HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/14/1989Tuesday, February 14, 1989
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission
Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday,
February 14, 1989, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Gary C.
Wheeler, Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman; Richard N.
Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present
were James T. Chandler, 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 Commissioner
Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Wheeler requested the following additions to
today's Agenda:
1) As Item G on the Consent Agenda Proclamation -
Mentally Handicapped Week.
2) As Item H on the Consent Agenda Proclamation - Dodger
Day.
3) Proposed advertisement on 1 -cent sales tax referendum.
Commissioner Bowman requested the addition of a
Transportation Planning Committee report.
FEB 141999
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously added the
above items to today's Agenda.
Baer 76 4,
FEB 14 1989
BOOK 76 °4` E. /3
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Bowman requested that Item D be removed for
discussion.
A. Report
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 212/89:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
DATE: February 2, 1989
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be
informed that $11,957.61 was collected in occupational license taxes
during the month of January 1989, representing the issuance of
281 licenses.
Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
accepted the above Occupational License Report
for the month of January, 1989.
B. IRC Bid #89-36 - Automobiles and Light Trucks
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/10/89:
DATE: February 10, 1989
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Admini-trator
FROM: H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servi
SUBJ: Indian River County Bid No. 89-36
Automobiles and Light Trucks
BACKGROUND
The subject bid was properly advertised and four (4)
invitations were sent out. Three of the vendors responded
2
with "No Bid". Eighteen (18) vehicles were originally bid
with two (2) for trade-in. Two (2) of these vehicles were
for Mr. David Nolte, Property Appraiser's Office. He has
since withdrawn his request leaving a total of sixteen (16).
ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed the bid submitted by Barrie Reed Buick out
of Ft. Pierce for adherence to specifications. The Florida
State Contract price was compared to the lone bidder's
submittal to ascertain best interest for the county.
FUNDING
Funds to purchase this equipment will come from the
applicable department's capital budget. Total monies
available to purchase vehicles is $201,500 not including the.
Property Appraiser's funds.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Board approval to purchase all the vehicles
on the bid list from the State Contract except for two (2)
Economy Cargo Vans and one Suburban 4x4 vehicle. These three
(3) vehicles to be purchased from Barrie Reed, the low ,
bidder. Total cost of purchase as per recommendation is
$187, 796.
FEB 14
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved staff's recommendation as set out in
the above memo.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
TABULATION
if �.
tt�
4YBID
`$ n��� hBID
~ y °0IRC
@ *cEBAOOBILE
I
h4 itinl
NO.
BID 89-36
DATE OF OPENING
Nov. 30,.88��
6 LIGHT TRUCKS 16Eachtr
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE I.
1- 1/2 Ton Pick Up Truck 6 Each
14_11.
NB.
fa)
(419,959.
9,506.Itat
EMS
Ai. 6.6.
(z)
_,s j
9.03.'
60
==•///SI.2D
= 3,6/544
10
2.-1/Ton Chassis -Cab Trk 2 Each
i
Agzirfilatio
,(on
Ca)/8pa6ANNI
0)
/3 es3.00.
0
zaq
DD
1- Car MidsLze Sedan Station Wagon
1 Each
CI)
/ova
elli,
0
9, SLI,
13
s 9741
83
4 Va ^ ." y raw Type 2 Each
ta)
/p02,g2
(2)
JL/fl.0
: 2.2 3SZ
'o
,
5 3/4 Ton' Pick -Up 2 Each
IV
=
0 0
a01
00
PiOwsP
/L)6/4A
,
P
.105A/
(I)
/D N,57l
00
Iry um
00
6 Surhurhan 4 x 4 Vehicle 1 Each
(star;yit
f')
/Z 391
3h
1„39Y 36
7. Van, Cargo Typ. 3/4 Tnn 1 Each
iiiga
Erti4i
Yn
/i,3f..',Z3
it3P5.2R
R t1Tnn Chaccic Cab Trk 1 Each
/q'1!0
3!
(i)
//, 26t/.
06
// 244 61)
Mit
S89
3
BOOK
76 FAH 74
-FEB 141989
BOOK 76 FACE 75
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32880
BID TABULATION
F
/5o
I
.
Q\
L//(?Ve
Pad
R
C
kgr
&
� ¢�
Q
Q�
��44.
gli
///
h4
U
0 &'
tt•4'�
�S
/
BID NO.
IRC BID 89-36
DATE OF OPENING
BID TITLE
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
PRICE
UNIT
PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
U9
NO.
Midsize 40r Sdn 1 Each
/O993
Ir!
11•8.
h
/0 2246
= /
t22
ea
9 -Car, Large
pgCit
Economy 4 x 2 lEach
/8jog
A
(i)
Raro ,OcL
2
PTA
OD
10 -Passenger yan.
11 -Trade in of the following
1 Each
41TE
00�
1184 Ford I TD 4 D
12 -Trade in of the following
1 Each,
/
` /.4"7
14111 Fnrd ITh 4hr_
-
t
.
aroBSl5°4
g a,lc8
a9
MM5 Yf9
C. Underwriter for Farmer's Home Administration Refinancing
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/8/89:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: February 8, 1989
SUBJECT: UNDERWRITER FOR FARMER'S
HOME ADMINISTRATION REFINANCING
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
In the meeting of January 17, 1989, the Board of County
Commissioners approved staff to proceed in obtaining Farmer's
Home Administration discount refinancing program, provided that
we are able to overcome some of the problems. A very significant
part of the work force necessary to be able to obtain the
financing is an underwriter. Selection of an underwriter can be
done either by a formal selection process which includes
advertising and sending out requests for proposals or the other
option is the informal process in which you choose a underwriter
which the county is comfortable with.
4
Because of time constraints, we would like to utilize the
underwriter, Art Ziev, of Gulfstream Financial, that handled the
North Beach Water Bond issue and is familiar with Indian River
County's position with Farmer's Home Administration.
To ensure a competitive fee, we will require Gulfstream Financial
not to exceed a total underwriter's spread of 1.75% total
(including administrative fee, take down, expenses, risk, legal
counsel).
Staff would like permission to obtain Gulfstream Financial
services as the underwriter for the Farmer's Home Administration
refinancing at a underwriter spread not to exceed 1.75%.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
authorized staff to obtain Gulfstream Financial
Services as the underwriter for the FmHA refinancing
at an underwriter spread not to exceed 1.75%.
D. Budget Amendment #047 - $7,000 Donation from Mr. and Mrs.
Otis Pike
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/3/89:
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: February 3, 1989
SUBJECT: BUDGET DMENT - 047
FOR $7,000 DONATION FROM
MR. AND MRS. OTIS PIKE
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Vero Beach Library received a donation from Mr. and Mrs. Otis
Pike in the amount
purchase attached budgetamendm amendment appropriates$7,000 to purchase b oks. The
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve budget
amendment 047:
1989
5
BOOK 76 F&GE 76
`E 3 14 `989
ROOK /6 FAGF 77
Commissioner Bowman suggested that the Board write a letter
to the Pikes thanking them for their generous donation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment #047 in the amount of $7,000 to
purchase reference books for the Vero Beach Library.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER:
047
DATE: February 3, 1989
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
REVENUE •
GENERAL FUND Vero Beach Librar
001-000-366-095.00
7 000
0
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Youth Guidance .
Books
001-109-571-035.45
$ 7.000
$ 0
•
E. Budget Amendment #048 - Unemployment Compensation Charges to
the County
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/6/89:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: February 6, 1989
SUBJECT: UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
CHARGES TO THE COUNTY
BUDGET AMENDMENT - 048
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
FROM: Leila Miller
Budget Analyst
1* -
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.
6
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve budget
amendment 048 to refund Unemployment Compensation payments, funding
to come from contingencies.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment #048 to refund Unemployment
Compensation payments, funding to come from
contingencies.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER:
048
DATE: February 6, 1988
Entry
Number
1.
Funds/Department/Account Name
EXPENSE
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
GENERAL FUND
Administrator/Unemployment Comp
Parks/Unemployment/Compensation
Supv. Elections/Unemp.Comp.
Reserve for Contingency
001-201-512-012.15
001-210-572-012.15
$ 764.00
$ 9.00
001-700-519-012.15
$ 4.00
0
0
0
001-199-581-099.91
$
0
777.00
7
7E.3 141989
RQQ1. F'6,L
14 V989
BOOK /6 f {, �� 1 P
F. Release of County Liens
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/6/89:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Lea R. Keller, County Attorney's Office
DATE: February 6, 1989
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 2/14/89
RELEASE COUNTY LIENS
I have prepared the following lien releases and request the
Board authorize the Chairman to execute them:
Lot#69 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#227 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#112 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#140 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#212 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#213 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#157 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#182 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#187 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#228 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#119 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#234 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#160 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#161 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#162 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
8
Lot#163 of COB�CHSASSOCIATES in the name of
REALCOR-VERO
Lot#208 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH,
in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH
Lot#142 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#143 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#209 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#91 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#36 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#153 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#177 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#152 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#181 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#9 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#207 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES.
Lot#218 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#151 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#4 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#210 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#5 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#10 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot#196 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot 37, OLD SUGAR MILL UNIT 3 in the name of
SEXTON PROPERTIES OF VERO BEACH
Units 204 & 205 of PINE CREEK CONDO. UNIT III
in the name of LYNNLEE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
9
FED 1 4 1989
SCIA
fv.,E 80
FEB �-
989
BOOK 76 FADE 81
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
the Release of Utility Assessment Liens as set out in
the above memo.
RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIENS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
G. Proclamation - Mentally Handicapped Week
PROCLAMATION
PROCLAMATION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DESIGNATING
MARCH 2 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1989 AS
MENTALLY HANDICAPPED WEEK
WHEREAS, the Knights of Columbus, Vero Beach Council
5629, will be conducting its annual Tootsie Roll Drive to help
the handicapped and mentally retarded citizens, on March 2
through March 4, 1989; and
WHEREAS, proceeds from the donations will be used by
the Knights of Columbus for local programs and activities such as
the mentally retarded workshop and special olympics program; and
WHEREAS, on a nationwide basis, the Knights of Columbus
Councils will be conducting similar events during the same time
span; and
WHEREAS, with the help of many friends and local
organizations who have volunteered to assist the Knights of
Columbus in this year's endeavor, it is anticipated that the
proceeds .generated will be far in excess of last year's total;
and
WHEREAS, it_ is :.altogether fitting and proper to
officially recognize this worthy cause, and to help create a
public awareness and appreciation for all those who will be
"aproned and canistered" on March 2 through March 4, 1989 and
most of all, for all those who will contribute what they can from
their hearts and pockets to assist the mentally handicapped;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that March 2
through March 4, 1989 be officially observed as
MENTALLY HANDICAPPED WEEK
in Indian River County, and that special recognition be given to
the dates of March 2 through March 4, 1989 in support of this
worthwhile endeavor.
Adopted February 14, 1989
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ByJ
GARY WHEELER, CHAIRMAN
10
H. Proclamation - Dodger Day
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the Board of County. Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, on behalf of all the County citizens,
extends a warm welcome to.the 1988 WORLD CHAMPION LOS
ANGELES DODGERS; and
WHEREAS, the LOS ANGELES DODGERS have been World
Champions five times; National League Champions eleven
times; and have. been credited in the 1988 National League
Record with winning 94 games in a single season; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County is immensely proud of
their DODGERS, who train here every spring and who will
arrive on February 16, 1989; and
WHEREAS, this year will mark the 41st anniversary of
the DODGERS organization holding spring training in Indian
River County; and
WHEREAS, the facilities constructed by the DODGERS are
of unparalleled quality; the players are true champions in
every respect; and the DODGER management is responsible for
molding a dynamic, never -give -up winning team;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that February
25th, 1989 be designated as
• DODGERS DAY
in Indian River County.
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the Board hereby wishes
the LOS ANGELES DODGERS continued success in 1989.
Dated this 14th day
February, 1989
FES;' 14 1989
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
Gar . W eeler,.
Charman
11
COOK w10 FAGr. 82
E 14 1999
DELETION OF ITEMS FROM FIXED ASSETS INVENTORY
BOOK 6 FCL 83
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 218/89:
TO:
FROM:
The Honorable Board of
County Commissioners
Edwin M. Fry, Jr.
Finance Director
DATE:
February 8, 1989 FILE:
SUBJECT: Deletion of Items From Fixed
Assets Inventory
REFERENCES:
We would like to delete all beeper -pagers and air packs from the Fixed Assets
Inventory Listings.
It has become increasingly difficult to take a physical inventory of the
pagers since we must track down the individual who has the pager; the pager is
in the shop for repairs or the pager has been swapped -out because it was
defective. Also, since the pagers are a single use item and cannot be used for
other purposes, we do not feel that we will be exposing the County to a
significant risk of loss. The historical cost of the pagers ranges from a high
of $340.00 to a low of $200.00, the current replacement cost.
It is also difficult to take a physical inventory of the air packs since
we try to account for them by fire station. When the air packs go out with the
fire fighters on a call, sometimes they end up going back to a different station.
Since the air packs are a single use item and cannot be used for other purposes,
we do not feel that we will be exposing the County to a significant risk of
loss. Also, the South County Fire District has stated that they do not feel it
is cost -beneficial to inventory the air packs. The historical cost of the air
packs ranges from $600.00 to $700.00.
Based on the above information, we recommend that the Board not inventory
beeper -pagers and air packs and treat them as non -capital expenditures.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
the deletion of beeper -pagers and air packs from
Fixed Assets inventory, as recommended by Finance
Director Ed Fry.
POSTPONEMENT OF DISCUSSION REGARDING PROHIBITION OF AIRBOAT AND
AMPHIBIOUS VEHICLE LAUNCHING AT BLUE CYPRESS LAKE PARK
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 2/8/89:
12
�IIQYt{E
P.O. BOX BOB
PHONE 569-6700
MI1
R.T. "TIM" DOBECK • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32961.0608
February 8, 1989
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
Vero Beach, Floridd
RE: Prohibition of airboat and amphibious vehicle
launching at Blue Cypress Lake Park
Gentlemen:
I would like to have the above matter placed on the
Agenda for the next meeting of the County Commission
for consideration and open discussion.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
R. T. DOBECK, SHERIFF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By:
Neil Bevis, Deputy
Administrator Chandler requested the removal of this item as
he felt the issue would be resolved before the end of this week.
He advised that Commissioner Bird will be discussing this at a
meeting of the Recreational Advisory Committee of the St. Johns
Water Management District later this week, and if it is not
resolved, they would bring it back to the Board at a later date.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously tabled
this matter for an indefinite time.
13
FEB 141989
I OOI' 76 F,,n 84
FE0 14 `i989
BOOK 7t f a F
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO PROVIDE FOR
PUBLIC/PRIVATE DOCKS 1N RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
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 Z M
in the
Iished in said newspaper in the issues of
Court, was pub -
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of
(SEAL)
(CI
r (Bu ess`M 'afjerG/'Z
J ,p
•c _ • • y�if fail$@)"
NOTICE—PUBLIC NOTICE ••NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which par-
ties in interest and citizens shall have an oppor-
tunity to be heard, in the County Commission
Chambers of the County Administration Build-
ing.Iocated at 1840 25th St., Vero Beach, Flor-
ida. on Tuesday, February 14, 1989, at 9:05 a.m..
to consider the adoption of an Ordinance enti-
tled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER• •'
COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING SEC
TION 2 DEFINITIONS, SECTION 25.1.
REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND.
USES, AND SECTIONS • 5(A), 6, 10(A),
AND 11(A) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS'
OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF ,
LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, KNOWN AS
THE ZONING CODE, PROVIDING FOR
PUBLIC/PRIVATE DOCKS IN RESIDEN-
TIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND DEFIN-
ING SAME; PROVIDING FOR SPECIFIC
CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING SUCH
USE; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; CODI-
FICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFEC-'
TIVEDATE. •=
A copy of the proposed Ordinance will be
available at the Planning Department office on
the second floor of the County Administration
Building.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding
is made which Includes the testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal will be based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Gary Wheeler, Chairman
Jan. 25, 1989
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/4/89:
TO: James Chandler, County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keati g,CP
Community Developmt Director
pp
FROM: Robert M. Loeper 404-
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: January 4, 1989
SUBJECT: SEA OAKS REQUEST TO PERMIT "PUBLIC/PRIVATE DOCKS" IN
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of February 14, 1989.
BACKGROUND CONDITIONS:
The regulation of docking facilities is one which is governed by a
multiplicity of governmental regulations. These include federal,
state and local laws affecting dredge and fill activities,
navigation, natural resource protection, land use, and others.
On sovereignty lands, dock construction is even more difficult.
Sovereignty lands are those areas in which the state claims
ownership - generally all submerged lands on navigable, natural
waterways. Since the state owns the submerged bottomlands in
these areas, an upland property owner who wants to construct a
dock must lease from the state the submerged land over which the
dock will be built. In leasing bottomlands, the state charges a
fee to the leasee reflecting the value of the submerged land. The
amount of the lease as well as the size of the facility allowed,
however, are also based upon various public benefits such as the
public access to be provided by the dock.
To encourage public access to water, the state charges a lower
lease fee and allows the construction of a larger facility for
commercial docks than for private residential docks. According to
the state's definition, a commercial dock is one where at least
50% of the berths are open to the public on a first-come,
first-served basis. This definition conflicts with county
regulations.
Commercial 'docks in the county are allowed only in commercially
zoned areas. While the county allows multi -slip docking
facilities in conjunction with residential developments, these
docks are only allowed when accessory to the residential use.
This means that the docks can be used only by residents of the
development. Because no slips in accessory multi -slip docking
facilities may be rented to the public, such docks do not qualify
for the reduced lease rates and expanded lease area available to
docks meeting the state commercial criteria.
In order to allow private multi -slip docks to qualify for the more
liberal lease and size criteria, Sea Oaks Development Company has
requested that the county's code be amended to allow limited
public use of multi -slip docking facilities associated with
residential developments. This request is to establish a
mechanism to permit public/private docking facilities which allow
public access in multi -family developments or residential
subdivisions.
15
FED 141999
Dou 76 F'A.,E 8U
F E B 14 `a989
Page 2
January 4, 1989
BOOK 76 PCE 87
The applicant contends that while state regulations encourage
public access to multi -slip docking facilities in aquatic
preserves, county ordinances restrict multi -slip residential dock
access to residents of the project associated with the dock. It
is the applicant's contention that the county's requirements
limiting public use of docks to facilities located in commercially
zoned areas severely limits public access to docking facilities.
The proposed changes would make the county's code more similar
with FDNR allowances.
On January 12, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-1
to recommend approval of this request.
ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES
In the review of this request, staff examined its reasonableness
as well as any negative impacts that the request might have on
existing or future development. Before analyzing the subject
request, however, it is necessary to analyze current multi -slip
residential dock regulations.
As structured, the county zoning code limits uses to specific
zoning districts. The purpose of the regulation is to group
similar uses together and to prohibit incompatible uses within
those districts. Besides the uses allowed in specific districts,
accessory uses (those uses which are customarily associated with
allowed principal uses) are also allowed in each district. These
principles of zoning are the basis of the county's current dock
regulations.
The county's code allows multi -slip docks as accessory uses to
residential developments because, like garages or swimming pools,
docks are typical improvements• associated with housing
developments. To protect the integrity of the development by
limiting outside traffic and intrusion by the general public, dock
usage is limited to residents of the project. Consistent with
these principles, public docks are designated as commercial uses
and are limited to commercial zoning districts.
Limiting public use of dock facilities, however, is somewhat
inconsistent with the county's policy of promoting public access
to waterbodies. For that reason the applicant's request warrants
consideration. In analyzing the applicant's proposal, however,
several issues must be considered. These are the potential
impacts on residential developments from public use of boat slips,
the issue of restriction of dockage facilities, and the public
access issue.
The first issue involves the potential impact on a development of
public use of docking facilities constructed as part of the
development project. Such a facility would likely contain
characteristics of both private and commercial facilities. Since
this type of facility would be open to the public, the surrounding
residential development and adjacent areas are would likely
experience an increase in traffic commensurate with the size of
the facility. In conjunction with increased traffic would be the
need to provide adequate parking facilities for those slips which
are not rented to residents. Even with the proposed ordinance
change, the facility would not operate as a commercial dock other
than the renting of slips. Any other commercial facilities
including fueling, storage of marine equipment, sewage pump -out,
or other commercial facilities would not be permitted.
The second issue involves the size restriction of such a facility.
Currently, the county controls the size of multi -slip docking
facilities through accessory use criteria. Since accessory uses
must be incidental to and subordinate to the principal use, the
size of the dock is limited by the size of the development with
which it is associated. If residential multi -slip docks are no
longer considered accessory uses, however, there would be no
county size restrictions.
16
Page 3
January 4, 1989
While the FDNR regulations limit the size of private residential
multi -slip docks, these regulations do not apply to what the state
considers a commercial docking facility. Whereas private
facilities including membership facilities are limited to a
maximum square footage to linear shoreline ratio of 10:1, no
specific size limitation applies to docks classified as
commercial. Any local regulations which limit the dock size would
apply.
The third issue involves the provision of public access to the
Indian River and docking facilities. The county zoning code
presently requires that residential subdivisions which front the
Indian River, Atlantic Ocean, Intracoastal Waterway or other
natural body of water in excess of 600 lineal feet provide a
public access easement to the county or the dedication of the fair
market value of such easement to be used for capital improvements
to the park system. Thus, the proposed public/private docking
facility would not only promote and encourage public access but
also strengthen existing regulations which are designed to ensure
public access to natural resources and recreation areas.
The Planning and Zoning Commission directed staff to examine the
need for specific guidelines to ensure the availability of these
facilities to the public. Within the ordinance are provisions
which prevent the leasing of slips to corporate entities and
require that such a facility meet the necessary provisions of the
state regulations. The lease with the state sets forth the
specific quantities of slips made available to the public as well
as requirements to satisfy that these objectives and regulations
are being met. These can include required submittals to the state
including a listing of persons renting slips. The DNR will take
enforcement action on the basis of failure to comply with lease
provisions and investigative action following complaints.
Based upon the analysis, the staff finds merit in the applicant's
request. Procedurally, the staff feels that the best way to
structure this change would be to amend the zoning code to create
a public/private dock use as a special exception in residential
districts with the following criteria:
1. It must be located in a single family or multi -family
zoning district;
2. It must be constructed in association with a
multi -family development or a residential subdivision;
3. It must be located in waters classified as an Aquatic
Preserve under Chapter 258, Florida Statues, as it may
be amended;
4. It must be authorized by all local, state, and federal
jurisdictional agencies, or have been granted express
waivers therefrom, prior to construction;
5. Berthing slips must be made available for renting to the
public at large in such quantities or ratio as may be
required by the Department of Natural Resources, the
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, or both,
according to the size of the docking facility;
6. Public access to any public/private docking facility
shall be in a manner which provides minimum impact to
surrounding residential uses;
7. Parking shall be provided at the ratio of one space per
three berthing slips.
17
FEB 141989
BooF. 76 FAcE. 88
'KB 1 4 1989 76 OH 89
Page 4
January 4, 1989
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
proposed ordinance amendment creating public/private docking
facilities and regulating their usage, as a special exception in
residential districts with the special conditions.
Commissioner Bird understood that this would be strictly a
dockage facility and there would not be any commercial uses such
as fuel pumps, etc. Basically, it's a question of the County
allowing docks to be used by someone other than a resident of a
particular development where the docks are located, or limiting
the use of the docks to the residents of that development.
Commissioner Bowman was concerned about requiring only one
parking space for three slips, and Commissioner Eggert pointed
out that most people today drive to where they are going, even
though they are going only one block or so.
Chairman Wheeler believed that the City of Vero Beach Marina
has fewer parking spaces than boat slips and anchorage, which
doesn't seem to cause a problem unless there is something going
on at the yacht club where they get an overflow. He also
believed that most people buy boats and just let them sit there.
Robert Keating, Director of Planning & Development, advised
that it is anticipated that most of the slips will be used by
residents of this particular project. He felt that one parking
space for every three berths is a good ratio, and pointed out
that we have the ability to require more spaces when we look at
the site plan to determine if the part of this that will be
accessory has sufficient parking.
18
Chairman Wheeler was concerned that even though we may not
particularly want to encourage opening up dockage for boats other
than residents in these areas, we are in kind of a Catch 22 since
the State will not permit it unless these percentages are
allowed.
Director Keating agreed that it is a Catch 22 since we
encourage public access in most of our regulations, but
discourage through movement in a subdivision.
Commissioner Bowman asked if we could write an ordinance
that is more restrictive than the State's ordinance, and Director
Keating advised we can, but pointed out that even if we leave our
ordinance the way it is, it is more restrictive than the State
ordinance, and Sea Oaks would not be allowed such a large dockage
facility there.
Commissioner Bowman understood that the Sea Oaks development
has to reserve at least 50% of the total number of boat slips for
non-residents, and asked where those people will park, assuming
that we are talking about Jungle Trail.
Director Keating advised that they are going to park
internal to the site. He emphasized that we are talking about an
ordinance that is going to affect the entire county, not just a
specific development. With respect to Sea Oaks, their site plan
for dockage in relation to the club facility that they have on
the east side of Jungle Trail has been approved already, and
parking will be at that facility. When the buffer area on Jungle
Trail is revegetated, a pathway will be built so people will be
able to walk from the parking at the club facility through the
buffer area and across the Trail to the docking facilities.
Director Keating noted that the recommendation in the proposed
management plan for Jungle Trail is that there be no parking
allowed on Jungle Trail in that area. Parking will be one of
the main topics of discussion at another workshop that has been
scheduled to discuss the controversial areas of the proposed
management plan that weren't covered in the first workshop.
19
FEB141989
BOOK 76 ME 90
r
ED 11
989
BOOK
GE FA
Chairman Wheeler opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Bruce Barkett, representing the Sea Oaks
Development Company, explained that sovereignty lands are in fact
under navigable waters, and they became the property of the State
when Florida became a state in 1845. The Governor and Cabinet,
sitting as the trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, hold
those lands in title for the public benefit. Since Sea Oaks is
situated on an aquatic preserve, which is a special designation
in the State Statutes, the trustees say that we cannot infringe
upon these waters with a dock of the proposed size unless we can
demonstrate that it is clearly in the public interest, which is a
much greater standard than just proving that it is not
detrimental to the public interest. Sea Oaks had to prove that
there is a public benefit for these docks, and they have done
that in several ways. The State has outlined several conditions
with which Sea Oaks has to comply:
1) Only 19 slips can be used for power boats; the rest are
to be used for sailboats;
2) A mooring site must be provided for the Marine Patrol;
3) No dredging. Only the natural depth of the water can be
used;
4) Rip rap has to be placed along the shoreline on both
sides of the dock for marine communities to grow in;
5) Mangroves must be planted;
6) Manatee warning signs and speed signs are to be posted;
Attorney Barkett explained that the State also says that
they manage these waters for the benefit of the public and want
to maximize public access to these waters; therefore, in order to
get approval of the dock of the proposed size, Sea Oaks has to
open up one half of the dockage to non residents. Sea Oaks
considers that -a win/win situation, because it gives Sea Oaks
more slips and it is a benefit to the public.
With respect to the parking questions, Attorney Barkett
advised that the parking was resolved during site plan review.
Sea Oaks is not asking for any more or less parking than you
would normally get in any site plan. In fact, Sea Oaks has extra
20
parking available right now. They will have 16 slips for this
dock, and adjacent to that or very near that, there are 6 extra
slips for one of the buildings already constructed. In addition,
there is going to be a mariners' club, which will have 15 slips;
so we are talking about 37 parking spaces for 42 slips. There is
ample parking. Attorney Barkett emphasized that it is the
residents that are asking to do this and Sea Oaks is asking the
County to let them open themselveseup for this limited public
use. This isn't going to mean that some other subdivision that
wants to have a docking facility within its borders will be
required to open it up to the public. They would have to come to
the County and ask for it, and the County would have to review it
on its merits and add any conditions they feel are necessary.
Attorney Barkett asked for the Board's support in adopting the
proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if they were going to put up
that ugly, black chain link fence, but Attorney Barkett felt that
Commissioner Scurlock would love it after all the vegetation is
planted.
Commissioner Bowman was worried about them being able to
grow red mangroves nearby with all that turbulence in the Inter-
coastal.
Commissioner Wheeler asked how many docks will be accessible
to the public, and Attorney Barkett advised that they have never
computed the actual number. There would be approximately 19 or
20 docks if it wasn't made accessible to the public, and then 48
if half of them are made available to the public, which gives Sea
Oaks residents an additional 5 docks.
Commissioner Scurlock assumed that if the public docks go
unused by the public, Sea Oaks could make full utilization of
them, but Attorney Barkett felt they have to be kept available to
non-residents of the development, and that if the public doesn't
come in and use them, they still must be maintained on an
available status.
21
E 1L 1989
PooK i6 rnE 94
Pr -
FEB
FEB 1 4 1989
BOOK15 FA, 93
Commissioner Bird didn't feel there would be a problem
there, not with the shortage of docks in this county.
Commissioner Bowman still questioned the sufficiency of one
parking space for three berths, but Chairman Wheeler felt that
was adequate because many people will park their boats there and
not use them. Even in the summer you will find that many of the
boats are not in use.
Commissioner Bird felt we could try it on this basis, and if
it proves to be a problem, we always can amend the ordinance and
require more parking.
Attorney Barkett pointed out that Sea Oaks is planning to
make it a condition of the dock lease that you have to park in
the parking facility, and that if you park on Jungle Trail, you
lose your lease.
There being no others who wished to be heard, Chairman
Wheeler closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Bowman suggested that we allow a pump -out
facility there, and wanted to see us prepare an ordinance that
requires pump -out facilities.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Ordinance 89-8, permitting "public/private docks" in
residential zoning districts; and instructed staff to
include in the ordinance the requirement of a pump -out
facility.
22
1/6/89
PNOT
LR -Planning
RL/vj
ORDINANCE NO. 89-8
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
SECTION 2 DEFINITIONS, SECTION 25.1. REGULATIONS FOR
SPECIFIC LAND USES, AND SECTIONS 5(A), 6, 10(A), AND 11(A)
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, KNOWN AS THE
ZONING CODE, PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC/PRIVATE DOCKS IN
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND DEFINING SAME; PROVIDING
FOR SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING SUCH USE; AND
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1
Section 2 (b) of the language and definitions of Appendix A,
Zoning, of Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances is
hereby amended as follows:
Dock, Public/Private. A fixed or floating structure,
including moorings, used for the purpose of berthing buoyant
vessels, which structure does not provide fueling, or other
commercial services normally associated with a marina,
except that berthing slips may be rented or leased to the
general public.
SECTION 2
Section 25.1 (o) of Appendix A, the Zoning Code, Indian
River County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(7) Public/Private Docks (Special Exception)
a. Districts requiring special exception:
Public/Private Docks may be allowed in the RS -1,
RS -3, RS -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6, and RM -8 Districts
upon receiving approval for a special exception as
provided in Section 25.3 and after meeting the
requirements defined below.
b. Additional information requirements:
1. A site plan showing the location, dimensions
and area of dock facility and meeting all
requirements of Section 23.
c. Criteria for Public/Private Docks:
1. It must be located in a single family or
multi -family zoning district;
Coding: Words in 114,010tliVIA type are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions.
141999
1
E 9
FEB 1 41999
BOOK
.76 ['AGE 95
ORDINANCE NO. 89- 8
2. It must be constructed in association
with a multi -family development or a
residential subdivision;
3. It must be located in water classified
as an Aquatic Preserve under Chapter
258, Florida Statues, as it may be
amended;
4. It must be authorized
state, and federal
agencies, or have been
waivers therefrom,
construction;
by all local,
jurisdictional
granted express
prior to
5. Berthing slips must be made available
for renting to the public (natural
persons) at large in such quantities or:
ratio as may be required by the
Department of Natural Resources, the
Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Fund, or both, according the the size of
the docking facility;
6. Public access to any public/private
docking facility shall be in a manner
which provides minimum impact to
surrounding residential uses;
7. Parking shall be provided at the ratio
of one space per three berthing slips.
8. Sewage pump -out facilities must be
included in public/private docking
facilities.
SECTION 3
Section 5(A) (d) (5) of Appendix A, the Zoning Code, Indian
River County Code of
read as follows:
Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to
5. Recreation Uses. (Section 25.1 (e))
County Clubs
Golf Courses
Public/Private Docks
SECTION 4
Section 6 (d) (5) of
River County Code of Laws
read as follows:
Appendix A, the Zoning Code, Indian
and Ordinances is hereby amended to
5. Recreation Uses. (Section 25.1 (e))
County Clubs
Golf Courses
Public/Private Docks
Coding: Words in WIdantitia type are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions.
ORDINANCE NO. 89-8
SECTION 5
Section 10(A) (d) (5) of Appendix A, the Zoning Code, Indian
River County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to
read as follows:
5. Recreation Uses. (Section 25.1 (e))
Country Clubs
Golf Courses
Tennis Facilities and Beach Clubs
Public/Private Docks
SECTION 6
Section 11(A) (d) (5) of Appendix A, the Zoning Code, Indian
River County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to
read as follows:
5. Recreation Uses. (Section 25.1 (e))
Country Clubs
Golf Courses
Tennis Facilities and Beach Clubs
Yacht Clubs
Public/Private Docks
SECTION 7
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida
which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the
legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian
River County and which conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 8
CODIFICATION
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
Coding: Words in 4tt00101a1J14 type are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions.
FEB 1 4 1989
3 w.E 96
r`Z
FED =14 i989
BOOK
76 FACE
97
ORDINANCE NO. 89- 8
of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish
such intentions.
SECTION 9
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or
word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not
affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to
have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without
such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 10
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon
receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official
acknowledgement that this ordinance has been filed with the
Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 14th day of February ,
1989.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press -Journal on the 25th day of January 1989, for a public
hearing to be held on the 14th day of February,1989, at which
time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock ,
seconded by Commissioner
vote:
Eggert , and adopted by the following
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
ORDINANCE NO. 89-8
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY ,e.,, C A L k.(!,v..-
Gary Ci Wheeler, Chairman
ATTEST BY.
..))4et`415
Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the
State o
Florida this 27th day of February . 1989.
Effective Date: Acknowledgement from the Department of State
received on this 2nd day of March 1989, at 11:00
A.M.,/P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY.
William Collins, Assistant County Attorney
f
Robert M. Ke ting AICP
Community Development Director
Sea Oaks Dock Ord.
pnot
COUNTY EMPLOYEES UNUSED VACATION TIME
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/7/89:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: February 7, 1989 FILE:
FRO
SUBJECT:
• James E. Chandler
County Administrator
REFERENCES:
At the January 10, 1989 meeting the Commission asked that 1 review the
request from OMB Director Joe Baird for payment of unused vacation time and
also determine whether other employees may be subject to the same
circumstances.
Current policy provides that vacation leave can be accumulated to a maximum
of twenty working days. Annual accrued vacation can be carried from one
27
FEB 14 1989
moi( 76 r4,1i-E 98
I ` 1989
BOOK 76 [AU 9
year. to the next, but is not to exceed the 20 day maximum. Any amounts
over the 20 day limit are automatically dropped. The policy stipulates that an
employee will not be paid for earned vacation leave, in lieu of taking such
leave, except upon termination.
In my opinion, the current policy is realistic and equitable to both the
employee and the County. I believe based on the accrual rates, sufficient
time is given to liquidate the leave prior to losing any.
To be effective the policy must be consistently and uniformly applied.
Additionally, the employee must be given the opportunity to take the time off,
otherwise I believe the County may be liable from a practical and perhaps
legal standpoint if the leave is dropped. An employee must also recognize
that in some instances portions of the leave may not always totally coincide
with a time the employee considers convenient.
Attached is a list of employees reflecting time lost for the period October,
1987 to December, 1988 as well as their balance as of December 31, 1988.
You will note that some employees lost in excess of 100 hours and are at the
maximum now. The difference in time lost requested by Joe Baird and that
reflected on the list is the time element covered.
In a check of several of those listed, it appears they had the opportunity but
chose not to take the time. My impression is that is the case with the vast
majority of those listed. To be as accurate as possible, an extremely time
consuming survey of each employee and their supervisor would be required.
In recent years, however, it also appears that there may have been some
inconsistency in application of the policy, some degree of confusion about the
policy, and in some instances the belief the time would not be lost.
Since there has been some "confusion" and I do not believe a time consuming
survey would be totally productive, it is my recommendation that on a one
time basis an opportunity be extended to liquidate the time lost per the
attached formula. I do not believe compensation for that time is justified.
If the Commission concurs with the preceding, all employees will be informed
of the current policy. Additionally, they will periodically be reminded to take
the time or it will be lost. It will be uniformly applied to all. An employee
can also keep track of their balance since it appears on their pay check stub.
With respect to Joe Baird, I believe that his situation is an extreme compared
to the others. There appears to be no question that he was given extensive
additional responsibilities and it would have been difficult to take the time if
the job was to be done properly. There were also some instances where time
off was requested and he was denied. However, I cannot document that some
time could not have been taken. As a result, although his case may be
extreme, I cannot justify a recommendation contrary to that recommended for
all employees.
28
EXCESS VACATION -ALTERNATIVE
The preceding chart titled "EXCESS VACATION -HOURS DELETED" shows
Indian River County employees' vacation credits lost between
10-1-87 and 12-31-88 and measures the cost of pavinct for those
lost credits. On this page an alternative is examined; that of
providing for the use of the lost credits.
If employees are permitted to use their excess hours between now
and the end of calendar 1989 they should first consider the rate
at which they must use the "excess" hours. Second, since many of
them are at the maximum accrual now, they must also plan to use
some of the vacation presently accruing at the same time.
The table below the broken line provides a general guide for the
combined hours which must be used each month, or at the monthly
equivalent. On the left appears the required use of "excess"
(lost credits) and across the top is the required use of this
year's "accrual" in order to avoid violating the maximum accrual
again. In the matrix, the point at which the "excess" row
crosses the "accrual" column is the amount to be used each month,
or at the monthly equivalent.
IF TOTAL EXCESS VAC = 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 hrs
MONTHLY USE RATE = 1.4 2.3 3.2 4.1 5.0 5.9 6.8 7.7 8.6 9.5 hrs
IF TOTAL EXCESS VAC = 115 125 135 145 155 165 hrs
MONTHLY USE RATE = 10.5 11.4 12.3 13.2 14.1 15.0 hrs
E
X
C
E
S
S
V
A
C
A
T
I
0
N
PRESENT MONTHLY VACATION ACCRUAL RATE(Basis-8 hr day)
USE
15.0
6:7
7.3
8.0
8.7
9.3
10.0
10.7
11.3
12.0
12.7
13.3
21.7
22.3
23.0
23.7
24.3
25.0
25.7
26.3
27.0
27.7
28.3
14.0
20.7
21.3
22.0
22.7
23.3
24.0
24.7
25.3
26.0
26.7
27.3
13.2
19.9
20.5
21.2
21.9
22.5
23.2
23.9
24.5
25.2
25.9
26.5
12.3
19.0
19.6
20.3
21.0
21.6
22.3
23.0
23.6
24.3
25.0
25.6
11.4
18.1
18.7
19.4
20.1
20.7
21.4
22.1
22.7
23.4
24.1
24.7
10.5
17.2
17.8
18.5
19.2
19.8
20.5
21.2
21.8
22.5
23.2
23.8
9.5
16.2
16.8
17.5
18.2
18.8
19.5
20.2
20.8
21.5
22.2
22.8
8.6
15.3
15.9
16.6
17.3
17.9
18.6
19.3
19.9
20.6
21.3
21.9
7.7
14.4
15.0
15.7
16.4
17.0
17.7
18.4
19.0
19.7
20.4
21.0
6.8
13.5
14.1
14.8
15.5
16.1
16.8
17.5
18.1
18.8
19.5
20.1
5.9
12.6
13.2
13.9
14.6
15.2
15.9
16.6
17.2
17.9
18.6
19.2
5.0
11.7
12.3
13.0
13.7
14.3
15.0
15.7
16.3
17.0
17.7
18.3
4.1
10.8
11.4
12.1
12.8
13.4
14.1
14.8
15.4
16.1
16.8
17.4
3.2
9.9
10.5
11.2
11.9
12.5
13.2
13.9
14.5
15.2
15.9
16.5
2.3
9.0
9.6
10.3
11.0
11.6
12.3
13.0
13.6
14.3
15.0
15.6
1.4
8.1
8.7
9.4
10.1
10.7
11.4
12.1
12.7
13.4
14.1
14.7
29
FED 1 1989
Personnel 1-20-89
LOCK
100 �/ � f ,h, �, C
989
EXCESS VACATION -HOURS DELETED
BOOK 76 PACE 101
1-18-89
Personnel
10-87 to
12-31-88 12-88 PAY PAY IN
NAME DEPT End, BALANCE HRS LOST X RATE= LIEU
L.Peterson GenSvs 37110 107.5 68.8 10.64 732.03
E.Chalmers GenSvs 37111 95.0 6.3 9.07 57.14
P.Hall GenSvs 37116 122.0 6.3 9.07 57.14
J.Wakefield GenSvs 01650 150.0 73.5 9.37 688.70
D.Pinkerton GenSvs 01610 126.9 6.3 8.63 54.37
J.Mosely,Jr. GenSvs 33577 160.0 70.7 5.80 410.06
S.Dean GenSvs 36691 115.0 5.0 24.06 120.30
K.Ekonomou GenSvs 12027 93.1 35.7 9.89 353.07
J.Hallquist GenSvs 33500 150.0 7.0 10.48 73.36
M.Keller GenSvs 30215 137.5 10.8 11.52 124.42
L.Staley GenSvs 31005 150.0 12.4 9.89 122.64
Dept. Total $2,793.23
R.Hailey,Sr. P.Wks. 05150 150.0
E.Wilson P.Wks. 09001 160.0
D.Coleman P.Wks. 04510 93.3
J.Lindrose P.Wks. 06000 98.7
B.Reddie P.Wks. 13038 160.0
A.Brown P.Wks. 11888 106.7
S.Ryan P.Wks. 13107 118.8
W.Dansbury P.Wks. 12013 160.0
J.Davis P.Wks. 00360 150.0
J.Laster,Jr. P.Wks. 05871 150.0
R.Smith P.Wks. 07571 125.4
D.Gentile P.Wks. 05087 96.3
J.Thomas,Jr. P.Wks. 30040. 94.7
G.Campbell P.Wks. 11999 160.0
A.VanAuken P.Wks. 07900 112.5
M.Williams P.Wks. 08174 148.7
L.Patterson P.Wks. 07000 122.7
M.Lewis Utili. 31025 160.0
T.Southard Utili. 33557 149.4
A.Adolphson Utili. 02092 104.0
E.Williams Utili. 36817 122.5
L.Young Utili. 15040 122.7
E.Bullard Utili. 30175 160.0
T.Pinto Utili. 33419 142.5
B.O'Keefe Utili. 31085 120.0
J.McNeal Utili. 06600 90.0
D.Baita Utili. 04165 157.4
Continued on page 2
30
164.0 18.73 3,071.72
75.5 7.52 567.76
33.4 10.10 337.34
9.3 7.82 73.04
111.7 7.88 880.20
20.7 8.36 173.05
10.0 13.45 134.50
34.8 9.21 320.51
34.6 28.27 978.14
83.8 13.86 1,161.47
5.4 11.23 60.64
19.6 16.44 322.22
6.2 9.09 56.36
3.7 9.24 34.19
5.0 20.39 101.95
13.8 7.54 104.05
10.6 7.54 79.92
Dept. Total $8,457.06
10.3 8.76 90.23
48.1 15.26 734.01
17.4 9.26 161.12
68.8 11.76 809.09
48.0 11.08 531.84
110.9 9.21 1,021.39
78.0 28.27 2,205.06
20.0 15.27 305.40
5.0 14.56 72.80
1.3 12.04 15.65
Dept. Total $5,946.59
Page 2 Vacation Excess Hrs. 1-18-89
10-87 to
12-31-88 12-88 PAY PAY IN
NAME DEPT EMP.# BALANCE HRS LOST X RATE = LIEU
J.Baird Budget 33349 150.0 100.7 27.24 2,743.07
K.Massung Budget 36821 114.8 5.3 9.15 48.50
Dept. Total $2,791.57
L.Forlani BCC 00540 125.0 29.5 16.20 477.90
Dept. Total $ 477.90
E.Rymer ComDev 33625 125.0 29.0 23.11 670.90
Dept. Total $ 670.90
B.Mooney Golf 37141 150.0 19.0 10.37 197.03
Dept. Total $ 197.03
Grand Total $21,334.28
Commissioner Scurlock complimented Administrator Chandler on
having prepared such an outstanding memo for the Board's review,
in terms of its structure and clarity.
Administrator Chandler felt the most equitable solution, on
a one-time basis, would be to give those individuals listed an
opportunity to take their unused vacation time by the end of this
calendar year using the formula as set out above. He did not
believe they should be paid for the lost time. Irrespective of
what is done today, he did not intend for there to be any
question about our policy in the future. The policy will be
applied consistently and equally to all individuals involved.
Employees will have the opportunity to take the time off, and if
they don't, they will lose their time.
Commissioner Bird hoped this could be done without
triggering a lot of overtime pay or getting in additional
employees to cover for these employees, and Administrator
Chandler assured him that was his intent.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that in some of these cases where
additional areas of responsibility were assigned, the
31
FEB 14 1989
lb L102
989
BOOK 76 PACE 103
individuals' salaries had increased dramatically, and he believed
there is an up side to that as well.
Administrator Chandler was a firm believer in the fact that
vacation time is there for a specific reason, and that is to get
away from work at certain points in time.
Commissioner Eggert agreed in concept with everything
Administrator Chandler said, but had a problem in asking the OMB
Director to take off 3-1/2 months this year if he wants to catch
up with his earned vacation time, especially when in one instance
he was specifically asked by a former acting county administrator
to stay here. It seemed to her that we have run into some major
impracticalities here.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board approve the
Administrator's recommendation as outlined in the above
memo.
Under discussion, Chairman Wheeler agreed with Administrator
Chandler's position with regard to taking vacation time, but
personally wanted to see the slate wiped clean and everybody
brought back to scale as far as accrued vacation time. He
believed there are 3 or more individuals listed who have
legitimate reasons for not taking their vacation time. He would
support spending the $21,000 to bring everybody up to par, wiping
the state clean, and then religiously adhering to the policy of
"take it or lose it." He pointed out that we have money in the
Road & Bridge salary budget.
Commissioner Eggert could not forget that former County
Attorney Gary Brandenburg was given his compensation. That, and
because certain statements were made to certain individuals, she
felt those people had justification to believe they would not
lose their accrued vacation time. If that had not happened, she
would be in agreement with the recommendation.
32
Director Baird explained that right when Mike Wright
resigned as county administrator, he had scheduled a 2 -week
vacation because he had reached maximum vacation time, but was
asked not to go on vacation. The time kept accruing and a little
further down the road, the purchasing manager quit; the assistant
purchasing manager quit; there was no one in Risk Management; and
all of that responsibility was given to him. Whenever he brought
the subject to the County Administrator's attention and asked
what he should do about it, the County Administrator said, "Joe,
don't worry about it, we will take care of you." Director Baird
noted that this was told to him at a division head meeting, and
all the divisions heads had heard that reassurance. He believed
the policy of taking your vacation time is right, but if you are
denied the right, you are not getting the same rights as other
employees.
Commissioner Bird realized that Mr. Baird was denied that
right at a particular time, but felt that somehow over that
ensuing year there had to be some Mondays or Fridays he could
have taken off for some long weekends without the County going to
heck in a hand basket.
Commissioner Scurlock wanted to clarify the point, because
it has not been an absolute truth, that department heads were
told that they were going to lose their vacation if they did not
take it. He recalled that Utilities Director Terry Pinto came
before the Board approximately 8 months ago arguing for his
vacation time, and former Personnel Director William Blankenship
indicated he would lose it.
Director Baird maintained that they were not told they were
going to lose it, and recalled that when Director Pinto had asked
that question in a division head meeting, he was told "you are
not going to lose your time."
Commissioners Bird and Scurlock still did not feel that
employees should be paid for their unused vacation time.
33
FEB 14 1989
eooK
6 Fart.104
14 1989
BOOK 76 PAGE 105
Commissioner Bowman felt that because Director Baird has
done so much to care care of this county, she would like to see
him better taken care of.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
failed by a vote of 2-3, Commissioners Wheeler,
Eggert and Bowman dissenting.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board authorize the
payment of the total cost of $21,334.28 for unused
vacation hours for those employees listed in the
above memo, and begin strict adherence to the policy
that employees will either take their vacation time or
lose it.
Under discussion, Commissioner Scurlock asked what kind of a
budget amendment would be necessary, but Director Baird did not
feel one would be necessary due to turnover. He advised that he
would check into every account, and if one is necessary, do one
after the fact.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
carried by a vote of 3-2, Commissioners Bird and
Scurlock dissenting.
PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT OSLO/20TH AVENUE FOR SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL PARK
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/7/89:
34
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: February 7, 1989
FRO
SUBJECT:
James E. Chandler
• County Administrator REFERENCES:
FILE:
Attached is a proposal submitted to Mr. Edmund Ansin for purchase of the
76.93 acre tract for a regional park at Oslo Road and 20th Avenue. He has
transmitted this date his acceptance of the proposal.
Current year funding is available from the $200,000 budgeted for the
property and $350,000 in unanticipated revenue from the legal settlement for
ad valorem taxes on time sharing units. The final payments would be
budgeted the next two years and non ad valorem sources have been pledged.
It has been made clear by the negotiating team, that obviously the proposal is
subject to consideration and approval by the Commission.
PURCHASE PRICE:
DOWN PAYMENT :
CLOSING COSTS:
TERMS:
INTEREST RATE:
SOUTH COUNTY PARK
80 ACRES ON OSLO ROAD AND 20TH AVE.
$1,450,000
$550,000
$15,000
TWO YEARS
9%
DOWN PAYMENT
FIRST YEAR
SECOND YEAR
TOTAL
PRINCIPAL
565,000
450,000
450,000
$1,465,000
9%
INTEREST
81,000
40,500
$121,500
REMAINING
PRINCIPAL
TOTAL AMOUNT
565,000
531,000
490,500
$1,586,500
Administrator Chandler explained that as a result of our
negotiations with Mr. Ansin's representative, Mr. Ansin has
agreed to a purchase price of $1,450,000 for a
of property at Oslo Road and 20th Avenue which
$1,365,000 in 1987.
In addition, Mr. Ansin is
900,000
450,000
0
76.93 -acre parcel
was appraised at
agreeable to one
initial payment of $565,000 and then equal installment payments
35
FEB 14 li989
F g 6 FAa 1
pr—
E E 14 `d989
BOOK 76 f'a:r,E 107
of $450,000 for a 2 -year period at 9% interest. The total impact
in terms of cost would be $1,586,500, which includes interest in
the amount of $121,500, as well as $15,000 for our closing costs
and any survey costs. There are sufficient funds in the current
year's budget to cover the expenses for the first year.
Obviously, during the next two budget years, we will be required
to budget bonds for the balance of the payments. Since we cannot
pledge ad valorem taxes, we have indicated to Mr. Ansin that we
would pledge non ad valorem sources.
Commissioner Eggert asked if we have more funds than what is
required for the $500,000, and Administrator Chandler explained
although we have that potential, at this point in time we feel we
probably should not go above that amount this year. If later on
we are able to work that out, we could work out an agreement with
Mr. Ansin if necessary.
Commissioner Bird encouraged his fellow Commissioners'
support of this as he felt we are extremely lacking in
recreational facilities in the southwest part of the county.
This is a beautiful piece of property in an excellent location
for which we already have a conceptual master plan for a
tremendous number of recreational activities. He believed the
price is very reasonable and that we should purchase this
property while it is still available.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board approve the
purchase of the Ansin property in the amount of
$1,450,000 payable in the terms as set out in the above
letter.
Under discussion, Commissioner Scurlock said he would like
to see us come up with a timetable for making some actual
improvements even if they are minimal, such as $8,000 for a
jogging trail.
36
F
Commissioner Bird advised that they would start to work on
that immediately.
Commissioner Bowman was all for parks and recreation, but
wanted to see this county start spending some money to save
environmentally sensitive lands. She felt strongly that we
should acquire some of these lands while they are still
available.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
AUTHORIZATION FOR APPLICATION FOR ABANDONMENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR
ALLEY BISECTING BLOCK 37 (NEW LIBRARY SITE)
The Board reviewed the proposed application for abandonment
of the right-of-way, and Administrator Chandler advised that the
only action needed today is authorization for the Chairman to
sign the application.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the application for abandonment of right-of-way for the
alley bisecting Block 37, which is the location of the
new library site, and authorized the Chairman's
signature.
DISCUSSION OF LANGUAGE PROPOSED FOR ADVERTISEMENT OF 1 -CENT SALES
TAX FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
The Board reviewed the following sample of a newspaper
advertisement supporting the 1 -cent sales tax:
B 14 1989
37
�UO� �OM PAGE 10J
3 1 4 1989
BOOK .76 PAGE 109
ATTENTION VOTERS 1
The Governing Bodies of
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, VERO BEACH, INDIAN RIVER SHORES,
SEBASTIAN, FELLSMERE AND ORCHID
UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSED
SUPPORT OF A ONE CENT SALES TAX SURCHARGE AT THE MARCH 14, 1989
ELECTION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
REASON 1: REQUIRED CAPITAL PROJECTS: Jails,
parks, health facilities, roads,
etc.
REASON 2:
REASON 3:
REASON 4:
REASON 5:
REASON 6:
REASON 7:
FAIR ALTERNATIVE TO: Property Taxes and fees.
ALL USERS CONTRIBUTE: Up to 40% of revenues from
tourists and non -property owners.
CURRENT EXIIMPTIONS apply such as: food and
medicine.
MONEY CAN BE USED FOR CAPITAL expenses only.
CITIES AND COUNTY SHARE in revenues.
LIMITED TIME PERIOD: Fifteen (15)
years maximum.
REASON 8: PUBLIC HEARINGS: Project priorities approved at
public hearings.
Paid for by Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
Administrator Chandler explained that in developing the
language for the above ad, they tried to be objective and
factual, but at the same time have an ad that would catch the
individual's attention and not be too wordy.
Commissioner Scurlock didn't know if Reason #3 was totally
accurate. It might be true in other parts of the state that
38
tourists and non -property owners contribute up to 40%, but not
here in Indian River County.
Commissioner Bird suggested we change it from "400" to
"considerable" revenues, and also suggested that we add
"long-term residential rent" to Reason #4.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that no mention is made of
tax dollars being spent on actual construction as opposed to debt
service, and Commissioner Bowman suggested that Reason #5 read:
"Money can be used for essential capital expenses only."
Commissioner Eggert suggested that Reason #8 read: "Project
priorities will be approved at required public hearings."
Commissioner Bird felt we should call this an additional
1 -cent sales tax instead of a tax surcharge.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the letter that is to be mailed
to the absentee voters said it all very well, and wondered if we
should run the letter as the ad.
Chairman Wheeler believed the letter tends to be misleading
where it says that the tax would relieve the burden on property
taxpayers. He was concerned that some people might interpret
that to mean that ad valorem taxes would not go up.
Administrator Chandler advised that the letter has been sent
out already, and emphasized that we need to keep the ad concise
and factual in order to catch the individual's eye.
Chairman Wheeler pointed out that no mention was made that
there is a $50.00 maximum tax on a single purchase.
William Koolage, 815 26th Street, cautioned the Board to use
capital "expenses" rather than capital "expenditures".
Administrator Chandler suggested placing a 1/4 page ad 6
times in the next few weeks before the election for a total
expenditure of $2,123.
After lengthy discussion and many suggestions, the
Commissioners agreed that the language for the ad could be
discussed all day long without everyone agreeing on the
specifics.
39
FEB14 '9
BOOK
�J
ALE110
`Il 4 X989
BOOK
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board approve the placing
of a 1/4 -page ad in the newspaper 6 times during the
next few weeks, with the final language to include the
modifications discussed here today.
Commissioner Eggert asked if we are going to have something
on the radio, but Administrator Chandler felt the newspapers
would get the greatest exposure.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY PAULINE H. BLAIR - TROPICAL
VILLAGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION UNIT 2
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/23/89:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
t:24r_
Robert M. Keat ng, iCP
Community Development Director
THRU: Roland M. DeBlois
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM: Charles W. Heath e.An
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: January 23, 1989
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY: PAULINE H. GLAIR
SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 9, 11, & 13, BLOCK 13,
TROPICAL VILLAGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION UNIT 2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of February 14, 1989.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Pauline H. Blair, owner of the
subject property, for the release of the common three (3) foot
40
side lot utility and drainage easements of Lots 9, 11, & 13,
being the southerly three(3) feet of Lot 9; the northerly three
(3) feet of Lot 11; the southerly three (3) feet of Lot 11; and
the northerly three (3) feet of Lot 13, Block 13, Tropical
Village Estates Subdivision, Section 00, Township 31, Range 37
East, Indian River County, Florida; according to the Plat thereof
as recorded in Plat Book 05, Page 65, of the Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida. It is the Petitioner's intention
to construct a single-family dwelling on the property.
The current zoning classification of the property is RS -6,
Single -Family Residential District. The Land Use Designation is
LD -2, Low Density Residential, allowing up to six (6) units per
acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by the Southern Bell Telephone
Company, Florida Power & Light Company, Florida Cablevision
Corporation, and the Indian River County Utilities, Road & Bridge
Division, and the Engineering Division. Based upon their re-
views; there were no objections to the release of the common side
lot easements. Staff analysis indicates there would be no
adverse impact to utilities being supplied to the subject proper-
ty.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, through the adoption of a resolu-
tion, the release of the common three (3) foot side lot utility
and drainage easements of Lots 9, 11, & 13, being the southerly
three (3) feet of Lot 9; the northerly three (3) feet of Lot 11;
the southerly three (3) feet of Lot 11; and the northerly three
(3) feet of Lot 13, Block 13, Tropical Village Estates
Subdivision, Unit 2,Section 00, Township 31, Range 37 East, Plat
Book 05, Page 65, ,of the Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida.
FE 14 1989
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-18, abandoning certain easements in the
Tropical Village Estates Subdivision Unit 2, Lots 9,
11, and 13, Block 13.
41
moi
FEB 14 1989
RESOLUTION NO. 89-1R
BOOK 76 f'SCE 113
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
ABANDONING CERTAIN EASEMENTS IN THE Tropical
Village Estates Subdivision Unit 2, Lots 9, 11,
& 13, Block 13.
WHEREAS, Indian River County has easements as described
below, and
WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves no
public purpose,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
This release of easement is executed by Indian River
County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida,
whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida
32960, Grantor, to Pauline H. Blair, her successors in interest,
heirs and assigns, whose mailing address is 1608 Roger Babson
Road, Orlando, Florida 32808 Grantee, as follows:
Indian River County does hereby abandon all right,
title, and interest that it may have in the following described
easements:
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND
INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock Eggert
, seconded by Commissioner
and adopted on the 14th day of February , 1989, by the
following vote:
Commissioner Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Eggert Aye
Commissioner Bird Aye
Commissioner Bowman Aye
Commissioner Scurlock Aye
42
RESOLUTION NO. 89-18
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this
APPROVED AS TO FORM -'
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY '"•
BY (,�`✓� 1���
WILLIA'A G. COLLINS 11
ASST. COUNTY ATTORNEY
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER )
14th, day of February , 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Attest By
ler, Chairman
Clerk
ey
I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on this day, before me, an
officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid, to
take acknowledgments, personally appeared Gary Wheeler and
Jeffrey K. Barton, well known to me to be the Chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners and Clerk, respectively, of Indian
River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida,
and they acknowledged executing the same.
l 1i
WITNESS my hand and official eal in the County and
State last aforesaid this /5c &day of 1989..
My Commission Expires:
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA
NY COPPISSION EXP. JULY 9,1990
BuAL'tu ; 4U utNERAL INS. L'ND.
EXHIBIT "A"
tary P
IC
The southerly three (3) feet of Lot 9; the northerly three (3)
feet of Lot 11; the southerly three (3) feet of Lot 11; and the
northerly three (3) feet of Lot 13, Block 13, Tropical Village
Estates Subdivision, Unit 2, according to the Plat thereof, as
recorded in Plat Book 05, Page 75, Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida, Section 00, Township 31, Range 37 East.
FEB 14
989
43
ElOOK b FA?'
14
E i989
BOOK
76 PACE 115
RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY ROBERT N. & CONSTANCE W. MORSELLI
- KINGSLAKE SUBDIVISION, LOT 21
The Board reviewed the following staff recommendation for
denial of the request for release of easement:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert Keating,
Community Development irector
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois,'Chief
Environmental Planning
FROM:
Charles W. Heathe&l# '
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: December 30, 1988
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT PETITION BY:
ROBERT N. & CONSTANCE W. MORSELLI,
6100 60th COURT, VERO BEACH, FL.
SUBJECT PROPERTY: KINGSLAKE SUB-
DIVISION, LOT 21
RE: MORSELLI MEMO DISK. REMS/CHEATH
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of February 14,1989.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Robert & Constance Morselli,
owners of the subject property, for the release of a two (2) foot
portion of the easterly thirty (30) foot utility and drainage
easement, being the westerly two (2) feet of the easterly thirty
(30) feet of Lot 21, Kingslake Subdivision, Section 08, Township
32 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida; according
to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 95, of the
Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. It is Mr. & Mrs.
Morselli's intention to effect compliance with Indian River County
regulations by releasing that part of the easement into which a
two (2) foot portion of the roof eave overhang would encroach.
The current zoning classification of the property is RS -3, Sin-
gle -Family Residential District. The land use designation is
LD -1, Low Density Residential, up to three (3) units per acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by the Southern Bell Telephone
Company, Florida Power & Light Company, Florida Cablevision
Corporation, and the Indian River County Road & Bridge Division,
Engineering Division, and the Utilities Department. There were
two (2) objections to the release, from the Engineering Division,
and the Road & Bridge Division, who stated that the entire platted
easement would be needed for future drainage improvements.
114
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends to the Board, that the petition be denied as all
of the platted thirty (30) foot utility and drainage easement will
be needed for future drainage improvements for this subdivision
and surrounding properties.
Commissioner Bird wondered if there was anyone here who
wished to speak on this matter. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously denied
the Morselli petition for release of certain easements
for Lot 21 in Kingslake Subdivision, as recommended by
staff.
APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
SUBSIDIARY TREASURE COAST COLLECTIONS, INC., FOR EMS INSURANCE
BILLING
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/7/89:
TO: James Chandler DATE: February 7, 1989 FILE:
County Administrator
Approval of Contract with
SUBJECT: Indian River Memorial
Hospital subsidiary Treasure
Coast Collections, Inc., for
EMS Insurance Billing
FROM: Doug Wright, Director REFERENCES:
Emergency Management Services
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commission-
ers at the next regular scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On December 20, 1988, the Indian River County Board of County Com-
missioners formally approved a proposal by the Department of Emer-
gency Management Services wherein Indian River County would assume
responsibility for and operate the EMS Advanced Life Support System
on a county wide basis with a single focus of management. Included
in the proposal was a recommendation that the County reduce the
level of funding from tax generated revenues for EMS service by
engaging in third party billing. Through this process, patients
45
F 14 `U989
fkOOK
116
FEB 141989
BOOK
76 r ct 117
with available insurance benefits would have their insurance carri-
ers billed for services rendered as relates to emergency medical
services ALS transport.
Since the Indian River Memorial Hospital has a subsidiary engaged
in billing for emergency medical services known as Treasure Coast
Collections, Inc., a Billing Service Agreement has been received
and minor changes have been made thereto. The agreement provides,
among other things, that Treasure Coast Collections, Inc., will
cause a monthly reconciliation of all payments received to be pro-
vided to the County. For this billing service, Treasure Coast
Collections has requested compensation which will be the greater
of seven percent (7%) of collections per month or $2,000 per month.
Indian River County estimates that $204,000 will be collected during
the eight month period between February 1, 1989 and September 30,
1989. If that sum is collected, Treasure Coast Collections will
be compensated $16,000 or $2,000 per month since the 7% fee would
be the lesser. The fee would be deducted from the amount of insur-
ance billing funds forwarded to the County each month by Treasure
Coast Collections.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Indian River County plans to explore the possibility of establish-
ing a process for the EMS billing at the Department of Emergency
Management Services during the next budget year. It is felt that
the billing can be completed by staffing a position for this task
and that a collateral benefit could be realized in terms of assist-
ance with other administrative functions of the office.
The primary reason for recommending the Billing Service Agreement
is that it has been a major task in the short term in preparing
for and taking on the responsibility and management of the EMS
ALS System which became a reality on February 1, 1989. It was
felt that it would be beneficial to the County for another entity
to collect the insurance funds to reduce the tax revenues required
for operation of the EMS ALS System and allow for staff to concen-
trate their attention on resolution of minor problems as well as
continuing to improve and expand the system.
Other collection/billing agencies have contacted the Department
of Emergency Management Services offering their services at varying
levels of compensation. Some were not located in the immediate
area and others did not perform the level of service that was desired.
One major problem that would be resolved with Treasure Coast Col-
lections is that insurance information about the patient would
be immediately available to the agency so that billing would be
done on a daily basis. Other agencies would have to arrange to
get this information and additional fees would possible be incurred
for this service.
RECOrMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Billing Service Agreement with
the Indian River Memorial Hospital subsidiary known as Treasure
Coast Collections, Inc., wherein the agency would receive com-
pensation in the amount of the greater of seven percent (7%) of
collections or $2,000 per month.
Staff also recommends that the Board of County Commissioners author-
ize the Chairman to execute the Billing Service Agreement so the
process can be implemented in a timely manner thereby reducing
the amount of tax generated revenues required to fund the EMS ALS
system.
46
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board approve the Billing
Service Agreement, as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird stated that he was
certainly in favor of going in that direction, but would take
some convincing that we should handle the billing ourselves.
Administrator Chandler advised that he would have a
recommendation on that at budget time.
Doug Wright, Director of Emergency Management Services,
explained that we would be billing the insurance companies, not
the patients or their families.
FES �f
`389
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
47
DOR 76 F'aGE il8
FED 141989
TREASURE COAST COLLECTIONS, INC.
BILLING SERVICE AGREEMENT
BOOK 16 F E 119
This agreement is entered on this 14th
day of February , 1989 by and between Treasure Coast
Collections, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Indian River Mem-
orial Hospital, Inc., and Indian River County Office of Emergency
Services.
Treasure Coast Collections, Inc. (hereinafter referred to
as TCC) provides an insurance billing service for medical providers,
and Indian River County (hereinafter referred to as IRC) is in
need of such a service for billing insurance companies for charges
incurred by patients when those patients are in need of ambulance
services.
In consideration of the following premises and mutual cov-
enants, TCC will provide the insurance billing service for IRC;
1. TCC will assist IRC in obtaining provider numbers for
Medicare, Medicaid, Blue Cross, and any other insuring
agencies which may require distinct provider numbers.
IRC accepts full responsibility for completion of any
application forms for these provider numbers and is ul-
timately responsible for obtaining those needed provider
numbers.
2. Billing services for ambulance runs by IRC on or after
February 1, 1989 will be provided by TCC.
3. IRC is solely responsible for setting rates for the ser-
vices which they provides.
4. IRC is solely responsible for design, printing, and pro-
per usage of any forms needed by TCC for the proper capture
of charges, medical reports completed by the paramedics,
and forms certifying the medical appropriateness of ser-
vices provided.
5. TCC will. be solely responsible for the printing costs
for forms and statements required by insurers.
6. Postage expenses for submitting billings to insurance
companies are the responsibility of TCC.
7. TCC agrees to obtain all insurance information on patients
delivered to Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc. for
care. Insurance information on patients delivered else-
where is necessary and must be provided by IRC.
8. IRC must secure a post office box for payment collection.
TCC will pay the rental or lease payments for that box.
TCC will have access to that box and arrange for collection
of mail from that box five days per week, excluding holi-
days.
48
TCC BILLING SERVICE AGREEMENT
PAGE 2
9. Payments received at the County Administration Building
will be routinely forwarded by IRC to TCC for proper
accounting.
10. TCC will secure a trust account at Indian River National
Bank for payments received by them for services provided
by IRC. TCC will provide IRC with a monthly reconcil-
iation of all payments received along with a check for
all payments received in excess of the fee charged by
TCC.
11. If payments received by TCC from insurers do not exceed
the fee charged by TCC for any month of service, TCC will
bill IRC for any deficiency.
12. TCC will provide additional reports as requested.
13. TCC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless IRC
any claim or liability arising as a result of
by any employee or agent of TCC.
14. IRC agrees to indemnify and hold harmless TCC
any claim or liability arising as a result of
by any employee or agent of IRC.
against
any act
against
any act
15. TCC's compensation for billing services provided shall
be the greater of 7% of collections per month or $2,000.00
per month.
16. This agreement shall_ be effective from February 1, 1989
through January 31, 1990 and may continue for subsequent
years unless either party requests that the agreement
be renegotiated or terminated at least 90 days in advance
of the agreement expiration date. Failure to request
a renegotiation within the time element specified will
keep the agreement in force for the next annual period.
Accepted For
Treasure Coast Collections, Inc.
By
'.ic a O Gray
Date 3 /f g%
FEB 1 g89
Accepted For
Indian River County
By
Date
Indian River Ca
Admin.
,lnproved I Dale
)')A
r)" C�• ,1
Dept. I 114-77
49
FOOK
FEB 14 'i989
APPROVAL OF BELLSOUTH MOBILITY TOWER SITE LEASE
BOOK . 6 WE Iia
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/7/89:
TO: James Chandler DATE: February 7, 1989 FILE:
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Approval of BellSouth
Mobility Tower Site Lease
FROM: Doug Wright, Director REFERENCES:
Emergency Management Services
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
at the next regular scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On September 20, 1988, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners denied a request by BellSouth Mobility for an option
to lease 2,475 square feet of property (45' X 55') located near
the South Winter Beach Solid Waste Collection Center for a mobile
telephone tower site. The option on the property was predicated
on BellSouth Mobility leasing the site for $100.00 in option money
for a period of nine months with an extension of three months for
the sum of an additional two hundred dollars. The Board of County
Commissioners felt that the proposed option money was unacceptable
for tying the property up for a period of two years.
BellSouth Mobility desires to erect a 285 foot tower to place equip-
ment on for the state wide cellular telephone system that will
serve the Indian River County link. Included in the proposal is
a 10' wide easement for access and utility service from South Winter
Beach Road.
The County owns approximately 19.5 acres at the subject site with
about 3.2 acres being used for the refuse station.
On January 13, 1989, Terry Pinto received the attached letter from
Jim Bennett, General Manager of BellSouth Mobility proposing to
lease the property for $100.00 per month until such time as Bell-
South Mobility should receive a license from the Federal Communi-
cations Commission to provide mobile telephone service or a deter-
mination was made that the property was not suitable for use as
a tower site. In either case, the initial lease would be for a
maximum period of two years and thereafter would either be cancelled
or continued under mutually agreed upon terms.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The property is not currently being utilized and no plans for use
of this property in the long term are under consideration by the
Utilities Department according to Terry Pinto.
50
The Master Plan for the sophisticated cellular telephone system
requires a limited area within a county in order to facilitate
alignment of antennas from one cell to another. Due to this re-
quirement, the County owned Hobart Tower was not within the desig-
nated area and space is not available at the 285' level.
BellSouth Mobility correctly advises that an application for a
mobile telephone license cannot be submitted to the FCC without
having secured a tower site location.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the proposed lease for a mobile telephone tower site wherein Bell-
South Mobility would, pay Indian River County the sum of $100.00
per month until the company receives a mobile telephone license
or deems the property is not suitable for their use. The -initial
lease would be for a period of two years after which time it would
either be cancelled or continued upon mutual agreement to addition-
al terms and conditions.
If approved by the Board of County Commissioners, staff will prepare
a new lease with BellSouth Mobility which will be approved by the
County Attorney and County Administrator.
Staff requests the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the
tower site lease with BellSouth Mobility with the stated conditions
appearing therein after approval by the above referenced authorities.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board approve the tower
site lease with BellSouth as set out in the above
staff recommendation.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird still felt that we are
giving this away too cheap, but didn't have any comparables to
dispute the figures being charged. Although he felt that Bell-
South is getting a good deal, he realized it is $1200 more than
what we are getting right now.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that the lease is only for 2
years and can be revisited at that time.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
LEASE WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED-.� _ /If;(.7 e
FEB 14: 1969
51 MU.
FA,uL 144,
BOOK 76 f'HCE
APPROVAL OF VEHICLE LEASE AGREEMENT FOR CHIEF PARAMEDIC
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/9/89:
TO: James Chandler DATE: January 9, 1989
County Administrator
FILE:
SUBJECT: Approval of Vehicle Lease
Agreement for Chief Para-
medic
.lam
FROM: Doug Wright, Director REFERENCES:
Emergency Management Services
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be
given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at the
next regular scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On January 31, 1989, the Indian River County Board of County Commis-
sioners approved and authorized the Director of the Department of Emerg-
ency Management Services to negotiate a lease for a vehicle to be uti-
lized by the Chief Paramedic for official purposes relating to the EMS
ALS system.
A lease has been negotiated with World Omni Leasing, Inc., (Isuzu of
Fort Pierce) for a 1988 Isuzu Trooper II multi-purpose vehicle. The
lease provides for up front money in the amount of $736.05 which includes
a $400.00 refundable security deposit, $50.00 for title fees, and the
first month lease payment of $286.05. The lease is for a term of sixty
(60) months over which a total fo $17,163 will be paid per the lease.
The reason this type of vehicle was chosen for lease related to the
type function for which it would be utilized. This vehicle will not
respond to emergency scenes unless there are multiple casualties and
assistance is required. The vehicle will be equipped with the back-
up ALS Kit, 747 boxes, etc. so access can be quickly achieved by other
ALS units. The vehicle will be capable of accessing terrian that fire
vehicles and ambulances are incapable of traveling. If a patient is
in this type of environment, the multi-purpose vehicle can transport
the patient to the ALS vehicle for treatment. The vehicle will also
be capable of transporting heavy items as well as stretchers and spine
boards by simply rolling the rear seat forward. It is also four wheel
drive and fuel efficient by having a fuel injected four cylinder engine.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
With the assistance of the Purchasing Department, other vendors were
contacted regarding a possible lease. The closest possible other option
in terms of money was for a GMC Jimmy which would have cost $384.00
per month with a buy-out clause. The lease which is recommended is
52
a closed end vehicle lease wherein there is no obligation to purchase
the vehicle at the end of the lease period. The total money spent on
the GMC Jimmy at the end of the lease with the buy out would be in the
range of $27,000 for a period of 48 months. The Isuzu will cost only
$17,163 over a period of 60 months. The vehicle is equipped with desired
options in terms of a multi-purpose vehicle and it will best serve the
functions that the Chief Paramedic will utilize it for in the EMS ALS
system.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
vehicle lease with World Omni Leasing, Inc., in the amount of $286.05
per month for 60 months and authorize the Chairman to execute the lease
so the multi-purpose vehicle can be. placed into service in a timely
manner. Funds are available in the, ALS budget to lease the vehicle
as reflected in the budget admendment approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on January 31, 1989.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved the vehicle lease with World Omni Leasing,
Inc., in the amount of $286.05 per month for 60
months, and authorized the Chairman's signature, as
recommended by staff.
LEASE WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
53
FEB 14 1989
000
7
Hut
FEB 1 1989
HERON CAY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTDEMOLITION
BOOK 76 OCE 125
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU:
FROM:
TERRANCE G. PIN
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY/SERVICES
JOHN FREDERICK LANG
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1989
SUBJECT: HERON CAY WASTEWATER TRE MENT PLANT DEMOLITION
BACKGROUND
The Department of Utility Services decommissioned the Heron Cay
Wastewater Treatment Plant several years ago and filled in the
percolation ponds. The Development's plans to dispose of the
treatment plant have fallen through and, as the County is ultimately
responsible for removal by contract, the Department has begun
demolition. Wastewater personnel have pumped the plant dry, and the
Landfill has knocked down the walls. The Department cannot proceed
further with its limited resources and thus has solicited proposals
for complete demolition and disposal on an emergency basis. The
Heron Cay Corporation has submitted plans for review to the
Department for the development of this site and is awaiting their
Utility Construction Permit.
ANALYSIS
Four firms have responded to requests for proposals for removal of
the concrete rubble and base slabs at Heron Cay. These firms and
their quotes are as follows:
1. Fischer Construction
2.. Trodglen Paving, Inc.
3. Collee Underground Company
4. Sheltra and Sons, Inc.
5. Graves and Hall
6. Stewart Trucking
$13,725.00
$15,950.00
$32,800.00
$40,000.00
No submittal
No submittal
The Department of Public Works was contacted and they cannot help
with this project. The Department expects to expend an additional
20 man hours on the site and will pay Landfill tipping fees for 500
tons.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the proposal from Fischer
Construction for demolition and disposal of the plant on an
emergency basis. The firm has demonstrated their capabilities on
other County projects in the past. The account number it is to be
charged is 471-218-536-03349, a Wastewater Operations Account -
Other Contractual Services.
54
Commissioner Bowman wondered why the rubble from this
project isn't going to the Road & Bridge compound to be used for
stabilization material instead of being taken to the Landfill.
Director Pinto explained that in this particular case the
rubble will be going to the Landfill because it has been
expressed by people at the Landfill that they want to use it.
However, there will be other projects where we will be under
mandate not to put the rubble into the Landfill, and we are
considering buying some sump wasteland to use for that purpose.
Commissioner Bowman wanted to know why the Fischer proposal
was handled by telephone when all the other proposals were in
writing and had specified a timeframe, a date of completion,
terms of payment, etc.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the reason is one of
timeliness as he understood that this plant should have been
removed before this.
Attorney Vitunac advised that something in writing came from
Utilities and we signed off on it, but Commissioner Bowman
pointed out that this is only a record of telephone communication
where somebody got it over the phone and wrote it down. We have
written proposals from all the others, but not from Fischer.
Director Pinto explained that it wasn't in writing only
because Fischer didn't give it to us in writing. We phoned him,
but he hasn't sent us a written proposal.
Commissioner Bowman wanted to know why Mr. Fischer has not
sent us a written proposal, but Director Pinto said he wasn't
really all that concerned about it. He either does the job and
gets paid what we agree to pay him, or he doesn't get paid.
Commissioner Bowman emphasized that everyone else had to
give a timeframe, etc., and Commissioner Eggert asked why there
was time to get a written proposal from Trodglen and Sheltra.
Director Pinto stated he was perfectly satisfied that the
quote is a good one, and emphasized that staff is looking for
approval today for the amount of money to do it.
55
FEB 1. 4 9 S
Boor 76 Fa;t 120
.FEB 14I'd 9
BOOK 76 FACE 127
Administrator Chandler recommended that Director Pinto get
the quote in writing and signed by Mr. Fischer before we give Mr.
Fischer notice to proceed with the demolition.
Director Pinto stated that he Would get that done, but
reiterated that he wag looking for a commitment of that amount of
money today. When we contracted with Heron Cay 5-6 years ago, we
agreed to have that plant removed. We thought we could do it
in-house, but found that we couldn't handle it.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that the reason the
proposal is not in writing is because it was an emergency item
and that Director Pinto had attempted to make phone calls to get
proposals, and of those phone calls at least one responded in
writing, two of them said they were not going to respond at all,
and two gave verbal quotes to Director Pinto.
Director Pinto felt that is exactly the reason why the
proposal was not in writing. In fact, some of them just laughed
when he called them for quotes. After receiving some of these
other quotes that we were kind of uncomfortable with, he
personally called Mr. Fischer and asked him what he could do for
ussince we had to get this thing done for a reasonable amount of
money.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board approve the
proposal from Fischer Construction for demolition
and disposal of the plant, subject to the written
proposal receiving approval by the County
Administrator, the County Attorney, and the Director
of Utilities.
Under discussion, Chairman Wheeler asked Director Pinto if
he had called Mr. Fischer after he received the other proposals,
but Director Pinto explained that these proposals were not sent
56
out as closed bids. We called each one of these people, told
them what we wanted to pay, which was $10,000, and asked them to
give us their lowest shot. It was obvious some of them didn't
want the job, especially when they said they would do it for
$30,000. He telephoned because it was an emergency basis.
Chairman Wheeler didn't know if it was proper for government
to get in a position of using one bidder against another to drive
the price down if each bidder doesn't have the same opportunity
to come back with a lower bid.
Director Pinto stated that they all had the opportunity to
give us their absolute lowest shot, and in talking to one of them
after the fact, he said that he hadn't wanted to do it anyway.
Commissioner Bird asked if they are going to have to pay to
dump this material at the Landfill, and Director Pinto advised
that all of the contractors knew that they would not have to pay
dumping fees. The County doesn't waive the fee, it gets charged
back to Utilities.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
57
FE `4 �� i
6
'z r
floor f FA;;[ t?8
FED 14 `989
Henry Fischer & Sone, Inc.
Land Clearing • Top Quality Fill
P.O. Box 780068
Sebastian, Florida 32978-0068
(305) 589.3159
•
January 27, 1989
Mr. John Lang
Utilities Department
P.O. Box 1750
1840 25th Street •
Vero Beach, Florida 32960 '
Re: Heron Cay
Sewer Plant Removal
BOOK 7G'4C[.2'
Dear Mr. Lang:
•
We are pleased to present the following quotation of items of
construction at the above location.
This quotation is effective for thirty (30) days. It is based
on a mutually acceptable contract being signed within thirty (30) days
and is based on current material prices.
All work will be done in a neat, workmanlike manner and in
accordance with the plans and specifications.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to bid on your job.
HAF/jl
Attachment
QUOTATION AC P
Sincerely,
Henry A. Fischer
Vice -President
HENRY FISCHER & SONS, INC.
ATTACHMENT -CONSTRUCTION -JOHN LANG -UTILITIES DEPT. -HERON CAY-01-27-89
•
ESTIMATE
Fischer & Sons will demolish and haul debris from Heron Cay
Sewer Plant to Indian River County Landfill. $ 13,725.00
Price EXCLUDES dump fees. Dump fees to be paid by Utilites Department.
HENRY FISCHER & SONS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UNDERGROUND LINES AND CABLES.
48-HOUR NOTICE MUST BE GIVEN SO UTILITIES CAN BE NOTIFIED.
58
WASTEWATER CONNECTION - EAST SIDE OF U.S. #1 TO 12TH STREET -
SURVEYING SERVICES - WORK AUTHORIZATION 2 - MARSHALL-McCULLY &
ASSOCIATES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/26/89:
DATE: JANUARY 26, 1988
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL F'SERVICES
FROM:
WILLIAM F. McCAI
PROJECTS ENGINEE: 1, t
DEPARTMENT OF UTI. -4, SERVICES
SUBJECT: WASTEWATER CONNECTION - EAST SIDE U.S.#1 TO 12TH STREET
IRC PROJECT NO. US -88 -13 -CCS - SURVEYING SERVICES,
CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION AND INSPECTION, AND CONTRACT
ADMINISTRATION THRU COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT
BACKGROUND:
On May 3, 1988, the Department of Utility Services received
authorization from the Board of County Commissioners to conduct a
feasibility study to provide sewer services for the east side of
U.S. Highway #1 north of 12th Street. The feasibility study was
prepared and submitted by Marshall, McCully & Associates. Alternate
I, Section D was chosen as the best method for providing these
services to the designated service territory.
ANALYSIS:
The feasibility study designated a number of methodologies to
provide sewer services. The Department proposes to utilize an
existing private lift station within Southgate Mobile Home Park.
The lift station is located on the western edge of the Southgate
Mobile Home Park and would be upgraded to meet County
Specifications. The owners have agreed to dedicate the force main
and lift station to the County. The gravity sewer system would
remain the responsibility of the owners. A number of easements,
boundary surveys, and utility as -built surveying must be performed
prior to integration of the lift station system into the County's
system. The financial consideration for the work authorization has
an upper limit of $5,880.00.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners execute the accompanying Work
Authorization for the surveying process.
59
FEB 14 196
Rona) FaL i:3O
,FEB I 4 1989
BOOK 76 FAG[:31
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Work Authorization No. 2 with Marshall -McCully &
Associates, as set out in the above staff
recommendation, and authorized the Chairman's
signature.
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 2 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
U.S. #1 FORCE MAIN - FROM WAL-MART TO THE VERO BEACH WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT ON INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/6/89:
DATE:
FEBRUARY 6, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI T SERVICES
FROM: WILLIAM F. McCAIN
PROJECTS ENGINEER'
DEPARTMENT OF UTIL' Y SERVICES
SUBJECT: U.S. HIGHWAY #1 FORCE MAIN - FROM WAL-MART TO THE VERO
BEACH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ON INDIAN RIVER BLVD.
IRC PROJECT NO. US -89 -01 -CCS
BACKGROUND:
On December 20, 1988, the Department of Utility Services brought a
proposed Developer's Agreement to the Board of County Commissioners
for a sewer force main project in two phases:
1. Phase I will run from Grove Isle on U.S. Highway #1 to
Wal-Mart, at the intersection of U.S. Highway #1 and
Indian River Blvd.
2. Phase II will run from Wal-Mart, at the intersection of
U.S. Highway #1 and Indian River Blvd., up Indian River
Blvd. to the City of Vero Beach Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
The design of Phase I is underway by the developer's engineer. We
now wish to proceed with the design and construction of Phase II of
this project.
60
ANALYSIS:
The project consists of the installation of a 12" sewer force
main from Wal-Mart to the City of Vero Beach Wastewater Treatment
Plant. The approximate construction cost will be $331,000.00. The
engineering fees will be set at 10% of the low bid construction cost
for the project (see attached work authorization No. 1 with Lloyd
and Associates, Inc.). The cost of the project will be paid for by
the assessment of the properties on Indian River Blvd. and the
developer's contribution from Grove Isle, in the amount of
$63,745.00. The 1400 Development Corporation (i.e., Grove Isle) has
already committed their portion via Developer's Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the action requested and
authorize the signing of the attached Work Authorization.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board approve staff's
recommendation, as set out in the above memo, and
authorize the Chairman to sign Work Authorization
No. 1 with Lloyd & Associates, Inc.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird advised that Utilities
Director Terry Pinto has explained that the reason we are not
tying into the Vista plant is because that plant will be at
maximum capacity when all the Vista property is fully developed.
When the south county wastewater plant is built, the Vista plant
will be taken out of service.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 1 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
REFINANCING OF UTILITY SYSTEM BONDS HELD BY FARMERS HOME
ADMINISTRATION
The Board reviewed the following memos dated 2/8/89 and
1/12/89:
FEB 1 4
1989
61 mei( /o F'AcF 1.32
)FEB 14 1989
BOOK 76 FADE 133
Attorney Vitunac presented the following memo dated 1/12/89:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
it . r :----'
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: February 8, 1989
RE: B.C.C. MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 1989
REFINANCING OF UTILITY SYSTEM BONDS
HELD BY FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION
On January 17, 1988, the Board approved in concept
refinancing the FmHA debt of the utility system. (Please
see the attached memo from Budget Director Joe Baird,
through County Administrator James E. Chandler, to the
Board.)
Pursuant to the direction of the Board to proceed on this
refinancing, our bond counsel has prepared the attached
resolution which would refund certain outstanding bonds of
the County and replace them with a new issue of
not -to -exceed $7.5 million. Besides the financial benefits
of the refinancing, the new bond resolution has significant
improvements in the covenants pertaining to the utility
system, which will vastly improve the utility system's
ability to expand and improve its service.
If the Board approves this resolution, the County Attorney's
Office will validate the refunding issue in time for the May
9, 1989, deadline set by the FmHA.
Staff recommends approval of this resolution.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
THROUGH: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DATE: January 12, 1989
SUBJECT: REFINANCING FARMER'S HOME
ADMINISTRATION DEBT IN UTILITY DEBT
qb
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Utility Department financed the majority of it's debt through
Farmer's Home Administration (FmHA) and has the following amount
outstanding or obligated:
Interest Remaining
Principal Discount Rate
Principal Rate
$ 402,500
236,000
5,825,900
2,750,700
450,000
9,200,000
$18,865,100
5%
0
5%
5%
0
5%
7.3375%
5%
0
$ 366,500
221,000
5,592,000
2,698,000
450,000
9,200.000
$18,527,500
.66130
.65087
.64133
.63262
.82600
.61739
Payoff
$ 242,366.45
143,842.27
3,586,317.36
1,706,808.76
371,700.00
5,679,988.00
$11,731,022.84
Farmer's Home Administration recently announced that they are
offering a discount purchase program in order to reduce federal
loans. Because most of Indian River County debt is 5% over forty
(40) years, the discount offered means a considerable reduction in
the principal @amount of debt outstanding. The overall annual debt
service will remain about the same if we participate in the discount
program; however, we would be released from some of the Farmer's Home
Administration restrictions which in the future could discourage or
hamper the expansion of the Utility system. An additional plus is
that the refinancing would improve several of our financial ratios
(e.g. debt/asset, debt/# customers, debt/per capita, debt/equity).
Staff has reviewed the merits of refinancing the debt and feels that
it will definitely be in the county's best interest and will be
approved by the Financial Advisory committee at it's next meeting.
There is a deadline of May 9, 1989 if the county wishes to
participate. Staff must begin working with Farmer's Home
Administration, Bond Counsel, Bond Insurer's, Financial Advisers and
rating agencies to draft bond documents. This takes considerable
time; therefore, we need permission to proceed immediately.
RECOMMENDATION
Board of County Commissioners give staff authority to participate in
the Farmer's Home Administration loan program and proceed in
refinancing the debt.
Attorney Vitunac advised that last month the Board approved
the refinancing of certain loans held by the FmHA, and today we
are asking the Board to pass the refunding resolution which will
remove certain restrictive covenants. It will delete 3 items
presently covered by the pledge to the FmHA that have caused the
Utilities Department great problems. We are asking the FmHA to
release special assessments, impact fees, and surcharges, which
are the mechanisms by which Utilities has been using to purchase
several small utility systems throughout the county. We are
going to run up against a brick wall in 3 years unless the FmHA
releases our pledge of those revenues. If this resolution passes
FEB 4i9q
63
BOOK 76 Pk1E 134
BOOK 76 F4.Gc 1:35
today, our bond lawyers will send it to the FmHA after the fact,
and if they approve it, we will be able to refinance about one
half of the existing debt that is outstanding now with the FmHA.
Then, in about 2-3 months, we will close on the Gifford loan,
which is another $9 -million, and that would come under the new
covenants of this resolution. If FmHA offers another program
next year by which we can purchase our loans at a discount, we
would buy back the Gifford loan and thus be totally finished with
the FmHA. Utilities would be running like a business, which it
really is.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that there are some things in
here that the FmHA might not agree with, so it might come back
with some modifications.
Attorney Vitunac advised that financial advisers Art Ziev
and Art Diamond are here today to answer any questions, but
staff's recommendation is that the Board pass this resolution.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-19, providing for the issuance of not
exceeding $7,500,000 water and sewer revenue refunding
bonds, series 1989, of the county to refund certain
outstanding bonds of the county heretofore issued to
finance the cost of construction or acquisition of the
combined water and sewer system of the county, etc.
64
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 19
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING $7,500,000
WATER AND SEWER REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1989, "
OF THE COUNTY TO REFUND CERTAIN OUTSTANDING BONDS OF
THE COUNTY HERETOFORE ISSUED TO FINANCE THE COST OF
CONSTRUCTION OR ACQUISITION OF THE COMBINED WATER AND
SEWER SYSTEM OF THE COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS
OF THE REGISTERED OWNERS OF SAID BONDS; PROVIDING FOR
THE PAYMENT THEREOF; MAKING CERTAIN OTHER COVENANTS
AND AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF SAID
BONDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION. This resolution is
adopted pursuant to Chapters 125 and 159, Florida Statutes (1987), as
amended, and other applicable provisions of law.
SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. The following terms shall have the
following meanings in this Resolution, unless the context otherwise
clearly requires: •
A. "Act" shall mean Chapters 125 and 159, Florida
(1987), as amended, and other, applicable provisions of law.
B. "Additional Parity Bonds" shall mean additional bonds
issued in compliance with the terms, conditions and limitations contained
herein which have an equal lien on the Pledged Funds, as herein defined,
and rank equally in all respects with all other Bonds issued hereunder as
to lien and security for payment.
Statutes
C. "Authorized Investments" shall mean those investments
specified in Section 125.31, Florida Statutes (1987), as amended.
D. "Board" shall mean the Board of County
Indian River County, Florida.
E. "Bonds" shall mean the Series 1989 Bonds
Additional Parity Bonds hereafter issued hereunder.
•I
F. "Bond Registrar" shall mean the Bond
determined by subsequent resolution of the Board.
Commissioners of
together with any
Registrar to be
RESOLUTION 89-19 IS ON FILE IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
65
141989 Iloox 76 FvE 13
FEB 1 991
BOOK 76 FAG[ 13 7
REQUEST FROM PROPERTY APPRAISER TO PURCHASE IBM AS400 COMPUTER
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 2/8/89:
305-567-8188
SUN -Com 224-1480
February 8, 1989
David C. Nolte
"CERTIFIED FLORIDA APPRAISER"
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER
"WE ARE HERE TO SERVE YOU"
891011���
VP '211
c;f04� ;i1
OAa° CS hast/
G 6 ON C41,t r.(1140 �i
�
g2b1.0.
r
Gary C. Wheeler, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners..
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach FL 32960
Dear Gary,
1840 257H STREET
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32960
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Commissioners
Administrator
Pei - ..7el
Pub;,c Works
Com. „u.11 ty Liev.
Utilit;as
Finance
Other
4cEA)
In assessing this offices long term needs, the long term
data processing needs of the county, and after many hours of re-
search I have made the following decision and request the boards
conceputal approval so that we can proceed.
Purchase. an IBM AS400 computer and develop our software (in
COBOL) on this system. The cost over the next five years would
be $300,000± including hardware and software.
The AS400 is the' same
of Elections and Sheriff's
and it is the only machine
make it possible to access
in the courthouse.
type of computer that the Supervisor
jail operations are currently operating
compatable with the IBM 38. This would
the information we have on any terminal
Gary, please place this on the agenda ASAP. Thank you.
David C. Nolte
Property Appraiser
f
After lengthy, highly technical discussion regarding the
need, advantages, and abilities of the IBM AS400 computer,
Commissioner Scurlock wanted to postpone the matter for one week
so that he could look into this more thoroughly.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously tabled
this item for one week.
66
DISCUSSION OF COURTHOUSE/MAIN LIBRARY PROJECTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/8/89:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: February 8, 1989 FILE:
SUBJECT:
FRO • ames E. Chandler REFERENCES:
County Administrator
At the February 14, 1989 meeting, a general status report will be presented
concerning the proposed projects in the downtown area. The items outlined
in the attachments and below will be elaborated on at the meeting.
In recent weeks, to provide a continuing overall coordinated approach a
number of meetings and discussions have been held. Included have been
staff, city personnel, library consultants and various other individuals
involved in the programs.
As a result, any number of factors have been identified that will need to be
addressed at the appropriate time as the total program progresses. These
include such items as total land requirements, cost, historic significance of
certain buildings, internal traffic flow, parking, etc.
The attached memo from Stan Boling summarizes the current general status
and proposed approach in continuing the total program. The architects will
present an overview of the main library project at the meeting.
For planning purposes the street rights-of-way in the six block area have
been included. In a meeting with the City Planner it was suggested that a
thoroughfare plan (attached) could be adopted by the City and County.
Those minor street rights-of-way not included could be vacated if needed.
In essence, it is recommended that the library project continue as originally
planned. Parking requirements alone for the courthouse project dictate the
need for a master plan for the area east of the library. Such a plan would
also address and provide alternatives for many of the other factors that need
to be considered. The maximum estimated cost for development of the master
plan is $30,000 to $40,000 and can perhaps be accomplished for less.
If after discussion at the February 14th meeting the Commission concurs with
the preceding, staff will proceed with implementation.
67
FEB 14` ')
EcioF 76 f! JL 138
F
X89�l
BOOK 76 ,,,,E139
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
o
RoFert 1. eatin
Community Devvel„omen Director
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Chief, Current Development
DATE: February 3, 1989
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT AND COORDINATION OF THE MAIN LIBRARY AND NEW
COURTHOUSE PROJECTS
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY:
The Board of County Commissioners has essentially decided to
locate both the main library and the new courthouse facility in
the "downtown" area west of Pocahontas Park. The Board has also
determined, based upon reports and analyses from consultants, both
the library and courthouse 20 -year building space needs. Finally,
the Board has determined that both projects need to be coordinated
to ensure that they complement one another and to take advantage
of the opportunity to create a unique and aesthetically pleasing
"public space". It is recognized that the development of these
public facilities is a key element in the redevelopment of
downtown.
PROJECT NEEDS AND STATUS:
. Main Library
The main library project is well ahead of the new courthouse
project. The library building site has been acquired, a
parking area lease agreement is being finalized, and the
abandonment of 22nd Street is being pursued. In total, the
useable development area will adequately accommodate the
20 -year building space needs, open space, and associated
programmed parking requirements. Site planning of the
library is proceeding: building orientation proposals are
taking into account site amenities, parking areas, and the
future development of the new courthouse to the east of the
library site.
New Courthouse
The Board has adopted a space needs analysis (performed in
1988 by Architects Design Group, Inc. and Architectural
Interiors Group, Inc.) which estimates a. 20 -year courthouse
building space need of approximately 135,000 sq. ft.
Although the analysis focused on building space needs, only
"conceptual" work was performed to look at development site
needs. In fact, significantly more site area will be needed
to accommodate the new courthouse and associated parking than
is indicated on the concept plan included in the space needs
analysis.
A site consisting of 3.5 to 7.5 acres (based upon information
and analysis provided by the City planning department) 'is
needed to accommodate the 135,000 sq. ft. building and the
required 675 parking spaces (based upon a recently adopted
City parking standard). Currently, the County owned property
68
associated with the courthouse contains about
(includes the existing courthouse site, parking
the State's Attorney's office site).
. Summary Table
20 -Year Parking Parking Existing
Facility Space Needed Required Provided Site Area(s)
Main Library 39,000 sq. ft. 98 spaces 95-140 spaces *3.23 useable
acres*
New Courthouse 135,000 sq. ft. 675 spaces undetermined *1.9 acres**
1.9 acres
areas, and
Total Site Site Area
Area Needed Deficit
*3 acres none
3.5-7.5
acres*** 1.5 to 5.5
acres***
*includes 22nd Street right-of-way and parking area to be leased
from First Baptist.
**includes courthouse site, parking lot north of 22nd Street,
State's Attorney's office site.
***depends upon site configuration, number of stories for the
building and parking areas, and right-of-way abandonments.
CONCLUSION:
The library project is a "known quantity": projected 20 -year
building space needs have been determined and an internal space
program has been developed and adopted; site needs have been
determined and the useable site area is now being "fitted" with
the proposed building and parking area. Library site -planning is
proceeding, taking into account the need to be able to orient
towards the future new courthouse area to the east.
The 20 -year building space needs of the new courthouse are "known
quantities". However, no site planning has yet been performed to
address site area needs, site acquisition alternatives and limita-
tions, or coordination with the library facility and the creation
of an aesthetically pleasing "public space". A master plan for
the courthouse/library area should be developed which addresses:
a) courthouse development site needs, taking into account
building, parking and open space factors;
b) site acquisition and configuration alternatives, taking into
account existing structures and ownership characteristics,
and possible right-of-way abandonments;
c) infrastructure and traffic needs and accommodations;
d. compatibility with the proposed main library facility; and
e) creation of an aesthetically pleasing public space, taking
into account existing and -proposed structures (including the
library and courthouse), amenities, and land/facility uses.
Please find attached a map of the immediate library/courthouse
area showing existing County owned and "to be leased" areas.
69
FEB 14 1989
tlOOK 76 PAGE 140
act
w
z
w
Q
o
23 RD
STREET
0.$211.*
21 ST
STREET
W
z
w
N
JAN. 1.989
- County Owned
- County Leased
(not• yet••flnallzed)
- Being Negotiated
-.Owners Contacted by County
•
-Abandonment Request
Submitted
Planning Dept.
ME
71
FEB 14 1989
1st StlQQep
DLL142
FEB 1
989
BOOK 7 '''GE
3
Administrator Chandler explained that in recent weeks we
have been looking at the overall downtown program in terms of
coordinating the library and the courthouse projects, and have
found many areas of concern that need to be addressed. These
areas range from parking to historical significance of the
buildings. The question is whether we should address those
concerns separately for the courthouse and the library or whether
we should have a master plan. Parking became a very integral
question, and staff sees a need, independent of the main library,
for a master plan for the downtown area.
Stan Boling, Chief of Current Development, displayed an
overview of the downtown area showing the existing parking, etc.
Administrator Chandler felt we have too much potential cost
at stake not to take the time on the front end as there are just
too many areas that need to be addressed, with parking
requirements being the driving force. Staff recommends that we
invest the time and dollars in a master plan because it will pay
dividends in the long run. The estimated cost on that is in the
range of $30,000-$40,000, which is rather on the high side, and
we feel it can be done for Tess. There is funding available that
we can use to pay for this particular study. We would like to
see the consultant identify the problems and present various
alternatives in terms of that development, especially parking.
We then would have a master plan of what we want to do before
proceeding with an architect. Staff does not see the library as
a conflict to what we are looking at to the east, and it would be
their recommendation that the library project keeps on track.
James H. Howell of the architectural firm of Dow -Howell -
Gilmore Associates, Inc. gave a brief presentation on the design
of the main library while explaining that the site plan was
designed around the constraints of the supermarket and the
laundry. The site incorporates approximately 68 parking spaces
to the north and about 40 to the south. The City requires one
parking space for every 400 sq. ft., which is 98 parking spaces.
72
Commissioner Eggert noted that the library building program
requires quite a few more spaces than 98, and Mr. Howell
explained that with the buildings there, we have about 23-24
spaces, so we need the 72 spaces to the north to accommodate the
City's requirements. Once all the buildings are gone, we will
have 148 spaces, which is on program.
Commissioner Bird understood that without the church
parking, and the parking shown in the areas where the supermarket
and laundry are located, the only parking we really have is in
the front on the west side of the site.
Administrator Chandler felt there is no question that we
need the church parking, and advised that we are planning to meet
with the pastor and attorney to see what can be resolved.
Commissioner Eggert noted that the church indicated their
willingness at the time we were selecting the site, and then for
whatever reason, the parking was not finalized.
Administrator Chandler confirmed that we have not nailed
down the church parking, but felt optimistic that we can.
Continuing with the library design, Mr. Howell showed
various elevations of the contemporary design of the library.
Commissioner Bowman had no objection to contemporary
architecture, but felt the contrast would be very stark next to
the existing traditionally -designed church.
Mr. Howell believed that contrast can be very positive, and
pointed out that if the courthouse is to be 5 stories, it most
likely will be fairly contemporary in design.
Commissioner Bowman did not want any tropical hardwoods used
in the construction of the library, interior or exterior, but
Commissioner Eggert didn't think we could afford tropical
hardwoods in any event.
Assuming that the church parking can be nailed down, Mr.
Howell advised that they were in a position now to go to the City
for their approval of the abandonment of 22nd Street and the
parking plan.
73
• E L) 1989
5°C�1( 76 f'A:JF144
FEE a k
BOOK 76 f[ 145
Administrator Chandler felt that at this point we need to
meet with the church and keep all of our options open. If the
Commission concurs with what has been recommended, he would like
authorization to proceed with that concept and nail that down and
bring back the specifics on the request for proposal for
consultants on the master plan. Today, only conceptual approval
is needed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to proceed with getting a master plan of the
downtown area.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT
Commissioner Bowman read the following Summary of Actions on
of the meeting of February 8, 1989:
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
February 8, 1989 MEETING
The following is a summary of the Transportation Planning
Committee meeting of 2/8/89:
1.
Request for Speed Reduction on SR -60 Between Kings Highway
and 1-95
The Committee recommended that the letter from Mr. Gornall,
President, Village Green Homeowners Association, be
forwarded to FDOT asking them to look into this matter.
2. City of Vero Beach A1A Study
The City is contemplating improvements to A1A between. SR -60
and the south City limits.
The Committee recommended that the County Commission release
all impact fees collected in District 2 to the City for
planning, design and construction of the A1A project;
and also recommended that a member of the FDOT staff and a
member of the County staff be included on the selection and
project team.
3. Removal of Traffic Signal at 87th St. and US#1, Wabasso
FDOT would like to remove the traffic signal at 87th Street
and US#1. Inasmuch as the Wabasso Post Office will be
relocated at the end of this month, County staff concurs
that the traffic volume at that intersection will not
warrant a signal.
7,4
4. Speed Limit at 16th Avenue/14th Street
The City has recommended that the Vero Beach Police increase
enforcement around that intersection, and that the school
reduction zone be extended north of the elementary school
area.
5. FDOT Five-year Plan
Committee recommended that FDOT be contacted to voice the
County's concern that some projects that should have been
funded this year have not been shown on their 5 -year plan.
6. Vero Beach Transportation Element
Dennis Ragsdale gave a brief overview of the City's
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, and asked for
comments from the Committee members and County staff. All
comments are to be directed to Jim Davis, who will then
forward them on to the City.
7. County Transportation Element
Bob Keating reviewed how his staff has developed the
Comprehensive Plan. Cheri Boudreaux explained how the new
Florida Standard Urbanization Transportation Program works.
NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT MEETING
Chairman Wheeler announced that immediately upon
adjournment, the Board would reconvene sitting 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
Proclamation Honoring Retirement of County Clerk Freda R. Wright
The following proclamation is to be presented to Freda
Wright on February 18, 1989, at a dinner/reception party in her
honor:
75
FEB v 4 1989
E100 76 F' GL 14
En) 1989
PROCLAMATION
BOOK
riEI4
WHEREAS, Freda R. Wright announced her retirement as
the Clerk of the Circuit Court effective December, 1988 and
we wish to express our appreciation for her outstanding
career on behalf of local government; and
WHEREAS, Freda R. Wright is a native of Vero Beach
born September 8, 1922 when Vero Beach was part of St. Lucie
County; and
WHEREAS, Freda R. Wright's family settled in Indian
River County and was among the pioneers of this County; and
WHEREAS, in November, 1942 Freda R. Wright was
employed by the Clerk of the Circuit Court and remained
until 1946 when she left to be a full-time mother; she
returned to the Clerk's office in 1951; and
WHEREAS, in 1967 Freda R. Wright became Chief Deputy
Clerk, a position she held until 1976; and
WHEREAS, Freda R. Wright was elected as Clerk of the
Circuit Court in November, 1976 by the citizens of Indian
River County; she took office in January, 1977 and continued
until her retirement in December, 1988;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the
Board expresses its deep appreciation for the services FREDA
R. WRIGHT has performed on behalf of Indian River County.
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that our heartfelt wishes for
her success in future endeavors go with her.
Dated this 18th day of February, 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
.76
Gar C. Wheeler
' Ch rman
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:20 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
77
FEB 141989
ROoK 76 P,VE148