS THERETO AND REVISING CERTAIN
PROVISIONS THEREOF, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION PROVIDING THAT
SAID BONDS MAY BE ISSUED AS BONDS JUNIOR AND SUBORDINATE IN ALL
RESPECTS TO THE BONDS AND NOTES DESCRIBED IN AND/OR ISSUED PRIOR
AND/OR SUBSEQUENT TO SAID BONDS UNDER OR PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF RESOLUTION NO. 82-61 OF THE COUNTY, AS AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTED
FROM TIME TO TIME; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION. This resolution
is adopted pursuant to Chapters 125 and 159, Florida Statutes
(1988), and other applicable provisions of law.
SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. All terms and phrases used herein
shall have the meanings ascribed to them in Resolution 88-44 of
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, adopted August 2, 1988, except as
otherwise specifically provided herein.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS. It is hereby ascertained, determined
and declared that:
A. The Board on August 2, 1988 duly adopted Resolution No.
88-44 (the "Bonds Enabling Resolution") entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING
FOR THE PURCHASE OF A SUBREGIONAL WATER TREATMENT AND
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING $4,000,000
WATER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1988, OF THE COUNTY TO PAY
THE COST OF SAID SYSTEM; PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE
REGISTERED OWNERS OF SAID BONDS; PROVIDING FOR THE
PAYMENT THEREOF; MAKING CERTAIN OTHER COVENANTS AND
AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF SAID BONDS;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE."
DEC 13 1988
40
BOOK 75 FACE 385
DEC 13 1988
BOOK ( 5 PAGE 386
B. The Board on November 8, 1988 duly adopted Resolution No.
88-120 (the "Notes Enabling Resolution") entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING
THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING $4,000,000 WATER REVENUE
BONDS, SERIES 1988, ANTICIPATION NOTES OF THE COUNTY;
PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF AND THE SECURITY
THEREFOR; PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE HOLDERS OF SUCH
NOTES; MAKING CERTAIN COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR RELATED MATTERS; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE."
C. It may hereafter be determined by the Board that it is in
the best interest of the County and/or necessary and/or desirable
in order to pay the principal, premium, if any, and interest on the
notes to be issued under the Notes Enabling Resolution (the
"Notes") as the same shall become due to issue the bonds to be
issued under the Bonds Enabling Resolution as bonds junior or
subordinate in all respects to the bonds and notes described in
and/or issued, prior and/or subsequent to the bonds to be issued
under Bonds Enabling Resolution, under the provisions of Resolution
82-61 of the County, as amended and supplemented from time to time
(the "FmHA Bonds Enabling Resolution").
D. It is necessary and desirable in connection with the
issuance of the Notes that in the event that the Surcharges as
presently defined under the Bonds Enabling Resolution, are, for any
reason whatsoever, not sufficient to enable the County to sell and
issue the bonds to be issued under the Bonds Enabling Resolution
and the County does not, on or prior to December 1, 1991, issue
either (a) bonds other than pursuant to the Bonds Enabling
Resolution; or (b) bond anticipation notes, the proceeds of which
in either case are used to make complete payment of the principal,
interest and premium, if any, on the Notes (the "Surcharge
Insufficiency without Alternative Financing") to issue the bonds to
be issued under the Bonds Enabling Resolution as junior and
subordinate bonds as aforesaid.
E. It is necessary and/or desirable to amend certain
provisions of the Bonds Enabling Resolution to authorize the
issuance of the bonds to be issued under the Bonds Enabling
Resolution as bonds junior and subordinate as aforesaid in the
event (a) that the Board shall hereafter determine that is in the
best interest of the County and/or necessary and/or desirable in
order to pay the principal, premium, if any, and interest on the
Notes (the "Junior and Subordinate Bonds Determination"); or (b)
there occurs a Surcharge Insufficiency without Alternative
Financing.
F. It is necessary and/or desirable to amend certain
provisions of the Bonds Enabling Resolution in certain other
respects.
41
SECTION 4. AMENDMENTS TO BONDS ENABLING RESOLUTION. In
the event that the Board shall hereafter, by resolution duly
adopted, make the Junior and Subordinate Bonds Determination or
there occurs a Surcharge Insufficiency without Alternative
Financing, the Bonds Enabling Resolution shall thereafter be
amended as follows:
(a) Section 2 shall be amended to add Paragraph J(1) to read
"J(1). "FmHA Bonds Enabling Resolution" shall mean Resolution 82-
61 of the County, as amended and supplemented from time to time."
(b) Section 2 shall be amended to add Paragraph J(2) to read
"J(2). "Gross Revenues" shall mean Gross Revenues, as defined in
the FmHA Bonds Enabling Resolution, available after the
application of the FmHA Bonds Enabling Resolution."
(c) Section 2, Paragraph L shall be amended by .replacing the
word "Surcharges" with the phrase "Gross Revenues".
(d) Section 2 shall be amended to delete Paragraph P in its
entirety.
(e) Section 2 shall be amended to add Paragraph R to read "R.
"Unified System" shall mean the System as defined in the FmHA Bonds
Enabling Resolution."
(f) Section 3, Paragraph B shall be amended (a) to replace
the word "System" with the phrase "Unified System"; and (b) to
insert immediately after the word "Bonds" "except under and as
provided in the FmHA Bonds Enabling Resolution".
(g) Section 13 shall be amended to replace the first sentence
of the paragraph beginning at the bottom of page 8 in its entirety
with the sentence "This Bond and the interest due hereon are
payable solely from and are secured solely by a lien upon and
pledge of the gross revenues to be derived by the County from the
operation of the Unified System junior and subordinate to the lien
thereon and pledge thereof under Resolution 82-61 of the County, as
amended and supplemented from time to time, and certain funds and
accounts pledged for the payment of the principal of, interest and
premium, if any, on the Bonds and certain earnings thereon, all as
provided in the Resolution (the "Pledged Funds").".
(h) Section 15 shall be amended to place the first sentence
thereof in its entirety with the sentence "The payment of the
principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be
secured forthwith equally and ratably by a pledge of and a lien
upon the Pledged Funds junior and subordinate to the lien thereon
and pledge thereof under the FmHA Bonds Enabling Resolution.".
(i) The word "Surcharges" shall be replaced with the phrase
"Gross Revenues" wherever applicable and/or appropriate.
(j) The word "System" shall be replaced by the phrase
"Unified System" wherever applicable and/or appropriate.
DEC
b)
988
42 BOOK FACE 8
DEC 13 '2
NO Pa PACE 388
In the event that the Board hereafter, by resolution duly
adopted, makes the Junior and Subordinate Bonds Determination or
there occurs a Surcharge Insufficiency without Alternative
Financing, the Board shall, prior to the issuance of the Series
1988 Bonds, make any and all other amendments to the Bonds Enabling
Resolution as may be necessary and/or desirable in connection with
the issuance of the Series 1988 Bonds.
SECTION 5. OTHER AMENDMENTS. The Bonds Enabling
Resolution is hereby amended as follows:
(a) Section 2, Paragraph Q is amended to replace the word
"wastewater" with the word "water".
(b) Section 13 is amended (a) by replacing the word
"wastewater" in the last full paragraph on page 8 with the word
"water"; and (b) by replacing the word "bonds" in the next to the
last full paragraph on page 9 with the word "Bonds".
SECTION 6. REPEALER. All resolutions or parts of
resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall take
effect immediately upon its adoption.
The foregoing resolution as offered by Commissioner Eggert
who moved for its adoption. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner R;rd 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
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the Resolution duly passed and
adopted this 13th day of December , 1988.
(SEAL)
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: !�►,. c
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman
Attest:
ig
Freda W igh Clerk
.c9!'
43
SELECTION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Chairman Scurlock reported that he and Commissioner Wheeler
flew to Hollywood, Florida, Friday in Commissioner Wheeler's
plane in order to interview the officials and people who worked
with and knew James Chandler, former City Manager of Hollywood
and one of the two final candidates for the County
Administrator's position. He noted that the press was invited to
go along, but no reporter took them up on the offer. He and
Commissioner Wheeler went their separate ways in Hollywood and
did not discuss county business so as to not to break Florida's
Sunshine Law. The Mayor, staff and current Administrator of
Hollywood were among the many people they talked with.
Chairman Scurlock stressed that absolutely every stone was
turned over, but they received only praise about Mr. Chandler.
He kept waiting for the other shoe to drop, but it never did.
They just couldn't find anything negative. They took the
Chandlers out to lunch, and got the impression that they very
much want to move to our community. Mr. Chandler believes in a
strong, controlled growth. aspect, and Chairman Scurlock felt that
is one of the reasons he wants out of south Florida.
Commissioner Eggert advised that she made a ton of phone
calls to Hilton Head Island, North Carolina, inquiring about
Carey Smith, and to Hollywood inquiring about Mr. Chandler. She
also had a hard time trying to get any negative information. In
calling Hilton Head, several people commented that county admin-
istration probably would be a lot different because we do
everything by contract, whereas the City Manager of Hilton Head
supervises in a different way.
Commissioner Bird reported that he had contacted the Broward
County administrator and received a good recommendation about
Chandler.
Chairman Scurlock's recommendation was to hire Mr. Chandler
for the Administrator's position, and he wished to have the
DEC 13198E
44
BOOK 75 FACE 389
DEC 13
0t
P001( PAGEJ90
Board's authorization to negotiate an agreement with a starting
salary of $70,000. There would not be anything else other than a
90 -day, at our will, termination clause, so there is no real
contract in that sense. If possible Mr. Chandler would like to
continue participation in the International City Managers
Association Retirement Program rather than the State of Florida
Retirement Plan. Chairman Scurlock didn't think that would be
legal, and while Mr. Chandler said that it would not be a
stumbling block, he would like to pursue it if possible. The
Chairman advised that Mr. Chandler would be available to start
work the first or second week in January, preferably the second
week, and plans to take an apartment here until school is out and
then his familycan move into the community.
Chairman Scurlock advised that a criminal investigation on
the candidates turned up empty. He felt we have done everything
possible to find out about Mr. Chandler, and believed that Mr.
Chandler is going to be very good and worth his weight in gold.
Commissioner Bird was concerned about starting Chandler off
at the top of the salary range, and asked what we would do about
the salary range after the first year.
Commissioner Scurlock felt we would have to change the
range, but Acting Administrator Collins believed that next year's
inflation rate would be applied to the salary range.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to negotiate an employment agreement with
James Chandler for the position of County Administrator
at a starting salary of $70,000 annually.
45
PLACEMENT OF ONE -CENT SALES TAX REFERENDUM ON THE MARCH SPECIAL
ELECTION BALLOT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/7/88:
ffAe.
%,
•: :.
N"
4.
l,h SOR OF E�...
ANN ROBINSON
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
1840 25TH STREET, SUITE N-109
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-3394
TELEPHONES: (407) 567-8187 or 567-8000
December 7, 1988
TO: DON C. SCURLOCK, JR., CHAIRMAN, BCC
FROM: ANN ROBINSON, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS Ace/
RE: RESPONSE REGARDING MARCH SPECIAL ELECTION
In response to your memo of December 6, 1988, regarding
your holding a special election in March for a 1% sales
tax, I am notifying you that we will be glad to cooperate.
We have begun preparing for your election on March 14.
The municipalities of Fellsmere, Vero Beach, Sebastian,
and Indian River Shores have their regular elections on
that day.
The BCC's share of the cost of the countywide election
will be $18,000. Please approve a budget amendment to
place that amount in special elections account, number
001-700-519-036.74 at your next meeting.
Chairman Scurlock reported that the Finance Advisory
Committee met the other day for preliminary discussion in terms
of the 1 -cent sales tax. The FAC would like the Board to
schedule a workshop to set the priorities of the capital projects
to be funded by an additional 1 -cent sales tax.
OMB Director Joe Baird distributed copies of the IRC
Analysis of the Optional One Cent Sales Tax to the Commissioners
for their review sometime during the next week or so.
DEC i31988
46 Boor 75 FACE 3 1
DEC 12 `Yd
BOOK (5 PAGE 392
Chairman Scurlock advised that the FAC wants to consider the
possibility of the 1 -cent sales tax, but would like the Board to
schedule a workshop to set the priorities of the capital projects
to be funded by an additional one -cent sales tax. They feel that
we probably would want to go for the full 15 years, and that
since this community has been very conservative, there would be a
better chance of getting this passed if we set budgets in 5 -year
increments with some sort of a straw ballot in the 4th year to
propose and readjust programs for the next 5 years. The Chairman
felt it would be very difficult in our day and time to look at
the full 15 years and be accurate. He believed the feeling is
very strong that in order to get this passed, we have to
concentrate on essential projects, such as Phase Ill of the Jail,
a new Courthouse, Health Building, and right-of-way acquisition.
The FAC feels that if they put the right package together, there
is a good chance of getting this passed.
Commissioner Bird stressed that we need to get the education
program going in January, and Commissioner Wheeler suggested that
we make a list of the various groups in the community and try to
get on their agendas to explain why the tax is needed.
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that if we choose not to go
with the additional 1 -cent sales tax, the only other alternative
to fund these projects is through ad valorem tuxes. That would
mean 3 mills and on a $100,000 house, with the $25,000 homestead
exemption, we would be talking about $300 for the next 30 years.
That is $300 times 30.
Chairman Scurlock stressed that the Commission does not have
the authority to pass a 1 -cent sales tax. The public has to vote
on it, so what we are talking about today and will be talking
about in future weeks is a proposal that will go to the general
public for their vote. All we will be doing is outlining the
options that are available so that the public can make an
intelligent decision next March. If the 1 -cent tax is added, it
will be the public that adds it, not this Commission.
47
Chairman Scurlock felt that approximately 1 hour would be
needed to workshop the priorities of the various projects, and
Attorney Vitunac suggested it be held during next week's regular
meeting as there is very little on the Agenda. The
Commissioners agreed to holding a workshop at that time.
Chairman Scurlock asked the Supervisor of Elections when
they would have to set the specific language for the ballot, and
Mrs. Robinson advised that she would need it by approximately
January 14th.
ON MOTION by Comissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment #017, placing $18,000 in Special
Elections Account 001-199-581-099.91 to cover the
County's share of the expense of the March 14th
county -wide election.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER:
017
DATE: December 13. 1988
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
General Fund Sp. Election
Supv. of Elections/Expend.
001-700-519-036.74,
$18.000
$ 0
General Fund Reserve
Supv. of Elections/for Contina..001-199-581-099.91
$ 0
$18.000
48
DEC 1
BOOK lb PAGE 393
DEC i U'J - poor 75 FA 394
VERO BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/8/88:
TO:\ Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler
FROM:' A -William G. Collins II - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: , December 8, 1988
SUBJECT: Vero Beach Community Redevelopment Agency
Florida Statute 163.367(3) says that "No commissioner or
other officer of any community redevelopment agency, board,
or commission exercising powers pursuant to this part shall
hold any other public office under the county. ..." The
question becomes whether the advisory board that you have
been appointed to "exercises any powers" under "this part"
which is the community redevelopment section of Chapter 163.
I am also concerned that Chapter 163, Part III no where
provides for an advisory board of the'sort that is being
utilized by the Community Redevelopment Agency. Normally
the Community Redevelopment Agency itself would be the
advisory board to the governing body. However Vero Beach
has appointed its own governing body plus two others as the
Community Redevelopment Agency. It seems if the City truly
wanted an .advisory board, they could have simply appointed
the Community Redevelopment Agency with a membership other
than City Council members themselves. I am also concerned
because the Community Redevelopment Agency can prepare plans
for redevelopment but must submit such plans to the local
planning agency of the municipality. I believe that the
City Council has also appointed itself as the local planning
agency in place of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
However, the power to adopt the plan is reserved to the
municipality's governing body itself and can only be done
after a public hearing. Also, the power to rezone land is
reserved to the governing body itself.
Conclusion
There is enough uncertainty as to lack of statutory
authority for such an advisory board, which together with a
concern about dual office _holding leads me to recommend
against your sitting on this advisory board. My main
concern arises out of the.statement made at the Joint
City/County Workshop that no planning or rezoning matters
would have to go to the City Planning Commission if the
property was located within the redevelopment area, but
rather could be approved by the redevelopment agency and its
advisory board. I am still not clear even after talking
with the City Attorney about the power of this board and
absent some clarification, would recommend that you not
participate. I believe that you certainly have other
avenues to provide input to the City on your concerns about
the downtown without putting yourself in a position of
having to resign your office due to the dual office holding
problem.
cc: Charles P. Vitunac - County Attorney
49
ti•
Commissioner Wheeler explained that there is some
uncertainty abut his serving on this agency, which is supposed to
be an advisory board. It is unclear as to what this board's
responsibilities
decisions, there
are and since it might be involved in making
is a question of dual office capacity.
Administrator Collins recommended that Commissioner Wheeler
not serve on this board since there is so much
confusion, and
Attorney Vitunac advised that his office could prepare a letter
for Commissioner Wheeler to sign.
Chairman Scurlock felt we could indicate in the letter that
once the board's role is clearly defined, we could opt to send a
representative.
Commissioner Wheeler advised that he would attend the
meetings and report back, but the Commissioners agreed to send a
letter saying that Commissioner Wheeler is not and will not sit
as a member of this agency.
STATUS OF ENTRANCE FEES AT SEBASTIAN INLET PARK
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 11/30/88:
TOM GARDNER
Executive Directo
State of Florida
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESO1JRCES
�►�,i5.4•5676,`9
Mi DEC 1088 N
RECEIVED '
N BOARD COUNT( ..,�
c—s� COMMISSIONERS
Mr. R' chard Bird
Count Commissioner
Indian River County
1840 25th Court
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Dear Commissioner Bird:
November
BOB MARTINEZ
Governor
JIM SMITH
Secretary of State
BOB BUTTERWORTH
Attorney General
GERALD LEWIS
State Comptroller
BILL GUNTER
State Treasurer
DOYLE CONNER
Commissioner of Agriculture
BETTY CASTOR
Commissioner of Education
PLEASE ADDRESS REPLY TO:
Dl5`r1�•I�UtiM tiS `
30, 1988 Commissioners
Administrator (/
Attorney 1/
Personnel
Public Works tsr
Community Dev.
Utilities.
Finance
Other (24.0.41.4-1
Following our last phone discussion, I spoke with Tom Gardner
and Ken Plante our general counsel as to what instrument would
DEC 131988
50
I;OOK 75 PAGE 39,E
DEC 101988
75 F'AGc 39
-be appropriate to assure Indian River County that Sebastian
Inlet State Recreation Area would receive funding equal to the
amount raised in entrance fees. It was agreed that this would
require a memorandum of agreement between the county and this
department.
All user fees generated by the parks are paid into the state
Recreation and. Parks Trust Fund and are appropriated by the
legislature for funding to individual parks. The agreement
would have to state the department's intention to seek full
appropriation of entrance fees for the park as we are not able
to commit the legislature to any funding. We would also commit
to working closely with Indian River County's legislative
delegation to appropriate .continued high levels of funding for
Sebastian Inlet State Recreation Area.
Although charging user fees is not a popular action in any
park, it is critical that users contribute some portion of the
funds needed so that we may continue to operate the park at
current levels and to seek additional funds for improvements to
facilities and services.
Please let me know if you or your fellow commissioners have any
questions.
Sincerely,
ndy Lewis, Director
Office of Communications
Commissioner Bird advised that the State has given us the
following responses to the 4 options we established regarding the
charging of entrance fees at the Sebastian Inlet Park:
1) Charge no fees and continue to maintain the Park.
(The State is not agreeable to that.)
2) Waive the fees for Indian River County residents,
but go ahead and charge fees to others using the
Park. (The Attorney General's Office had advised
the Park Service that the fees could not be waived
for any particular group.)
3) Go ahead and charge fees, but keep the fees in the
budget at the Park to help develop and maintain the
Park. (The State is agreeable to trying to
structure an agreement with us along those lines.)
4. Go ahead and charge the fees and agree to lift our
deed restriction.
Returning to Option #3, Commissioner Bird felt that the
recommendation at this point is that we ask our Legal Department
to work with the legal department ofthe State to see what kind
51
of a binding agreement could be structured to protect our
interests if we agreed to lift our deed restriction. Once such
an agreement is prepared, it would come back to this Commission
for consideration. At that point he believed we would be down to
two options, and that is either to agree to that agreement in
some form or stand by our guns and tell the State that we are not
going to lift the deed restriction.
Attorney Vitunac pointed out that in the middle of the above
letter from the DNR there is a crucial statement. The DNR says
that the agreement would state the Dept.'s intention, but that
they can't bind the Legislature to any certain budget. That
means that no matter how good the DNR's intentions are, the
Legislature may override the recommendation and not put the funds
into our park. If the Board wants some legal mechanism to
enforce the agreement, there is another option which would be to
have an agreement to give a waiver of right to enforce the
reversionary clause about the fees for a set number of years, say
5 or 10 years, and watch what the State does. At the end of that
time, we could enter into an additional 10 -year waiver. If at
any time the State does not properly return money to IRC, we just
would not enter into an extension of the agreement. That way we
would never get rid of our deed restriction by a waiver filed in
the public records, but we would have a periodic waiver.
Commissioner Bird suggested that we include the requirement
in the agreement that we could require an accounting from the
State as to the amount of fees generated in the Park and the
disbursement of those fees.
Attorney Vitunac felt sure that Director Baird could do
that, and we could make it a rolling year to year agreement.
Chairman Scurlock believed that would be a very positive
way, because we would not be giving up our deed restriction
forever.
DEC 13 1988
52
BOOK 75 PAGE 39 7
DEC 1'6 'i `a
POOK 15 FMJ :j98
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously directed
the County Attorney to continue working with the Legal
Dept. of the State to prepare an agreement or document
to be brought back to this Commission for consideration
before any final decision is made on the matter of
whether to waive our deed restriction on the south part
of the Sebastian Inlet State Park.
NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT MEETING
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment,
the Board would reconvene acting as the District Board of Fire
Commissioners of the North Indian River County Fire District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD
A. Lease Amendment with Shopping Centers, Ltd. for Spaces #9 &
#10 in Washington Plaza, Sebastian
Lease Amendment approved at the Regular Meeting of October
18, 1988, having been fully executed and received, is hereby made
a part of the Minutes:
53
ti
• LEASE AMENDMENT
This agreement made as of the• 1st day of Sept. , 19 88
by and between SHOPPING CENTERS, LTD.
hereinafter called LANDLORD, and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
hereinafter called TENANT.
WHEREAS both parties are desirous of amending a certain lease for
the premise being described as Washington Plaza, Spaces #9 & #10, 710
Washington Street, Sebastian, FL 32958 , said lease being dated
July 16,, 1985 for the term. of One Year + 3.Months commencing on
August 1, 1985 and further extended until November 30, 1988 .
NOW THEREFORE both parties agree for mutual good and valuable con-
sideration to forever amend the aftersaid described lease term or provisions
as follows:
This Lease Agreement shall be extended for One (1) additional year from
Dec. 1, 1988 until Nov. 30, 1989 upon the same terms and conditions as
the above mentioned Lease Agreement except that the rent for the extended year
.shall be Five Thousand Nine Hundred Six & 25/100********************Dollars
($5,906.25) , to be paid in monthly installments of $492.19 ,
•
dezdeafrete
As to Tenant
ZZL
As to Tenant
Approved: 10-18-88
SHOPP 'S. U.
By
NU L OR D
EDGE' L.OHL'ITT, PRESIUENT
KI NGSWOOD WEST, INC.
GENERAL PARTNER
INDIAN RIVER .COUNTY
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:05 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
DEC 13 1S88
54
ROOK
/5 P E 399