HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/21/1989Tuesday, February 21, 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 21, 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 E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and
Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Dr. David Mulford, First Presbyterian Church, gave the
invocation, and Commissioner Scurlock led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Wheeler wished to add under his matters a letter
received from Kurt Spitzer, Executive Director of the Florida
Association of Counties, about the Governor's plan to shift
financial responsibility for many of the roads on the state
highway system to local governments.
Commissioner Eggert requested the addition under 9B.
Emergency Management of a memo regarding amendment to staff
recommendation for funding the Chief Paramedic vehicle.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved addi-
tions to the Agenda as described above.
FEB 21 1989
F
BOO a,, CE 61
FEB 211999
CONSENT AGENDA
BOOK
8 FAcE 62
A. Minutes of Regular Meeting of 1/24/89
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 24, 1989.
There were none.
On Motion by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 24,
1989, as written.
B. Minutes of Regular Meeting of 1/31/89
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 31, 1989.
Commissioner Bowman referred to the second paragraph on Page
15 which states that "....another fact that should be stressed is
that there is a $50 single purchase ceiling on the 1R tax;"
Commissioner Bowman felt this was a confusing statement and that
it should be clarified. After some discussion, it was agreed to
reword the above statement as follows:
n
another fact that
should be stressed is that there is a $50.00 maximum tax on a
single purchase."
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 31,
1989, as corrected.
2
C. Reports
The following report was received and placed on file in the
Office of Clerk to the Board:
Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund,
Month of January, 1989 - $49,685.74
D. Money Returned to BCC by Supervisor of Elections
The Board reviewed memo from the Supervisor of Elections:
February 15, 1989
TO: HON. GARY C. WHEELER, CHAIRMAN, BCC
FROM: ANN ROBINSON, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS 4(L)
RE: ITEM FOR CONSENT AGENDA OF BCC ON FEBRUARY 21, 1989
Thank you for voting for my recommendation last September
to purchase an IBM AS/400. The computer has been installed,
the programs have been migrated from the Clerk's IBM 38, and
the entire voter registration operation for over 50,000 records
is now on the new computer in our office.
The cost was less than anticipated, so I am returning money to
the BCC as follows:
Proposed cost of computer,printer,software,and modem $30,054
Actual cost 29,773
Amount to return to BCC from 001-700-519-066.41 $ 281
Proposed cost of annual maintenance
Actual cost for fiscal year 1988-89
Amount to return to BCC from 001-700-519-034.63
$ 2,376
680
$ 1,696
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously accepted the
funds returned to the Board by the Supervisor of
Elections as listed above.
3
FEB 21 1J89
BOOK
76 FACE 163
FEB 21 iJ89
BOOK.,/ 6 F,{FE 1b4
E. Release of County Liens
The Board reviewed memo from the County Attorney's Office:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Lea R. Keller, County Attorney's Office
DATE: February 15, 1989
RE: CONSENT AGENDA- BCC MEETING 2/21/89
RELEASE COUNTY LIENS
I have prepared the following lien releases and request the
Board authorize the Chairman to execute them:
Lot 127 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot 24 of SUNNYDALE ACRES SUBD., in the name of
LEO JOSEPH LANEY
Lot 2 of SEMINOLE SHORES SUBD., in the name of
FRANK ACITELLI et ux
Lot 1 of REPLAT OF ST. CHRISTOPHER HARBOR,
in the names of RULE and SCHONES
Lot 9 of REPLAT OF ST. CHRISTOPHER HARBOR,
in the names of RULE and TRAINER
Lot 23 of OLD SUGAR MILL ESTATES, Unit 6,
in the name of SEXTON -.et al
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the Release of Liens listed
above.
COPIES OF SAID RELEASE OF LIENS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD.
DISCUSSION RE 14 SALES TAX REQUESTED BY GIFFORD PROGRESSIVE CIVIC
LEAGUE
J. Ralph Lundy, President of the Gifford Progressive Civic
League, informed the Board that he is not here to speak in
opposition to the proposed 14 Sales Tax nor to question the Board
4
on their decision to put this before the voters. The League just
felt it would be wise at this time to make the Board aware of
their concern that the County's proposed spending plan does not
address some much needed capital projects for the Gifford
community, and they would like the Board to give consideration to
including in the first five year phase the capital improve-
ment projects for the Gifford area listed in the following memo:
TO: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: GIFFORD PROGRESSIVE CIVIC LEAGUE
SUBJECT: THE PROPOSED ONE -CENT, 15 YEAR SALES TAX
While the GIFFORD PROGRESSIVE CIVIC LEAGUE recognizes the need for
adequate capital improvement planning for Indian River County and supports
the option which the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMISSION has selected to
increase revenues without increasing property taxes, the GIFFORD
PROGRESSIVE CIVIC LEAGUE is concerned that the county's proposed spending
plan over the first five years of the ONE -CENT, 15 -YEAR SALES TAX does
not address more specifically, some much needed capital improvement projects
for the GIFFORD COMMUNITY. The major premises for the league's concern
are as follows:
1. The Gifford community is the largest, most densely -populated area
in Indian River County.
2. The Gifford community has the lowest per capital family income in
Indian River County.
3. The Gifford community has a high profile of drug and crime.
4. Historically, the Gifford community has lacked adequate capital
improvements.
In light of the foregone premises, the GIFFORD PROGRESSIVE CIVIC LEAGUE
requests that the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMISSION make consideration
and include in the proposed spending plan over the first five years of the ONE -
CENT, 15 YEAR SALES TAX the following additional capital improvement
projects for the Gifford area proper:
1. BRANCH LIBRARY - This would provide an opportunity for students
and citizens to have use of a library locally. It is suggested that the
property adjacent to the Gifford Community Center be obtained for
a library - crime preventive center. If we had a supervised prevention
center facility offering some type of vocational training In connection
with rehabilitation programs, it would help more young people to
become better citizens, continue their education and not take to the
streets. Millions of dollars are spent to build new jails but nothing or
very little is being spent on needed preventive programs. This is costly
to the taxpayers, creates more problems and can be quite destructive.
2. BRANCH• HEALTH CLINIC - With a high population of low-income
families residing in the Gifford community, there is a need to have
a branch health clinic in the area, especially since it is difficult for
some residents to get to the main health department clinic. Is is
suggested here that our county fathers can do a good deed for the
taxpayers, help poor families who need such services by purchasing
and demolishing the vacated building located at 33rd Avenue and 45th
Street. The property is known to be a drug hangout, loitering spot and
eye sore in the community. A health clinic at this site would be
centrally located and more convenient for residents.
FEB 21 66d
1.
5
BOOK EAL 16'3
FEB 21
989
BOOK 76 FAGE 166
3. A SENIOR CITIZEN DAY CARE CENTER - This would enable senior
citizens who need such care to be in their own community. The
Gifford community should be included in plans for future growth. We
should plan to build a much needed facility for poor and elderly
citizens who are lonely and have transportation or other problems.
Since you are asking for approval of the proposed one -cent sales tax,
your approval of the above recommendations would encourage more
voters to support the tax plan, especially the group of citizens who
want to see a better Indian River County for all ages. We trust that
you will act on this request in time to let voters know your stand on
this matter.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to speak to the Branch Health
Clinic listed as Item 2. He explained that we originally had
planned for our new Health Department Building in the second 5
year phase, but we changed our priorities somewhat after the
County Health Director, Dr. Berman, came before us stressing his
critical need. We have been forced to rent additional space to
address immediate needs and have moved the new Health Department
Building to the first 5 year list of projects. Commissioner
Scurlock fully agreed it should be a goal of the Commission to
put some health facilities out in the community where they are
more easily available, and he believed Dr. Berman has every
intent of expanding services out into Gifford, Fellsmere and
Sebastian.
Commissioner Eggert advised that we did look at land in the
Gifford community to see if we couldn't put the whole public
health building there but we couldn't find sufficient land for
the entire facility that met HRS requirements. She confirmed
that we are including a Health Building in the first 5 years, and
Dr. Berman is continuing putting out his clinics. She did not
know that we could guarantee a new building in Gifford, but
believed there certainly will be a clinic opened up there in the
next 5 years.
Commissioner Bird referred to Item 3 - a Senior Citizen Day
Care Center. He did not know that we can build a separate
building in the Gifford area for this purpose in the first 5
years, but wondered if we can't work with the Council on Aging to
see if they might provide some staffing to use the existing
6
Gifford Community Building for some programs for senior citizens.
He noted that community center was meant to be a multi -use
facility, and he felt the more it is used, the better.
Commissioner Eggert addressed Item 1 - the request for a
Branch Library, noting that they hope to break ground for the
North County Library at the end of this year and for the Main
Library probably into next year; so, she did not see how a branch
library could be included in the first 5 years. Once those
libraries are built, we will be looking at population development
to see where the next library should go, and possibly we can work
out something with the Community Center similar to the way we
worked with Fellsmere at the small branch Marion Fell Library.
Although we will not be able to build another library building in
the first 5 years, she did feel something can be done to begin a
program and work on from there.
Mr. Lundy emphasized that Gifford has the largest population
of any unincorporated area of the county and should not be low on
the priority list. He agreed they now have the Community Center
and it is a welcome facility, but felt the Board must realize
that just because the Community Center is there, it cannot take
care of ail their needs.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that we have represented to the
public that these monies will be used for central services, and
the Health Building is mandated. He believed the money generated
can also be used for a long term lease, and he would be very
supportive of trying to decentralize some of the Health services
and put them into the community. A Day Care Center undoubtedly
is much needed, but it is not an essential service. Of the 3
items, he could heavily support the Branch Health Clinic, but
would have some difficulty with the others, especially in the
first 5 years. We will be lucky to get the first two main
libraries on line and functioning in the first 5 years, and
regarding a Day Care Center, he also felt that we can work with
the Council on Aging which may mean leasing some space.
o
7
BOOK 76 Fr1GE 167
FEB N
BOOK 76 FACE 168
Commissioner Eggert commented that we are trying to set up a
Community Development organization in Gifford, and that is the
type thing they can do.
Mr. Lundy next stressed the need for a Crime Prevention
Center. He noted that what is disturbing him is that we are
talking about building new jails, but the Board is not doing
anything about spending any money for crime prevention programs.
Gifford will be contributing millions to this tax over 15 years;
they are trying hard to do something about drugs and crime and to
keep the young people off the street. That is why they are
asking the Board to include a facility in their spending program
so Gifford could have a crime prevention center that would offer
some type of vocational training and rehabilitation programs.
Mr. Lundy brought up the eyesore on 45th St. and 33rd Avenue that
is a drug haven, stressing that it is their hope that could be
torn down and something good built there.
Commissioner Bowman believed demolition of the building is
in the works, and Mr. Lundy continued to stress that they want
something good on that corner.
Chairman Wheeler understood Mr. Lundy's comments about crime
prevention and believed they have merit, but he took issue with
the statement that nothing is being done. Among other programs,
we have the "Just Say No to Drugs" program in the school system;
we have "Crime Watch" programs in many areas; many programs are
in place and being used and things are being done. The Chairman
emphasized that he is for anything that can clean up crime, but
he believed that until people start building a family unit,
teaching children the right values, and sending them to school,
we can do only so much. There are many programs to try to get
the young people's attention, but so far nothing seems to be
working very well. He stressed that this is not an ethnic
problem; it is countrywide.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that we are spending
almost 12 million now on law enforcement in the county, which
8
includes the programs the Chairman is talking about. This makes
up 42% of our budget.
Commissioner Bowman believed there is an immediate need for
some sort of library facility in Gifford. Many students are
attending the classes in the Community Center that Indian River
Community College is providing, computer classes, etc. However,
there is no library facility at all.
Commissioner Eggert stressed that it will take years to get
a building going, and that is why she wants to work on a way to
get some program going on there in the interim.
Chairman Wheeler asked how the Commission would like to
handle the 3 requests presented by Mr. Lundy, and Commissioner
Eggert advised that she personally would like to start working
towards getting some kind of library program together. She felt
we should include the health clinic within our plans for the new
Health Building, and she would like to work with the Council on
Aging towards a Senior Day Care Program.
Commissioner Scurlock believed he is hearing that the
general feeling is to include a branch health clinic in our
capital projects list along with the new Health Building, working
with Dr. Berman on the concept, and on the branch library and
Senior Day Care Center, try to work with existing programs and
agencies.
Commissioner Bird agreed that as far as the Day Care Center
and branch library are concerned, the thing to do is get some
programs started, even in temporary facilities. We cannot make a
commitment this morning to build a structure within that
community for these specific projects within the first 5 years,
but certainly if the programs are up there and doing well and
there is a demonstrated need for a free standing facility, he was
sure that would receive serious consideration at the time we
readdress the priorities for the next 5 year period.
Commissioner Eggert noted that the Marion Fell Library was
staffed by volunteers working along with one librarian, and
9
,FEB 211989
6
`
BooBooa Fr.,f- 169
'FEB 2 'oP
BOOK 76 f.�L 1 70
because that area has a lot of Spanish-speaking people, they have
a lot of classes teaching basic English. Possibly in the Gifford
Community we could have a similar program but concentrate on some
other needs.
Mr. Lundy appreciated the time the Board has given them, but
wished to stress that they are concerned with the drug and crime
problems not only in their area but the whole county. They want
to see the buildings at the 33rd Ave. and 45th St. corner cleaned
up. Students are bussed into the Middle 6 and Middle 7 Schools
in the Gifford area from all over the county, and they see these
things. He believed all the citizens in the county want to see
something done about this and continued to emphasize the need for
a crime preventive program.
The Board members agreed, but noted there are many questions
to be answered about how this would be worked in conjunction with
the Sheriff, what kind of programs, etc.
Victor Hart came before the Board as a member of the Gifford
Progressive Civic League and noted that he also served on the
Board of Directors of the Florida Community Health Center. He
noted that we did have a clinic in the Gifford area, but moved it
out to Fellsmere, and eventually it was decided instead of having
a federal health clinic, the county would go on their own to take
care of the needy citizens. Mr. Hart stated that Okeechobee
County and St. Lucie County have big federal clinics, but Indian
River County doesn't and our citizens have to go down there to
get the service.
Mr. Hart believed everyone would vote for the 14 Sales Tax
if the Board would do something about the problem buildings at
the corner of 45th Street and 33rd Avenue. Gifford is the drug
distribution center for the entire county, and many white
children are up there buying dope as well as the Gifford resi-
dents. If this market is cut off, it will benefit everyone's
children all over the county. Mr. Hart wanted the Board to
10
support a crime prevention program, but not pin it down as just a
,Gifford program.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, to include in our capital projects
list for the first 5 years, along with the new Health
Department, a branch health facility for the Gifford
community, the concept to be worked out with Dr. Berman,
either by tong term lease or construction of a facility,
and in regard to the request for a branch library and
Senior day care center, spend some resources trying to
work with expansion of existing programs.
Commissioner Bird felt the Motion should include that we
will work with the Sheriff on trying to come up with additional
crime prevention programs in that area and also do whatever we
can to clean up the rat's nest at 33rd Avenue and 45th Street.
He did not know that building a new building there is necessarily
the answer to that problem.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed to include the above as part of
the Motion.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION with the addition.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL - NORTH COUNTY SUBREGIONAL SEWER PROJECT
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:
11
FEB 2 1989
H F''6
500`
SFE b
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
'7/0-4;
in the matter of (12
G.
in the _ Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of J�J
E
i,/4/yf,
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in sajd Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
(SEAL)
cr,.......:n �;:.. i .t. !err •'). ,'2
: •.,,
BOOK /6 rAr," 172
•'
757 r. _ NOTICE OF PUBLIC 4EAR1NG
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA;:a:.}:: "`
To: ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ••,: -..:.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County,-
Florida
ounty;Florida (the ••Board" and „County", respective -
hr) will meet on Feb: 21st; 1989„ 'at 9:05.A.M, In
the County Commission Chambers , at. Vero
Beach, Florida. to hear any and a11 complaints of
those owners of property to be assessed Special
Assessments in Lieu of Impact Fees C'Assees-
ments") and any other interested persons. The,
County has approved cartelgcimprovements
whlch consist of the acguisltlon••and construe,
tion of alterations, extensions and additions to
the sanitary sewage collection, transmission;
treatment and disposal system facilities of. the
County In certain unincorporated- areeciin is
northern portion of Inc County 'and m -cert l f
areas of the City of Sebastian, . Fiorida:.more
particularly described In plana and spectfa-'`
lions on file with the County (the' Project). The'
Assessments are being made in.ocnnectionerith
the Project, are being made only with the written •
consent of Inc owner of the properties -to be EF
'sensed and are In lieu of the impact; fees' other+:-
wise imposed by the County -.t' :,p,
A description of each propertyio be assessed•
and the amount to be assessed Weeds property
may be ascertained at the offlce,icf the Qlerk,of
the County. • •-'The Assessments+ehall ”Ixti paida In':'t n (t .
equal annual installments together, with interest
on the outstanding amount of the.thpiloabte As-.
sessment at a rate not to exceedtwo: percent
�bove the • Interest rate iedby Incth County► on with tA
sessments.
If any Installment la not paid, when •
:
due, the County may dec1are;.tho ,entire ;out -.
amount of the Assessment, ,together
with the accrued Interest thereon and an appro-
priate Interest and/or U charge,.fm-
mediately due and payable. Assessment or
Installment thereof not pald when due shall be
subject to a penalty at the rate'bf one percent
(1%per month or portion thereof 'until paid..The
entire outstanding amount of any AsseSSrrient
may bo prepaid at any time provided that the
crued Interest thereon and en. appropriate inter
est and/or prei nt chemists paid topgtA
therewith. Tha• roes' shall let .lsirled
against the properties to be assessed on Inc
basis of the number of Equivalent Residential
Units (ERUs) assigned to and reserved for each
such property. Any Hen upon an assessed prop-
erty resulting from an Assessment she be extn-
gulshed upon the recording In 'the Official
Records of the County of an affidavit executed
by the Chairman of the Board to Inc attect:tfat
Inc applicable Assessment has been paid IA full
or that sufficient security has • been deposited
with the County In order to Insure timely pay-.
ment of such Assessment. In appropriate oases,
particularly for large propertlae,"leten :df
or other security may be required to be provided
to the County in order.to name payment fir pfd •:
Assessment with respect to the properly,
At the above named date, time and
Board 0111 receivearny tit mptabge of
persons
as to the Pro) and t i
After
tanslderittest of sny'auch oonnplahlts:
the Board may takt any. action ft..
and right assamenta,t,141
eAto
ons*nmayInselem.
MA
dances uppona'
Utilities Director Pinto reviewed the history of how this
project came about after our successful experience putting
together a similar project on Route 60. He explained that after
meeting with numerous property owners in the area to determine
those who would support construction of a wastewater facility, we
met with the City of Sebastian since it was obvious we would have
to run lines through the City and it would be to their advantage
to join in the project. We have established a program where the
property owners would volunteer to be assessed for the amount
that equated to the number of units they want to reserve in the
12
sewer system. Director Pinto noted that it has been a struggle
to get to where we are now. There are some 344 parcels in the
unincorporated area of the county, which represent some 3,287
units, and they represent some $4,437,450. This assess-
ment will be the collateral for us raising the funds through
borrowing to build the facility.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the total funds generated are
$6,940,350 and wished to know what the engineers' estimate for
construction of the facility amounts to.
Director Pinto advised it is very close to that amount. We
certainly could use more customers in the system, but he believed
it will work.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that sometimes there is a mis-
understanding when we say this assessment is voluntary, and he
wished to make it clear that it is voluntary only up to a certain
point. Anyone has the opportunity to back out, but once they
have committed and signed on the dotted line, then at some given
point, such as today when we approve the final assessment roll,
the voluntary aspect is over.
Director Pinto clarified that the voluntary assessment is
really a vehicle for those who wish to finance the impact fees
over a 10 year period. He pointed out that this does not
necessarily mean that everything is totally voluntary. If, for
instance, there is some establishment that is causing a health
problem and is able to connect to the system, they will be
required to connect. If they have chosen not to be voluntarily
assessed, then at the time they do connect, they will pay 100% of
whatever the impact fees are at the time of connection.
Director Pinto felt another thing that must be clearly understood
is that this voluntary assessment pays for capacity in the
treatment plant and part of the major line; it does not pay for
building the lines down the various little streets when the
systems gets expanded. That will involve a separate assessment,
and only those who benefit specifically from those lines will pay
13
FEB 21 1989
BOOK 76 1t 173
FED 21 1989
BOOK f3,i1
4
for them. The assessment we are discussing today simply
guarantees you capacity in the treatment facility. He noted that
we have now reached a point on SR 60 where there is no more
capacity available in the plant for those who have not already
made their reservation.
Commissioner Scurlock asked that Director Pinto explain the
base facility charge.
Director Pinto explained that_the base facility charge
represents the fixed costs in the operation of a wastewater
treatment plant, which costs are there regardless of the flow,
i.e., operating cost and debt service cost. Once you have
reserved your capacity and the county is holding your capacity,
we have to treat you as a customer of the system. That charge is
a monthly bill charge and you will be charged that times how many
units you have reserved.
Director Pinto further reported that we are probably 80%
permitted for this project; however, we still have not obtained
all the easements we need. The railroad has not been cooperative
and will not give us any easements on their property. We have
taken the position these easements should not be paid for because
the people who own the property where the easements are located
have the advantage of the line being right on their property and
this relates directly to the cost of connection. The easements
are placed where they will not interfere with development of any
property, and the availability of the utility actually enhances
the value of the property.
Commissioner Scurlock reviewed and explained the different
sources of revenue that come into the system - the impact fees,
the franchise fee, the surcharge, the base facility charge, the
billing charge, and the gallonage charge, and further noted that
there are special assessments to pay the impact fee and then
there are special assessments we do to run laterals. All this
relates to how we work out the bond covenants.
14
Director Pinto agreed it is a very complicated matter. He
then displayed the assessment roll, noting that it is a large
volume and because it took a long time to put it together, it had
changes practically daily because of the changes in ownership of
property. After the roll is presented today, the assessment will
be recorded against the property, but we will have a continuing
effort to keep up with the changes in ownership.
Commissioner Eggert inquired as to the best "guesstimate"
for the first phase to be up in Sebastian, and Director Pinto
hoped to see the system built and on line within 18 months.
In discussion re future expansion of utilities, Director
Pinto advised that there is also a tremendous interest in having
a regional water plant in this same area.
Commissioner Scurlock reported that we are at about 12,000
customers and anticipate that doubling within the next 4 years.
Director Pinto further reported that the site for this plant
is in Hobart, and the effluent has been permitted for reuse on
the county golf course.
Commissioner Scurlock advised that we are going to all golf
courses in the county about effluent disposal and have been
talking to John's Island about their raw water line.
Director Pinto stressed that anyone who gets a well permit
now for irrigation has to agree that when effluent water is
available, they will use it. The big problem is the south county
where there are no golf courses.
Chairman Wheeler asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Eric Pollard, 6153 98th Place, Sebastian, noted he reserved
an ERU in 1987 and was told at that time that it would lock in an
impact fee of $1,250 and that it was permissible to pay it in
cash. Now, it seems there is talk about an assessment of $1,350
payable over 10 years.
Director Pinto explained that if you intend to be assessed
over the 10 year period, the cost of issuance is added, which
bring it up to $1,350. If you pay in cash, you pay $1,250.
15
BOOK /6 FAEE 1 7 e5
FEB 2 I 1989 J
FEB 21 X98
BOOK 76 FACE 176
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard, and
the Chairman closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION BY Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted Resolu-
tion 89-20 confirming the special assessments in
connection with the North County Subregional Sewer
Project.
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 20
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
CONFIRMING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN
LIEU OF IMPACT FEES IN CONNECTION WITH
AN SANITARY SEWER PROJECT OF THE COUNTY
LOCATED IN THE NORTH PORTION OF THE
COUNTY AND PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT LIENS TO BE MADE OF RECORD.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, by Resolution No. 87-142, adopted December 1,
1987, determined to make special assessments in lieu of
impact fees against certain properties to be serviced by a
sanitary sewer project of the County located in the northern
portion of the County;
WHEREAS, said resolution described the manner in which
said special assessments shall be made and how said special
assessments are to be paid;
WHEREAS, the resolution was published as required by
§11-52, Indian River County Code;
WHEREAS, an assessment, roll in connection with said
special assessments has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County passed Resolution No. 89-12 on January 24,
1989, which set a time and place for a public hearing at
which the owners of the properties to be assessed and other
interested persons would have the chance to be heard as to
any and all complaints as to said project and said special
assessments, and for the Board to act as required by §11-53,
Indian River County Code;
WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of the public
hearing was published in the Press Journal. Newspaper on
16
February 6, 1989, and February 13, 1989 (twice one week
apart and the last being at least one week prior to the
hearing) as required by 411-52, Indian River County Code;
WHEREAS, the land owners of record were mailed notices
on February 3, 1989 (at least ten days prior to the hearing)
as required by §11-52, Indian River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County on February 21, 1989, at 9:05 A.M. conducted
the public hearing with regard to the special assessments;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The special assessments shown on the attached
assessment roll aie hereby confirmed and approved, and shall
remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the
properties assessed until paid In full.
2. That the Clerk is hereby directed to record the
special assessments and this resolution, which describes the
properties assessed and the amounts of the special
assessments, on the public records which shall constitute
prima facie evidence .of the validity of the special
assessments.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Eggert and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 21st day of February, 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
ASSESSMENT ROLL IS BEING RECORDED AND WILL BE PUT ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK WHEN RECEIVED
SE62.1 '98E
76 E177
FEa 21 )989
BOOK 76 FAGE 178
CHANGE ORDER #2 - GOLDEN SANDS PARK (DICKERSON)
The Board reviewed memo from County Engineer James White:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: James D. White, P.E.
Acting County Enginee
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Change Order #2 -.Golden Sands Park
Modification to SA A1A, Dickerson Florida, Inc.
DATE: February 10, 1989
Description and Conditions
The approved drawings for the paving work on SR A1A described the
5/8 inch thick friction course to end in the middle of the paved
shoulder, or approximately 2 feet from the edge of the pavement.
This would leave a 5/8 inch ridge in the road surface. DOT said
that was an oversight in the review or the plans would not have
been approved. The contractor will extend the friction course 2'
on each side at the same unit ratio as the rest of the surface
for a total cost invoice of $777.60.
Alternates and Analysis
The alternative to approving the change is to accept the ridge in
the pavement which could pose a safety hazard to motorists and
bike riders.
Recommendations and Funding
Staff recommends that the chairman be authorized to execute this
change order #2 for a cost invoice of $777.60. Funds are
available in Fund 310.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute Change Order #2 for altera-
tions to SR A1A at the entrance to Golden Sands Park
in the amount of $777.60.
18
CHANGE ORDER
NO. 7
DATED 7anuar_y 27. 1989
OWNER'S PROJECT NO. 8557 ENGINEER'S PROJECT NO.
PROJECT Golden Sands Park
OWNER Tndian Rivpr County
CONTRACTOR ni ekerson Florida . Inc. CONTRACT DATE
CONTRACT FOR
Aug. 5. 1988
NATURE OF THE CHANGE:
Extend paving width for friction course asphalt FC -2 to by 2 ft. on
each side to full width of pavement.
Lump Sum Cost Increase
$ 777.60
The changes result in the following adjustment of Contract price and Time:
Original Contract Price
$ 47,777 An
Contract Adjustment by previous Change Orders $ 47,011_90
Net (Increase) 4+a4gtt resulting from this Change Order
$ 777 An
Current Price Including This Change Order $ qn nA7 an
Contract Time Prior to this Change Order
Net (Increase) (Decrease) resulting from
this Change Order
Current Contract time including this
Change Order
COMPLETION DATED IS FEB. 7, 1989
120 Calendar Days
-0- Calendar Days
120 Calendar Days
The above changes are approved:
Engineer
ice.
ate: a/o//may
•
The above changes are accepted: DIC ERSON FLORIDA, INC.
Indian Riva CM Approved r� Dale
Cid' z-22 S 4
Admin.
logal
=Dept ek,DI 1/,/g1
rN:slc
mgr.!
•
FEB 21 '98g
By:
Title:
Date:
ACCEPTED BY:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Gar/ C. Wheeler Chairman
- &J -f7
Des t�
19 BOOK G 1 PAGE 179
FEB 21 `989
BOOK 76 f'ai,E 180
GOLDEN SANDS PARK - FINAL PAYMENT TO DENNIS L. SMITH, INC.
The Board reviewed memo from the Capital Projects Manager:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: James D. White, P.E.
Capital Projects Manage
t2
SUBJECT: Final Payment - Retainage Release
Dennis L. Smith, Inc. -Golden Sands Park
Indian River County Project #8552
DATE: February 10, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
All work is complete on subject contract for parking lot
construction at Golden Sands Park. The Contractor has requested
final payment and release of retainage. The final payment is
$4,932.72. The Final Contract cost has been $119,770.22. This
cost is $35,735.48 less than the $155,505.70 bid price resulting
in a savings of 23% of the contract price. This savings is
mostly due to final quantities of work being less than bid
quantity.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends acceptance of the work and approval of final
payment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
final payment to Dennis L. Smith, Inc., for parking
lot construction at Golden Sands Park in the amount
of $4,932.72 as recommended by staff.
PAVING OF BLUE CYPRESS LAKE ROAD
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Davis:
20
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Paving of Blue Cypress Lake Road
DATE: February 13, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In January, 1989, the Board of County Commissioners directed
staff to meet with the property owners that use Blue Cypress Lake
Road for ingress/egress to their private property and recommend
to the Board a program for the paving of the 4.9 mile road with
the County share being 50% of the cost. On Friday, Feb. 10,
1989, at 7:30 PM, the Public Works Director and Road and Bridge
Superintendent met with many of the property owners at Blue
Cypress Lake. A vote was taken, and of the 26 persons in
attendance, 22 voted not in, favor of paving the road and 4 voted
in favor of its paving. The residents did request that a short
200'± section of the road be paved at its SR60 connection and
that a westbound deceleration right turn lane be constructed
along SR60. The residents were in favor of a boat ramp launch
user fee if a $20 annual permit to use the ramp was in effect.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS _
Since the majority of the persons in the area do not want to
- participate in paving the road, staff is of the opinion that an
agreeable formula for assessment cannot be obtained. The
property owners who reside in the 100 lot fish camp and the
abutting property owners along the road (Mr. Holman and Mr.
Priestly) are not in favor of the paving.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the south 200'± of Blue Cypress Lake Road
be paved at a cost not to exceed $5,000 and that the DOT be
requested to issue a permit for a right -turn deceleration lane
along SR60 at the road connection. The turn lane will cost
approximately $10,000 unless an entire overlay of SR60 is
required. Once a permit is received, staff will address funding
for the turn lane.
A boat ramp user fee of $2 per launching is recommended, as well
as a $20 annual permit for frequent users. These funds should be
set-aside for park and road maintenance, with the approval of the
US Fisheries Service, who funded construction of the ramp.
Funding to be from Road and Bridge Fund 111-214.
MOTION WAS MADE BY Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to approve staff recommendation.
Commissioner Bird did not have any problem with paving the
south 200' as recommended, but in regard to the $2 boat launching
fee, the memo refers to getting approval from the US Fisheries
SES 21 198 9
IL
21
[ooK6 E l8
BOOK 76 l r c€182
Service, and he was not sure that is correct. He also asked if
adopting a launching fee should be done by ordinance, by
resolution, or just by a Motion of the Commission.
Attorney Vitunac advised that there is no need for an
ordinance; it is however the county wants to adopt a fee
structure and whether they want public input, etc.
Commissioner Scurlock believed we have a specific agreement
with Mr. Middleton about his services out there and he felt we
would have to look at that document to see what his
responsibilities are, how he would collect this charge, and what
he would receive for doing so, if anything. Also, there should
be some sort of audit provision.
Commissioner Bird noted that he would like to delete that
part of the Motion until we get some more clarification about our
contract with Mr. Middleton.
Commissioner Bowman withdrew her earlier Motion.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
paving the south 200' of Blue Cypress Lake Road
as recommended by staff and directed staff to
contact Mr. Middleton as discussed.
R&B REQUEST TO RESURFACE 3 MILES OF COUNTY ROADS
The Board reviewed memo from the Public Works Director:
22
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,,_
Public Works Director(4;;;)°
SUBJECT: Road and Bridge Division Request for Approval to
Resurface Three Miles of County Roads
DATE: February 13, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In the approved FY88/89 budget, $400,000 was appropriated for
road resurfacing (line item 111-214-541-035.31). The current
unencumbered balance in the account is $364,793. So that the
Road and Bridge Division can begin implementation of its annual
resurfacing program, we are requesting approval to resurface the
following three miles of roadway at this time.
1) 69th Street (N. Winter Beach Road)
from 58th Ave to 66th Ave.
1 mile - cost = 720 tons x $33/ton = $23,760
2) 9th Street SW (Oslo Road)
from 74th Ave. to 82nd Ave
1 mile - cost - 720 tons -x $33/ton = $23,760
3) 58th Avenue north of SR 60 Various.: areas
1 mile - cost - 720 tons x $33/ton = $23,760
Total cost $71,280
Approximately $290,000 will remain unallocated until late spring,
at which time staff will prepare a further list of roads to be
resurfaced.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
In order to spread the preparation work over a longer period, we
request approval of the above three roads at this time and
presentation to the Board of a final list in May, 1989. In the
past, the entire resurfacing program was presented in the early
summer and a short implementation time resulted in non -sufficient
time prior to a Sept. 30 fiscal year end.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that approximately $71,280 be allocated from
111-214-541-035.31 to resurface the three roads listed above.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
the allocation of approximately $71,280 for the road
resurfacing as recommended by staff and set out in the
above memo.
23
1 1989
BOOK 76 f'a E 183
REPLACEMENT MOTOR GRADER FOR R&B DIVISION
BOOK
76 FA E 184
The Board reviewed memo from the Public Works Director:
: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
DATE: February 13, 1989
SUBJECT: Replacement Motor Grader for Road and Bridge Division
REF. MEMO: Albert VanAuken to James Davis dated 2-3-89
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Recently, the 1975 Champion Grader #50 blew an engine and
repairs are estimated at $25,000. The Public Works Department
does not recommend that this grader be repaired, but that we
trade it in on a new grader at a cost of approx. $70,000. Since
a third grader was not approved by the Board of County Commission
last budget year, staff is requesting that existing budgeted
funds be used to purchase a new grader to replace #50. If this
is approved, we will save $25,000 in repair costs and not ask for
any new graders for the FY1989/90 budget. Back-up information is
attached.
This grader is one of seven graders used for grading unpaved
roads in the County's grading routes.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The Alternatives are
Alternative # 1
Repair the existing grader. This is not recommended since
the appraised value of the 1975 Champion Grader is less than
the repair cost.
Alternative # 2
Purchase a replacement grader at a cost of approximately
$70,000.
Alternative # 3
Eliminate a grader route.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
The Road and Bridge Division has sufficient funds unencumbered
for the 88/89 fiscal year to purchase a third new motor grader
since recent bids for budgeted equipment came in substantially
less than anticipated.
Account numbers 102-214-541-066.43 and 173-214-541-066.43 have an
excess of $107,545 due to lower costs of equipment already
approved for purchase. Staff recommends that the excess funds be
used to replace the Champion Grader.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to authorize the use of excess
funds in the R&B Division budget to replace the Champion
Grader as recommended by staff.
24
Commissioner Scurlock agreed that this is a good purchase at
this time as he believed the county has been moving aggressively
to pave additional roads and square off grader routes; however,
he noted that Director Davis has indicated the resurfacing of
roads takes place about every 14 years, and he felt we need to
keep very much in mind, as we move aggressively into petition
paving, that there will be a cost involved with resurfacing in
the future.
Commissioner Bird wished to know if we are going back to the
bid we previously received on a grader and going with the low
bid, and Director Davis stated that it is possible our 60 day
time limit has expired, and we may have to go back out to bid.
Commissioner Scurlock believed there may be an active bid
out for a grader for Utilities, and suggested we look into that.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION RE "DRUG NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD"
Assistant County Attorney Collins made the following
presentation:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: W!/ William G. Collins II - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: February 15, 1989
SUBJECT: Report of Committee Looking into Feasibility of a
"Drug Nuisance Abatement Board"
On January 17, 1989 the Board of County Commissioners
authorized a committee composed of a representative from the
State Attorney's Office, from the Sheriff's Department, from
the County Attorney's Office, Reverend Donald Brown, and a
citizen of his choosing to meet as a committee to determine
whether a Drug Nuisance Abatement Board as authorized by
Florida Statute 893.138 would provide any assistance in
dealing with the crack cocaine problem over and above
existing laws.
FEB 21 i9
25
soar /6 FAH 1.85
BOOK 76 f."GF.186
FIRST MEETING
At the first meeting of the Committee, the Assistant State
Attorney David Morgan pointed out that the existing
loitering statutes are not a viable tool to combat crack
cocaine dealing on public streets and in parking areas. A
conviction for loitering under state law can only be
obtained under circumstances that warrant justifiable and
reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of
persons or property in the vicinity. Absent some actual
threat to persons or property, a person loitering for the
purpose of drug dealing is not subject to an arrest that
will stick. People cannot be arrested simply for being in a
public place. Mr. Morgan was open to any other alternative
approaches that would truly.. help to combat crack dealing.
Before proceeding further, the Committee resolved to check
on the experience that other cities and counties had had in
trying to implement this statute.
CHECK OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS
A complete summary of the experience of cities that had set
up Drug Nuisance Abatement Boards is attached to this memo.
To summarize, there was considerable difference from city to
city in how the Boards were set up and how they were
utilized. The City of Miami Beach and the City of Orlando
had full time legal staffs affiliated with the Police
Departments who were using the Boards to prove up the
unlawful sale of drugs. There were substantial _problems in
using this approach and the Committee recommends against
that approach. A more suitable approach would be to combine
some of the best of Gainesville and Riviera Beach
experience. In Gainesville, each time a conviction is
obtained for an unlawful sale of controlled substances at a
particular premises, the owner of those premises is notified
of that conviction and advised to abate the nuisance which
allows the drug dealing to go on. The same thing occurs
after a second conviction. After a third conviction, a
police officer would appear before the Drug Nuisance
Abatement Board and present certified copies of the three
convictions and after hearing any defense of the owner,
decide whether to take any action to declare the premises a
public nuisance and enter orders which may include shutting
down the business activity for a period of up to one year.
The City of Gainesville uses a paid hearing officer from
Tallahassee or a local attorney under contract as a hearing
officer for the Drug Nuisance Abatement Board rather than
having a citizen board. The City of Riviera Beach utilizes
its Code Enforcement Board as the Drug Nuisance Abatement
Board. This would have a significant advantage. In Miami
Beach, the experience has been that orders are often ignored
and in order to obtain compliance, the attorney must go to
court to seek an injunction enforcing the order. Were the
order to be issued by the Code Enforcement Board, any
failure to -Obey the order would be a violation subject to
penalties of up to $250 per day which could be a lien
against the nuisance property.
SECOND MEETING
The Committee met again to discuss the' experience of other
cities and determined that there would be some advantages to
going ahead and setting up such a board. The representative
of the Sheriff's Department agreed that their officers could
present evidence in the form of certified convictions to the
Board. The State Attorney's Office agreed to draft an
evidentiary checklist of questions that should be entered
26
into the record to assure that the order would survive an
appeal to circuit court. The County Attorney's Office would
be responsible for drafting the, ordinance and staffing the
Board.
PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES
A Drug Nuisance Abatement Board with the power to shut down
business for up to one year effectively transfers some of
the responsibility for combatting drug dealing to private
property owners. Repeated convictions for drug sales at the
same location are evidence of a public nuisance. The owner
can take steps to abate the nuisance when notified of its
existence. Those having a property interest have a duty to
use whatever legal means is available to see that the
property is not used for unlawful purposes. If a property
is shut down or if a business is shut down, the Drug
Nuisance Abatement Board could retain jurisdiction to lift
the order if the owner presented a showing of adequate
security measures in place for a reopening.
COST ISSUE
Besides the staff time from a number of agencies necessary
to bring a case to the point where an order of nuisance
abatement can be entered, there will be additional real
costs. Properties which are under a nuisance abatement
order should be posted as such, with citation to the statute
and a notice that any persons on the premises will be
considered to be trespassing since the business is closed.
The signs have a cost and vandalism is always a possibility,
but at that point, if people continue to deal drugs from the
premises, they may be arrested for trespassing which would
give probable cause for a search which might disclose the
possession of illegal drugs. The State Attorney's Office
feels that this would be a step forward in combatting the
drug dealing problem.
PRACTICAL ISSUES
The Code Enforcement Board presently has a very heavy
schedule. At its January meeting over 22 cases were on the
agenda. The meeting ran from 1:30 to after 5:00 with no
breaks. The additional responsibility to sit as a Drug
Nuisance Abatement Board may entail some delay in hearing
cases simply because of already lengthy agendas.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the County Attorney's Office to draft an ordinance
establishing the Code Enforcement Board as a Drug Nuisance
Abatement Board, which ordinance implements the
recommendations of the Committee report as set out above.
Commissioner Scurlock did not feel the Board should vote on
this item today. He had a number of concerns, the first being
that the vehicle we would use would be the Code Enforcement Board
which is already overtaxed. Secondly, he believed there is a
philosophical question in regard to putting the burden on a
business or property owner. People dealing in drugs are not
FEB 21 196d
27 Roos 1 b rgE187
FEB 21 1989
BOOK
76 f,j,EiS8
exactly placid people, and it could be difficult for the property
owner to address the issue. Thirdly, he had a concern about the
cost involved. He could envision adding 3, 4 or 5, Code
Enforcement Officers, which could involve a very significant
amount, and if we are going to come up with those
kind of dollars, he believed those monies would be better spent
on an education program aimed at prevention as stressed by Mr.
Lundy earlier. He also did not think a Board such as proposed
has been very successful so far.
Commissioner Scurlock continued that he had listened to the
comments made earlier about the bad situation with the drug
dealing at the rundown buildings at the corner of 45th Street
and 33rd Avenue. He agreed that you can always see someone
pedaling drugs in that area and could not understand if this is
such a significant and well known problem area, why we don't just
post a police officer there 24 hours a day and run them off. He
continued to emphasize that we should have a much higher presence
of officers in that vicinity. We allot 12 million out of our
budget to law enforcement; we have many deputies; and we have
identified a specific area; so, he did not see why we can't keep
the pressure on the drug dealers.
Commissioner Bowman did not believe the original intent
behind this was to establish a Drug Nuisance Abatement Board.
She felt that what was wanted was a loitering ordinance similar
to the one they have in Fort Myers.
Attorney Collins explained that the one in Fort Myers is
identical to the state loitering statute and that will give us
nothing beyond the powers we already have under state law.
Commissioner Bowman felt in that case we should go ahead and
enforce the state law. She believed that most of this is not
going on inside buildings, but along the R/Ws.
Commissioner Bird felt the difficulty with a loitering
ordinance is how do you use it effectively against those breaking
28
the law and not infringe on the rights of the legitimate citizens
to congregate with friends and talk. It is a fine line.
Commissioner Bowman was sure that the Sheriff's Department
knows every dealer in town.
Mrs. Ola Smith, owner of Smith's Groceries at 3206 45th St.,
felt what is proposed penalizes the business people for things
they have tried to correct. She has had problems with the drug
situation for years, and if, for instance, 3 people are arrested
for selling drugs on her property, she is not at fault because
she is not involved with drugs at all and never has been. Her
problem is that she cannot drive these people away from her
property. She has called in complaints about a drug deal, but a
Deputy did not show up until finally a fight broke out. Mrs.
Smith believed the Deputies know what is going on and ignore it.
She continued to stress that she has tried to chase the people
off her property, both black and white, and then they go in the
back of her building. She felt if the Deputies were doing the
job they are supposed to do, they could make some big arrests.
Chairman Wheeler, speaking from his experience as the owner
of a private business located near the high school, agreed that
what is proposed could put an undue burden on the property owner.
Commissioner Bird believed it also could put their lives in
jeopardy, and Mrs. Smith noted that she did not see how it would
help to close her business down for 12 months and put the offend-
ers in jail and fatten them up for a few days.
Commissioner Scurlock suggested a Motion stating that we not
move forward with the Drug Nuisance Abatement Board as proposed
but request the Sheriff to show a much higher presence at the
trouble spots.
Commissioner Bowman requested that the Commission adopt an
emergency ordinance similar to the one in the Oslo area and get
some of these buildings demolished as quickly as possible.
In discussion, it was noted that was done by Resolution and
29
FEB 21 198P
!100K
,fE13 21
BOOK 76 r,icE 190
that Resolution was expanded to include other problem areas of
the county.
Commissioner Bowman asked Building Director Rymer the status
of the demolition of the buildings at 45th St. and 33rd Ave.
Director Rymer informed the Board that those buildings are
owned by Mr. Gary Anthony, and he has hired an architect to
restore them. He has made application for a building permit, and
we are waiting for him to get with the Planning Department to see
what he can make of the buildings because they have been empty so
long.
Commissioner Bowman wished to know how long this can be
dragged out, and Director Rymer believed that is a problem that
would have to be addressed by the Commission. We can't go in and
demolish a building just because it is vacant and looks terrible.
The owner has the right to fix it or restore it, but he is
running out of time to fix it up.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the Board is indicating that
the Building Department should pursue this with due diligence.
Mrs. Rymer confirmed that the clock is running, and she is
in the process of notifying Mr. Anthony he either has to pull a
building permit or tear the buildings down.
MOTION WAS MADE BY Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that we not move forward with the
Drug Nuisance Abatement Board as proposed but request
the Sheriff to show a much higher presence at the
trouble spots.
James Richardson, owner of Richardson's Restaurant at 2960
43rd Street, advised that he has been in business at that
location since 1954, and he is very much concerned about these
drug problems. He believed the problems are getting worse; gangs
of teenagers hang around the streets, tear up signs, and race
their 3 -wheelers up and down the street. They are bad for his
30
business, and when he tries to chase them off, they say they are
not on his property, and if he calls the Sheriff, they disappear
before the law gets there. These teenagers hang around at all
hours of the day and night, and Mr. Richardson felt something
must be done to put pressure on the parents by holding them
responsible for what their children do.
Some discussion ensued as to whether there could be a curfew
for minors and also as to the fact that it is illegal for the
3 -wheelers to be on public roads.
Commissioner Bird noted the Motion on the floor is to ask
the Sheriff to give increased attention to this area, and that
should help.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that state law allows a
curfew only in an emergency situation and then only for 72 hours.
Chairman Wheeler believed we used to be able to have a
curfew for minors, but now everyone is afraid of violating
someone's rights. He felt meetings such as this today need to
get to the attention of the Legislature so we can start to turn
things around as he was sure we all want the same thing.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR FUNDING OF VEHICLE FOR
CHIEF PARAMEDIC
The Board reviewed memo from the Emergency Management
Director:
,FEB 21
31
[kooK 76 191
FEB 21 1989
Boor 76 WI 192
TO: James Chandler DATE: February 16, 1989 FILE:
County Administrator
Approval of Amendment to
SUBJECT: Staff Recommendation for
Funding the Chief Paramedic
Vehicle Approved By Board of
County Commissioners on
February 14, 1989
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 February 14, 1989, the Indian River County Board of County Com-
missioners approved a vehicle lease with World Omni Leasing, Inc.,
for a period of 60 months at the rate of $286.05 per month with
up front costs of $736.21. The Chairman was authorized to execute
the necessary documents to effect the lease.
Since the Board approved the long term lease, the Department of
Emergency Management Services determined that the Florida National
Bank would provide the funds to purchase the vehicle with terms
of $286.00 for eleven months and a final payment of $12,772.05
and $736.00 up front costs. The rate of interest would be 11%
per annum which is the prime rate. The total costs of the vehicle
will be $15,918 plus a small amount of interestthat will be accrued.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
This method of financing would be of benefit to the County since
the ALS funding from the Hospital is insufficient to purchase the
vehicle this fiscal year. The Department of Emergency Management
Services intends to budget for funding to pay the financial insti-
tution for the vehicle in the next fiscal year.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
this alternative method of financing the Chief Paramedic vehicle.
This will preclude the County engaging in the long term lease and
reduce the costs of the vehicle from $17,163 to $15,918.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
alternative method of financing the Chief Paramedic
vehicle as recommended by staff and set out above.
32
JUNGLE TRAIL/SEA OAKS RIVER VILLAS I
Assistant County Attorney Collins reviewed the following:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM : William G. Collins II - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: February 15, 1989
SUBJECT: Jungle Trail/Sea Oaks River Villas I
BACKGROUND
The scenic and historic road ordinance has as an objective
(Section 18-22(3)) "to protect the public interest in
historic and scenic roads from activities, land uses, signs
and the unnecessary removal of native vegetation, which
impair ... its visual qualities."
Section 18-26 states that "the Community Development
Division shall implement guidelines for the maintenance of
the scenic and historic roads. These guidelines will be
adopted by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners
and shall include:
(1) The prohibition on clear cutting of vegetation in the
protected area.
(2) Provide for the cutting of selective vegetation within
the protected area upon the recommendation of the Community
Development Division and approval of the County Planning and
Zoning Commission.
(3) Rules will be adopted to promote the establishment of
planting strips within the protected area to be comprised of
native vegetation.
The Community Development Division has been issuing permits
for selective clearing of vegetation within the protected
area based on the authority of this ordinance. As a quid
pro quo, they have been requesting the planting of strips of
native vegetation to advance the objectives of Section
18-22(3).
PRESENT SITUATION -
The developers of Sea Oaks River Villas I object to a
condition that required them to plant a continuous opaque
native vegetation screen, having a height of at least 10
feet within 3 years of planting along the edge of the road
right-of-way, as well as additional canopy tree groupings
within the buffer area, OR that they conform to the Jungle
Trail Management Plan which is yet to be adopted. They have
taken the position that there is no legal authority to
require them to do any landscaping of the buffer area along
Jungle Trail beyond the normal requirements of the landscape
ordinance. However, they did submit an alternative
landscaping plan which included lower native planting in the
30 -foot buffer area with a berm along the easternmost
portion of the buffer area and some higher planting atop the
berm which both partially screened their multifamily
33
FEB 21 1989
�JOK l f'�r.E i c y
FEB 21 1989
Boy 76 'f'� ��� � 19
structures and afforded river views from the apartment
windows.
Sea Oaks, even though they have taken advantage of the
selective cutting provisions of Ordinance Section 18-26 have
asserted that they are under no legal obligation to comply
with the native planting strip requirements of Section 18-26
until such time as a "Jungle Trail Management Plan" is
adopted by resolution of the Board. It is the opinion of
the County Attorney's Office that until such time as a full
management plan is adopted by resolution of the Board, the
guidelines for maintenance of scenic and historic roads may
be implemented as recommended by the Community Development
Division and the Planning and Zoning Commission by
resolution on a case by case basis.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution as recommended by the
Community Development Division and Planning and Zoning
Commission for the implementation of guidelines for
maintenance of scenic and historic Jungle Trail for the
frontage of Sea Oaks River Villas 1.
Attorney Collins felt the real issue is whether the staff is
correct in its interpretation of the ordinance or whether the
intent can be accomplished as requested by Sea Oaks.
Commissioner Scurlock assumed that one of the goals of
everyone is to try to preserve the trail and whatever vision you
have as you travel it. We do not want the people in the vehicles
or walking to see the buildings, but we also do not necessarily
want to prohibit those in the buildings from having a view. In
other words, you can have vegetation so that someone could not
see the building, but the building's line of sight over it to the
river could be maintained. He asked if there is any inconsis-
tency in that.
Community Development Director Keating did not think there
was. To try to put this in perspective, he referred to a colored
drawing of the site plan and advised that Sea Oaks has come in
under the overall PRD concept and that affords a little more
flexibility. The building depicted is going to be 45' above
natural grade, and it is coming to within 6' of the buffer area.
There is a 30' buffer. In that buffer area the vegetation is
pretty much mixed with pepper trees, Turk's Cap, and some native
vegetation. Sea Oaks has requested permission to take that out
and put in different vegetation. The present vegetation is
34
pretty high and quite opaque, and if Sea Oaks left it the way it
is now, this issue wouldn't be before the Board.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if what is proposed means you
have to have a hedge, which is what he keeps hearing, and
Director Keating stated that it does not. He felt the big
question, which he hoped can be answered here today, is whether
the present vegetation is one of the things that makes the road
scenic and is that what we want to preserve.
Commissioner Eggert noted that part of the discussion she
has heard at the workshops related to the difference of having
the opaqueness right against the road or having a series of
plantings so that as you look toward the building, it would build
up to be opaque to the building, i.e., is the 30' buffer to be
used to make the opaque screen or is the screen to be right there
by the road.
Director Keating stated that the 30' is used to make the
opaque screen, but he felt a lot of that vegetation has to be
close to the road if you want to achieve the effect you have
right now.
Commissioner Eggert inquired about berming.
Director Keating advised that staff does not have a major
problem with Sea Oaks putting the berming in the back part of the
buffer area and close to the building. In the workshop there was
more or less general agreement on putting the berm in the last
10' of the buffer area. Director Keating then presented a
drawing submitted by Sea Oaks showing the building in the
background and a broken line of trees and plants planted in the
foreground and agreed it is a very nice landscape plan if this
project were Located on most any other road but Jungle Trail.
The problem is that some windows show through the plantings which
are not done in the continuous sense.
Commissioner Eggert asked if he was saying we only wanted
the top windows to be able to see the river, and Director Keating
felt that would be a result.
FEB 2 1 1989
35
!UOr lb or,E 195
FEB 21 7989
BOOK 76 f',1EE 19B
Commissioner Bird had a very definite problem with that. He
realized we want to keep Jungle Trail as natural and scenic as we
can and some people's perception of that seems to require that we
completely block out the buildings. To him, however, a solid
wall of vegetation at a great height would be just as
artificially created as the buildings on the other side. Jungle
Trail does not have a solid wall of vegetation along it now; in
some places it is quite dense up to the road, and in others, you
can see back a couple hundred feet. The people in Sea Oaks spent
a lot of money on their property, and they should be able to have
some view of the river. Commissioner Bird also wished to know if
we are really within our rights to apply rules to this project
that have never been adopted in ordinance form by this
Commission.
Attorney Collins stated that we have adopted an ordinance,
and what the Board will be doing is adopting the rules by
Resolution at this meeting to say what they want.
Commissioner Eggert commented that this is kind of after the
fact, and she personally wished we had those rules several months
ago.
Attorney Collins stressed that it is not after the fact. It
is case by case because this is the first development we have had
come in along the Trail.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that we have never said here
are our rules, please adjust to them, but Attorney Collins
stressed that is what we are doing right now.
Chairman Wheeler inquired about the 10' that is part of that
30' buffer. His understanding is that the building is going to
be set back 36' from the road R/W, and he wished to know if they
are going to be able to plant in that 10' easement.
Attorney Collins advised that the Florida Administrative
Code says if FP&L has an easement where they are going to lay
pipe, the owner has to clear the property so they can do so, but
once the construction is completed, that easement can be planted.
36
Chairman Wheeler felt since this is a PRD, the County has a
lot more leverage with the developer, and Director Keating agreed
but pointed out that usually the specific trade-offs and condi-
tions are put on at the conceptual PRD stage which this already
went through.
Chairman Wheeler believed the bottom of the building is to
be used for parking; so, he felt those living in the building
would be able to see over a 10' wall.
Attorney Bruce Barkett, representing Sea Oaks, advised that
the bottom floor parking is actually below the level of the berm,
and first floor residents would not be able to see over a 10-15'
hedge.
Director Keating believed Commissioner Bird brought out some
good points that staff would like to have clarification on
because those are the issues that have been coming up over and
over again at the workshop meetings. First of all, we have a
scenic and historic road ordinance here, and the question is what
different criteria are you applying to Jungle Trait than any
other road. It seems everyone has a different vision of that
road in their mind; so, the difficult part is putting that vision
into specifics - how high the plantings, how continuous, how
opaque? Director Keating also felt that it must be remembered
that the decision made here today is probably the one that will
carry over into the Management Plan and affect alt the other
development that will occur along the Trail.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that while he may not be
convinced that what is proposed is the best way to handle it, he
is convinced that we do have the legal ability to make those
requirements. He noted that sometimes as a Commission, it is
difficult to get the full picture of what we do when we adopt
different ordinances. He believed Engineer Darrell McQueen has
graphics of 3 or 4 different scenarios showing how this could be
done maintaining the owners rights to see and enjoy but also
37
FEB 21 1989
LAQE1K I PALE 197
FEE 21
BOOK 7D PACE 198
achieving our county purpose of protecting the public's rights,
and he would like to have those displayed.
Chairman Wheeler had a general over-all question that he
wished to bring up first, and that is when we start looking at
multi -family 3 -story buildings versus single family residential,
might it not be a good idea to look at bigger setbacks where the
multi -story buildings aren't dominating the streets.
Commissioner Scurlock personally favored moving them back
and felt this should be looked into, and Chairman Wheeler stated
that, if he has the support of the Commission, he would like to
see staff directed to address this in the near future.
Commissioner Bird was not sure how far we can go with this.
We got Jungle Trail by prescriptive right and then took 30'
adjacent to it and asserted our authority to tell people how they
are going to use that, and now we are talking about expanding the
setback beyond that. How far we can go before we start buying
this property?
Chairman Wheeler did not agree with that viewpoint. He felt
to have the environment people want to live in single family,
there are certain guidelines, and when you go to multi -story and
multi -family, those guidelines should change. He noted that he
doesn't like walking through a "condo canyon," and if there is
anything we can do to prevent that with setbacks or vegetation,
he is all in favor of it.
Commissioner Scurlock was in favor of such a change also,
but had a concern about changing the rules in the middle of the
game.
Chairman Wheeler stated that he would put the question of
the setback on the agenda for another meeting.
Attorney Barkett noted that while Mr. McQueen's presenta-
tion, as mentioned by Commissioner Scurlock, is probably
wonderful, it doesn't have a place in this discussion. The issue
here is not what the Board likes aesthetically better than what
Sea Oaks has presented; it is what rules are in place right now.
38
The issue is did Sea Oaks come in and satisfy all the require-
ments of the ordinances, and they did. He agreed the county has
an ordinance that says essentially that rules will be adopted to
permit the establishment of planting strips, and that is fine.
That is what the Management Plan is doing, and when Mr. McQueen
comes in and makes his presentation to the committee, there will
be discussion and give and take, and eventually you will come up
with a standard and guidelines for everyone, but the county
doesn't have that yet. All the county has now is an ordinance
that says they are going to adopt some rules, and the county has
had that ordinance since 1985. Sea Oaks has submitted a site
plan which everyone agrees is satisfactory; then as an additional
consideration, staff wanted a landscape plan of what will be done
in the buffer zone, and one has been presented by Sea Oaks.
Attorney Barkett displayed the plan, advising that it
includes $150,000 of plants, all native vegetation and it does
not violate any existing standard or ordinance. Staff took the
position that the plan did not satisfy the ordinance and they
then proposed a 10' opaque hedge along the edge of the road and
said that was what the rule should be. Attorney Barkett
emphasized that is not in the ordinance anywhere, and no other
applicant has ever been required to submit to such a condition.
Attorney Collins pointed out that the Resolution gives Sea
Oaks the option to comply with the Management Plan instead of
this condition.
Attorney Barkett agreed -that they could either comply with
an illegal requirement or wait and see what comes out of the
Management Plan, but he likened that to having a gun held to your
head by a highway robber. He pointed out that the P&Z decided to
pass this problem on to the Commission. They acknowledged the
rules are not in place yet, and Mr. Tippin & Mr. Brenner agreed
that they could not hold to standards that have not yet been
promulgated.
FEB 215189
39
BOOK lb F 1Jr
'FEB 211939
BOOK 76 FMJL200
Commissioner Scurlock noted that staff is telling us we can
make these requirements, and we are not acting illegally.
Commissioner Eggert agreed, but stated that even so, she
still has a concern about voting on this without seeing visually
what the different options could be and she would like to table
this for a week.
Chairman Wheeler asked if we have the option to say they
can't clear out the vegetation that is there and they must either
leave that or replace it with a list of plant we make up.
Director Keating advised that was one of the options
presented at the PAZ meeting.
Chairman Wheeler asked if that is a legal position for us to
take, and Attorney Vitunac noted that while those particular
exotic pepper trees are not protected anywhere else in the
county, Jungle Trail is a unique road.
Director Keating agreed that the vegetation in question
actually is considered invasive nuisance vegetation, but noted
that it works well for John's Island.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that nobody in John's Island
wants to look at the cars on A -1-A, but the people in Sea Oaks
want to be able to took at the river. He also believed that the
majority of the people traveling Jungle Trail are interested in
looking at the river and not the east side of the Trail.
Attorney Barkett expressed his belief that if between now
and the time the Management Plan was adopted, everyone in the
county cut down all the Brazilian Pepper trees, the County would
have a hard time taking someone to court and convincing a judge
that this should not have been done because the county intended
to adopt a rule about it.
Chairman Wheeler felt the difference is that this is a
designated scenic trail and different rules would apply.
County Attorney Vitunac agreed that Attorney Barkett is
right for every other road in the county except Jungle Trail.
He felt Attorney Barkett is missing the best compromise of all,
40
which is what Director Keating suggested - have Sea Oaks agree to
live up to the Plan whenever it is adopted a month or two from
now. He noted that every other development on the Trail will
have to live up to what is going to be adopted, except for this
one gap at Sea Oaks, and Attorney Barkett wants to rush in and
beat all the other plans. Staff is charged by an ordinance
already adopted saying that we will have the Board adopt rules by
Resolution, and Attorney Barkett is not right when he says it is
illegal and highway robbery for him to agree to a Management Plan
that we are going to adopt in six weeks. Every other developer
will be using that plan, and it will protect all the interests.
Commissioner Bird wondered whatever happened to the fairness
of playing the game by the rules that are in effect the day you
play the game. He pointed out that we have had 4 years to adopt
this plan, and we haven't done it; so, he does not feel Sea Oaks
is rushing in to beat some deadline.
Attorney Vitunac believed we all understood we had interim
protections available, and that is what this is today.
Argument continued at length.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to table action on the Sea Oaks
request for one week until February 28th to get better
information as to the options we have.
Commissioner Bowman commented that she had problems with the
"opaque" requirement. She did not think the original trail was
ever opaque before the Brazilian pepper trees took over, and she
had a problem with anything that resembles a hedge.
Commissioner Eggert explained that she wanted more informa-
tion because staff's requirement specifically says there must be
a continuous native vegetation screen 10-15' high along the edge
of the road R/W and that has her bothered. She felt it might be
better to produce the opaqueness in the 30' buffer than in the
FEB 21 1989
41
800r.
76FAH X01
FEB 2 1 196
BOOK /6 PA E 02
road R/W, and, therefore, she would like to see the different
options.
Darrell McQueen of McQueen Associates, representing the Town
of Orchid and the Polo Club, informed the Board that he was just
here to meet with Director Keating to see what we can do to
protect the Trail and buffer it through the Town of Orchid. He
had not intended to speak, but he felt it is not completely fair
to Sea Oaks to rely on what he has done. They have a development
that is already under way and has been site planned for quite
some time while he is working with raw land and has a lot of
flexibility. He felt that should be kept in mind when the Board
looks at his plans, and they should keep Sea Oaks separate.
Commissioner Eggert commented that with this Resolution
sitting here as it is written, she would have to vote against it
and she is not sure she is ready to do that.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that we could vote against the
Resolution and approve their landscape plan and let them go on
about their business, and then go ahead and form our rules and
everyone else will play by the rules we are subsequently going to
adopt.
Attorney Barkett stressed that all that would involve would
be to approve the site plan without that condition. He referred
to the drawing displayed earlier, which was prepared at the last
minute, and stressed that it is not exactly accurate because of
the perspective, which is from out in the river and not as if you
are standing on the road. The building is shown with its entire
frontage along the road, but actually you would only see a corner
of the building because the buildings are to be set at an angle
to the road. He agreed there are some areas of low level
plantings, but pointed out that they are all atop a 5' berm and
they are at least 2' plantings.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that when we develop the
guidelines, he would like to see more renderings so we can tell
better what the options are.
42
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION ON THE MOTION
TO TABLE for a week. It was voted on and carried
3 to 2 with Commissioners Bird and Scurlock voting
in oppos`i'tion.
John Dean, Architect, who has been attending the workshops
regarding the proposed Jungle Trail Management plan, felt if the
Board is going to make policy decisions next week, alt that has
been developed at the workshops should be brought forward prior
to that or the public has wasted their time.
Commissioner Bird wondered if we are ready one week from now
to make all those decisions. He explained that the reason he
voted against tabling is that he believed Sea Oaks has met the
intent of the rules they played under and we ought to approve
their project and then continue the process of developing our
P 9
plan for the Trail under a proper time scale.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that he personally was ready
to vote on Sea Oaks request today although he did want to ask
them to modify their plan to some extent. If they had been
willing to increase the height of some of the low levet
plantings, he would have been ready to vote today.
Commissioner Eggert agreed that if some of the low areas
could be filled in, she would not have so much trouble with their
plan, and Commissioner Scurlock noted that we could reconsider
the Motion to table.
Commissioner Bowman expressed her feeling that the Community
Development Department has been confused with alt these workshops
and varying opinions and did not believe they have had clear
direction as to just what we want Jungle Trail to look like.
She believed if all these people from the workshops can get back
together, it can be thrashed out in a week and we can get some
definite language into this ordinance.
Some discussion ensued in regard to reconsidering the Motion
to table, and Attorney Barkett informed the Board that Sea Oaks
FEB 21lot-IJ
43
BOOK 76
BOOK 76 FAL A 4
General Manager, Mr. Waterman, has informed him that they would
have no problem with raising the vegetation in the low lying
areas, if that is what we are talking about.
Further debate followed regarding a Motion to reconsider,
which it was pointed out must be instituted by a member of the
prevailing majority.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously agreed to
reconsider the earlier Motion to table.
Commissioner Eggert noted that she does not have a problem
with the landscaping plan presented except she just did not find
it adequate enough.
Attorney Barkett suggested that Commissioner Eggert and
Commissioner Bowman, since they have the knowledge of the kind of
plants that would be desirable, make up a list of plants that Sea
Oaks could select from to put in the low tying areas. The Sea
Oaks plan then would be approved without staff's condition but
subject to the condition that plants from that list would be
added to the cross -hatched areas. Apparently the concern is only
with certain areas, and the Commissioners could come up with 4 or
5 plant species that might be a bit higher than what is presently
proposed.
The Board agreed what is proposed for those areas is too low
almost ground cover - and Commissioner Scurlock stated that if
those areas could be planted with some vegetation that will grow
a little higher, not an opaque hedge, he would be happy to vote
for that.
Attorney Barkett stated that Sea Oaks could volunteer to do
that in good faith, and will coordinate with whomever the Board
wishes to accomplish this.
Bill Waterman, General Manager of Sea Oaks, informed the
Board that they are agreeable to working with the Management Pian
44
in the future. They have another 4 buildings they are planning
to the north.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, to approve the landscaping plan for
Sea Oaks Villas I contingent on Sea Oaks getting with our
staff for "a proposed list of planting material that would
grow to a little higher height, i.e., 3-4' above the ground
level, to be added to the -cross hatched areas.
Chairman Wheeler did not see if they can agree to work with
the Management Plan in the future, why can't they do it now, and
Mr. Waterman noted that they are ready to go to construction.
The Chairman believed that we could still continue on here
and make this subject to the Management Plan along with the other
4 phases. He did not believe that would slow things down at all.
Mr. Waterman stressed that they have been slowed down
substantially already.
Commissioner Bird emphasized that he would rather not make
it mandatory because that again would be changing the rules in
the middle of the game. Obviously if they are going tp do 3 or 4
more buildings, they are going to want this building to look
compatible and not have it stand out like a sore thumb. By the
time they get this building permitted and under construction and
it is time for the landscaping, the Management Plan will be long
done, and they can certainly comply with it if they feel it is
compatible, but he did not want to force it on them.
Commissioner Scurlock felt his Motion was quite clear, and
Commissioners Eggert and Bowman urged that they concentrate on
eugenia for their plantings.
Commissioner Bowman commented that she could even approve
the Resolution if the language were to be changed by taking out
the continuous opaque native vegetation screen and simply require
FEB 21 •i SJ 45
PooK 76 pAGi.2O5
FEB 2119 D
76
uu
instead a continuous buffer of native plants and shrubs varying
in height from 5' to 15' within 3 years of planting.
Attorney Barkett stated the problem is that it is required
right along the edge of the road, and Commissioner Bowman advised
she would take that wording out also and require some along the
road R/W as well as planting within the buffer area.
Attorney Barkett feared that would be subjecting staff to
interpreting that all over again and applying it against this
landscape plan.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK CALLED FOR THE QUESTION, and
argument arose as to whether there should be a vote on whether to
vote on the question or not. Chairman Wheeler pointed out that
the Board never has officially adopted Robert's Rules of Order
and it has been the policy that the Chairman runs the meeting.
If the Board wishes to adopt them, he will comply with whatever
the majority wishes.
CHAIRMAN WHEELER CALLED FOR A VOTE of those in favorr of
the Motion to vote on the question. The vote was 4 to 1 in
favor, Chairman Wheeler dissenting.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion to
approve Sea Oaks landscaping plan contingent on their
increasing the size of the plants in- the low areas to
3-4' over ground level, condentrat.ing on eugenia.
The Motion carried 4 to 1 with Chairman Wheeler voting
in opposition.
Vice Chairman Eggert left the meeting at 11:55 o'clock A.M.
as she had a speaking engagement.
46
TRANSFER OF GRAND HARBOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS
Attorney Collins reviewed the following:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM:604�William G. Collins II - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: February 14, 1989
SUBJECT:' Transfer of Grand Harbor Development Approvals
The Grand Harbor Development .of. Regional Impact has been
transferred from Grand Harbor, Inc. to River Harbor, Inc.
Disclosure of the transfer pursuant to Indian River County
Code Section 25.4(p)(1) and pursuant to Section 4 of the
Grand Harbor Development Order adopted as Resolution No.
85-128 on October 23, 1985 has been provided by the
transferree, River Harbor, Inc. The following attachments
are enclosed:
1. Code Section 25.4(p)(1) which sets out the requirements
for transfer of PRD approval.
2. Pages 1 and 2 of Resolution No. 85-128 which sets out in
Section 4 on page 2 the Notice of Transfer Obligation.
3. Letter dated January 10, 1989 from Gary Brandenburg,
Esq. to Gary Wheeler, Chairman, Indian River County
Commission and members of the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County. This letter sets
out certain information required in Section 25.4(p)(1).
4. A copy of the Certificate of Incorporation for River
Harbor, Inc.
5. As Assumption of Obligation Agreement for the
Development Order approving the Grand Harbor DRI
executed by Casimir Kuzmirek, Vice President of River
Harbor, Inc.
6. Proof of authorization of agent to transact business
with the County.
7. A resolution of the Board of County Commissioners
consenting to the transfer of the approval of the Grand
Harbor DRI from Grand Harbor, Inc. to River Harbor, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Accept the Notice of Transfer.
2. Approve the Assumption of Obligation Agreement and
authorize the Chairman and Clerk to execute same.
3. Approve Resolution No. 89- consenting to the transfer
of development approvals oTthe Grand Harbor development
to River Harbor, Inc. and authorize the signature of the
Chairman and the Clerk.
47
BOOK 76 FAH 207
6001:
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, Commissioner Eggert having left the
meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0) accepted the
Notice of Transfer; authorized the Chairman to
execute the Assumption of Obligation Agreement; and
adopted Resolution 89-21 consenting to the transfer
of Grand Harbor Development approvals to River
Harbor, Inc.
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 21
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CONSENTING TO THE TRANSFER OF
THE APPROVAL OF THE GRAND HARBOR
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT PURSUANT
TO SECTION 4 OF RESOLUTION 85-128 FROM
GRAND HARBOR, INC. TO RIVER HARBOR, INC.
FaGL 2O 8
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, adopted Resolution 85-128 on
October 23, 1985, approving the Development Order for the
Grand Harbor Development of Regional Impact located in
Indian River County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, such Development Order has been
subsequently amended by Resolutions 86-4, 86-89, 86-108 and
87-147 and all such amendments are on file with the Clerk of
the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida; and
WHEREAS, the former developer of the project now
Moo
desires to transfer and convey to River Harbor, Inc. all of
its interest in the project and all approvals as they exist
with Indian River County including, but not limited to, the
Development Order as amended, all PRD, zoning, site plan
subdivision, and all other approvals; and
WHEREAS, the successor in Interest has, pursuant
to Section 4 of Resolution 85-128, assumed in a form
acceptable to the County Attorney any and all applicable
commitments, responsibilities, and obligations pursuant to
48
the Development Order, including all special conditions of
site plan approval,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
1. Notice of Transfer of all of the subject
property 'has been properly filed with the Indian River
County Board of. County Commissioners prior to the transfer,
and
2. The transferee has properly assumed in writing
in a form acceptable to theCounty Attorney any and all
applicable commitments, responsibilities, and obligations
pursuant to the Development Order by virtue of the attached
agreement marked Exhibit A, and
3. The Board consents to the transfer and the
Chairman and the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
are authorized to execute the attached Assumption of
Obligation agreement.
The foregoing resolution was offered by
Commissioner Bowman and seconded by Commissioner
Bird
follows:
and, being put to a vote, the vote was as
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Absent
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
The Chairmanthereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this 21st day of February, 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
ATTEST:
1FEB 21 '989
6()
Garyt+'WIlhhee l er, Chairman
BOOK 76 Dr -J[ 2O9
FEB 21 309
BOOK 76 F,E 21O
ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATION AGREEMENT
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER APPROVING THE
GRAND HARBOR DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT
- RESOLUTION 85-128 AS AMENDED.
This agreement entered into this 21st day of February
1989, by and between Indian River County, political subdivision of
the State of Florida and River Harbor, Inc., successor in interest
to the development known as Grand Harbor pursuant to Resolution
85-128 as amended for the Grand Harbor Development of Regional
Impact.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, on the 23rd day of October, 1985, approved a
Development Order for the Grand Harbor Development of Regional
Impact, and,
WHEREAS, the Development Order has been subsequently modified
and all modifications thereto are on file with the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Development Order Section 4 requires
Notice of Transfer of all or a portion of the property be filed with
the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners prior to
transfer and that the transferee assume in writing in a form
acceptable to the county attorney of any and all applicable
commitments, responsibilities, and obligations pursuant to the
Development Order, and,
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this agreement to fulfill the
obligations of the Development Order Section 4.
NOW THEREFORE, as a condition to the approval of the transfer by
the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida,
River Harbor, Inc., the successor in interest to the Grand Harbor
Development of Regional Impact, hereby agrees to and does assume all
applicable commitments, responsibilities, and obligations set forth
pursuant to the Development Order for the Grand Harbor Development
of Regional Impact Resolution 85-128 as amended to date and Indian
River County agrees that the Development Order is in good standing
and is in full force and effect and that the successor in interest
has fulfilled all of the notice and transfer provisions of the
Development Order.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
agreement to be executed on behalf of Indian River County and the
successor in interest.
tvALt.,_
Chain of the Board
of Co my Commissioners
RIVER HARBOR, INC.
Casimir Kuzm'rek ice President
50
% a Board
y Come, ssionrs
WAIVER OF SEBASTIAN INLET ENTRANCE FEES
Attorney Collins reviewed the following:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Iv.(,/ William G. Collins II - Assistant Gounty'Attorney
DATE: February 14, 1989
SUBJECT: Waiver of Sebastian Inlet Entrance Fees
Attached are the documents necessary to accomplish an
"agreement with DNR whereby DNR is allowed to charge entrance
fees at the Sebastian Inlet State Park for a trial 5 -year
period on their promise to use best_ efforts to convince the
Legislature to segregate all entrance fees for use for the
operation, maintenance and improvement of Sebastian Inlet
State Park. Should this fail to occur, or should DNR fail
to make the reports to the County necessary for the County
to make that determination, the agreement to waive the right
to enforce the deed restriction against entrance fees can be
revoked at the end of each 5 -year term. Otherwise, the
waiver agreement would automatically renew for additional
5 -year terms.
The attached documents represent the best compromise the
County could work out with DNR and implements the policy
direction given at our February 7, 1989 Board meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Agreement and
Waiver.
Attorney Collins informed the Board that the Agreement
included in the agenda packet represented the correction made at
the previous meeting. There has since been a change to the
agreement to add a provision on Page 3 which identifies when the
Department's fiscal year ends and that their reports will be due
within 30 days from the end of their fiscal year. It also
changes language in paragraph 5 of the agreement which said
failure to accomplish segregation of entrance fees would be cause
for revocation. They do not segregate fees so we are changing
the word "segregate" to "appropriate" and will be changing the
wording in the Waiver accordingly. However, the Waiver will not
be executed today. Mr. Randy Lewis of the State Department of
Natural Resources is here today, and he will take the agreement
back for Mr. Gardner to sign on behalf of the DNR. When we
receive the signed agreement, we will then record the Waiver.
51
FEB 21 1989
BOCK fAGE 211
Pr-
FEB2
989
i.�
BOOK 6 FE,�1, ;
The recommendation is to authorize the Chairman to execute both
the Agreement and the Waiver.
Commissioner Bowman felt the wording in the last part of
Paragraph 5 should be changed to read " automatically renew
for 'each' additional 5 -year term." After some discussion, it
was not felt that was necessary.
Commissioner Bird suggested that if we approve the agreement
and it is signed by Mr. Gardner of the DNR, that we supply copies
of it to all members of our Legislative Delegation, the Governor
and all members of the Cabinet for their record.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, Commissioner Eggert having left
the meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized
the Chairman to sign the Agreement with the DNR re
Sebastian Inlet Fees and to execute the Waiver upon
receipt of the agreement signed by the DNR.
(FULLY EXECUTED AND RECORDED WAIVER OF DEED_.RESTRICTION ENFORCEMENT
RIGHTS NOW RECEIVED AND ON FILE IN CLERK TO THE BOARD)
CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF BREEZY VILLAGE UTILITY SYSTEM
The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Vitunac:
52
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
Wit} 13v4--
ti�
FROM: Charles . Vituna&unty Attorney
DATE: February 15, 1989
RE: B.C.C. MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 1989
PURCHASE OF BREEZY VILLAGE UTILITY
SYSTEM BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
On February 7, 1989, meeting
Commissioners, the Board approved
the Breezy Village Utility System
from a surcharge on the residents
to be worked out in a contract to
Board.
of the Board of County
the concept of purchasing
for $65,000 to be paid for
of the system with details
be brought back before the
Attached is that contract, signed by Breezy Village and
ready for adoption by the Board of County Commissioners.
The closing date would be March 1, 1989.
Staff recommends approval.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
contract for purchase of the Breezy Village Utility
System and authorized the signature of the Chairman.
CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE
THIS AGREEMENT entered into this 21st day of February
1989, by and between BREEZY VILLAGE SEWER AND WATER COMPANY, INC.
(hereafter "Seller") and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida (hereafter "Buyer").
WHEREAS, Seller is a Florida corporation and owns and
operates the water and sewer system (Utilities System) serving
certain residential lots in Breezy Village, Mobile Home
Subdivision under authority of a utility franchise granted by
Buyer; and
WHEREAS, after extended discussions, Buyer has agreed to
purchase the utilities system from Seller, along with the real
property on which said facilities are located.
FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE SUM OF $10.00 AND OTHER
VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. PROPERTY: The property to -be purchased consists of the
following:
A. Personal Property: Water and sewer plants,
generators, pumps,'tanks, and other equipment and supplies located
on the real property described below and used in connection with
the maintenance and operation of the Utilities System. The
purchase price also includes Seller's interest in the distribution
and collection systems within Breezy Village, together with any
easements associated therewith, including, without limitation,
53 —
LEE 21 1989
LOOK
'FEB 21 11989
BOOK 76 F'�»E214
distribution and collection lines, lift stations, meters and other
installations and facilities which are a part of the water and
sewer systems. The parties recognize that chlorine and other
materials and supplies will be consumed, pending closing.
B. Real Property: Tracts A and C, Breezy Village
Mobile Home Subdivision, Unit 1, as in Plat Book 9, Page 34, of
the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
2. PURCHASE PRICE:. The purchase price for the Property is
$65,000.00 payable in cash or by cashier's check at the time of
closing.
3. CLOSING DATE: The closing in this transaction shall
occur on March 1, 1989, unless extended by other provisions of
this contract.
4. CONVEYANCE DOCUMENTS: The real property shall be
conveyed free and clear of all encumbrances by general warranty
deed. The personal property shall be conveyed by Bill of Sale
with warranties of title.
5. PERSONAL PROPERTY IN "AS -IS" CONDITION: All personal
property will be conveyed to the county in as -is condition. The
Seller makes no warranties or representation with respect to the
physical condition of the personal property.
6. TITLE TO THE REAL PROPERTY: The title to the real
property shall be good and marketable. Buyer may, at its expense,
obtain an abstract or title insurance binder/policy on the
property showing the title to be good and marketable. Marketable
title should be determined according to applicable Title Standards
adopted by authority of the Florida Bar and in accordance with
law. If title is found to be defective, Buyer shall, prior to
closing, notify Seller in writing, specifying defects. If the
defects render title unmarketable, Seller will have 120 days from
receipt of notice within which to remove the defects, failing
which, Buyer shall have the option of either accepting title as it
then is or of cancelling this contract.
Buyer shall take title subject to zoning, restrictions,
prohibitions, and other requirements imposed by governmental
authority; restrictions, easements and other matters appearing on
the plat or otherwise common to the subdivision and taxes for the
year of closing and subsequent years.
7. RIGHT OF REPURCHASE AS TO TRACT C: The Buyer and Seller
acknowledge and agree that the Buyer intends to continue to
utilize Tract C for the purpose of providing sewer utility service
to the Breezy Village Mobile Home Subdivision, Unit 1 and other
service areas. At such time as the Buyer no longer utilizes Tract
C for such purposes, the` Buyer shall give the Seller written
notice that said use has discontinued, and the Seller shall have
90 days after delivery of the said notice to repurchase Tract C
for a price equal to the fair -market value of the land, only. The
fair -market value shall be determined by a registered real estate
broker with experience in land appraisals ("Qualified Appraiser"),
mutually selected by the parties. If the parties are unable to
agree upon the selection of a Qualified Appraiser, then each party
shall select its own Qualified Appraiser and the two appraisers so
selected shall select a third Qualified Appraiser. Three
appraisals shall be prepared and the arithmetic' average of the
three shall be deemed to be the fair -market value. The appraisal
costs shall be shared by the parties, 50/50. The Seller shall
give the Buyer written notice of its election to repurchase the
property within the said 90 -day period and a closing on the
transaction shall occur within 30•days following the completion of
the appraisals and the determination of the fair -market value.
The provisions of Paragraph 6 shall apply with respect to the
condition of title. The recording expenses shall be divided
evenly between the parties. Unless otherwise agreed to by Seller,
the Buyer shall remove all sewer plant improvements, equipment and
54
personal property from Tract C not later than 90 days following
the closing. After determination of the fair -market value, and
for a period of ten. days following said determination, the Seller
may give the Buyer written notice of its intent not to purchae the
property, in which event the cost of the appraisal(s) shall be
borne by the Seller. A recordable written memorandum,
incorporating the provisions of this paragraph, shall be executed
by the parties at the time of closing. The Seller's right of
repurchase may be assigned without the consent of the Buyer.
8. AVAILABILITY OF SEWER AND WATER SERVICE TO ADJOINING
LANDS: The Buyer agrees that it will furnish sewer and water
service to lands within the existing franchise area, including,
without limitation, the following -described real property:
Parcel 1:
That property described as "Unit 2", according to
the plat of BREEZY VILLAGE MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
UNIT, UNIT 1, as in Plat Book 9, Page 34, Public
Records of Indian River County.
Parcel 2:
The South one-half of the Southeast one-quarter of
the Northwest one-quarter of Section 20, Township
31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County.
The Buyer's obligation to furnish sewer and water
service to these lands shall be subject to payment of sewer and
water impact fees, connection and meter fees being charged by the
County at the time service is requested. The Buyer's obligation
to furnish service is also subject to the availability of capacity
and existence of collection and distribution lines, provided,
however, that .if capacity of either system is not available or if
line extensions are necessary to serve said properties, at the
time of the request, then the Seller shall have the right to pay
the additional cost of expanding the plant(s) and/or the extending
lines to an extent necessary to serve said properties. The
payment of the costs of expansion shall be in addition to the
payment of impact and other fees. This clause shall survive the
closing.
9. EXPENSES: Buyer shall pay the cost of documentary
stamps to be attached to the deed and the cost of recording same.
10. TAXES: Real and personal property taxes shall be
prorated through the date of closing.
11. UTILITY REVENUES: This sale does not include any assets
of Seller other than those described herein. Seller shall retain
all rate revenues accrued through February 28, 1989. Seller
retains the right under existing franchise resolutions to enforce
collection of said revenues.
12. DEPOSITS/RETENTIONS: At the closing, the county shall
refund all monies held by it in the form of deposit required to be
made by the utility under the terms of its franchise resolution
including, without limitation, deposits made to the Repair and
Replacement account maintained by buyer. Seller shall transfer to
Buyer all customer utility deposits, if any, together with all
available billing records.
13. ATTORNEY'S FEES/COSTS: In any litigation arising out of
this contract, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
55
FEB 21 )98E
BOOK Ib Eau
SFE �?i1
BOOK 76 fAE.216
14. DEFAULT: If Buyer fails to perform this contract within
the time specified, the Buyer acknowledges that damages that would
be incurred by Seller in the event of said default, would be
difficult at determination and, therefore, Buyer agrees that the
sum of $15,000.00 shall constitute liquidated damages which shall
be paid to the Seller in full settlement of all claims. If, for
any reason other than the failure of Seller to make Seller's title
marketable, Seller fails; neglects, or refuses to perform this
contract, the Buyer may seek specific performance or sue for
damages resulting from Seller's breech.
15. CONTRACT NOT RECORDABLE/PERSONS BOUND/NOTICE: Neither.
this contract nor any notice of it shall be recorded in any public
records. This contract shall bind and inure to the benefit of the
parties and their. successors in interest. Whenever the context
permits, singular shall include plural and one gender shall
include all. Notice given by or to the attorney for any party
shall be as effective as given by or to that party.
16. OTHER AGREEMENTS: No prior or present agreements or
representations shall be binding upon Buyer or 'Seller unless
included in this contract. No modification or change in this
contract shall be valid or binding _upon the parties unless in
writing and executed by the party or parties intended to be bound
by it.
17. NOTICES: Where notices are required to be given herein,
notices shall be in writing and delivered by certified mail,
return receipt requested, to the parties, as follows:
Buyer:
Indian River County
Attention: Utilities Director
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Seller:
BREEZY VILLAGE SEWER & WATER COMPANY, INC.
Attention: Dr. James -L. Wilson
2400 South Ocean Drive
Seascape 2
Apartment 8192
Ft. Pierce, Florida 33449
With copy to:
Steve L. Henderson, Esquire
Attorney for Seller
MOSS, HENDERSON & LLOYD, P.A.
817 Beachland Boulevard (32963)
Post Office Box 3406
Vero Beach, Florida 32964-3406
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, -the undersigned has caused these presents
to be executed in their names, and the corporate seal to be
hereunto affixed, by its proper officers thereunto duly
authorized, the day and year first above written.
Seller: Buyer:
BREEZY VILLAGE SEWER AND WATER INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
COMP , INC.
By.
ES L. ILSO , President
By
56
7 6 tde-it
REQUEST FROM PROPERTY APPRAISER TO PURCHASE IBM AS400 COMPUTER
The Board referred to letter from the Property Appraiser,
which had been tabled from the last meeting:
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"
Gary C. Wheeler, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach FL 32960
Dear Gary,
1840 25TH STREET _
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Commissioners ,CJ c cJ
Administrator
Pet..,noel
Pub c Works
Com. ,,u:l1ty LfeV.
Utiit;es
Finance
Other
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.
57
FE82:
Sincerely,
cf-zae
David C. Nolte
Property Appraiser
tzooF ' 6 a
000
BOOK 76 F ;f 218
Commissioner Scurlock advised that he had asked for a week's
delay in order to take a look at this. He has met with the IBM
representative and talked to Mr. Nolte and the Clerk, and after
considering the various models and series, how they can be
upgraded, the discount on initial purchase, and based on the
current level the Property Appraiser would need, he felt it is
well within all the parameters and would be a wise purchase.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, Commissioner Eggert having left the
meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0) authorized
Property Appraiser Nolte to proceed with the acqui-
sition of the IBM AS400 computer as requested.
LETTER FROM FLORIDA ASSOC. OF COUNTIES RE STATE TRANSFERRING
ROADS & FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAME TO COUNTIES
Chairman Wheeler read from the following letter:
FLORIDA;? "In
ASSOCIATION -In" ,
of COUNTIES' fi
mp
MEMORANDUM
TO:
P.O. Box 549 / Tallahassee, Flor
Phone: 904/224-3148 Telefax: 904
•
•am
4714.
c, 000 to
23`11'Ssj ,w
,5839 "tt• ca,
--77.,ttrIL
G CQ�
County Commissioners
County Administrators
County Attorneys
County Lobbyists
FROM: Kurt A. Spitzer, Executive Director
DATE: February 15, 1989
0ISTI (
rV
Commissioners
Administrator
Attorney
Personnel
Public VVork3
Fi-n
ci
1)r C 6,1 tt'r(
1)=1 ' -
As we rapidly approach the start of the 1989 Legislative
Session, several recent developments in the area of planning
and finance require your immediate attention. The purpose of
this memorandum is to summarize those developments and to
request that certain actions be taken on your part.
During Legislative Committee meetings that were held in
Tallahassee last week, the Governor's Office, through his
General Counsel and Secretary of the Department of Community
A£.fairs, announced a new policy which would shift financial
responsibility for many of the roads on the state highway
system to local governments. This transfer of responsibility
I
be a Ccomplished through an administrative re-
interpretation of the Growth Management Act. County Attorneys
ave been provided with a copy of the eneral Counsel's letter
which articulates the new policy. _
58
r
The fiscal health of most counties in Florida is not good and
is likely to worsen, even without the new responsibility for
more state roads. The average county -wide operating millage is
now 8.0. Eleven counties are at the constitutional cap of 10
mills. Forty-three counties (representing 85-90% of the
state's population) have enacted all six cents of the Local
Option Gas* Tax. Furthermore, the current popularity of
discussing infrastructure (capital) needs ignores the growing
problem of operation and maintenance costs once the new
facilities are constructed.
The new policy will cause one of three actions to be taken by
county commissions: First, if capacity exists, the property
tax could be raised. Secondly, the county could challenge DCA
in the courts for the right to adopt a lower level of service
on state roads. Finally, the county could impose a moratorium
on new construction.
The new policy is particularly troublesome to county
governments since it comes—at a ti e when the DOT has recently
announced an additional($700 million shortfall in its own five-
year capital budget and aTirGo'vef or continues to refuse to
discuss an new t xes - whether ey a enacted athe sta€e or~
"the loca level. Transferring roads helps to relieve
responsibility at the state level but does knot solve our
transportation funding problem - at the state or local level.
While the Association believes the new policy (absent
authorizing legislation) will be challenged in court, it is
critical that we move immediately to convince the Governor and
Legislature of the need for additional local sources of revenue
to meet the basic requirements of the Growth Management Act.
This must be done for two reasons: First, the needs are real
and the Act =cannot be implemented without new revenues.
Secondly, if no new revenues are authorized during this
Session, it is inevitable that property taxes will increase,
service levels will decline, or moratoria will result next
year. The groundwork needs to be put into place now so that
the real reasons for these problems can be explained to the
public during our FY 1989-90 budget process.
The enclosed letter was sent to all members of the Florida
Legislature earlier this week. It is imperative that each of
you contact the members of your delegation and the Governor's
Office in support of an additional five cents of local option
gas tax and amending the local option sales tax so that the
referendum is an optional method of enactment. Phone calls,
individual letters and resolutions of the Board are all needed
now so that the groundwork can be laid for the 1989 Session.
Resolutions are especially helpful since they are enacted at
public meetings where media coverage is present.
Please provide the Association offices with copies of any
correspondence or resolutions that you send. Should you have
any questions, feel free to contact me.
Chairman Wheeler felt the proposed action is almost
irresponsible on the Governor's part. Instead of biting the
bullet and taking care of the road system, they want to dump it
back on the counties, and on the other hand, they don't provide
us a way to raise the revenue. Besides having a Resolution
prepared, Chairman Wheeler suggested that each Commissioner write
59
FEB 21 `6.6--j
pOC� `1 0 f V„ �1 .
FED 21
BOOK 7 fr,{ ya
individually and that we also encourage the civic associations to
take a close look at this.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that as one Commissioner, he
would support the Governor abolishing much of what the D.O.T does
and contracting back with local communities, which he felt would
be more cost effective than the present D.O.T operation. He
felt the D.O.T was needed to provide that there is continuity
between the counties, and while he did not question the ability
of those working for the D.O.T, he seriously questioned the
inefficiencies of the D.O.T. procedures. Commissioner Scurlock
believed the state has constantly shirked their responsibility
and pushed it down to the local level.
Discussion continued in regard to having a Resolution
prepared to send to the State.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, Commissioner Eggert having
left the meeting, the Board unanimously (4-0)
directed staff to prepare a Resolution as dis-
cussed and bring it back to the Board.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:10 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk Chairman
60