HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/28/1989Tuesday, March 28, 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,
March 28, 1989, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Carolyn K.
Eggert, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and
Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Chairman Gary Wheeler was out of state on
personal business. Also present were James E. Chandler, County
Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of
County Commissioners; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Vice Chairman called the meeting to order, and
Commissioner Bowman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Administrator Chandler requested the addition of a brief
report on the current ALS situation in Fellsmere.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Chairman Wheeler being absent) added the above item to
today's Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
The Vice Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 7, 1989.
There were none.
MAR 2 8 1989
BOOK 76F L i� 11
Pr"
MAR 2 8 1989
BOOK 76 PAGE 44?
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Wheeler being absent) approved the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of 3/7/89, as written.
B. Financial Report
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to
the Board:
St. Johns River Water Management District
Annual Financial Audit for FY -1987/88
C. North County Community. Library - Construction Grant Agreement
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3110/89:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
Thru: H.T. "Sonny" Dean
General Services
for
DATE: March 10, 1989 FILE:
Consent Agenda
SUBJECT: North County Community Library
Construction Grant Agreement
nn Williams, REFERENCES:
roject Manager
North County Community Library
Description and Conditions:
Indian River County has completed the application and review
process for the above reference Grant between the State of
Florida Division of Library and Information Services and Indian
River County. The attached agreement represents $200,000.00 in
state matching funds for construction of the North County
Community Library.
Alternatives and Analysis:
This agreement requires the signature of the Chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners on two original copies to be
returned to the state for finalization. The effective date will
be entered upon signature by the state.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that authorization be granted for the Chairman
to sign the' North County Community Library Construction Grant
Agreement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Wheeler being absent) approved the North County
Community Library Construction Grant Agreement and
authorized the Chairman's signature, as recommended by
staff.
PARTIALLY EXECUTED AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
D. Final Plat Approval - Oak Meadow Subdivision
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/16/89:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keatin , A
Community Devel pmen Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Robert E. Wiegers
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: March 16, 1989
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE OAK MEADOW SUBDIVISION
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of March 28, 1989.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION:
Oak Meadow Subdivision is a proposed 16 lot subdivision of a ±9
acre parcel of land located immediately east of the Mira Flores
Subdivision and north of Wood Hollow Phase I subdivision. The
subject property is zoned RS -3, Single -Family Residential (up to 3
units/acre), and has an LD -1, Low Density Residential -1 (up to 3
units/acre) land use designation.
Oak Meadow Subdivision:
Project Area: 9 acres
Number of Lots: 16
Lot Sizes: ±.50 acres
Proposed Density: ±1.7 units/acre
3
MAR 2 8 '1989
Pr -
MAR 213 1989
BOOK 76 PAGE 444
At its regular meeting of August 11, 1988, the Planning and Zoning
Commission granted final plat approval, and the owner, Mr. Norman
Hensick, is now requesting final plat approval and has submitted
the following:
1. a final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary
plat;
2. a warranty maintenance agreement covering publically
dedicated improvements (roads, drainage easements, utilities,
etc.); and
3. a performance bond guaranteeing the warranty maintenance
agreement.
ANALYSIS:
1. Utilities: The Environmental Health Director has approved
the use of individual wells and septic systems for the
proposed lots, and at the request of the Utilities Department
the developer has installed a "dry -line" water system to
facilitate a future connection to a public water system when
it becomes available.
2. Public Works: The County's Public Works Department has
verified that all required improvements have been constructed
in accordance with the approved County Land Development
Permit and that the warranty maintenance agreement is
adequate.
3. County Attorney: The County Attorney's office has reviewed
and approved the submitted warranty maintenance agreement and
the performance bond which guarantees the agreement.
All applicable requirements regarding final, plat approval have
been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval to the Oak Meadow Subdivision, and accept the
submitted warranty maintenance agreement and performance bond.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Wheeler being absent) granted final plat approval for
Oak Meadow Subdivision, and accepted the submitted
warranty maintenance agreement and performance bond, as
recommended by staff.
COPIES OF SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD
4
E. Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval Peterson Country
Estates Unit 11 Subdivision
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/16/89:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keati g, Ari;
Community Devel pme eYDirector
THROUGH: Stan BolinAP
g,AICP
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Robert E. Wiegers 4 s
• L -i
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: March 16, 1989
SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE PETERSON
COUNTRY ESTATES UNIT II SUBDIVISION
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of March 28, 1989.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Peterson Country Estates Unit II Subdivision is the second
phase of a 7 lot subdivision of a ±2.1 acre parcel of land located
at the southeast corner of 8th Avenue and 2nd Street. The
Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval
to all phases of Peterson Country Estates Subdivision on September
10, 1987, and the Board of County Commissioners granted final plat
approval to Unit I of the subdivision on August 16, 1988. No
improvements have been constructed, and no land development permit
has been issued for Unit II construction.
The owner, Kevin S. Hawkins, is now requesting an 18 month exten-
sion of the preliminary plat approval.
ANALYSIS:
Extensions, requested in writing prior to expiration of approval,
are allowed pursuant to section 7(d)(10) of the subdivision
ordinance. The Board has historically granted one 18 month
extension of preliminary plat approval to applicants making such a
request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant one
18 month extension of the preliminary plat approval granted to the
Peterson Country Estates Unit II Subdivision; said approval shall
expire on September 10, 1990.
5
MAR 2 8 1989
OO 76 F,445
Pr -
MAR 2 8 1989
BOOK 76 OH 446
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Wheeler being absent) granted one 18 -month extension of
the preliminary plat approval for Peterson Country
Estates Unit 11 Subdivision; said approval to expire on
September 10, 1990.
F. 1RC Bid No. 89-53 - Railroad Ties
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/16/89:
DATE: March 16, 1989
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Admi istrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Direct
Department of General
FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CPO Manager
Division of Purchasing
SUBJ: IRC Bid No. 89-53
Railroad Ties
BACKGROUND
The subject bid for Parks Division was properly advertised
and three (3) Invitations were sent out on March 15, 1989.
Bids were received and Two (2) firms submitted proposals for
the project.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittals to ascertain adherence to
specifications. Florida East Coast Railroad was the low bidder
and met all requirements.
FUNDING:
Monies for this project will come from Account No#001-210-572-066.39
Total budgeted funds is $75,000.00.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the award of a Fixed Contract for $3,600.00
to the low bidder Florida East Coast Railroad.
6
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Wheeler being absent) awarded a Fixed Contract in the
amount of $3,600 to the low bidder, Florida East Coast
Railroad, for railroad ties.
1
BOARD OF COPNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street •
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION/1
BID NO.
IRC BID#89-53
DATE OF OPENING
3-15-89
BID TITIVILROAD TIES
ITEM DESCRIPTION
NO.
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
1. F1 East Coast R.R.
$ 4
50
Total].
$3,600.03
2. D. SuBbrock
$ 9
75
Tot
1
$7,801).03
3. Ben's Railroad Ties
N/B
7
WAR 28 i989
BOOK
6 Fa GE 44 a
MAR 2 8 1989
BOOK '76 DU 448
Budget Amendment #068 - Fiber Optic Replacement of Twinaxial
Cables from Administration Building to Courthouse & Annex
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/22/89:
TO: The Honorable Board of DATE: March 22, 1989 FILE:
County Commissioners
THROUGH: Jeffrey K. Barton
Clerk of the Circuit
Court
SUBJECT: Fiber Optic Replacement
of Twinaxial Cable
FROM: Edwin M. Fry, Jr. REFERENCES:
Finance Director
I am requesting $28,336.00 to purchase a fiber optic cable to
replace the twinaxial cables that go from the IBM System 38
in the administration building to the computer devices in the
courthouse and the courthouse annex.
Presently, we have ten twinaxial cables that go from the
administration building to the courthouse and the courthouse
annex. These cables are strung along on the power poles
between the two locations. The twinaxial cables have not been
as reliable as we would like. They are subject to lightning
strikes, power surges, the squirrels like to chew on them, and they
have an estimated useful life of seven years. Two cables were
installed eight years ago and two cables were installed six
years ago. Replacement of each cable will cost approximately
$4,000.00. We also need another cable installed to provide us
with the ability to add additional computer devices in the
courthouse and the courthouse annex; however, the City does not
want us to add another cable because of the weight of the
existing ten cables.
For the last two years, we have been searching for an alternative
communication link between the two sites. We talked to a number
of different vendors and finally came up with what is the best
solution at the lowest cost. HB Communications will install a
fiber optic cable between the administration building and the
courthouse for $28,336.00
The advantages of the fiber optic cable are it is not subject to
lightning strikes or power surges, will not be chewed on by
rodents, and has an estimated useful life of twenty years. The
one cable will replace the existing ten cables and provide us
with the ability to add more computer devices in the courthouse
and the courthouse annex.
8
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we are going to get enough
useful life out of this capital expenditure or would it be better
to wait until the new Courthouse is built.
Jeff Barton, Clerk of the Circuit Court, explained that we
cannot wait until then, primarily because the squirrels are
chewing on the present cable. He noted that the line can be
reversed and it has the ability to accommodate triple the number
of CRT printer devices that we have now without putting in
additional cable.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Wheeler being absent) approved Budget Amendment #068 in
the amount of $28,336 for the purchase of fiber optic
cable to replace twinaxial cable between the
Administration Building and the Courthouse and Annex,
as requested by Jeffrey Barton, Clerk to the Board.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER:
068
DATE: March 22. 1989
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Clerk to the Board
Bud. Tran. Clerk to the Board
Reserve for Contingency
001-300-586-099.01
001-199-581-099.91
$28.336.00
$ 0
$ 0
$28.336.00
MAR 2 8 1989
9
BOO 76 r GE 44
MAR 2 C.1989,
!BOOK / PAGE 450
PUBLIC DISCUSSION - APPEAL BY 1400 DEVELOPMENT CORP. OF A PARTIAL
DENIAL OF A MAJOR SITE PLAN REQUEST FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO
THE "CONTINUING PHASES" OF THE GROVE ISLE PROJECT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/20/89:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robe t • Kea i g,
Community Deve •pm��e'' Director
THROUGH: Stan Boli g, AICP
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Robert E. Wiegers
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: March 20, 1989
SUBJECT: APPEAL BY 1400 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF A PARTIAL
DENIAL OF A MAJOR SITE PLAN REQUEST FOR A MAJOR MODI-
FICATION TO THE "CONTINUING PHASES" OF THE GROVE ISLE
PROJECT
REF: grove isle (agenda)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of March 28, 1989.
APPLICATION STATUS:
The above referenced major site plan application proposed building
relocations, an increase in the total number of units, and a boat
ramp facility. At its regular meeting of January 12, 1989, by a
vote of 4-2 (see attached minutes), the Planning and Zoning
Commission granted approval to all of the request except the
actual boat ramp facility: the boat ramp was specifically prohib-
ited in the motion to approve. Subsequently, the applicant has
filed a written appeal of this boat ramp facility denial to the
Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners
has the option to uphold the denial, grant the appeal and grant
approval for the entire major site plan request, or grant the
appeal with conditions attached.
Although the Planning and Zoning Commission's action was appealed
by the developer within the timeframes set -forth in the site plan
ordinance, the developer requested that consideration be postponed
until the March 28, 1989 Board meeting. Based upon this request,
staff postponed scheduling this request until this time.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION:
Carter Associates, Inc. submitted a major site plan on behalf of
the 1400 Development Corporation. The applicant sought major site
plan approval to modify the continuing phase of the existing Grove
Isle development at 1400 South U.S. Highway #1.
10
This proposal modifies the site plan which was approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of May 12,
1988. Changes to the plan include relocating several buildings,
changing unit types, increasing the number of total units by 7,
and adding a boat ramp and recreation facility onto the adjacent
canal along the project's northern border (See attachments 4 & 5).
As part of the aforementioned modifications, the applicant sought
specific approval to construct a boat ramp onto the adjacent_
canal, along the project's northern border (see attachment #6).
In denying this portion of the project, the Planning and Zoning
Commission cited incompatibility with the adjacent River Shores
subdivision, and an increase in undesirable boat traffic and
associated negative environmental impacts as reasons for the
prohibition of the boat ramp.
The agenda item as presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission
is included as a part of Attachment 7.
SUMMARY OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
In presenting this item to the Planning and Zoning Commission
staff identified three (3) conditions (as revised at the meeting)
of approval. These were:
1. Prior to site plan release, the applicant shall record
in cooperation with County Attorney's office, an addi-
tional document memorializing the fact that the appli-
cant has transferred an additional 7 units from the
designated environmentally sensitive areas;
2. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
Phase V, the mitigation wetland areas shall be con-
structed, inspected, and approved by the County's
Environmental Planning staff; and
3. Prior to site plan release for Phase V, the applicant
shall submit a canal access management plan to be
approved by the environmental planning staff.
After a lengthy discussion in which both the applicant and affect-
ed parties participated, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
to approve the plan with conditions #1 and #2 attached. Condition
#3 was deleted from the approval and the motion specified that a
boat ramp shall not be constructed in conjunction with this plan.
ANALYSIS:
During the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of January 12,
1989, the affected parties brought up several points of contention
with regards to the plan in general. These were:
EXPRESSED CONCERN: That action taken by the Board of County
Commissioners in 1982 precludes development in an environ-
mentally sensitive area that was established by ordinance
#82-30. This area is located to the east of the solid double
line as shown on attachment #4. The opponents of this plan
cite that because of the action taken by the Board at that
time, future development of the environmental area cannot be
allowed.
11
MAR 2 8 1989
EVU1 76 Ps,E 45i
iVIAR 2 8 -1989
BOOK (b F1.�;E 452
STAFF RESPONSE: While most development within this area is
precluded by ordinance #82-30, the ramp facility is located
to the west of the established environmental area; outside of
the overall environmental area.
EXPRESSED CONCERN: That the improvements identified in Phase
V of this plan should not be allowed in a single-family dis-
trict.
STAFF RESPONSE: This would normally be the case if these
improvements were considered to be the principal use of the
land. However, in this situation, the boat facility has been
identified as an accessory use to the permitted residential
use.
EXPRESSED CONCERN: That the proposed improvements will have
a substantial environmental impact upon the immediate area.
STAFF RESPONSE: Review by the County's Environmental Plan-
ning staff and other jurisdictional agencies indicate that
adverse environmental impacts will not result from this plan
(See Environmental Analysis). The Planning and Zoning
Commission, in making its decision, voiced that its main
concern was not with the environmental mitigation that is
occurring with the overall plan, but was instead with the
addition of a boat ramp that could possibly increase undesir-
able boat traffic to the river.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
During the review of this site plan the County's Environmental
Planning staff inspected the proposed boat ramp location and canal
conditions. It is estimated that the canal's average depth
between the proposed ramp location and the canal's entrance to the
Indian River Lagoon is 3 to 4 feet. Directly east of the canal's
entrance to the lagoon exists a substantial seagrass bed, and what
appears to be a sandbar and rock ridge features which obstruct
direct access to the intracoastal waterway.
Discussions with the residents of the area revealed that existing
boat traffic enters and exits the mouth of the canal from the
north (paralleling the shore of the lagoon) in order to avoid the
seagrass bed and the shallow draft conditions imposed by the
sandbar area. Residents have also reported that manatees have
been spotted in the canal. In coordination with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife service, the County's Environmental Planning Staff
recommended, with the applicant in agreement, that the proposed
boat ramp facility be approved subject to the condition that a
canal access management plan (i.e. channel directional, speed and
manatee caution signs) be submitted and approved by the County
prior to site plan release for Phase V, the phase in which the
boat ramp facility would be constructed. In the opinion of the
County Planning staff and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service, such
a condition would adequately address impacts on the seagrass bed
and manatees.
12
In conclusion, staff feels that the proposed boat ramp facility
would not be incompatible with adjacent uses based upon its small
scale (14' x 40') and the landscaping improvements that are
proposed in conjunction with the finished plan. Currently, many
of the residences of the River Shores subdivision, that have
access to the canal in question, utilize boat docking facilities
(i.e. docks, piers, etc.). With this in mind, the Grove Isle ramp
facility is not incompatible but is instead a continuation of the
conditions that have existed on the canal for many years and
should therefore be allowed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant the
appeal request overturning the Planning and Zoning Commission's
vote to deny approval of the boat ramp facility and grant major
site plan approval to this application with the three (3) con-
ditions (revised) as outlined in staff's presentation.
Stan Boling, Chief of Current Development, explained that
this is an appeal of a portion of an overall site plan. The
Planning & Zoning Commission approved everything in the Grove
Isle site plan except the boat ramp, which is the issue here
today. Using graphics, he pointed out the area where the
recreation area and boat ramp would be located, and advised that
the area is presently zoned RS -6, single family residential with
densities of 6 units per acre. On an aerial view of the area, he
explained that the heavy black line is the dike line that was the
environmentally sensitive line referred to in the 1982 ordinance
that rezoned the property. He noted that none of the development
occurs from that line over to the river. The jagged line is the
environmentally sensitive line that was determined when Grove
Isle came back in and redid their site plan on this part of the
project. That line was determined by the Planning Department and
other agencies. Although the recreation area is within the new
environmentally sensitive area, it is not within the 1982
environmentally sensitive area which was included in the zoning.
Roland DeBlois, Chief of Environmental Planning, explained
that the boat ramp would access the drainage canal on which River
Shores has 10-12 single family docks.
13
MAR 2 8 1989
BOOK 16
FSE 453
[BAR28 939
BOOK 76 F"GE 45 4
Mr. Boling next reviewed the access management plan that
will protect the manatees and the seagrass beds from boat
traffic.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if there was any provision for
continued maintenance of the drainage canal as he was concerned
that the County might be faced with the problem of maintaining
the canal somewhere down the road, which was the problem the
County encountered with the 14th Street canal in the Rockridge
Subdivision.
Mr. Boling explained that the Florida Department of Trans-
portation (DOT) have to be involved in getting the necessary
permits, but the money would have to come from somewhere else.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the long-term responsibility for
maintaining these access canals along the river should be spelled
out in the site plan.
Vice Chairman Eggert understood that this would be part of
the traffic management plan and although, they would have to work
with the DOT, they would have to bear the cost themselves.
Mr. Boling confirmed that would be the case if any
maintenance was involved. Basically, this boat ramp facility is
a shared facility, the same as a single family dock.
Commissioner Scurlock wanted to see it all down in black and
white so that if a time comes when the canal cannot be navigated
any longer, the entities of the development have agreed to
maintain the canal.
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that the bottom lands to the
east, the ones they are going to travel over, belong to River
Shores and were deeded to Mr. Lowenstein, but Mr. Boling advised
that staff checked with the County Attorney's office and while it
is true that the bottom lands are privately owned, the public has
a right to go over them as long as there is water over them and
it is navigable.
Commissioner Bowman emphasized that they don't have a right
to dredge the canal, and wanted to know who would dredge it in
14
the event it becomes silted up from a hurricane as the 14th
Street canal in Rockridge did. The DOT? The River Shores
landowners? Who would be responsible?
Vice Chairman Eggert understood that the River Shores people
would have the same problem if the canal became silted up, and
would have to do that for themselves.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the bottom line is that this has
happened before when people were sold a picture of access to the
river and then came back in a few years yelling foul. That is
why he would like to make sure that if we are going to allow a
boat ramp, it would be one that is functional and able to be used
and maintained.
Robert Keating, Director of Planning & Development, felt
that certainly could be made a condition of the required access
management plan, along with the manatee signs, the no wake zones,
and the markers indicating seagrass beds.
Commissioner Bowman asked how they were going to limit it to
the use of just 5 boats at a time, and Mr. Boling felt the best
way to do that is through the proposed design, which is to have
only 5 trailer spaces available.
Commissioner Bowman was concerned also about how many people
in this development are going to want to have boats since it is a
much more densely populated area than River Shores ,which has the
possibility of only 12 docks. She wondered what those people are
going to do when there are only 5 trailer spaces available.
Perhaps they will use the public boat ramp at Oslo Road, which is
only a quarter of a mile away, but she believed they eventually
will want to increase the dockage capacity using the argument
that everybody in the subdivision should have the same right to
dock their boats there. They will probably want a larger parking
lot, too. Commissioner Bowman also expected them to eventually
come back and say that they need to dredge the channel out to the
Intracoastal. They get a foot in the door, and then they go.
15
MAR 281989
NOOK.
F!+,F 455
AR 2 8 1939
BOOK 76 Du 456
Commissioner Bird preferred to have them running in a
navigable channel than just running free lance over the seagrass
beds and running aground, etc.
Commissioner Bowman emphasized that there is a public launch
ramp at the Oslo Road that would accommodate these boats. She
felt that all this provides is just a sales ploy.
Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing 1400 Development
Corporation, explained that he didn't attend the Planning &
Zoning meeting of January 12, 1989, but a recent newspaper
article quoted him from the County Commission meeting of December
1, 1982, at which the property was rezoned, and he was asked to
be here this morning. He felt this is a very simple matter, but
apparently the Planning & Zoning Commission was concerned about
the compatibility of a boat ramp with the River Shores
development. Circulating a smaller scaled aerial of the area
showing the location of the boat ramp and the mosquito
impoundment, he emphasized that Grove Isle is 3-4 times larger
than River Shores and has 1400 feet of riverfront and they are
asking for access to the Intracoastal waterway. They are asking
for no more than what their neighbors in River Shores enjoy.
Attorney O'Haire ventured to say that no dock in the area has
undergone the scrutiny, study and expense that this dock has. He
also ventured to say that there is not another dock ditch that
has a St. Johns River Water Management District permit. In
granting a permit, the Water Management District imposed
restrictions even more stringent than staff is proposing,
including an educational exhibit to be located on or adjacent to
the boat ramp dock. This exhibit will post the following
information:
1) A map of the existing channel to the Intracoastal waterway.
2) A manatee awareness exhibit, which is available from the DNR.
3) Rules restricting dumping of wastes and mooring of boats
other than necessary for launching or trailering.
16
Attorney O'Haire emphasized that this is not going to be a
large project; it is going to be a small boat ramp and everything
east of the boat ramp is going to be committed to conservatism.
Mitigation will be through restoration of pepper groves between
the impoundment dike and the project and also by making
functional marsh lands out of them for a net increase of more
than 2 acres.
Attorney O'Haire advised that all of these conditions are
acceptable to the developer, but if maintenance is a concern, he
suggested that the Commission go on record right now to make it
abundantly clear that the County is not accepting responsibility
for maintenance of the canal. He stated that they would have no
problem with that whatsoever. Dean Luethje, project engineer
from Carter & Associates, has been meeting with the different
agencies relative to the whole project and is here today to
answer any questions.
Commissioner Scurlock was more interested in being positive
in terms of stating whose responsibility it is, because he felt
it would be clearer and easier to do and it would be to the best
interests of the project to make sure that the canal is
maintained in a navigable way.
Attorney O'Haire didn't have a real problem with that, but
was tempted to suggest that perhaps the maintenance
responsibilities should be allocated according to the number of
docks allowed along the waterway.
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that back in December, 1982,
the Board of County Commissioners voted to adopt Ordinance 82-30,
which rezoned the subject property to R -2D, with the exception of
200 feet on the north boundary, which was rezoned to R -1A and
subject to all R -1A requirements. This 200 feet was to provide a
buffer to River Shores, a single-family residential development.
Reading aloud from the Minutes of the BCC Meeting of December 1,
1982, she quoted the following statement by Attorney O'Haire:
"Attorney O'Haire informed the Board that they will accept the
17
;MAR 1989
eooK 76 FACE 457
MAR 2 8 1989
BOOK 76 DGE 458
R -1A density of 4.3 upa for the buffer zone with the provision
that they can treat this area as one big lot rather than having
to subdivide. Considerable discussion ensued regarding the whole
parcel being considered as one lot and the fact that nothing can
be constructed in the 200 -ft. buffer that did not meet R -1A
requirements."
Commissioner Bowman asked if this boat ramp and parking lot
meet R -1A requirements, and Director Keating explained that a
boat ramp is consistent with an allowable accessory use for
single family development.
Commissioner Bowman emphasized that this is not just a
single family requesting a dock, but Director Keating explained
that the 200 feet is considered single family.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that what we should be looking at
is whether this use with 4-5 parking spaces is going to impact
the adjacent property negatively, and Attorney O'Haire agreed
that is the way it should be looked at. He pointed out that
Grove Isle is a condominium project and maintenance of boat
trailers or any other kind of trailers on the property is
prohibited by the rules and regulations of the homeowners
association. There wouldn't be 300 boat trailers parked on the
Grove Isle property; it just is not going to happen. There is no
boat storage facility on site, but the sewer plant location is
used for some storage.
Commissioner Scurlock assumed that if they are not going to
be able to store their boats and boat trailers on site, they will
have to make arrangements to store their boats off site and when
they want to go out on the river they will have to pick up their
boat, launch their boat, and then after they are finished
boating, take their boat off site again.
Attorney O'Haire stated that it would be just like anybody
else who doesn't live on the water, but who wants to be able to
use their boat, to which statement Commissioner Bowman asked
"then why have it?"
18
Commissioner Bird felt that the answer to that is that there
is an element of fairness because the property owners in Grove
Isle have some right to use that canal just as much as the
property owners in River Shores. He hoped that we could come out
of this today with a plan'that would have a minimal negative
effect on the River Shores property owners to the north and still
allow access by the residents of Grove Isle.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that any additional recreational
facility of this sort might mitigate the use on other boat ramps
in that general location, and Commissioner Bird felt that in a
controlled situation such as this is, people have a right to
access to the river. One of the reasons people move here is to
enjoy the river.
Commissioner Scurlock felt strongly that the onus for
maintaining the canal in a navigable fashion should be placed on
Grove Isle, and Attorney O'Haire advised that wasn't a problem
and they would go ahead and attach it as a condition. He pointed
out, however, that this canal is a DOT drainage ditch for U.S. #1
and not a Dan Knoebel canal that is going to be left there
by itself.
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that the DOT's need is for
drainage, not navigation, and that may or may not conflict with
getting a boat in or out.
Attorney O'Haire responded with "no problem."
Lewis Williamson, owner and resident of a condominium in
Grove Isle and Vice President of the Grove isle of Vero Beach
Condominium Associated, presented a petition signed by 334
residents of Grove Isle requesting the following:
19
MAR 2 8 u989
76
BOOK Fri Wil. 459
MAR 28 1989
March 22, 1989
Dear Commissioners:
BOOK 76 FADE 460
Re: County Commission Meeting
of March 28, 1989
As Grove Isle residents and property owners, we respectfully
request that you favorably consider 1400 Development Corporation's
request to approve their revised site plan.'
The decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the
proposed boat ramp does not fairly consider our interests in being
afforded the same opportunity given to the adjacent property
owners. In addition to boat docks, several of the adjacent
property owners have boat launch ramps.
Of the two hundred and fifty-seven adult families residing
at Grove Isle only 4 families have boats which would utilize the
facility. Obviously, the principle involved is our interest in
having tie same opportunity as our neighbors.
Thankou for
y your consideration.
Continuing, Mr. Williamson stated that the residents
understand that the DOT controls the drainage ditch between River
Shores and Grove Isles and that it cannot be filled in or blocked
off. They also realize that a number of River Shores residents
have installed boat docks and ramps on their side of this ditch.
He did not know the circumstances which permitted them to do it,
and didn't care. His only request is that the residents of Grove
Isle be given the same privilege and right to do the same. Mr.
Williamson commented that they now have 248 condominiums and 26
single family homes, out of which only 4 own boats. At build
out, Grove Isle will have 486 condos and 39 single family homes;
the 1400 Development Corporation will set up the guidelines for
the use of this recreation area; and the Board of Directors will
enforce them. He did not foresee the area being impacted by a
lot of boat owners from Grove isle. Based on the past
experience with the developer, he believed the boat ramp and dock
will not only be a benefit to Grove Isle but also to Indian River
20
County by increasing property values, adding to the tax base and
increasing tax revenues.
Mr. Williamson concluded by asking the Board to give
favorable approval to the request of 1400 Development
Corporation's request for a change of site plan to install a boat
dock and ramp.
John Orcutt, Jr., owner and resident of a single-family
residence in River Shores, advised that he is representing
himself and a number of residents of River Shores, who are in
opposition to the addition of a boat ramp and parking lot in
Grove Isles. He noted that while he is a stockbroker by trade,
he has a degree in marine biology and objects to the addition of
a parking lot where environmentally sensitive property now
exists, plus the dredge and fill activity that would occur in the
mitigation of 4 acres. Mr. Orcutt quoted Attorney Michael
O'Haire, who represented the developers of the project at the
12/1/82 County Commission meeting, as saying that of the 125
acres in the project, about 32 acres in this area were environ-
mentally sensitive and would not be developed, and also that the
applicants readily agreed not to include the environmentally
sensitive area in the rezoning request in order to assure that
the area would never be built upon. Mr. Orcutt pointed out that
the emphasis in making this original decision was to maintain
single family buffer zone, and the residents of River Shores
don't feel that a boat ramp and parking lot in their backyards is
a buffer zone. Continuing, he noted that Mr. O'Haire had said in
that meeting that the developer had recorded a declaration of
restriction stating that the north 200 feet may be used for
single family only. In reference to the environmentally
sensitive land, Attorney O'Haire had stated that it could remain
green. Mr. Orcutt urged that the area where they are planning to
build the boat dock and parking lot be maintained as green space
as originally presented in 1982.
21
MAR 2 8 1989 Boor 76 F461
AR 2-8 1989
BOOK 76 PAGE 4&
Addressing the environmentally sensitive area, Mr. Orcutt
noted that at the end of the drainage canal, there is an area of
lush seagrasses and a very active manatee area which would be
threatened by major increased activity from the proposed boat
ramp. Heavy boat traffic there would increase turbidity and make
it more difficult for the survival of seagrasses. He suggested
that the public boat ramp at Oslo Road be used since boats must
be kept off-site in this development.
Mr. Orcutt stated that he had a hard time believing that the
boat ramp is going to have minimal use, since there are about 60
people in attendance this morning who are excited about the boat
ramp being built there. He wished to look at the numbers for
potential boating. Assuming there are 500 units in Grove Isle
and only 10% of those people have boats, you are looking at 50
boats. Given that there are only 5 parking spaces, let's say
that only 5 people a day could use that ramp. If each of these
people used their boats twice a month, you are looking at 100
additional movements in that canal in front of River Shores.
This means that it only takes 10% of Grove Isle's population to
have boats to result in a constant flow in and out of there, and
he felt that is a real conflict to the argument for minimal use.
Mr. Orcutt noted that there are only 6 boats in River Shores at
the present time and their use is limited, because most of the
residents work and are not retired.
Mr. Orcutt next wanted to address the question of ownership
of the bottom lands, but Vice Chairman Eggert interjected that it
had been established earlier in this meeting that the public can
pass over bottom lands that are privately owned.
In conclusion, Mr. Orcutt felt we are talking about a
potentially dramatic increase in boating activity in a very
sensitive part of the river as defined by the Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Dept., and none of this made sense to him from a
environmentally standpoint, especially when these people were
22
originally promised a 200 -ft. buffer zone of single family homes.
He urged the Board not to go back on that original promise.
John Donovan, resident of River Shores, stressed the point
that was made earlier about expecting these people to come in
later on and ask for additional clearance to dredge or something
else of that nature. He explained that this is a very sensitive
area, and he takes his boat very slowly and very carefully past
his neighbors property along the canal because you can see the
washout from props. He found it hard to believe that people who
don't have this relationship with their neighbors are going to
take the same amount of care, and felt it is not going to take
very long with boat densities of 60-70 a month to cause that sea
wall to erode very rapidly. As far as the question of
navigation, he felt that is not necessarily taken for granted.
Navigability implies no potential damage to the shoreline and
reasonable care, and they are not willing to accept the oral
commitments by Attorney O'Haire. They are not particularly happy
with the correlations between the statements he made earlier and
some of the things that have happened, i.e., his statement that
as many trees as possible will be left was followed almost
immediately by bulldozers razing the grove. In addition, Mr.
Donovan believed they were told that they would not be going to
the river and other things of that nature. They agree with
Commissioner Scurlock that there should be something in writing.
If there is any equitable responsibility, he felt it should not
be in proportion to the number of docks, but rather to the number
of boats that are using the waterway.
Vice Chairman Eggert asked if anyone else wished to be heard
in this matter. There were none.
1YAR 2 8 i
989
23
76
r -
fn 2 0 1989
ElOOK 76 F'GE 464
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board adopt staff's
recommendation to overturn the Planning & Zoning
Commission's decision to deny approval of the boat ramp
facility, and grant major site plan approval to this
application, subject to the first 3 conditions outlined
in staff's recommendation, plus the condition that
maintenance of that particular canal and access into
the river would be the responsibility of Grove Isle.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird stated he was familiar
with the 200 -ft. single-family buffer, but really felt that a
small recreational facility like this one with one boat ramp and
5 parking spaces and the minimal amount of use he believed it
will receive, is not a violation of any trust that the people of
River Shores put in this Commission when we approved the original
site plan. He felt it can be compatible and that it is only fair
play that the people in Grove Isle should have access to this
waterway. He liked the part of the Motion where they are
agreeing to maintain the canal and make it navigable.
Commissioner Bowman stated that she would vote against the
Motion for environmental reasons.
Vice Chairman Eggert stressed that she was very torn on this
issue, but did feel that Grove Isle has a right to use that DOT
canal and have a minimal amount of boat ramp, provided that all
the conditions are met.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
carried by a vote of 3-1, (Chairman Wheeler being
absent) and Commissioner Bowman voting in opposition.
24
PUBLIC HEARING - HARBOR TOWN CENTER REVISED DEVELOPMENT ORDER
Continued from the BCC Meeting of March 14, 1989
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/17/89:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert . Keatin , A
Community evelo men Director
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Chief, Current Development
DATE: March 17, 1989
SUBJECT: REVISED DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR THE HARBOR TOWN CENTER
D.R.I.
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of March 28, 1989.
BACKGROUND AND CONDITIONS:
At its regular meeting of February 28, 1989, the Board of County
Commissioners voted unanimously to "conceptually" approve the
Harbor Town Center development order (D.O.) subject to some
language changes to be finalized and approved at the March 14,
1989 Board meeting. At the developer's request at the March 14th
meeting, the Board postponed the item which is now to be heard at
the March 28, 1989 meeting.
Taking into consideration the concerns and ideas expressed by the
Board at the February 28th meeting, staff researched alternatives
and produced several "working draft" iterations that were reviewed
and commented upon internally and by the applicant and its agents.
Staff now proposes revisions to the D.O. that have been fully
agreed to by the developer.
ANALYSIS:
Although the Board discussed and clarified several items within
the D.O. regarding landscaping/open space, bumper stops, drainage,
utilities, and fire protection, it was concluded that only two
issues needed to be more adequately addressed via revisions to the
D.O. These two areas relate to stormwater discharge and construc-
tion deadlines.
°Stormwater Discharge
Although the ADA includes an acknowledgement by the applicant that
the project is not within the Indian River Farms Water Control
District and that the project cannot legally and will not be
designed to discharge stormwater into the North Relief Canal,
nothing in the originally proposed D.O. specifically prohibited
discharging into the Canal. (It was verified by the Public Works
director that the developer may be able to obtain a legal positive
outfall to the Indian River, with all applicable stormwater
quality standards being met.)
25
MAR 2 8 1989
LINN
iViTAR2b
BOOK rSCE466
To ensure that the project's designed stormwater management system
will not discharge stormwater into the North Relief Canal, staff
proposes that the following clause be added to the last sentence
of condition #11 of the D.O.:
"Under no circumstances shall post -development runoff volumes
exceed pre -development runoff volumes, nor shall stormwater be
discharged from the site into the North Relief Canal, for a storm
event of three-day duration and 25 -year return frequency".
°Construction Deadlines
The originally proposed D.O. established three construction
deadlines: a three-year (1992) deadline for commencement of any
portion of the project; a December 31, 1993 deadline for
commencement of the mall; and an estimated December 31, 1996
deadline for total project completion. The Board expressed the
desire to specifically ensure reasonable construction progress of
the mall and to ensure that development of the commercial out -
parcels outside of the area along U.S. #1 currently zoned
commercial did not precede development of the mall.
Staff proposes a complete "re -write" of condition #2, which
provides for the following:
1. a three-year deadline for commencement of construction for
some portion of the project: either an outparcel/residential
area or the mall [Condition 2.a.];
2. development of the residential area or the commercial out -
parcels located within the current commercially zoned area
along U.S. #1 prior to commencement of mall construction
[condition 2.b.1];
3. a prohibition on issuing building permits for construction on
commercial outparcels located outside of the currently
commercially zoned area prior to completion of at least 50%
of the mall's foundation system [condition 2.b.2.];
4. a December 31, 1993 deadline for commencement of mall con-
struction for at least 320,000 square feet of building area
[condition 2.c.1.];
5. a 210 day maximum time period for the completion of the mall
foundation system from the date mall construction begins,
whatever the date may be [condition 2.c.2.1;
6. a 24 month maximum time period for the completion of the mall
foundation, exterior walls, and roof from the date mall
construction begins, whatever the date may be [condition
2.c.3.]; and
7. an "Act of God" clause that allows for extension of the
foundation and "shell" construction deadlines due to dis-
ruptive events beyond the developer's control.
All numbers used in the revised conditions were derived from staff
research and input from the developer. Staff and the developer
are in agreement on the revisions; and, in staff's opinion, the
revisions address the Board's expressed concerns.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
revised development order.
26
Stan Boling, Chief of Current Development, advised that in
addition to the changes outlined in staff's recommendation, the
developer has requested the following addition to the Development
Order:.
ROBIN A. BLANTON
STEVE L HENDERSON
THOMAS A. KOVAL
CLINTON W. LANIER
ROBIN A. LLOYD. SR.
GEORGE H. MOSS
EVERETT J. VAN GAASBECK
MOSS, HENDERSON & LLOYD, P.A.
March 27, 1989
(Hand Delivery) ,
(URGENT!)
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS
817 BEACHLAND BOULEVARD
P.O. BOX 3408
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32884.3408
(4071231•1900
GROUP 3 FAX PHONE
4072314387
Mr. Stan Boling
Indian River County
Planning & Zoning Department
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Harbor Town Centre - DRI
(2060.1)
Dear Stan:
H.R. BRENNAN
DAVID A. CAIRNS
OLIVIA DEVONMILLE
KEVIN S. DOTY
ELIZABETH A. JACKSON
CARLA S. MATTHEWS
LOUIS B. VOCELLE. JR.
OF COUNSEL
WILLIAM G. HALL. JR.
In accordance with Florida Statute Section 380.06(5)(c), the
developer is electing to be bound by the rules adopted, pursuant
to Chapters 403 and 373 in effect when the Development Order is
issued. We feel that such an election should be recited in the
Development Order, itself, and would ask that you add a new
paragraph 9 on page 24 of the D.O. (renumbering paragraph 9 to
paragraph 10), reading as follows:
119.
In accordance with Florida Statute Section
380.06(5)(c), the developer has elected to be
bound by the rules adopted, pursuant to Chapters
403 and 373, Florida Statutes, in effect as of the
date this Development Order is issued."
Sorry for this last minute change.
should have any questions.
Kindest regards,
MOSS, ' RSO & LLOYD, P.A.
By/ Ala,
STEVE L. HENDERSON, Esquire
MAR 2 8 1989
27
Please let me know if you
E'AGE 467
MAR 2 8 989
Croo
0,L 468
Mr. Boling explained that this additional provision in the
Development Order will allow the developer to acquiesce to the
rules in effect at the time the D.O. is issued, particularly the
DER rules that are in effect. The County Attorney's Office
reviewed this request yesterday afternoon, and staff has no
objection to adding that paragraph.
Vice Chairman Eggert felt that when we discussed
"substantial construction" at the February 28th meeting, the
intent was that it should be something more than pilings and a
slab, and she didn't feel this was saying that.
Mr. Boling explained that we are talking about the founda-
tional elements in place as opposed to a house or something like
that. It would be the entire slab and all the structural
supports that are needed, not just footers, stem walls, or form
boards. As far as a dollar figure is concerned, the developer
has said that it could run $1 -million in construction costs
because it has to cover the entire mall area itself, which is at
least 320,000 square feet.
Vice Chairman Eggert realized that is a lot of development,
but that is just what she has seen people walk away from.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that the concern should not be
how much it costs, but rather what it looks like while it's lying
there for two years.
Commissioner Bowman had been of the understanding that we
were not going to allow any out -parcel development before the
mall is constructed, but Vice Chairman Eggert explained that this
only includes the existing commercial along U.S. #1.
Commissioner Bowman noted that it doesn't specify that in
Item #1 on the second page of staff's recommendation, but Item #2
does say commercial along U.S. #1. She wanted to make sure that
we don't end up with a McDonald's or something before we get the
mall.
28
Vice Chairman Eggert returned to her concern about the
intent of "substantial construction" as she didn't feel that it
is enough to just require a foundation to go in.
Mr. Boling explained that the foundation is just the first
deadline proposed, and it is a 210 -day deadline. After that
there is the 24 -month deadline for shell construction, which is
the roof, walls, and basically everything in the exterior.
Actually, there are two deadlines that start at the same time.
Commissioner Scurlock asked where the hammer is if that
doesn't happen, and Mr. Boling felt it is in Items #2 and #3,
where upon a year, the County may revoke the mall site plan
approval.
Vice Chairman Eggert pointed out that we still could be
sitting there with just a lovely foundation, and Mr. Boling said
that was correct.
Commissioner Scurlock asked what impact this would have on
the D.R.I., and Mr. Boling pointed out that unless you require
substantial deviation or some other type of review of the D.R.I.,
it would not have an effect. It would have an effect on the
local site plan, however.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that is a big hammer when you say
to them that they are going to have to pump another $300,000 into
this project, and Mr. Boling agreed that is certainly a bigger
hammer than just local review.
Steve Henderson, attorney representing the developer, felt
the Commission realizes that this project won't go forward
without financing or anchor tenant leases, and once those are
committed, the project is definitely committed. He didn't feel
there are any guarantees that anybody can give to say that every
project is going to go forward totally and successfully. He
emphasized that the County has provisions in its ordinances which
require continuous construction and various other hammers. He
believed that they have dealt with the hammer, which in this
case, is requiring substantial deviation and D.R.I. review. That
29
MAR 2 a 1989
ROOK 76 `'.AGE 69
AR 2 `989
die e
ROOK F E. 47O
is not a condition that was imposed by the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council. All substantial deviation does is
force a developer back to more reviews.
Attorney Henderson did not know what what else to say except
that once committed, and once construction begins, this is the
kind of project that is likely to proceed to a successful
conclusion. He asked the Board not to overlook the fact that
there are 2 deadlines here that must be met. The shell must be
constructed within 24 months, or December 3, 1995, and that is a
multi-million dollar commitment on the part of the developer.
The foundation itself is a major investment. Attorney Henderson
just didn't feel that the danger perceived by the Board is all
that likely due to the fact that construction financing once
committed is not likely to be cut off in the middle of a project.
Commissioner Bird understood then that they would not start
until they got the anchors and substance that they need, and
Attorney Henderson said that was correct.
Commissioner Scurlock was satisfied with the hammers
provided in Items #2 and #3, and preferred to address
"substantial construction" through the site plan requirements.
Vice Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Wheeler being absent) adopted Resolution 89-31A,
establishing the Development Order approving the
revised Harbor Town Center Development of Regional
Impact, subject to the conditions as set out in staff's
recommendation and with the addition of Paragraph 9 on
Page 24 of the Development Order.
RESOLUTION 89-31A WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE 7,;1%
CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED /W.4q
30
HISTORIC SURVEY - ESTIMATED COST TO EXPAND SURVEY TO INCLUDE
INCORPORATED AREAS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/15/89:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert Keating, ICP,
Community Develo_ merl#-/ Director
FROM: Roland DeBlois.'"Ni)
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: March 15, 1989
SUBJECT: ESTIMATED,COS-T TO EXPAND
HISTORICCSU#VEY TO INCLUDE
INCORPORATED AREAS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
RE: TM 89-491
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of March 28, 1989.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
On November 1, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners voted to
authorize staff to enter into contract negotiations with Historic
Property Associates, Inc. for the purpose of conducting a survey
of historic resources in the unincorporated county. Subsequently,
on January 31, 1989, the Board authorized execution of the histor-
ic survey contract.
At the November 1, 1988 meeting the Board suggested that, once the
project is underway, staff look into the cost estimate to expand
the historic survey to include incorporated areas of the county,
and report back to the Board for funding availability conside-
rations.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
In response to staff's request, Historic Property Associates, Inc.
has conducted a cursory "windshield" survey of the incorporated
communities of the county, in conjunction with the on-going survey
of unincorporated areas, to estimate the number of historic
buildings within the municipalities.
Based on the cursory survey, it is estimated that approximately
300 historic buildings exist in Vero Beach, 100 in Fellsmere, and
approximately 75 in Sebastian.
Using the figure of 475 buildings to estimate costs, the consul-
tants' estimate is $16,625.00. The staff feels that this amount
is reasonable and is less than would be charged if a separate
stand-alone survey was done.
31
MAR 2. 1989
BOOK. 76 f'AGE 471
MAR 2
989
POOK
�UJ oGE 472
No funds were programmed in the FY 88-89 budget for an incorporat-
ed area historic survey project. Since the project involves work
within municipalities, MSTU budget funds would not be an appropri-
ate budget source. Several other alternatives, however, are
available to fund the project. These include: using general fund
contingency monies; obtaining funds from the municipalities if
they want the project; or applying for grant funds (50% match
required) in the current application period. If the grant option
is chosen, the incorporated area project could not be done in
conjunction with the current project, the county staff would
expend time in preparing the grant application, and a 50% match
would be required. Both other alternatives also have drawbacks.
Regarding use of general fund contingencies, these monies are
generally set aside for emergencies and have already been reduced
substantially. Regarding municipal contributions, there has been
no assessment of the cities' interest in participating in the
project.
The staff feels that the project would primarily benefit the
individual communities. However, the county would derive some
benefit from the survey results. For that reason it would seem
equitable for each of the three municipalities to contribute its
share of the project's cost (Vero Beach: $10,500; Fellsmere:
$3,500; and Sebastian: $2,625) and the county to manage and
administer the project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
staff to contact each of the three affected municipalities to
determine willingness to finance its share of the incorporated
area historic survey. Staff recommends that the chairman be
authorized to sign an amended contract with Historic Property
Associates, Inc. for $16,625 to do an incorporated area historic
survey if the cities of Vero Beach, Fellsmere and Sebastian agree
to pay this share of the project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Wheeler being absent) approved the expansion of the
Historic Survey to include the incorporated area of the
county, as set out in the above staff recommendation.
REPORT ON ALS SITUATION IN FELLSMERE
Doug Wright, Director of Emergency Management, reported that
Rosemary Cavanaugh, Chief of the Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance
Squad, tendered her resignation last Friday evening. He
understood that the basis on which she resigned was because of
the protocols and some problems they had encountered with a few
of the medics. He personally felt that she's burned out due to
32
the fact that she was pulling duty in excess of 10 hours a day, 6
days a week, and working a full-time job at night. They have
been having difficulty recruiting volunteers, and there is a
limit to what one person can do in terms of pulling shifts in two
different locations.
Director Wright advised that the Board of Directors of the
Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance Service voted last night to table
action on acceptance of Chief Cavanaugh's resignation, and
appointed a committee of 3 people to work with County officials
to try and resolve the issues which led to her decision to quit
and to see where the squad is going. He advised that he would be
coming back to the County Commission in 3-4 weeks with a
recommendation on where the FVAS should go from here.
Vice Chairman Eggert hoped he would be back sometime closer
to two weeks.
FINAL ASSESSMENT FOR PAVING OF 33RD AVENUE FROM 11TH ST. SW TO
13TH ST. SW
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/20/89:
TO: James Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James D. White, P.E.
Acting County Engineer
FROM: Michelle A. Gen#}�ile, �.E.T.
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: 33rd Avenue from llth Street SW to 13th Street SW
DATE: March 20, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The paving of the above roadway has been completed. Listed below
is a comparison of the preliminary estimate and the final costs
to the homeowners. It is noted that all construction costs are
under the original estimate:
1) 33rd Avenue Prelim. Est. Final Cost
100% $39,240.00 $32,056.26
75% $29,429.20 $24,544.00
The final assessment roll has been prepared and is ready to be
delivered to the Clerk to the Board. Assessments are to be paid
within 90 days or in two equal installments, the first to be made
twelve months from the due date and the second to be made
twenty-four months from the due date at an interest rate of 12%
established by the Board of County Commissioners. The due date
is 90 days after the final determination of the special
assessment.
33
MAR 2 8 1989
BOOK. 76 PAGE 473
,MAR 2
09
Boor 76 [SCA 474
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Since the final assessment to the benefited owners will be less
than computed on the preliminary assessment roll, the only
alternative presented is to approve the final assessment roll.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the final assessment roll for the paving
of the above mentioned road be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners and that it be transferred to the Office of the
Clerk to the Board for recording in the "Assessment Lien Book"
and to the Tax Collectors office for collection.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Chairman Wheeler being absent) approved the final
assessment roll for the paving of 33rd Ave.from 11th
St. SW to 13th St. SW., and authorized the transfer of
the assessment roll to the Tax Collector's Office for
collection.
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
SOLID WASTE RECYCLING PLAN - Tabled from 3/21/89 Meeting
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/21/89 and
letter dated 3/16/89:
DATE: MARCH 23, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO, DIREC
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRIC
FROM: RONALD R. BROOKS, MANAGER
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE RECYCLING PROGRAM
ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES
BACKGROUND
Chapter 88-130 is a Legislative Act amending Chapter 403, Florida
Statutes, which obligates the County to specific Solid Waste
Management Programs and mandates that certain Solid Waste Management
34
practices be implemented and subsequently funded by specific
deadlines. In addition, the County is obligated by contract with
the DER to implement and fund a Hazardous Waste Management .Program
to serve the public and small quantity generators of Indian River
County. The obligations and mandates include but are not limited to
the following:
1. 403.407 F.S. (1) The governing body of a county has the
responsibility and power to provide for the operation
of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities to meet the needs of
all incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county.
2. 403.706 F.S. (2) Each county shall initiate a recyclable
materials recycling program by July 1, 1989. Counties and
municipalities are encouraged to form cooperative
arrangements for implementing recycling programs. The
following requirements shall apply:
A. Construction and demolition debris must be
separated from the Solid Waste Stream and
segregated in separate locations at a Solid
Waste Disposal Facility or other permitted site.
B. At a minimum, a majority of newspaper, aluminum
cans, glass, and plastic bottles must be
separated from the Solid Waste Stream prior to
final disposal at a Solid Waste Disposal
Facility and must be offered for recycling.
C. Local governments are encouraged to separate all
plastics, metals, and all grades of paper for
recycling prior to final disposal and are
further encouraged to recycle yard trash and
other mechanically treated Solid Waste into
compost available for agricultural and other
acceptable use.
3. 403.706 F.S. (3) Each county shall ensure, to the maximum
extent possible, that municipalities within its boundaries
participate in the preparation and implementation of
recycling and Solid Waste Management Programs through
interlocal agreements pursuant to Section 163.01 or other
means provided by law.
4. 403.706 F.S. (4) A County's Solid Waste Management and
Recycling Programs shall be designed to provide for
sufficient reduction of the amount of Solid Waste
generated within the county and the municipalities within
its boundaries in order to meet goals for the reduction of
municipal Solid Waste prior to the final disposal or the
incineration of such waste at a Solid Waste Disposal
Facility. The goals shall provide, at a minimum, that the
amount of municipal Solid Waste that would be disposed of
in the absence of recycling efforts undertaken within the
County and the Municipalities within its boundaries is
reduced by at least 30o by the end of 1994.
5. 403.706 F.S. (7) In order to assess the progress in meeting
the goal established in 403.706 (4), each county shall, by
October 1, 1989, and each year thereafter, report to The
Department of Environmental Regulation its annual Solid
Waste Management Program and Recycling Activities. The
report by the County shall include:
A. A description of its public education program on
recycling;
35
MAR 2 8 1989
tAoGK 76 f'3GE 475
ROOK
Fr,F47
B. The amount of Solid Waste disposed of at Solid
Waste Disposal Facilities, by type of waste such
as yard trash, white goods, clean debris, tires,
and unseparated Solid Waste.
C. The amount and type of materials from the Solid
Waste Stream that were recycled;
D. The percentage of the population participating
in various types of recycling activities
instituted;
E. The percent reduction each year in municipal
Solid Waste disposed of at Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities.
F. A description of the recycling activities
attempted, their success rates, the perceived
reasons for failure or success, and the
recycling activities which are ongoing and most
successful; and
G. In its first report, a description bf any
recycling activities implemented prior to July
1, 1989.
6. 407.708 F.S. (15) In accordance with the following
schedule, no person who knows or who should know of the
nature of such Solid Waste shall dispose of such Solid
Waste in landfills:
A. Lead acid batteries, after January 1, 1989.
B. Used oil after October 1, 1989.
D. White goods, after January 1, 1990.
7. 403.751 (C) No person may mix or commingle used oil with
Solid Waste that is to be disposed of in landfills, or
directly dispose of used oil in landfills in Florida.
8. Section 41 (3) On or after July 1, 1989:
B. It is unlawful for any person to dispose of
waste tires in the State, unless the waste tires
are disposed of for processing, or collected for
processing, at a permitted Solid Waste Disposal
Facility, a waste tire site which is an integral
part of a permitted waste tire processing
facility, a permitted waste tire processing
facility, or a waste tire collection center.
C. Waste tires may not be deposited in a landfill
as a method of ultimate disposal.
9.. DER Contract No. HW80:
A. Indian River County is responsible for entering
into a 2 year contract with a licensed, insured
private company that will be responsible for
collecting hazardous wastes and assuring the
delivery of these wastes to a permitted
recycling, storage, disposal or treatment
facility.
36
B. Indian River County is responsible for
guaranteeing operation of its hazardous waste
collection center for 2 years after the facility
is open for operation, including at least 2 days
per year when household hazardous waste will be
accepted at no charge to non -business entities.
These free collection days will be well
advertised to encourage participation.
C. Indian River County is responsible for offering
at least 2 days per year when conditionally
exempt small businesses can bring their
hazardous wastes to the collection center in
order to obtain a reduced fee for proper
disposal of wastes to a permitted facility.
ANALYSIS:
Implementation and funding of obligated and mandated Solid Waste
Management programs requires a thorough evaluation of all program
alternatives and their associated costs.
Implementation of the programs will significantly affect our current
management program, the general public, and the collection
operations of the municipalities and the franchised collection
services. Subsequent funding programs for areas not already covered
under our budget must be developed and implemented.
The attached scope of services presented by Camp Dresser and McKee
is intended to address all recycling program alternatives as well as
specific mandates and restrictions on the management of hazardous
waste, tires, used oil, white goods, uninfectious wastes and
construction/demolition debris. The scope will include
recommendations on implementation and funding of the mandated waste
management practices along with completion and submittal of a report
to the Department of Environmental Regulation due October 1, 1989,
that will outline our Solid Waste Management and Recycling
Programs.
This scope of services must be accomplished in its entirety within
60 days to not only assist the county in the implementation and
funding of the required programs within the upcoming budget year,
but to insure that the required report is submitted to the
Department of Environmental Regulation by October 1, 1989.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached scope of
services in its entirety, and that the services be accomplished
within the specified 60 days to insure that all required programs
and associated reports are timely accomplished by the required
deadlines. Funding for this scope of services will be obtained from
the Engineering Services portion of the Landfill Operations Budget.
The total costs of the services is $61,200.00. Approximately
$23,800.00 of the total cost may be assumed by The City of Vero
Beach to cover evaluation of their collection services.
MAR 2 8 089
37
Boo .. 76 FmGE 417
MAR 2 `989
c�
environmental engineers, scientists.
planners, & management consultants
March 16, 1989
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Terrance G. Pinto
Director of Utility Services
Indian River County
1840 - 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Solid Waste Recycling Plan
Dear Mr. Pinto and Mr. Little:
ROOK 76 F,,, L 478
Mr. John V. Little
City Manager
City of Vero Beach
1053 - 20th Place
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. is pleased to present our revised proposal to
prepare a Solid Waste Recycling Plan for Indian River County and the
City of Vero Beach based on our discussions with you on February 23,
1989 and March 15, 1989. This proposal presents in detail the following
items:
o Exhibit A - Scope of Work
o Exhibit B - Project Labor Breakdown
o Exhibits C-1 through C-4 - Project Budgets by Phase
We have estimated the duration of this project to be two months to
produce a draft recycling plan for submittal to the Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation. For the services under this proposal, our
fees are estimated at the following lump sum amounts:
Phase IA $27,700
Phase IB 14,500
Phase II 14,400
Phase III 4,600
Total $61,200
We will not exceed these amounts unless we have obtained prior approval.
We recommend that the City's share of the fees be computed as 100
percent of the fee for Phase IB plus 20 percent of the fees for other
phases based on population. This method of cost division would result
in a total lump sum fee of $23,800 for the City and $37,400 for the
County.
If you should have any questions, please
Very truly yours,
CA g DRESSER & McKE&
v
Donald G. Munksgaard, P.E.
Vice President
38
contact our office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Chairman Wheeler being absent) approved the revised
proposal from Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. to prepare
a Solid Waste Recycling Plan for Indian River County
and the City of Vero Beach, as recommended by staff.
REVISED PLAN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
SCOPE OF WORK - COST RECOVERY METHODS FOR TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
OF SLUDGE, SEPTAGE, AND GREASE - CAMP DRESSER MCKEE - WORK
AUTHORIZATION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/2/89:
DATE: MARCH 2, 1989
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED BY:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITSI ERVICES
COST RECOVERY METHODS FOR TREATMENT AND
DISPOSAL OF SLUDGE, SEPTAGE AND GREASE
WILLIAM F. McCAIN`N.,,C
PROJECT ENGINEER ...
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND:
On October 7, 1989, we received a grant for $1,836,570.00 from the
Environmental Protection Agency to, construct a sludge/septage
facility for Indian River County. The estimated construction
cost of this project is $4,146,732.00. Therefore, we must
acquire funding for the portion of the project over and above the
amount of the grant. To this end, we now need to proceed with the
Niderviation of a rate structure for charges associated with the use
of this facility.
ANALYSIS:
The Environmental Protection Agency requires a rate system be put
in place to assure recovery of capital cost and operational cost.
It will be necessary to determine what method should be used in
establishing the rate system.
39
WA 8 1989
eoaK 76 F E479
WAR c'
The unfunded portion of the cost
issue, which also requires a
established.
The $9,300 for the attached study will
from Utilities sewer revenue.
RECOMMENDATION:
BOOK
76 PALE 4J
will have to be funded by a bond
cost recovery mechanism to be
be paid on an interim basis
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that
the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached scope of
service and the signing of the forthcoming Work Authorization.
Commissioner Scurlock asked what staff CDM would be
committing to this particular project, and Utilities Director
Terry Pinto knew that the manager of the project would be Larry
Adams, but did not know just at this moment who would be doing
the detail work here on site.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Chairman Wheeler being absent) approved the scope of
service and the signing of the forthcoming Work
Authorization, as recommended by staff.
Vice Chairman Eggert noted that she had talked to Director
Pinto yesterday about having this scope of services better
prepared than the one that was done on solid waste .
Director Pinto hoped that the Board would follow this very
carefully from the beginning so that they will understand it when
we get to the end. He emphasized that the sludge study is just
as comprehensive as the solid waste study, and that we have a
long way to go.
COPY OF SCOPE OF WORK IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD. WORK AUTHORIZATION WILL BE NUMBERED AND PLACED ON
FILE WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
40
81
MONTHLY CONSULTING SERVICES FOR WATER TREATMENT PLANTS - CAMP
DRESSER McKEE, INC. - WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 4
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/13/89:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PREPARED AND
STAFFED BY:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL "'VICES
WATER TREATMENT PLANTS' MONTHLY CONSULTING SERVICES
WILLIAM F. McCAIN '/
PROJECTS ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTIL TY SERVICES
DATE: MARCH 13, 1989
BACKGROUND
Some time ago, the Department of Utility Services short-listed
consultants in the area of water treatment. The firm of Camp,
Dresser and McKee (CDM) was short-listed as our primary water
consultant. The firm which we retained prior to CDM was DSS
Engineers, Inc. (DSS). We had DSS under contract to do monthly
inspections of the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant. We now want
CDM to pick up all three of our plants (i.e., South County, North
Beach and River Edge). The primary purpose for having these monthly
reports prepared by CDM is to afford IRC the analysis and review of
an experienced reverse osmosis engineer in order to avoid
malfunction of the reverse osmosis system and possible violation of
drinking water standards.
ANALYSIS
The Department of Utility Services was under a continuing service
contract with the firm of DSS to provide support engineering and a
monthly analysis, review of the water treatment plants owned and
operated by the County.
Through a selection process, CDM was selected to perform these
duties. We have added to this scope two new plants which have been
taken over by the County (See the attached scope of services).
The monies for these services
#471-219-536-033.13.
will come from Account
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Indian River
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached work
authorization.
41
,VAR 2 E 1989
BOOK 76 PfriGE 481
MAR 2
BOOK 76F'". E 48 1)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Chairman Wheeler being absent) approved Work
Authorization No. 4 with Camp Dresser McKee, Inc.,
as recommended by staff.
COPY OF SCOPE OF SERVICES IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD
DATE:
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION SERVICES WORK AUTHORIZATION
3-28-89
COUNTY•NO.
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 14` FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. CDM PROJECT NO. 6706-19
(CONSULTANT)
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Consulting engineering services related to the monthly inspections and
reports for the County's three reverse osmosis plants and training of
County personnel at the RO plant.
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES
Reference is made to the attached Scope of Work from the proposal
dated January 5,'1989 and the "Master Agreement for Utilities Service"
dated November 1, 1988.
III. CONSULTING ENGINEER INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
A. workers Compensation Insurance in accordance with Florida
Statutes.
B. Comprehensive and Automotive Liability with a minimum coverage of
$100,000/$300,000 per occurrence for bodily injury or accidental
death.
C. Comprehensive General Liability with a minimum limit of
$100,000/$300,000 covering property damage.
D. Liability for Property Damage, while operating motor vehicle,
with minimum limits of $100,000 per occurrence.
E. Contractual_ Liability including limits established for Items
IIIB., C., and D. above.
F. Umbrella coverage, Excess Liability with minimum limits of
$1,000,000 per occurrence.
IV. COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES
Total Estimated Engineering Fee: $30,754 (Upper Limit)
Salary Cost Basis with Upper Limit
For the Basic Services performed on a salary cost basis with an upper
limit, IRC agrees to pay CDM as follows:
For engineering services performed by CDM, the payment will be equal
to the salary cost of such services for each employee times 2.3 for
overhead and profit plus actual out-of-pocket expense costs. Salary
42
PIM
cost is defined as the cost of salaries (including sick leave, vaca-
tion,.and holiday pay applicable thereto) for time directly chargeable
to the project; plus unemployment, excise, and payroll taxes; and
contributions for social security, employment compensation insurance,
retirement benefits, and medical and other group insurance benefits.
The salary cost averaged 133 percent of direct salaries in 1988 and is
subject to change.
Actual out-of-pocket expense costs are all costs other than salary
costs that are incurred during the progress of the work. The actual
out-of-pocket expense costs include: air fare, automobile rental if
required, mileage charges, parking, tolls, taxi, meals, lodging, tele-
phone, printing and reproduction costs, and other miscellaneous costs
incurred specifically for this project. The charges for in-house
computer program and word processor usage will be at CDM's regular
rates. For outside computer services, charges will be made at in-
voiced cost to CDM.
SUBMIlliU BY:
CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC.
(Consultant)
By
Donald G. Munksga
Vice President
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By
DATE:
Car y($ K. Eggert
Vice Chairman
March 28, 1989
DRUG ABUSE TRUST FUND ORDINANCE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3122/89:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
The Board of County Commissioners
Sharon P. Brennan - Assistant County Attorne le
March 22, 1989
Drug Abuse Trust Fund Ordinance
Attached please find a draft of the proposed Drug Abuse
Trust Fund Ordinance which would establish a system for the
collection of funds to assist drug treatment and education
programs. The Board of County Commissioners has been given
the authority by Florida Statutes, Chapter 893.165, to
establish this type of trust fund for the deposit of
court -imposed assessments.
The Honorable Judge Geiger and Honorable Charles Smith have
requested the County to consider adoption of this type of
ordinance and the County Correctional Planning Committee has
reviewed the draft of this ordinance and is recommending it
for your consideration. Within the Nineteenth Judicial
Circuit, St. Lucie County has already adopted an ordinance
of this type.
This draft is presented for discussion and for your
conceptual approval. If approved, the County Attorney's
Office will proceed to advertise the ordinance for a public
hearing.
43
MAR 2 8 1989
BOOK
76 f CE 483
MAR 2 8 1989
BOOK 76 PAGE 484
Vice Chairman Eggert recalled that Dick Mills first brought
this forward at the time he came in with the Sloan program in Ft.
Pierce. Assistant County Attorney Sharon Brennan has discovered
that the Community Center's drug program qualified Indian River
County to be able to do this.
Attorney Brennan advised that in the last session the State
adopted a new law which enabled the counties to adopt an
ordinance which would enable the judges to assess additional
funds for drug related offenses and those monies are to be
collected in a separate fund, the Drug Abuse Trust Fund. These
monies are to be used toward drug abuse, programs which are in
place and have already been approved by HRS. The programs that
we have through the Mental Health Center do qualify for that
program.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Chairman Wheeler being absent) granted conceptual
approval of the proposed ordinance and authorized
staff to proceed in advertising the ordinance for a
public hearing.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:20 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
44