HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/18/1989Tuesday, April 18, 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,
April 18, 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; Joseph Baird, OMB
Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
County Attorney Vitunac gave the invocation, and Vice
Chairman Eggert led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
No one had any items they wished to have added to the
Agenda, and Attorney Vitunac asked that Item 11 under the Office
of Management and Budget regarding the sale of bonds to refinance
the FHA debts for Utilities be removed from today's agenda. He
explained that the bond purchase agreement will not be here today
since the bonds have not been finalized yet. It is possible they
may be available Thursday, and it may be necessary to have a
Special Call Meeting to authorize signing them.
APR 18 1989
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the
removal of Item 11 from today's agenda.
e
BOCK 76 Pa 590
APR 1 8 1989
BOC 76 PAGE 591
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Scurlock wished to remove Item H for discus-
sion, and Commissioner Bowman wished to remove Item B.
A, Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 28, 1989
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 28, 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 March 28, 1989, as
written.
B. Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 4, 1989
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 4, 1989.
Commissioner Bowman asked that on Page 19, 8th line from the
bottom, the words "to remove" be added at the end of the line so
that it would read "Director Davis felt we needed to remove
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 4, 1989, as
written.
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 March, 1989 - $46,523.60
2
D. Request from Supervisor of Elections to Purchase Used Voting
Booths
The Board reviewed memo from the Supervisor of Elections:
April 12, 1989
TO: HON. GARY C. WHEELER, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: ANN ROBINSON, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS AZ
RE: ITEM FOR BCC AGENDA OF APRIL 18, 1989
Florida Statute 101.72 requires that the supervisor of elections
provide at least one voting booth for each 125 registered voters
in the county. We have the correct amount of equipment now, but
there is not enough equipment for 1990.
We will need another 40-50 voting booths for the 1990 elections,
depending on the number of registered voters.
A new voting booth costs $285. The vendor who sold us the new
equipment in 1985 has 40 used, reconditioned voting booths just
like our others which he will sell the county for $180 each. No
other vendor makes exactly the same booth,. but the CES company
is starting up again with similar equipment; however, they will
be selling new booths.
I request that the Board of County Commissioners vote to amend
the elections budget to allow me to purchase the 40 used voting
booths from Business Records at a cost of $180 each plus freight.
Please put $7,200 in elections account 001-700-519-035.29.
If you would like to see a reconditioned booth, there is one set
up in the elections office. Business Records has agreed to hold
the 40 booths until April 18. The company does not have any more
used Model V booths for sale.
Thank you.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
amending the Elections budget as requested above to
cover the purchase of 450 used voting booths.
E. Budget Amendment #069 - Library Grants to be used for Purchase
of Equipment
The Board reviewed memo from the OMB Director:
ASR 1819 9
3
BOOP! 11 F:AGE 592
APR 1 8 1989
BOOK 76 PAGE 553
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
April 10, 1989
BUDGET AMENDMENT 069 - LIBRARY
GRANTS USED FOR PURCHASE OF
EQUIPMENT
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Vero Beach Library is in immediate need of several pieces of
furniture and equipment. Specifically, they are requesting the
following items:
Ouantity
15
10
4
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
ANALYSIS
Estimated
Description Cost
Sections of Shelving
End Panels
Sections of Shelving
Canopy Tops
End Panels
Microfiche Cabinet
Microfilm Cabinet"
Microfiche Reader/Printer
Microfilm Reader/Printer
Microfilm Reader
$ 4,283.00
$ 1,188.00
$ 632.00
$ 263.00
$ 222.00
$ 600.00
$ 1,352.00
$ 1,816.00
$ 3,034.00
$ 1,300.00
TOTAL COST EXCLUDING SHIPPING $14,690.00
No Capital Outlay purchases were budgeted for the 1988/89 year.
However, there is funding available for these items from two sources:
1.
General Fund Reserve for Contingencies, which was
increased in January by $35,442.00 for Elderly, Youth
and Literacy Grants (Budget Amendment 034).
2. Fund 322 - The Library Construction Fund.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the
purchase of the capital equipment listed above, using Reserve for
Contingencies (Option # 1) as the source of funding.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment #069 appropriating funds for the
purchase of the capital equipment listed above.
it
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER:
069
DATE: April 10. 1989
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Vero Beach Library
Furniture and Equipment
001-109-571-066.41
S 8 102.00
$ 0
Other Library Display Shelving
001-109-571-066.63
S 6.588.00
$ 0
Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
S 0
$14,690.00
F. Summer Interns
The Board reviewed memo from the OMB Director:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: April 10, 1989
SUBJECT: SUMMER INTERNS
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
A number of departments expect to have funds available in their salary
accounts at the end of the 1988/89 year. As some of these departments
are understaffed, they would like to use these excess monies to hire
interns for the summer. The County Administrator would have final
authority to approve or reject the hiring of any intern.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved using
excess monies in salary accounts to hire summer interns
as approved by the Administrator.
G. Bid #89-54 - "Grassing"
The Board reviewed memo from CPO Manager Dominick Mascola:
5
APR 1 8 1989
EOOK 76 PAGE 594
Pr"
'APR 181999
DATE: March 30, 1989
TO: Board of County Cammissioners
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Se ces
FROM:. Daminick L. Mascola, CPO Manager
Division of Purchasing
SUBJ: IRC BID#89-54
"Grassing"
BOOK 76 PAGE 595
BACKGROUND
The subject bid for The Public Works Department was properly
advertised and six (6) Invitations were sent out. On March 29,
1989 bids were received. T(ao (2) contractors submitted proposals
for the project.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has received the submittals to ascertain adherence to
specifications. Both Vendors, Gayco and Agricultural Land
Service, Bid the same amount but Gayco Enterprises met all the
requirements.
FUNDING:
Monies for this project will come frau Acct.No.111-214-541-035.34.
Total Budget Flumds is $4515_00
•
RE ENIMENDATION:
Staff recammends the award of a Open End Contract. The initial
contract period shall start with the date of The Award and shall
terminate one (1) year frau that date and to authorize the Purchasing
Manager to renew the contract for an additional one year subject
to satisfactory performance, vendor acceptance and determination
the renewal is in the best interest of the C unty.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
award of Bid 89-54 as recommended by the CPO Manager
per the following Bid Tabulation:
BOARD OF
m o nm street.
11674000
COUNTY
9'
�
*
COMMISSIONERS
7m,Bmgl. Florida
mow
&mom TeMWM•.: 224.1011
Date' 3-30-89
PURCHASING DEPT.
BID TABULATION
Submitted By Dominick L Masada.
•seenr.
PURCHASING MANAGER
Bid Nog89-54 Data Of Opening 3-29-89
Bid Title"GRASSING" OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
o
k
�— 1N. ,.
:
1-OR0'
Ta (3010
Recommended Awmd GAYCD ENTERPRISES, INC.
$ 10,000.00
1. GAYCO ENTERPRISES. INC.
S10 000.00
D/6/A FLORIDA GROUND CO.
00 Am m
2. AGRICULTURAL LAND SERVICE
910,000.00
(01D NOT NEST SPEC'S)
•
•
6
H. Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval - Riverside Portion of
Sandpointe Su5Tvision
The Board reviewed memo from Planner Stan Boling, Chief of
Current Development:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Itea ing CP
Community Develop nt Director
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP 4B
Chief, Current Development
DATE: April 7, 1989
SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE RIVERSIDE
PORTION OF THE SANDPOINTE SUBDIVISION
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of April 18, 1989.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The riverside portion of the Sandpointe Subdivision is the second
phase of a 100 lot subdivision of a ±52 acre parcel of land
located immediately south of the Seagrove Subdivision on both
sides of S.R. A.I.A. The Planning and Zoning Commission granted
preliminary plat approval to the oceanside and riverside portions
of Sandpointe Subdivision on October 8, 1987, and the Board of
County Commissioners granted final plat approval to the oceanside
portion of the Sandpointe Subdivision on May 31, 1988.
However, no land development permit has yet been issued and no
construction has begun on the riverside portion. Prior to the
preliminary plat approval expiration on April 8, 1989, the devel-
oper submitted a request to the County to extend the plat approval
(see Attached #1). In accordance with subdivision ordinance
provisions, the Board may act on the request and extend the
preliminary plat approval for an additional 18 months.
Fred Banfield of Carter and Associates, Inc., on behalf of
Wildfield Properties, Inc., is now requesting an 18 month exten-
sion of the preliminary plat approval for the riverside portion of
Sandpointe Subdivision.
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 for
the riverside portion of the Sandpointe Subdivision; said approval
shall expire on October 8, 1990.
7
POOK
76 fArt 596
APR 1 8 1989
APR 18 198
BOOK 76 PAGE 597
Commissioner Scurlock questioned an extension of 18 months
as he did not feel that was customary.
Planner Boling explained there is a difference; for site
plans, the normal extension is one year, but for preliminary plat
approvals, the extension time is 18 months.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted one
18 month extension of the preliminary plat approval
granted for the Riverside portion of Sandpointe Subdi-
vision; said approval to expire on October 8, 1990.
I. Final Plat Approval - Whispering Pines Subdivision
The Board reviewed memo from Staff Planner Wiegers:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Kea ng ICP
Community Dev lopment Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling, ICP
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Robert E. Wiegers
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: March 31, 1989
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR WHISPERING PINES SUBDIVISION
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of April 18, 1989.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Whispering Pines Subdivision is a proposed 34 lot subdivision of a
±9.8 acre parcel of land located on the south side of 4th Street
between 21st Avenue and 22nd Avenue. The subject property is
zoned RS -6 Single -Family Residential (up to 6 units/acre) and has
an LD -2 Low Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre) land use
designation.
8
Whispering Pines:
Project Area: ±9.8 acres
Number of Lots: 34
Lot Size: ±.25 acres
Proposed Density: ±3.5 units/acre
At its regular meeting of January 22, 1987, the Planning and
Zoning Commission granted final plat approval, and the owner's
agent, Peterson & Votapka, Inc., is now requesting final plat
approval and has submitted the following:
1. a final plat in substantial conformance with
preliminary plat;
2. a certified cost estimate for construction
required subdivision improvements;
the approved
of remaining
3. a contract for construction of remaining
improvements;
4. a Warranty Maintenance Agreement covering publically
dedicated improvements (roads, drainage swales, utilities,
etc.); and
required
5. a Performance Bond which guarantees the construction contract
and Warranty Maintenance Agreement.
The Whispering Pines developer initiated and participated in the
petition paving program to pave the roads adjacent to his
subdivision which also serve adjacent older lots. The roads have
been paved, and the Tax Collector's Office has verified that the
developer has paid all assessments due on the Whispering Pines
lots at this time.
ANALYSIS:
1. Utilities: The subdivision will receive water service from
Indian River County Utilities Department, and the Environ-
mental Health Director has approved the use of individual
septic systems for the proposed lots. All utilities
construction has been inspected and approved by the County
Utilities Department.
2.. Public Works: The County's Public Works Department has
inspected and approved a majority of the subdivision's
required improvements. Pursuant to Section 8(a) of the
Subdivision ordinance, the developer has elected to "bond
out" for several remaining improvements. These are: seeding
and mulching of easement swales and installation of required
street lighting. The Public Works Department has reviewed
and approved the submitted cost estimate for this work.
The developer has also chosen to "bond out" for the required
public sidewalks along the subdivision's frontages. Pursuant
to Section 10(e)4, the Board has the discretion to grant the
applicant a two-year period, after. final inspection of the
subdivision improvements, in which to construct the
sidewalks.
The Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the
submitted cost estimate for future sidewalk construction.
The Public Works Department has verified that the posted
security amount guaranteeing the Warranty Maintenance
Agreement is acceptable.
APR 18 1989
9
GOOK 76 F.AGE 598
Pr"
APR 1 8 1989
EOOK 76 PAGE 599
3 County Attorney: The County Attorney's office has reviewed
and approved the submitted contract for construction of
Required Improvements, the Warranty Maintenance Agreement,
and the Performance Bond which guarantees the contract and
maintenance 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 Whispering Pines Subdivision, authorize the
Chairman to execute the submitted Contract for Construction of
Required Improvements, and accept the Warranty Maintenance
Agreement and the Performance Bond which guarantees the contract
and maintenance agreement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously granted Final
Plat Approval to Whispering Pines Subdivision, author-
ized the Chairman to execute the Contract for Con-
struction of Required Improvements, and accepted the
Warranty Maintenance Agreement and Performance Bond.
4.
COPIES OF SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO
THE BOARD.
J. Release of County Liens
The Board reviewgd memo from Lea Keller of the County
Attorney's Office:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: L -a R.'Kelle, County Attorney's Office
DATE: April 11, 1989
RE:
CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 4/18/89
RELEASE COUNTY LIENS
1 havepreparedthe following lien releases and request the
Board authorize the Chairman to execute them:
Lot 180 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
10
Lot 203 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot 114 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the Releases listed above.
COPIES OF SAID RELEASES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE
BOARD.
PRESENTATION OF SCHEMATIC DESIGN OF MAIN LIBRARY
Commissioner Eggert reviewed the following and advised that
representatives from Dow, Howell, Gilmore are at the meeting to
make' a presentation:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
d
FROM: Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert, ChairmanCle-
Public Library Advisory Board
DATE: April 12, 1989
SUBJECT: Indian River County Main Library
The firm of Dow, Howell, Gilmore Associates, Inc. has
presented a floor plan and architectural drawings and model to
the Public Library Advisory Board (PLAB). PLAB has recommended
their approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
Recommendation:
The floor plan and architecture for the Indian
River County Main Library be approved so that
we can file for the state grant and go forward
with the plan approval and specifications.
Jim Howell of Dow, Howell, Gilmore Associates informed the
Board that they would be discussing both the site plan and floor
plans and introduced Mark Ugowski to make the presentation.
Mr. Ugowski advised that he would first address the proposed
site plan, which is as follows:
11
.APR 18 1989
l� �a r�u6O6
r APR 1e
989
BOOK 76 PAGE 601
5
3
i
• VirwrlwR
lsw•y -
�
1
1 1
1111111a► Ail
1
1 I
1P
maim sa
Il
+ V • Ailkikir 'V' V+ + Olt
4111!
,5,
11,
• _e 1.
y1' r
••k t
i,3
1 ,
- . _ - (22nd 5
1 1
1.1
IL*
1,1
4010
I_..
11491111110
1SITE RAU
vERO 13EA04. FLORIDA
31
COW • HOWELL • OILMORE • ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTS iNO1MlEOl
•N.•O•. •••V ••••• •Up •••I
Mr. Ugowski noted that they need approval in order to
proceed with design development and then go on to working
drawings and also in order to proceed with site plan approval
with the City of Vero Beach. He continued that this site plan
involved several issues that had to be addressed. 1) There is an
alley with a sanitary line which runs through the site; it cannot
be rerouted and must remain. 2) The portion of 22nd Street
running between 16th and 17th Avenues. The parking on the site
can be improved greatly by abandoning that part of 22nd Street.
This not only will improve the parking situation; it reduces the
need for setbacks for both parking and the building. 3) Another
major issue they had to deal with is the existing laundry and
grocery facility, which they had to design around as they will
have to co -exist for some time. 4) Lastly, there are a goodly
number of beautiful trees on the site that have to be considered.
It now appears, however, that some are not as good as originally
thought and some not as salvageable.
Mr. Ugowski explained that a library by nature must be a
e
sort of block building; it can be shaped and sculpted to some
degree, but it cannot be a long narrow winding building, which
would be ideal to fit among the trees. The reason for that is
that the key functions in the Library are supervision and access
to staff, and by having a squarish or roundish building, it
enables you to have very few staff to watch and serve a lot of
people; so, you can keep your long term cost down. Once you
assume that sort of shape, you then have to find a place for the
building itself. Mr. Ugowski noted that the majority of the
mature trees fortunately are located along 22nd Street, and they
have moved the building as far toward 17th Avenue as City code
will allow.
Commissioner Scurlock had questions relating to the parking
requirements and also the planned ingress and egress pattern.
Mr. Ugowski informed the Board that City code requires 98
parking spaces for this size and type facility. The program
13
APR 1 8 '1999
POCK i'6 ['AGE=
APRT '1989
BOOK 76 FACE
0`11
e)
stated that there really is no standard that you go by, but they
suggested 125 spaces for the public and 20 for staff for a total
of 145. The proposed scheme shows 154 parking spaces which is
more than adequate. They also tried to get as many parking
spaces on the 21st street side as possible and a lesser number in
the 22nd Street lot behind the building because they feel the
primary entrance to the building will be from the 21st Street
parking lot since 21st Street is a thoroughfare. As to the
ingress and egress of vehicles on the site, they basically agreed
they want the traffic to come off a minor street; so, they have
created the major curb cut on 17th Avenue and just put a single
curb cut there.
Commissioner Eggert asked how far that curb cut is from 21st
Street, and Mr. Ugowski believed it is about 120'. Commissioner
Eggert noted that there will be an entrance into the existing
stores off 21st St. We have to leave that open for now but will
close it off when the stores are gone.
Question arose as to whether a curb cut off 17th Avenue will
be sufficient to handle all the traffic going into the parking
area south of the building when this is finished.
Mr. Ugowski advised that they originally had a curb cut on
16th and one on 17th, but the City was concerned about cars
speeding on through that thoroughfare and felt that one curb cut
would be sufficient. He noted, however, the library traffic is
generally less hectic than in other places such as a shopping
mall, for instance. As to the rear parking area shared by the
church, they will be using the existing curb cut that is
currently 22nd Street, and to avoid the thoroughfare aspect, they
put the second curb cut at the north end of that parking area on
16th Avenue.
Commissioner Bird asked how they plan to handle the sewer
line that is running through underneath the building.
14
Mr. Howell confirmed that location, of course, is critical,
and the City is considering excavating it and reinforcing it.
They have designed the building so that footings would be on
either side of the existing line and once it is reinforced, it
should not be a problem.
Commissioner Bird expressed concern about how a problem
would be handled if one should occur in the future.
Mr. Howell agreed that is always a concern, but felt
confident that by replacing the line with a good heavy PVC pipe
encased in concrete, it should not be a problem, and Commissioner
Scurlock pointed out that in many of the heavily populated cities
up north, having such pipe run under a building is quite common.
He believed it would be a PVC pipe encased in 4' of concrete.
Mr. Howell further noted that it is to be buried 10' deep
and the footings of the building are only 18" to 2' deep. In
addition, there will be a foot or two of fill, and the building
will be raised.
Commissioner Bird inquired about the estimated added cost
for this, and Commissioner Eggert advised that it is already in
the budget - $50,000 was to do the whole line, and they are only
making them do it under the building itself.
Mr. Ugowski next reviewed the proposed floor plans, which
are as follows, and stated that he was confident they are within
budget with the plan:
APR 1 p '1989
15
tloOK ID ['AGE 604
r-APil 1 8 1989
BOOK 76 PAGE 605
N
GIP
.ER. Oa
it;
•
•
+H
111
9
•
liri411F
fihqdgill
,_ •
wou+oo
FLOOR PLANS
SC.1.E v+Etrtr
WAN RIVER COUNTY MAN LIBRARY
VID BEACH. FLORIDA
SI
DOW • HOWELL • GILMORE • ASSOCIA9APRIL Ira
e
ANCNITECTS ENGINES/IS
•.a•N•• easy ••L• ••••!
Mr. Ugowski explained how the building is designed to be
entered from two points - for the main parking lot on the 21st
Street side, there is an entry on the south side, and then there
is to be an overhang along the east side of the building so there
will be a covered walkway to facilitate those parking on the
north side to reach the entrance facing 16th Avenue and be under
cover most of the way. He further noted that they have planned
it so that the Library will have important frontage as related to
the Master Plan that is being proposed for the 6 block area and
there is to be a major auditorium that seats 200 people which is
designed so that it will be accessible when the main building is
closed.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know the total book inven-
tory they would be able to place in this facility, and Mr.
Ugowski advised that they do not know the total volume of books.
What they go by is the linear feet of shelving that will be
required to accommodate the books.
Mr. Dowell assured the Board that the shelving they have
planned for should accommodate the total volume of books
projected, and Commissioner Eggert pointed out that the state
requires that we project out for about 20 years.
Commissioner Scurlock believed most architect's have
something that represents their "signature" on a building and
wished to know what Dow, Howell, Gilmore considered their
signature on a building.
Mr. Ugowski believed that it is the use of light. They
pride themselves on bringing in nature and Tight. He felt it is
something you sense more than see.
Mr. Howell confirmed that they try to create a transparency
that is appealing and this is done by creating light and airy
space.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know if they do the air
conditioning design internally, and Mr. Ugowski stated that they
hire consultants with whom they work very closely. He stressed
17
APR 18 1989
Ekoo� Fact I��J
APR le `989
BOOK 76 PAGE 60 7
that they also have worked closely with Library Project Manager
Lynn Williams and have been apprised of the many problems
encountered with air conditioning in the County buildings. They
are very conscious of this.
Commissioner Scurlock then inquired about the roof, and
Mr. Howell stated that it is to be single ply or built up
membrane for the final roof with a slope of 1/4" per foot; it is
a flat roof that is internally drained and has emergency draining
for any overflow from delugetype rains.
Commissioner Bird asked if there are quite a few skylights,
and Mr. Ugowski advised that there is one area where they may
consider having skylights in the roof, but mainly the light comes
in horizontally from the sides of the building.
Commissioner Eggert reviewed the various rooms that would be
located on the two floors, noting that fiction and children's
4.
areas and the technical circulation services are located
downstairs, and upstairs is to be the non-fiction section,
periodicals, reference, young adults, av/electronics, and the
Florida local history and genealogy room, which will become the
Julius Lowenstein room.
Commissioner Bird wished to know how much in the layout,
configuration and design of the building was done to accommodate
this particular site; in other words, if they had an unlimited
amount of land to deal with, would they still have designed the
same building
Mr. Howell emphasized that the site has everything to do
with the building; the two have to "marry" each other, and this
particular building is unique to this site.
Commissioner Bird noted that he was hoping to hear that the
building design was very flexible, and he then could convince the
Commission to move it somewhere else.
Commissioner Scurlock believed what Commissioner Bird
basically is saying is do we end up with a much more expensive
18
building or a smaller building or a diminished facility because
we chose this site.
Mr. Howell commented that he could not say it is any less a
building. If you consider one story versus two stories being a
compromise, he guessed that control is somewhat of a compromise,
but the site would not accommodate a one story building. He
felt, however, the building as designed answers the program. The
feel the cost is going to be tight, but they did meet all the
program requirements on this site.
Commissioner Bird noted that to do so, however, we had to
acquire other property and abandon 22nd Street; otherwise, we
would not have had sufficient space for parking while the grocery
and laundromat are still there. We only have 33 parking spaces
on the original site we purchased in conjunction with the
library.
Commissioner Eggert emphasized that we did not acquire
anything. The discussion in deciding on this site to begin with
included an offer by the church to share the parking.
Discussion continued at length about the parking spaces that
could be accommodated, and some question arose about the benefits
or disadvantages of a two story building over a one story
building. Mr. Howell noted that one benefit is that obviously
the expanse of the roof is cut in two so there is less
maintenance cost for the roof.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that the bottom line is that this
is the site we have and must work with, and he suggested we move
along.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Eggert, to accept the concept
presented today and approve the floor plan and
architecture for the Indian River County Main
Library so that we can file for the state grant
and continue to move forward with site plan approval
and specifications.
19
APR 181989
PUCK
EAGc 6il8
APP 18 1999
BOOK 76 PAGE 60C
Commissioner Bird indicated that he would vote for the
Motion, although reluctantly.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
SHERIFF REQUESTS FUNDS FROM LEA TRUST FUND FOR ACCREDITATION
Major Roy Raymond came before the Board in reference to the
following letter from Sheriff Dobeck, which he believed is self-
explanatory:
(L5):' :firttif
P. 0. BOX 600
PHONE 669.6700
April 12, 1989
Honorable Gary Wheeler, Chairman
Indian River County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
R.T."TIM• DOBECK • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
VERO DEACH. FLORIDA 32961-0008
Dear Gary:
I would like to request the following subject be placed on the consent agenda during the
regular Commission meeting April 18, 1989 for approval of use of Law Enforcement Trust
Funds. Over the past yelr our Department has been studying the feasibility of seeking
national accreditation through the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies. This commission is comprised of top managerial personnel from the International
Chiefs of Police Association, National Sheriffs Association, National Organization of Black
Law Enforcement Executives and the Police Executive Research Forum.
Upon applying for the accreditation process, a team of professionals is assigned to the
Department for the purpose of reviewing present procedures, forming new policies and
standardizing the entire operation. Upon completion of the process, which takes
approximately two (2) years of self-assessment, the Department will realize a more
efffooient operation in the areas of hiring and promotion, the reduction of high liability
areas, more efficient fiscal operation and a greater overall professionalism of its entire
staff.
I have included.a copy of our objectives, criteria which must be met .and benefits realized
by the Department, county and state government and the citizens of Indian River County.
I am, therefore, requesting the approval of the use of Law Enforcement Trust Funds to
commence immediately with this process. Application fee to the Commission on
Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies $14,500, one (1) personal computer with
monitor and printer $4,000 and $5,000 miscellaneous printing and binding supplies.
Our Department is in possession of a twelve (12) minute video tape concerning these
procedures and their benefits and will be happy to allow the Commission to view this tape
at the time of the agenda.
Sincerely
R. T. "Tim" Dobeck, Sheriff
Indian River County
20
Major Raymond summarized briefly that this process evaluates
all your procedures and policies and recommend the policies and
procedures you should follow on a long term basis to get the
ultimate results out of your department. He felt all will agree
that we are very vulnerable in today's world to the likelihood of
lawsuits in regard to our policies in hiring, day to day opera-
tions, investigation, etc. This procedure takes the best of the
best throughout the United States and reduces it to a policy
geared for the individual department, and thus we are able to
gain from the experience of law enforcement agencies nationally.
The Sheriff, therefore, is requesting funds from the Trust Fund
to be used for this purpose.
Commissioner Eggert commented that she is familiar with an
accreditation that was done within the last 5 years in another
state, and their cost was considerably higher. She asked if the
Sheriff is planning to do a lot of this in-house.
Major Raymond confirmed that the majority is done in-house.
All your command staff has to make a very definite commitment to
spend the time and effort to gather all the material needed to
achieve accreditation. If you were to employ individuals to do
this, the cost would be much greater.
Commissioner Eggert had some problem with so much being done
in-house since you are actually evaluating yourself and it may
not be done purely objectively.
Major Raymond advised that when this started up, there were
a lot of private agencies that would come in, do studies, and
make recommendations. They were extremely high in cost, and
basically you ended up with a criticism report. This particular
organization takes a segment of whatever procedure you are
looking at - investigation, accounting, etc., and you must set up
policies according to their recommendations and meet their
criteria in order to gain accreditation. It is not what the
Department's feelings are about a particular area; their criteria
is what you must meet and live with.
21
PR 13 1989
P00r, ( FACE 610
APR 18 1989
BOOK 76 FACE 611
Commissioner Bowman asked if it is necessary that they have
another computer.
Major Raymond explained that this would require just one
more P.C. It would be operated out of the Training Division
where it would be housed, and it is recommended you have a P.C.
just for those individuals because of the amount of day to day
usage it would involve.
Commissioner Eggert noted that they were faced with some-
thing similar in the library system where it was recommended that
you follow the professional library standards, and it seems those
standards all work out to require a lot of staff. She wondered
if these are standards the community wants, or if they are set up
to promote the employment of more people. In the library system,
they decided to strive towards looking at the guidelines rather
than accepting the standards because those standards would be
fi
impossible for this community to afford.
Major Raymond did not feel it would be a burden on the
community. As an example of two department on the opposite ends
of the spectrum, he advised that the Palm Beach Sheriff's
Department is accredited and so is the Mount Dora Police Depart-
ment. He felt if Mount Dora can do it, we can also. He
stressed that this study is geared towards the specific depart-
ment and the community, and it is done by the study group of
professionals from those organizations listed in the Sheriff's
letter.
Commissioner Eggert appreciated what Major Raymond is
saying, but felt that what it would be wonderful to have and what
it is practical for this community to have are two very different
things.
Chairman Wheeler asked if the Sheriff's Department has
particular areas they want to see corrected where they think
there may be a problem or is this kind of like winning an award.
Major Raymond did not think it was. He noted that it takes
about 2 years to complete this procedure, and one of the biggest
22
things in going into this accreditation is knowing that your
individual people are going to be committed to do the day to day
work that it takes to put this thing together. They have been
going to Palm Beach and talking to the Sheriff's Department
there, and it has been a great help in morale building as well as
in the day to day operations. It gives you the benefit of the
experiences that have occurred in other communities - riot
situations, major disasters, etc. We have not been faced with a
major disaster here in Indian River County such as a 747 going
down in the city.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that is exactly what Commissioner
Eggert is pointing out; that we can't afford to get into all this
in anticipation of a 747 dropping out of the sky or some other
equally unlikely event.
Major Raymond realized that but continued to stress how
highly this program is recommended by all the professionals they
are affiliated with in law enforcement. He noted that there are
56 agencies now in the accreditation process and 14 counties are
4
accredited.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know the names of those
counties, which he felt would give him some feel for the cost as
he has just done an analysis on the Sheriff's Department per
capital expenditure as related to ail 67 Florida counties.
Major Raymond listed the following agencies which are
presently certified:
Broward County Sheriff's Office
Cocoa Beach Police Department
Coral Springs Police Department
Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office
Largo Police Department
Monroe County Sheriff's Office
Mount Dora Police Department
Ocala Police Department
Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office
Pinellas Sheriff's Office
Pinellas Park Police Department
St. Petersburg Police Department
Tallahassee Police Department
Tampa Police Department
APR 18 1989
23
POOK /6 FACE 612
APR 16 1989
BOOK 76 FACE 613
Commissioner Scurlock believed that most of those are among
the highest per capita expenditure in the State of Florida. In
fact, Monroe County is the highest in the State of Florida with
about $313 per capita, and we are at about $206 per capita
expenditure.
Commissioner Eggert wished to know if the Sheriff has a
writeup available setting out the standards that have to be met
to get accreditation.
Major Raymond believed Sergeant Getchell can explain this to
the Board.
Sergeant Gary Getchell advised that basically they provide
you with 944 standards, and it is up to the Sheriff's office
within an 18 month to 2 year period to go through these standards
and see if they are in compliance with them. If not, it is up to
them to get to that point, whether it be by written directives,
reorganization of certain areas, etc.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he would like to see a
list of these 900 standards before making a decision, and
Chairman Wheeler expressed interest in seeing the twelve minute
video tape mentioned in the Sheriff's letter.
Commissioner Scurlock also had questions about the actual
cost. He believed the City of Vero Beach is going through this
process, and they have projected a cost of $60,000.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that while the fee is
$14,500, you must also figure the cost of committing your
personnel to work on this for over two years.
Commissioner Bird indicated that he also would like to have
more clarification on this whole process.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously tabled further
discussion on the Sheriff's request for two weeks so
the Board can review a list of the standards and have
an opportunity to see the video tape.
24
SHERIFF'S PISTOL RANGE (Continued from April 4,1989)
Commissioner Bird reminded the Board that the item that was
tabled was the proposal to have the Sheriff's Firing Range
located at 4th Street and 74th Avenue. The Committee now feels
that location is not a good potential for a site because of
encroaching development in the area, and they, therefore, would
like to withdraw consideration of that site and expand their
search to look for something more suitable west of 1-95.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to approve Commissioner Bird's
recommendation to withdraw consideration of the site
at 4th Street and 74th Avenue and expand the search
for a site west of 1-95.
Major Raymond just wished to stress once again that
searching for a suitable site has been a 5 year process. The
Sheriff's need for a training range is now desperate, and they
need to move forward as fast as possible.
Chairman Wheeler felt it might be wise to ask the City of
Vero Beach if they might wish to participate in building a range.
Further discussion ensued re the Sheriff's difficulties in
finding any range where he can schedule time for the training
required for his personnel.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
SEA OAKS - MINOR S.P.A. FOR 48 SLIP PUBLIC/PRIVATE DOCK FACILITY
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:
APR i E 1989
25 ROOK 76 F•ticE 614
APR 18 1989
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
a 44
in the matter of%- il_ 14// /..���%2t ,icT/
in the �% Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of ✓/6��4i iv ,vS /9r,
Aftiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this ��/
(SEAL)
dayofi E" 'AD 19 j9
usines
•
(Cle rfdian diver Co f`i Ftortda)--
,.. FV11' '�a+ ""y in - :+1tlw�ir�i i.$
POOK
76 PAGE 615
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider granting of spe-
cial exception approval for a public/private
dock. The subject property is presently owned
and leased by Sea Oaks Development Company,
Inc.
The subject propertyis desaibed as:
BEING A PARCL OF SUBMERGED
LAND IN THE INDIAN RIVER ABUTTING,
THE EAST SHORE IN GOVERNMENT •
LOT 9, SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 31 Cr
SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THE
BOUNDARY OF SAID SUBMERGED
PARCEL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT
9, THENCE RUN NORTH 89°47'30"
WEST, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF
GOVERNMENT LOT 9, 943.16.FEET TO
A POINT ON THE TANGENT LINE OF
THE BASEUNE OF JUNGLE TRAIL
MAINTENANCE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AS
THE SAME IS FILED IN PLAT BOOK 9,.
PAGE 40, PUBLIC RECORDS OF IN-
DIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
THENCE FOLLOWING SAID BASELINE
TANGENT, RUN NORTH 03°26'38"
WEST, 257.92 FEET TO A STEEL PIN;
THENCE LEAVING SAID BASELINE,
RUN SOUTH 77°38'03" WEST; 43.60
FEET TO A POINT ON THE EXISTING
SHORELINE AND THE POINT OF
BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL TO BE
DESCRIBED HEREIN; THENCE FOL-
LOWING THE SAID SUBMERGED
LAND, RUN SOUTH 77°38'03" WEST;
186.33 FEET; THENCE NORTH
12°21'57" WEST, 316.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 77°38'03" EAST, 166.44 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE EXISTING SHORE-
LINE; THENCE SOUTH 12°52'24" EAST,
40.70 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST
EDGE OF AN EXISTING BULKHEAD
WALL, THENCE FOLLOWING SAID
WALL, RUN SOUTH 11°49'49" EAST,
90.05 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 56°20'18"
EAST, 5.26 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
11°17'32" EAST, 96.75 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 26°10'56" EAST, 75.37 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID WALL, RUN
SOUTH 14°58'33" EAST, 11.56 FEET,
MORE OR LESS. TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. ' CONTAINING 53,807
SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.
A public hearing at which parties in interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners at the County Administration Build-
ing. located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida on Tuesday, April 18. 1989 at 9:05 a.m.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
is made, which includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeals based.
INDIAN RIVER
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERP
By -s -GARY WHEELER. CHAIRMAN
March 29, 1989
Chief Planner Stan Boling made the staff presentation, as
follows:
26
TO: James C.
DIVISION
Robert
Community
Chandler, County Administrator
HEAD CONCURRENCE:
eati
Devel
THROUGH: Stan
Chief, Current
FROM: John W. McCoy
Staff Planner,
DATE: March 31, 1989
, AI
men
iYector
Boling AICP
Development
Current Development
SUBJECT: SEA OAKS REQUEST FOR MINOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 48
SLIP PUBLIC/PRIVATE DOCKING FACILITY
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of April 18, 1989.
BACKGROUND AND LOCATION:
Attorney Bruce Barkett has submitted a request for special excep-
tion approval on behalf of Sea Oaks Development Company to con-
struct a 48 slip public/private docking facility on the Indian
River. The general layout of this facility was previously ap-
proved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant has
revised the originally approved plan and is now seeking approval
for the use as a public/private docking facility. The project is
located on the west side of Jungle Trail, adjacent to the proposed
Sea Oaks' Mariner's Club which will be located landward of the
Jungle Trail. Parking for this facility will be provided on the
east side of Jungle Trail near the Mariner's Club.
Recently, the Board of County Commissioners approved an ordinance
which would allow public/private docks as special exception uses
in the RM -6 zoning district, the district within which this
development is located.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
The developer has submitted a special exception application which
has been reviewed by staff and considered by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. At its regular meeting of March 23, 198% the
Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the request with conditions.
The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation differs from
staff's, as specified at the end of this report.. The Planning and
Zoning Commission moved staff's recommendation with condition 2b
deleted. (Note: See draft of Planning and Zoning Commission
minutes attached.)
The concept of a public/private dock is to provide a certain
number of boat slips for public use at privately owned docking
facilities. In order to construct docks on publicly owned sub-
merged bottom lands, the applicant must enter into a lease with
the State of Florida. The agency (the Department of Natural
Resources and/or the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund)
handling the lease agreement has the ability to encourage the
applicant to make slips available to the public by approving extra
slips above and beyond the number which would be approved for an
accessory docking facility serving a private development. Through
the lease agreement, a certain number of slips would then be made
available to the public. The ratio of public to private slips
will be determined by the Department of Natural Resources and/or
APR 181989
27 ROOK 76 PAGE. 616
Pr -
APR 18 1989
BOOK 76 PAGE 617
the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund in the lease agree-
ment. Sea Oaks has chosen this type of facility to get "bonus
slips" which the State will approve via the public/private docking
facility concept, with the provision that a certain ratio of slips
are made available to the boating public.
The only design changes which have been made to the plan are in
the area east of Jungle Trail. The changes include the installa-
tion of a pump -out station and a new marina parking lot design.
The difference in the parking lot design can be seen by comparing
attachments #3 and #4. The new dock site plan brings the parking
much closer to Jungle Trail than the previous dock plan. (Note:
The recently approved River Villas I site plan depicted the same
parking configuration and location as the new dock plan.) The
new parking design is nearly adjacent to the Jungle Trail buffer
area. The controlling landscape plans for this area of the Jungle
Trail buffer is the plan associated with the Jungle Trail south
fence plan, and the River Villas I site plan, which was recently
approved by the Board of County Commissioners pending the addition
of "eugenia-like" vegetation 3'-4' in height to augment areas of
low ground cover. Another change from the original dock plan is
the addition of a sewage pump -out facility located adjacent to
the parking area.
Staff has received calls from concerned Sea Oaks residents. Many
of their concerns are summarized in an attached letter (Attachment
#5) .
ANALYSIS:
1.
Size of Development Area: 1.21 acres;
of development is in the Indion River.
2. Zoning Classification:
6 units/acre).
3. Land Use Designation:
units/acre).
.93 acres of the area
RM -6, Multi -Family Residential (up to
LD -2, Low Density Residential (up to 6
4. Building Area: None proposed.
5. Traffic Circulation: The plan does not make provisions for
the dock site to be accessed by vehicular traffic. Instead,
the site is to be accessed on foot through the Sea Oaks
project, where parking will be provided.
6. Off -Street Parking Required: 16 spaces
Provided: 16 spaces
These spaces will be provided on the east side of Jungle
Trail within the Sea Oaks' Development residential area.
This parking area will be used not only by Sea Oaks residents
but also by members of the public who have leased slips.
7. Dock Criteria: All applicable County dock criteria have been
met.
8. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan is in conformance with
Ordinance #84-47. The plan depicts landscaping along the
western edge of Jungle Trail for the area of development.
The plan indicates some small trees (wax myrtle) with low
growing native ground cover (coontie, periwinkle, beach
sunflower, etc.) the length of the fence.
The new parking design will require a revision to the land-
scape plan for the area of development dealing with the
parking lot redesign. Currently, the plan on file depicts
low lying ground cover in the Jungle Trail buffer area
adjacent to the proposed parking spaces. The landscape plan
for the Jungle Trail buffer area adjacent to the parking
needs to be revised to ensure that the parking spaces for the
docking facility will not be visible from Jungle Trail.
28
As previously stated, the River Villas I landscape plan
overlaps with the marina parking area. Since the Board of
County Commissioners required revisions to the River Villas I
plan, and because staff has concerns about the total screen-
ing of the parking area from Jungle Trail, the landscape plan
for the buffer area adjacent to the marina parking site
should be revised to provide necessary screening and to
ensure consistency with buffer planting requirements
specified by the Board of County Commissioners for the River
Villas I plan.
9. Utilities: The site will be connected to a franchised water
service system. Pursuant to the public/private dock ordi-
nance recently adopted by the Board of County Commissioners,
the facility is required to have a sewage pump -out station.
The tank will be located on the east side of Jungle Trail
adjacent to the parking lot. Thus, none of the holding tank
facility will affect the Jungle Trail buffer area.
10. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Indian River/Jungle Trail
South: Indian River/Jungle Trail
East: Sea Oaks/RM-6
West: Indian River
11. Water Access Requirements: Section 23.3(i)1 requires that
two fifteen foot easements to the Indian River be provided or
an equal cash contribution be given to the County to satisfy
the project requirement for public access to waterbodies.
The Public Works director has the discretion of requiring
either and would like to have this reviewed by the recreation
committee to determine whether the County prefers the access
points or the funds.
12. Special Exception Criteria: The following apply to the
proposed dock facility:
1. It must be located in a single-family or multi -family
zoning district;
2. It must be constructed in association with a multi-
family development or a residential subdivision;
3. It must be located in water classified as an Aquatic
Preserve under Chapter 258, Florida Statues, as it may
be amended;
4. It must be authorized by all local, state, and federal
jurisdictional agencies, or have been granted express
waivers therefrom, prior to construction;
5. Berthing slips must be made available for renting to the
public (natural persons) at large in such quantities or
ratio as may be required by the Department of Natural
Resources, the Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Fund, or both, according to the size of the docking
facility;
6. Public access to any public/private docking facility
shall be in a manner which provides minimum impact to
surrounding residential uses;
7. Parking shall be provided at the ratio of one space per
three berthing slips; and
8. Sewage pump -out facilities must be included in public/
private docking facilities.
The application meets all of the referenced criteria except
for criterion #4, which shall be satisfied prior to site plan
release.
APR 18 1989
29 BOOK /6 F'4E 618
PP -
APR 18 1999
BOOK 76 D E 619
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends approval of the
dock facilities with the following conditions:
1. Copies of all Federal, State and local agency permits includ-
ing the agreement stating the ratio of public to private
docks must be submitted prior to site plan release.
2. The landscape plan for the Jungle Trail buffer adjacent to
the required parking for the dock facility must be revised
prior to site plan release. This landscape plan shall:
a. incorporate any applicable revisions required by the
Board of County Commissioners in its approval of the
River Villas I site plan and ensure that such landscape
plan screens the entire parking area from Jungle Trail;
and with screening allowable adjacent to the parking
area (i.e. outside the Jungle Trail buffer).
*b. include revisions to the landscape plan for the Jungle
Trail buffer area south of the River Villas I area to
the south boundary of Sea Oaks to ensure that the
landscape plan meets the criteria of either the draft
Jungle Trail Management Plan or the landscape criteria
set by the Board of County Commissioners for the River
Villas I buffer area.
3. That the owner shall either dedicate two usable 15' easements
to the River or contribute funds of equal value of the two
15' access easements to the'SCounty's park development fund
prior to C.O. Funds or any deed of easement contributed will
be held in escrow pending outcome of the lawsuit over the
legality of Section 23.3(1)(i).
* Deleted from the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommendation
Planner Boling summarized that originally Sea Oaks got
approval for a 48 slip dock facility as an accessory to the
project for the residents' use only, but when the developer went
to the state for a lease of the bottom lands, the state's formula
would not allow them 48 slips unless they allowed for public use
of the docks. Sea Oaks came back and proposed an ordinance which
this Board recently adopted to allow public/private docks as
special exception uses in the RM -6 zoning district, and they now
are requesting that we allow them public/private docks for their
facility. The state requires that of the 48 slips, 19 would be
for power boats, 29 for non -powered, and 50% of these must be
open to non-residents. The state also requires that they have a
conservation easement to go along the project's entire river
frontage. There are two main issues today - the public/private
use and the Jungle Trail buffer area. Mr. Boling advised that
30
the staff condition the applicant is not in agreement with is
that revisions be made to the landscape plan of the entire buffer
area so that what was applied to River Villas would be applied to
this as well. The developer's contention is that their landscape
plan is already approved and that is not open to discussion with
this proposal. Staff's position is that there have been changes
so that the parking area is now closer to the Trail, and this
makes a difference.
Commissioner Eggert noted that, in other words, staff is
saying they want currently planted landscaping to be beefed up to
equal what we approved for River Villas with the addition of the
Eugenia type bushes in the areas where there is open ground
cover, and this was confirmed by Planner Boling.
Commissioner Scurlock asked the County Attorney if we have
the legal ability to do what staff is requesting.
Attorney Vitunac stated that in his opinion it is question-
able. Staff is contending that some of the factors of the new
application have some impact on the former site plan, and if the
Board feels strongly that they wish to uphold staff's position,
we will fight for it. He advised that Attorney Collins, however,
has expressed the opinion that we do not have the right to go
back and look at the original site plan that was approved because
this application does not affect that.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know if anyone has taken
time to associate some cost figures with the additional
plantings, and Planner Boling replied that staff has not gone
into that.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Attorney Bruce Barkett came before the Board representing
Sea Oaks. He agreed that staff has identified the issues
correctly, and he would like to clarify them and illustrate them
graphically. Attorney Barkett referred to a drawing and advised
that, the site plan area of development that was approved in May
of last year was delineated by a line showing the specific area
APR 1 8 1989
31
eooK r t FAT. 620
BOOK 76 FACE 621
APR 181989
of development - the parking lot and the footpath and areas west
of Jungle Trail. Because Sea Oaks contemplated putting in a
fence, staff demanded a separate site plan and administrative
approval for the area east of Jungle Trail, and that plan was
approved last July. That landscaping has been implemented
already. Sea Oaks then came back in regard to the ordinance
allowing public/private docks as special exception uses in RM -6
and they were required to have a pump -out facility and because of
that, they had to alter the parking somewhat. However, nothing
south of the footpath and east of Jungle Trail, which is the
subject of this site plan, has been altered or amended. Their
position is,. and Assistant County Attorney Collins, agrees, that
this is an approved, implemented and installed landscape plan and
Sea Oaks has a vested position. Staff does not want the parking
lot to be visible from Jungle Trail, and Sea Oaks has agreed to
ar
beef up the vegetation along the parking lot in the site plan
they are proposing to accomplish that purpose, but not to put it
back off this site where they already have approved landscaping.
Commissioner Scurlock inquired about the cost that might be
associated with condition 2(b), and Attorney Barkett did not
know. He pointed out that in regard to meeting what was required
of River Villas, that was a separate landscape plan; it just
required filling in some vegetation and they have not associated
a cost.
Commissioner Bird asked if just putting additional vegeta-
tion along the parking area would not accomplish the screening,
and Planner Boling agreed it would. The only area of contention
really is south of the parking area.
Attorney Barkett questioned the legality of readdressing an
already implemented landscape plan, and Commissioner Bird
agreed and did not feel the money is even a factor to be
considered.
'Commissioner Eggert believed that former County Attorney
32
Brandenburg also always told the Board that we can't revisit, and
Attorney Vitunac has agreed it is a shady area.
Attorney Barkett requested that the Board adopt staff's
recommendation with the deletion of condition 2(b).
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard.
Public Works Director -Davis wished to bring up the subject
of stabilization along the west bank of the barrier island. He
noted that when you create a situation where you have docks and
boats, you create energy, and he felt there needs to be a
stabilization plan for the river bank.
Commissioner Eggert asked if this isn't being addressed in
conjunction with the Jungle Trail Management Plan, and Director
Davis commented that he personally felt there should be a
commitment from the operator of a marina or the developer that
they will maintain the bank and if erosion occurs, they will fill
it back in. If we do get erosion, the Trail will shift eastward.
Chairman Wheeler felt docks actually disperse energy from
the larger boats rather than do much damage, and Director Davis
agreed, but noted that you also will have more localized boats
using the area.
Discussion continued at length regarding what causes the
erosion, and Director Davis felt strongly that there should be a
commitment that the developer will maintain the riverbank. If we
are asked to stabilize this section now, we have a constraint to
work with because of the docking facility in the area.
Don Kenney, Planning and Land Development Manager for Sea
Oaks, informed the Board that their lease conditions with the
state require stabilizing the bank along the dock facility, and
those conditions include the head wall, rip -rapping, and a
revegetation program in certain areas of their property. The
dock facility itself will include wave attenuaters. The state
also requires them to provide a specific conservation easement
for the balance of their frontage to protect the mangroves. The
APR 1 8 1989
33 Roc 76 PAGE 622
APR 18 1989
nooK 76 P,1;E
dock site itself and a certain degree of frontage north and south
is included in the lease conditions with DNR.
Director Davis noted that as long as the state is going to
require maintenance of the conservation easement, he felt more
comfortable but still would like some commitment that they will
maintain the bank.
Mr. Kenney did not believe that question is under discussion
today, and he was not sure what they would be allowed to do off
the dock site.
Considerable debate and discussion continued regarding who
should be responsible for the bank, who is getting the benefits,
and where the burden should be.
Bill Nelson, 230 14th Street, wished to know if there is
going to be any kind of gas tank or fuel tank in the area as he
was concerned about fumes which might affect the mangroves. He
was advised that there is not.
The Chairman determined that no one further wished to be
heard and thereupon closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved staff's
recommendation for approval of the dock facility,
deleting condition 2(b).
OPTIONAL ONE CENT SALES TAX (CASH FLOW PROJECTION)
The Board reviewed memo and attachments from the OMB
Director:
34
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
April 12, 1989
OPTIONAL ONE CENT SALES TAX
Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
Attached for your review is a cash flow projection for the "Optional
One Cent Sales Tax" through July 1991.
DATE SALES
TAX REVENUE
RECEIVED BY
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MARCH 1989
APRIL 1989
MAY 1989
JUNE 1989
JULY 1989
AUGUST 1989
SEPTEMBER 1989
OCTOBER 1989
NOVEMBER 1989
DECEMBER 1989
JANUARY 1990
FEBRUARY 1990
MARCH 1990
APRIL 1990
MAY 1990
JUNE 1990
JULY 1990
AUGUST 1990
SEPTEMBER 1990
OCTOBER 1990
NOVEMBER 1990
DECEMBER 1990
JANUARY 1991
FEBRUARY 1991
MARCH 1991
APRIL 1991
MAY 1991
JUNE 1991
JULY 1991
APR 18 1989
ADDITIONAL ONE CENT SALES TAX
REVENUE AND EXPENSE CASH PROJECTIONS
ESTIMATED TOTAL
AMOUNT ESTIMATED AMOUNT
OF EXPENSES REMAINING
REVENUE (GRAND TOTAL) TO -DATE
$o $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$0 ($10,000) ($10,000)
$0 4 ($20,000) ($30,000)
$0 ($20,000) ($50,000)
$0 ($20,000) ($70,000)
$230,891 ($18,160) $142,731
$230,891 ($15,000) $358,622
$230,891 ($632,931) ($43,418)
$230,891 ($295,333) ($107,860)
$360,190 ($345,333) ($93,003)
$360,190 ($485,333) ($218,146)
$685,855 ($545,333) ($77,624)
$685,855 ($595,333) $12,898
$685,855 ($745,333) ($46,580)
$685,855 ($745,333) 0106,058)
$321,598 ($945,333) ($729,793)
$321,598 ($970,483) ($1,378,678)
$321,598 ($895,333) ($1,952,413)
$321,598 ($1,455,333) ($3,086,148)
$321,598 01,205,333) ($3,969,883)
$321,598 ($1,155,333) ($4,803,618)
$374,597 ($492,833) ($4,921,854)
$374,597 ($442,833) ($4,990,090)
$794,045 ($451,333) ($4,647,378)
$794,045 .($502,283) ($4,355,616)
$794,045 ($452,283) ($4,013,854)
$794,045 ($580,283) ($3,800,092)
$334,461 ($284,352) ($3,749,983)
35
fkOOK
iu PAGE
7
1
MARCH 1989
APRIL 1989
MAY 1989
JUNE 1989
JULY 1989
AUGUST 1989
SEPTEMBER 1989
OCTOBER 1989
NOVEMBER 1989
DECEMBER 1989
JANUARY 1990
FEBRUARY 1990
MARCH 1990
APRIL 1990
MAY 1990
JUNE 1990
JULY 1990
AUGUST 1990
SEPTEMBER 1990
OCTOBER 1990
NOVEMBER 1990
DECEMBER 1990
JANUARY 1991
FEBRUARY 1991
MARCH 1991
APRIL 1991
MAY 1991
JUNE 1991
JULY 1991
JAIL PHASE III
ARCHITECT CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT OTHER SUBTOTAL
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
2,931 100,000 0 15,000 117,931
2,931 150,000 0 15,000 167,931
2,931 200,000 0 15,000 217,931
2,931 250,000 0 15,000 267,931
2,931 300,000 0 15,000 317,931
2,931 350,000 0 15,000 367,931
2,931 400,000 0 15,000 417,931
2,931 400,000 0 15,000 417,931
2,931 500,000 0 15,000 517,931
2,931 500,000 0 15,150 518,081
2,931 400,000 0 15,000 417,931
2,931 400,000 0 15,000 417,931
2,931 300,000 0 15,000 317,931
2,931 200,000 0 15,000 217,931
2,931 150,000 0 15,000 167,931
2,931 100,000 0 15,000 117,931
2,931 100,000 0 15,000 117,931
2,931 100,000 100,000 15,000 217,931
2,931 100,000 50,000 15,000 167,931
2,931 228,000 50,000 15,000 295,931
0
0 0 0 0
TOTAL 558,620 55,228,000 5200,000 5300,150 $5,786,770
SALES TAX EXPENSES
HEALTH DEPARTMENT BUILDING
ARCHITECT CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT OTHER SUB -TOTAL
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
10,000 0 0 0 10,000
20,000 0 0 0 20,000
20,000 0 0 0 20,000
20,000 0 0 0 20,000
18,160 0 0 0 18,160
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1,102 0 0 16,300 17,402
1,102 0 0 16,300 17,402
1,102 100,000 0 16,300 117,402
1,102 100,000 0 16,300 1; 117,402
1,102 100,000 0 16,300 117,402
1,102 100,000 0 16,300 117,402
1,102 100,000 0 16,300 117,402
1,102 150,000 0 16,300 167,402
1,102 175,000 0 16,300 192,402
1,102 200,000 0 16,300 217,402
1,102 210,000 0 16,300 227,402
1,102 210,000 0� 16,300 227,402
1,102 260,000 0 16,300 277,402
1,102 157,500 0 16,300 174,902
1,102 157,500 0 16,300 174,902
1,102 126,000 0 16,300 143,402
1,102 126,000 40,950 16,300 184,352
1,102 126,000 40,950 16,300 184,352
1,102 126,000 40,950 16,300 184,352
1,102 126,000 40,950 16,300 184,352
$110,200 52,650,000 $163,800 5326,000 53,250,000
COURTHOUSE
ARCHITECT CONSTRUCTION LAND OTHER SUB -TOTAL
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
15,000 0 0 0 15,000
15,000 0 0 0 15,000
10,000 0 0 0 10,000
10,000 0 0 0 10,000
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 10,000 10,000
0 0 0 10,000 10,000
O 0 100,000 10,000 110,000
0 0 100,000 10,000 110,000
50,000 0 100,000 10,000 160,000
50,000 0 100,000 10,000 160,000
50,000 0 100,000 10,000 160,000
200,000 0 500,000 10,000 710,000
50,000 0 500,000 10,000 560,000
50,000 0 500,000 10,000 560,000
50,000 0 0 0 50,000
50,000 0 0 • 0 50,000
90,000 0 0 0 90,000
0 .0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
5690,000
SO S2,000,000 $100,000 52,790,000
RIGHT
OF -WAY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
500,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
11,500,000
GRAND
TOTAL
SO
SO
510,000
520,000
520,000
520,000
518,160
515,000
5632,931
5295,333
5345,333
5485,333
5545,333
5595,333
5745,333
5745,333
5945,333
$970,483
5895,333
51,455,333
51,205,333
51,155,333
$492,833
5442,833
5451,333
5502,283
5452,283
5580,283
5284,352
514,326,770
Administrator Chandler advised that this is just the initial
cash flow report. The intent is to line up the projects we have
in place versus our income, and this shows just about what we
would expect at this point in time. We do have a pretty
aggressive capital program about to kick off with the Jail, the
Courthouse Complex, and the Health Department, plus our
Right -of -Way needs. This report sets out a projected time frame
and shows that there will be shortages at varying points in the
initial phases.
Administrator Chandler talked about the need for seed money
in the initial phases and emphasized that they have been cautious
and conservative in setting up these projections, especially
because of the lack of a track record. He noted that one thing
they have not built into this yet is the stockade concept. There
will be a time lag with the collections and then disbursement
back to us, and that is why they figured on September. Staff
will be updating this report and coming back periodically with
this as we get deeper into the program.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the Finance Advisory Com-
mittee recommendation ties into this cash flow projection to some
extent and requested that it be moved up on the agenda and
discussed at this time. The Chairman determined that there were
no objections and asked Commissioner Scurlock to review it for
the Board.
FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Commissioner Scurlock referred to the following and noted
that basically at the last meeting Administrator Chandler and OMB
Director Baird presented some information with some suggested
possible uses for the surplus that we had identified in terms of
cash carry forward or reserves. The same day the Finance
Advisory Committee had a meeting and made the following
recommendations:
APR 1 8 1989
37 BOO 76 PAGE 626
APR 181999
BOOK 76 PAGE 677
TO: Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
DATE: April 12, 1989
SUBJECT: FINANCIAL ADVISORY 1f9
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
THROUGH: Don C. Scurlock
County Commissioner
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Financial Advisory dommittee approved the surplus cash balance as
of the beginning of the 1988/89 fiscal year be used for the
following:
Priority'1
Priority 2
Priority 3
Priority 4
Priority 5
Priority 6
Priority 1
RECOMMENDATION
GENERAL FUND
Seed Money Sales Tax $1,500,000
South County Park - Land 900,000
Working Capital 500,000
Self Insurance 400,000
$urricane Fund 500,000
BCC Computer 343,558
TOTAL $4,143,558
I.S.T.U.
Petition Paving $1,500,000
Working Capital 647,455
TOTAL $2,147',455
Staff concurs with the Financial Advisory Committee's
recommendations.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that there was a great concern
that this surplus could easily be frittered away. There also was
concern that if the surplus we were fortunate to have this year
were to be used for operating expenses, those expenses will be
there again next year, and then you are faced with additional ad
valorem taxes to continue the programs at the level of the
previous year. He felt over all the Committee took a very
conservative approach. The recommendation sets out as Priority 1
to place seed money for our capital projects since there will be
some time delay between receiving our money and the actual
38
construction of the various construction projects; so, they
suggested 1.5 million be placed as seed money in our capital
projects fund. Second, there was a $900,000 request for the
purchase of the South County park site (the Ansin property),
which they felt was a very worthwhile activity and again a one-
time expense. There is not any development monies there; the
limitation was $900,000 towards the purchase.
Commissioner Bird inquired if that $900,000 is the payoff on
that property, and that was confirmed.
Commissioner Scurlock continued to review the priorities
listed. He stressed again that these are one-time expenses and
actually savings in a sense for the county. Priority 3 is
$500,000 working capital, and it was recommended that we maintain
that level. Priority 4 takes us to the self-insurance program.
We went into self-insurance somewhat this year, and the recommen-
dation was to continue to pursue that in a more aggressive way.
The recommendation is to put $400,000 towards that pool of funds
for any losses that may occur. Commissioner Scurlock continued
4
to stress that we do not want to fritter away this money, but
want to use these funds ultimately to save the taxpayer. The
self- insurance funds stay there, and if they are unused, that
fund builds up. He advised that he personally argued strongly
against the Hurricane Fund , but staff and the Committee felt if
we should have even a minor storm occur, the cleanup costs alone
just to pick up the debris would run in the range of half a
million. He believed that figure tracks pretty well with the
cost the City of Vero Beach incurred for cleanup after the last
hurricane. Although he voted against it, the Committee voted to
recommend $500,000 for the Hurricane Fund as Priority 5.
In regard to Priority 6, which is $343,558 for a Computer
System. Commissioner Scurlock explained this was meant to seed
away money for Clerk Barton; it is not the Board of County
Commission side. He believed Mr. Barton is looking ahead to
replacing his IBM 38 with a 400 Computer System that talks to
APR 18 1989
39 BOOK 76 [AGE 628
APR 1 1989
BOOK 76 PAGE 620
everybody. The Utilities aspect as far as the computer is
concerned would be an enterprise fund, and he couldn't see using
General Fund monies to buy a computer for Utilities.
Commissioner Scurlock did not anticipate this expense occurring
immediately. If Utilities does put a computer in their budget
proposal this year, and if it is approved, there would be a great
deal removed from the Clerk's computer and more space made
available, but the Clerk's discussion with him is that eventually
he wants to move out of the 38 and into the System 400.
Under the M.S.T.U., considering the wishes of the county to
move aggressively ahead with Petition Paving, Commissioner
Scurlock advised that it was felt that Petition Paving Program
could use additional seed money, and the recommendation was for
1.5 million and an increase in the working capital of some
$640,000. Commissioner Scurlock noted that while he still
personally felt strongly about the Hurricane Fund, this list is
the Committee's recommendation.
Chairman Wheeler wished to discuss the BCC Computer for the
Clerk. He commented that he had assumed this was for the Board
because we have talked in the past about our own computer and
possibly our own Data Processing Department to handle county
business, and he would prefer looking at this to see whether we
shouldn't buy a computer for the Board and free up space on Mr.
Barton's computer for his use. While he admittedly does not have
an in-depth understanding of this subject, he could visualize the
County having their own data processing department.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that when the Board bought the
Supervisor of Elections a computer recently, the suggestion was
that would free up space on the IBM 38 and Clerk Barton would be
able to use that for a longer period of time. Although the
Supervisor of Elections did download her records from the Clerk's
38 onto her System 400, the net effect of that did not free of
the space anticipated because of additional requirements for jury
selection that have since come into effect, and Mr. Barton has
40
indicated that in his long range future, he does foresee
replacing the 38 system. Commissioner Scurlock continued that
the utilities system has grown significantly, and Utilities is
out with a request for proposal to purchase an IBM System 400,
but he again pointed out that this is an enterprise fund and if
they are going to purchase a computer for their use, it would be
an enterprise function.
Chairman Wheeler asked if we wouldn't be better off to have
the County purchase that computer and then have Utilities lease
space on it, and we can derive money back in our General Fund
from the Enterprise Fund.
Commissioner Scurlock felt it is the matter of the tail
wagging the dog. The major user of that particular piece of
equipment would be Utilities as opposed to the general county
function.
Chairman Wheeler agreed with the analogy except that he
looked at Utilities as being the tail as they are a department of
the Board.
Commissioner Scurlock did not look at it that way. He
looked at Utilities as the provider of 2.1 million dollars to the
General Fund and a separate independent enterprise fund not tax
supported.
Administrator Chandler confirmed that it has been identified
that there are needs for automation in many areas throughout our
organization, whether it be Utilities or Public Works, etc.
Staff is looking at this from the standpoint that since we have
the funding available at this point in time, we could earmark "x"
amount for that need and as we get into it deeper, he then could
bring back a specific recommendation on it. They basically are
looking at utilization of these funds for one-shot type non-
recurring expenses. He, therefore, felt it would be appropriate
to earmark those funds for the purpose set out, and then if it is
determined later we do not want to apply them to that particular
use, they could be released for another use. Administrator
41
APR 1 8 1989
Ek ODIC 76 ME 630
APR 18 1989
BOOK 76 PAGE 631
Chandler stressed that he is not prepared to make any recommen-
dation today as they have barely scratched the surface of this
subject.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed and advised that his discussion
with Clerk Barton was that if Utilities or the County acquired a
computer for their own needs and relieved a certain load off the
Clerk's computer, then the Clerk would be able to use the
computer for another period of time. However, the message the
Clerk is still sending is that for the long range, more than
another 2 or 3 years, he will be to the Board looking for the
replacement of the IMB 38. The system of the future is the 400,
and at some point he will be pursuing that with the Board.
Chairman Wheeler stated that he did discuss this with Mr.
Barton to some extent, and he felt possibly he could get 3-5
years out of the 38; in fact, he even suggested the possibility
that the county take over his 38 and he could get a new computer.
The Chairman noted that he would like staff's input on this when
it comes to a head so we can look over all the options.
Commissioner Bird also wished Administrator Chandler to give
a high priority to looking into the computer situation. He noted
that we have consistently tried to consolidate and keep expenses
down, but in spite of our efforts, we have more and more
computers around the county offices than we have ever had. It is
a very complex subject, and he hoped that the Administrator can
review this with all the various department heads and work out a
way that will satisfy the needs and still keep our expenditures
at a minimum.
Administrator Chandler confirmed that this is very
definitely high on the list of priorities, and they will be
looking into it in depth which will take a while as they do not
want to rush in too quickly and not study it thoroughly.
Commissioner Scurlock informed the Administrator that one of
the aspects is that on the original purchase of the IBM 38,
$170,00 of Utilities money went into acquiring that. The net
42
result of that is who paid for the computer - Utilities did - and
then when it came down to set priorities and we had to get
billing out and monitor our system, Utilities wasn't even on the
priority list. They totally computerized and streamlined the
Clerk's side, and here Utilities is sitting out there having a
billing problem. Commissioner Scurlock had some very strong
feelings that if you are the guy who is paying the freight, when
it comes to setting priorities, the entity that is funding should
be fairly high on the list, not last.
Chairman Wheeler concurred, but noted that he still looked
at Utilities as part of the Board of County Commissioners, and if
he were the Clerk, he would be more interested in the Clerk's
operation rather than Utilities regardless of who paid for it.
However, as a Commissioner, and the Utility Department being one
of our many departments, it would get preferential treatment
because that is where we derive income from to some degree.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that he was not saying
preferential treatment. He felt that Chairman Wheeler's analysis
actually is absolutely incorrect because the SWDD is not a part
of the Board function. It happens to be a special district.
Chairman Wheeler pointed out that it still is controlled by
this Board, and Commissioner Scurlock agreed but emphasized it is
a separate function and a separate entity and has to have a
separate meeting; so, legally it is a separate entity.
Commissioner Eggert wished to discuss Self Insurance
and the Hurricane Fund. If we go completely to self insurance,
she wished to know if staff has some feel for what should be in
the reserve.
Administrator Chandler informed the Board that what we are
looking very critically at is whether we should go 100% self
insured come October 1st. Ordinarily when you get into a
self-insured program, you walk before you run, and the recommen-
dations are that you do not go totally base in the first year or
two, but continue to carry some excess coverage at least for the
43 aOOK 76 F'A[,E 632
8 1989
!r -
APR 18 19€9
foo' 76
'ACE 63t)
2nd, 3rd and 4th years. He will have specific recommendations at
budgettime. He further explained that when you get into self
insurance, you try to build your reserve over a period of time
until you reach a level that will sustain you for a good number
of years. You don't need to put all those funds in within the
first few years because usually the first three years, unless you
take a big hit, there is not a large drawdown; so, you have the
ability to build it up. That is what we are in the process of
doing, and the availability of these funds, gives us the ability
to make that fund a lot sounder a lot sooner.
Commissioner Eggert commented that she felt the Hurricane
Fund actually should be called a Disaster Fund. When you take
into account ALS and everything else where we are going to be
paying a lot of people if there should be a disaster, she asked
if the Administrator felt the funds suggested were enough.
Administrator Chandler noted that this actually is an
insurance policy, and he would recommend it because when you have
a hurricane (and it is only a matter of time until we do), it can
have a devastating effect on your operating funds because you
don't budget for those kind of expenses. He agreed the cost just
for the personnel you need to cope with something of that kind
can be substantial.
Commissioner Bird believed that if this disaster happens,
you simply tighten your belt and go to the capital items you were
going to have that year and somehow come up with the funds.
Administrator Chandler agreed the major impact would be that
we would pull down on our capital improvement project side to
offset that expense and divert some funds to the operating fund.
In further discussion, OMB Director Baird advised that the
City of Vero Beach has a hurricane fund and so does the City of
Hollywood. They did not have one when the last hurricane
occurred, and that is why they initiated that fund.
Commissioner Scurlock asked what that hurricane did to the
county when it hit, and OMB Director Baird advised that we had a
44
bad financial statement that year. You cannot go back after the
millage is adopted; so we had a loss that year, and when you are
an expanding county going into the financial markets constantly
as we are, they don't like to see losses on your financial
statement.
Commissioner Scurlock believed Commissioner Bird is saying
you can simply go back into your budget and defer capital expense
and use that as operating funds to clean up.
Administrator Chandler concurred you can do that, but you
want to build a sound consistent financial base, and this is
simply insurance so that if you do get hit, you can cover that
cost and continue on normally with your capital programs.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed that it gives a more stable
environment, and Chairman Wheeler believed it is simply good
business planning.
Commissioner Bird noted that we sat here last year and
refused to put $100,000 in the budget for this when things were
tough and now that we have found some excess funds, they want to
increase it to $500,000, and he still is not in favor of it. He
questioned why it is necessary to make these allocations at this
meeting.
Director Baird explained that he just felt the Commission
should make a decision as to how they would like to utilize their
money.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the real answer is to look at our
contingency for the last 8 years. By not allocating, we put all
that money in contingencies, and then in about 6 months or so, it
is all gone because it gets nickled and dimed away. Every year
that he can remember, we have exhausted the entire contingency
fund before the year is out, and this is just an attempt to
earmark the use of these funds so we don't have everyone gearing
up to jump in and try to get part of them.
Chairman Wheeler concurred with Commissioner Eggert that it
APR 1 8 1889
45
aoor 76 FnE 634
BOOK
76 PAGE 635
should be called a Disaster Fund, not just a Hurricane Fund, and
Commissioner Bird agreed.
Administrator Chandler felt out of all that is proposed,
if we are going to continue the Sales Tax program for the capital
projects at the rate we are right now with the Jail, Courthouse,
and the Health Department, we are going to need the $1,500,000
seed money to insure we can proceed at the schedule we have been
following.
Commissioner Scurlock further noted that as we come into the
next fiscal year and our budget grows, we must have a certain
percent of our budget in a reserve to give us some flexibility.
If the budget goes up 100, he felt sure Director Baird will be
saying that we need to increase our contingencies.
Director Baird confirmed that there are rules of thumb
financial people like to use in order to keep yourself financi-
ally secure.
Interested citizen, William Koolage, wished to recommend
that the Board follow the suggestion of setting this money aside
as a Disaster Fund; otherwise, it just dribbles away.
Commissioner Bird wished the name of the Hurricane Fund
changed to Disaster Fund, and the Board agreed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the
recommendations of the Financial Advisory Committee
as set out in memo dated April 12, 1989, with the
Hurricane Fund changed to Disaster Fund.
FUNDING APPROVAL FOR EMS STAFFING IN SEBASTIAN AREA & AMENDMENT
OF FELLSMERE VOL. AMBULANCE SERVICE CERT. OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
The Board reviewed memo from Doug Wright, Director of
Emergency Management Services, as follows:
46
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DATE: April 12, 1989 FILE:
SUBJECT: Funding Approval for EMS
Staffing in Sebastian Area
and Amendment of Fellsmere
Volunteer Ambulance Service
FROM: Doug Wright, Director Certificate of Public Conven-
Emergency Management Services ience and Necessity
It is 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 May 3, 1988, the former Sebastian Volunteer Ambulance Squad Board of
Directors voted to dissolve itself due to an abundance of concern
relating to an inability to provide a level of service commensurate
with requirements of the existing Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity. Prior leadership had been ineffective and recurring
problems hampered the delivery of creditable pre -hospital emergency
medical services to the citizens of the response area.
A proposal had been earlier submitted by the Fellsmere Volunteer
Ambulance Service to assume responsibility for EMS service in the
Sebastian area. On May 4, 1988, the Director of Emergency Management
Services apprised the Board of County Commissioners that the options
available for a continuity of EMS service were to either allow
Fellsmere to assume responsibility for the service area or direct that
a paid service be initiated. While having some reservations, the
Director recommended the option that permitted Fellsmere to continue a
volunteer service in the North County and the Board of County
Commissioners approved a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity and advanced certain funds to assist in start up operating
costs.
The recommendation by the Director of Emergency Management Services was
predicated on a firm belief that with new leadership in the Sebastian
Ambulance Squad, recruitment of new volunteers would occur and it was
anticipated that former volunteers would return and again offer their
services to the community.
The Squad Chief and others within the Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance
Service have done a creditable job. Unfortunately, sufficient numbers
of EMT's and drivers have not volunteered their service to fully staff
both the Fellsmere and Sebastian stations. There has been a small
nucleus of personnel that are working double shifts and on occasion
triple shifts to staff the two locations around the clock.
The presumption has been over a period of two EMT classes and a third
one now in progress that as soon as the class graduated, a sufficient
number of new EMT's would be available to staff the twenty-eight (28)
shifts per week or a total of fifty-six (56) shifts for both locations.
What has occurred is either the students did not volunteer, found
paying EMT positions, or volunteered for a few months and then dropped
off of the schedule for varying reasons. Such is the case now in that
potentially there is a cadre of EMT's that indicate they will be
volunteering some time to the Squad. The bottom line is that
historically, all student EMT's do not always pass the course, the
state exams, and some find out they do not like the work when actual
trauma scenes are encountered.
In addition to the staffing problems, the Squad Chief walked off the
job without notice due to her and the Finance Director's allegations of
problems with the County run system as relate to the following:
APR 1 1989
47
BOOK 76 FACE 636
APR 18 `i989
RoR 76 PAGE 637
1. Standing Order Medical Protocols related to Resuscitation
of the Terminally I11.
Response: The EMS Director and Medical Director refuse to
change this Medical Protocol inasmuch as the law
is quite explicit in requirements. Chapter 765,
Florida Statutes sets the criteria for DNR
authority as well as Chapter 401 provides for
criminal penalties for failure to treat.
Memorandum from the County Attorney's Office
supports the EMS Director's position and HRS has
formally approved the protocol. It is beyond an
EMT and drivers realm of authority to make the
determination as to when to treat since that is a
paramedic function. Case law was also provided by
the County Attorney's Office in support of the EMS
Director's position in this matter.
2. Geographically pre -determined transport locations.
Response: Trauma Transport legislation was passed by the State
in 1988 requiring transport of patients to the
nearest medical facility. Protocols require
emergency medical patients north of CR 510 to be
transported to Humana Hospital Sebastian. Those
medical emergency patients south of CR 510 are
transported to Indian River Memorial Hospital. This
approach is supported by the County Attorney's
Office, HRS, and the Risk Manager. It suffices to
say that when a patient is stabilized and life is
not threatened, the patient can travel to any
medical facility of their choice. The County ALS
service does not respond to non -emergency medical
events as there are available transport companies
locally for that purpose.
3. Driver/Paramedic responsibilities during response to
emergency scene.
Response: The policy in this regard has not been altered.
The EMS Director did issue a clarification of the
policy in layman's language so that it could be
easily understood and adhered to. This issue
surfaced to a large degree due to the fact that the
EMS Director would no longer permit the Squad to
allow drivers who had not had a recognized 16 hour
Emergency Vehicle Operator's Course to drive the
Squad vehicles. What was found was drivers
operating emergency vehicles with from no training
to approximately one and one half hours of training
creating a violation of 10D-66 and Chapter 401,
Florida Statutes. Further, some drivers reportedly
did not have CPR and first aid training as required
by law. Each of these deficiencies would have
resulted in civil fines or penalties for the County
ALS service if HRS had inspected the service
location.
The above issues were discussed in detail at an EMS staff meeting on
March 31, 1989, with all providers being present. Not one of the other
providers agreed with Fellsmere regarding the above referenced matters.
It was apparent that past emotional events in the lives of the two
Fellsmere members had some impact on their feelings as relates to
treatment -of terminally ill patients. The EMS Director's approach
to development and requiring adherence to the medical protocols has to
be for the good of the overall system while at the same time assuring a
standard of patient care in a timely manner.
48
It appears that the needed support from the various communities to
continue with a fully staffed volunteer ambulance service in the
Sebastian area is not forthcoming and consideration of a paid service
in this response area is appropriate and necessary.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
There appears to have been a considerable drop in the availability of
EMS staff in that documents reflect during July, 1988, during
investigation of the request for renewal of the Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity, Fellsmere was covering 26 out of 28 shifts
or 92 percent of the total shifts in the North County area. The agenda
item recommending renewal of the Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity alluded to staffing problems although the Squads were
actively recruiting new personnel for training and paying the tuition
for those who would commit to the in-depth training. It was also noted
in the agenda item that only a small portion of the populace of the
Sebastian area had volunteered their time and talents to the EMS
service. It was anticipated that with quality leadership and positive
publicity, adequate staffing could be achieved in a reasonable time
period. It is unfortunate that adequate staffing has not been achieved
as of the date of this memorandum and full staffing with volunteers is
not anticipated.
The agenda item of August 16, 1988, also recommended a review of the
staffing and response profile within a six month period. That report
was to a large degree contained in the proposal approved by the Board
of County Commissioners on December 20, 1988, in which the County
became the single focus of management for the EMS system and
responsibility for the operational control of the system was delegated
to the Department of Emergency Management Services. The proposal
alluded to staffing problems within the North County area and it was
noted that hopefully, with a county operated system, volunteers would
come forward to receive training and assist in staffing the various
shifts.
What did occur was that the former Squad Chief was relegated to pulling
double shifts for six days a week over ten hours a day until the demand
took its toll on her and she unexpectedly walked out without notice on
March 24, 1989. However, this type of behavior is cause for concern
now in terms of what will occur the next time when an emotional issue
surfaces. On April 11, 1989, the Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance
Service Board of Directors voted to reject her resignation and
requested that she return to the helm of the Squad as a paid employee
at the rate of $25,000 per year plus fringe benefits which will require
approximately $33,250.00 in funds.
The Indian River County ALS is the EMS ALS licensee for the County wide
EMS system. As such, Chapter 401, Florida Statutes, Administrative
Rule 10D-66, and Indian River County Ordinance #87-66, as amended, must
be followed to the letter. Failure to adhere to the above referenced
authorities subject the County to severe penalties and fines. The
Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance Service has not totally adhered to the
letter of the law and while this may have occurred unintentionally, had
an inspection been accomplished by HRS in the recent period of time, it
is felt certain fines could have and would have been levied against the
County.
What has happened in the past on several occasions as relate to the
Sebastian Volunteer Ambulance Squad cannot be allowed to repeat itself
again. It is time that this service location be stabilized on a
permanent basis and that can be done only with paid professional
emergency medical services staff. Therefore, it appears that the
following options are available to the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Continue to permit the Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance Service
to operate with less than required staffing and pay paramedics
overtime to staff the shifts not covered by volunteers.
49
APR 18 1989
ROOK 76 f'aGE 638
l'" -
APR
1 C 1989
BOOK 76 PAGE 63C
2. Permit the Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance Service to pay a full
time Squad Chief, EMT's, and drivers to staff the necessary
shifts with increased contributions from the County and
increased fund raising activities.
3. Amend the Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance Service Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity to exclude the Sebastian area
as a primary response. zone and fund—the necessary full time
paid professional staff to stabilize this service location on
perpetual basis.
Option #1 is not a viable alternative in that liability would be in
great jeopardy and the possibility of civil penalties would be
forthcoming to the County since it is the licensee. The County does
not have adequate funding to continue to pay paramedics overtime to
cover the number of shifts that the Squad cannot staff. The County has
already paid overtime to paramedics to cover in excess of 600 hours of
coverage at the two service locations.
Option #2 is not recommended by the EMS Director or the Medical
Director. There is simply not adequate funding within the Squad
coffers to pay the anticipated costs that the Squad will incur. It was
noted at the Board of Director's meeting on April 11, 1989, that some
$20,000 had been generated in donations from the Fellsmere area and
only $8,000 from the Sebastian area even though a large mail out had
occurred in Sebastian. In any case this would be a band-aid fix and
the issue would again have to be addressed in a few months when the
money runs out.
The proposal submitted by the Fellsthere Volunteer Ambulance Squad and
attached to this report is the second proposal the EMS Director has
received in the last ten days. The earlier proposal requested a 50/50
split in the costs of the payroll for the paid Chief, EMT's, and
drivers. This latest proposal reflects that the Squad will pay all the
payroll costs by taking money from the building and vehicle accounts to
fund personnel costs. That is fine for the short term, but much work
needs to be done on the current physical facility inasmuch as the
structure needs to be air conditioned, electrical wiring needs to be
replaced, and replacement vehicles must be planned for as well as
current vehicles maintained .
Option 3 seems to be the most logical solution and perpetual solution
_to this continuing and recurring problem in the Sebastian response
area. Budget estimates project that $147,339 would be required to
implement this alternative through September 30, 1989, of which $71,389
is personnel salaries and benefits; $44,450 is for operating expenses;
and $31,500 is for capital equipment . Included in the capital
equipment is a used modular type ambulance which would have to be
purchased. The ambulance currently in use at the Sebastian location is
a county vehicle which was purchased with EMS County Award Funds and it
would be retained for use by the County EMS Service at that location.
The location of the service would be at the same location currently
being utilized. In a prior conversation with the City Manager of
Sebastian, it was communicated that the building would be available to
the County should the need occur.
Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance Service has indeed made a creditable
effort to provide EMS pre -hospital emergency medical transport service
in the Sebastian area. There are benefits to be recognized for
Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance Service to limit their service area to
the Fellsmere area and any other emergency response sector in
reasonable proximity as deemed appropriate by the EMS Director and
needs of the overall EMS system. This would preclude their assets from
being drained for substantial personnel costs and the potential is
available for them to continue a volunteer ambulance service without
50
the stress and strain of overextending their resources. A paramedic
would continue to be stationed at the Fellsmere location and revenues
obtained in fund raising could be totally utilized to enhance the
current facility and improve the transport fleet at the singular
location. It has been communicated to the EMS Director that the Squad
would like to establish a non -emergency transport service in Fellsmere.
This could possible become a reality if the Squad consolidates its
resources and pursues this endeavor to accommodate citizens who require
transportation to their doctor's offices for various medical
appointments but cannot travel in a passenger type vehicle.
RECOMMENDATION
The EMS Director, the Medical Director, and staff respectfully requests
that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following
recommendations:
1. Amend the Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance Service Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity to exclude the Sebastian
area as an emergency response zone except in a backup status;
2. Approve Option #3 as recommended by staff providing a
permanent resolution to a continuing crisis at the Sebastian
service location by employing paid professional paramedics/
EMT's to staff the emergency response vehicle;
3. Approve the utilization of the emergency transport vehicle
which was purchased with County Award Funds to provide
transport capability for the service location;
4. Approve funding in the amount of $147,339 to implement the EMS
service at the Sebastian location from existing general fund
contingencies;
5. Authorize staff to contact municipal officials in Sebastian
regarding utilization of the existing structure for the EMS
service to be stationed;
6. Approve the emergency purchase of an additional ambulance for
use in the EMS service to replace the Fellsmere Ambulance
currently being utilized by the South County Fire District at
Station #5. Funds for purchase of the ambulance is included
in the $147,339 requested above.
The implementation of the above recommendations can occur rapidly or at
a time certain. The Indian River County ALS would prefer to effect a
mutual transition in a cooperative spirit and there is no reason that
this should not occur. However, should a worst case scenario develop,
the ALS service is prepared for an emergency transition. Indications
are that the Fellsmere Volunteer Ambulance Service Board of Director's
will adhere to and accept the decision of the Board of County
Commissioners.
There will always be a place for and opportunities available for
volunteers within the Indian River County ALS service. Volunteers will
still be encouraged to actively participate at the Sebastian location
even though the paramedic/EMT will be paid staff. The difference will
be that if a volunteer does not report for a scheduled shift, the
emergency service location will not be adversely affected and the EMS
service will continue to function.
All entities of the current Indian River County ALS system committed to
a level of service representing the very best available patient care
without compromise when the service started up on February 1, 1989.
Personalities aside, the EMS Director cannot negotiate on issues
required by law and strict compliance with established rules,
protocols, and ordinances will be and must be maintained.
APR 1 8 1989 51 ��c,K F'., ;.640
APR 18 1989
BOOK
16 FACE 641
Commissioner Bird did not feel we have any choice but to go
with staff's recommendation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
staff recommendation as set out in the above memo
dated April 12th and approved Budget Amendment #073
appropriating the $147,339 required for the approved
changes.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 073
DATE: April 18. 1 89
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
ccount Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/N. CTY. AMBULANCE
Regular Salaries
61-254-526-011.12
$29.120.00
$ 0
Overtime
001-254-526-011.14
$22.464.00
$ 0
Social Security
001-254-526-012.11
$ 3,874.00
$ 0
Retirement Contributions
001-254-526-012.12
$ 7,418.00
$ 0
Health Insurance
001-254-526-012.13
$ 5.624.00
$ 0
Worker's Compensation
001-254-526-012.14
$ 2,889.00
$ 0
Auto Insurance ,
001-254-526-034.54
$ 3.300.00
$ 0
Telephone
001-254-526-034.11
$ 2.500.00
$ 0
Maintenance -Automotive Equip.
001- 54-526-034.64
$ 4,500.00
$ 0
Maintenance -Other Equipment
001-254-526-034.69
$ 3.000.00
$ 0
Office Supplies
001-254-526-034.11
S 1,000.00
$ 0
Fuel and Lubricants -
001-254-526-035.21
$ 9.000.00
$ 0
Tire and Tube
001-254-526-035.22
$ 2.250.00
$ 0
Uniforms and Clothing
001-254-526-035.24
$ 1.200.00
$ ' 0
Medical Supplies
001-254-526-035.27
$ 8.500.00
$ 0
Other Operating Supplies
001-254-526-035.29
$ 1.000.00
$ 0
Meetings and Seminars
001-254-526-035.43
$ 1.000.00
$ 0
Utilities
001-254-526-034.39
$ 4.200.00
$ 0
Maintenance - Building
001-254-526-034.61
$ 3.000.00
$ 0
Automotive
001-254-526-066.42
$25,000.00
$ 0
Other Machinery and Eauipment
001-254-526-066.49
$ 3,100.00
$ 0
Communication Eauipment
001-254-526-066.45$
3.400.00
$ 0
GENERAL FUND
Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$ 0
$ 147,339
52
SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICE
"Sonny" Dean, Director of General Services, reviewed the
following:
DATE: APRIL 7, 1989
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO$0"'
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: SOIL CONSERVATION
BACKGROUND:
In January. 1986 the Soil Conservation Office moved their operations into
the 2001 Building. They were given an area with two large rooms for
their staff of four persons. The arrangement does not allow for any
privacy to speak with clients or separation from the noise generated by
their computer equipment.
Recently the suite across the hall was vacated which is comprised of
three separate offices and a reception area. The Soil Conservation
Division has requested they be moved into the vacated area. This would
allow adequate space for their p}ersonnel and associated computer
equipment. The increase in area is forty eight square feet with
additional cost of $24.19 per month.
ANALYSIS:
County personnel will paint the walls and clean the carpet of this new
area prior to moving. This additional work along with associated cost
would be handled as routine maintenance off -setting the cost of the new
area.
FUNDING:
Monies are available in the present budget to cover the additional cost
during this fiscal year. This would eliminate the need for a budget
amendment.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends Board approval and authorize the amendment of our
present lease agreement with Ed Schlitt, Inc.
APR 1 8 1989
53
POOK 76 FA,E 64
APR le 1989
BOOK
76 PAGE 643
Director Dean advised that the annual cost associated with
the requested move would be about an additional $300.
Commissioner Eggert questioned why they need privacy to
speak to clients about soil and also whether the computer noise
is that objectionable.
Further discussion ensued regarding the necessity for the
move, and Director Dean commented that personally he would rather
move them then spend the money to divide up the old area.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
staff recommendation and authorized the amendment of
our present lease agreement with Ed Schlitt, Inc.
for space for the Soil Conservation Office.
SAID AMENDMENT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD WHEN FULLY
EXECUTED AND RECEIVED.
WABASSO PICNIC SHELTERS, FINAL PAYMENT
The Board reviewed memo of Civil Engineer Michelle Gentile:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James D. White, P.E.
Acting County Engineer;+
FROM: Michelle A. Gentile,"C.E.T.
Civil Engineer
alete
SUBJECT: Wabasso Picnic Shelters
Final Payment
DATE: April 3, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The construction of the Wabasso Picnic Shelters have been
completed by Hunley and Hubbard Construction, Inc.as of March 28,
1989.. This project has been accepted by the Public Works
Department.
54
At this time, final payment of $10,509.00 is requested by the
contractor.
RECOMMENDATION
It is staff's recommendation that the final payment in the amount
of $10,509.00 be paid in full at this time. These monies are
available from Account #001-210-572-066.39.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
final payment to Hunley and Hubbard Construction, Inc.,
in the amount of $10,509.00 for construction of the
Wabasso picnic shelters.
REQUEST WAIVER OF FLOODPLAIN CUT & FILL BALANCE (LAUREL OAKS
SUBDV.)
The Board reviewed memo from Traffic Engineering Manager
David Cox:
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
REFERENCE
DATE:
James Chandler
County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E.;)
Public Works Director( --V01
David B. Cox, P.E.A4Ic
Traffic Engineering Manager
Request for Waiver of Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance
for Laurel Oaks Subdivision
LETTER: Stephen E. Moler, P.E. to James W. Davis, P.E.
Dated April 4, 1989
April 5, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Masteller & Moler. Associates on behalf of the developers of
Laurel Oaks Subdivision is requesting a waiver of the cut and
fill balance requirement of Section 7B(1) of Stormwater and Flood
Protection Ordinance 87-12. Laurel Oaks Subdivision received
preliminary plat approval on January 26, 1989. The 20 acre
property is located on the North side of Eight Street adjacent to
the West property line of Glendale Elementary School.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Recent major revisions to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
Flood Insurance Rate Maps have resulted in the site being located
in a large area of the 100 Year Floodplain. On the previous map
revision in use since 1982 the site was not included in the 100
55
APR 181989
toor 76 P.,Gu. D4111
PP" -
APR 1B n989
BOOK . 6 PAGE 645
Year Floodplain. The project engineer has stated the effect of
placing the proposed amount of fill on the overall surrounding
floodplain area would be negligible. The site does not however
satisfy the waiver criteria stated in Section 7B(1) of being
situated in an estuarine environment.
The drainage element of the upcoming comprehensive plan will
address the issue of development of land in floodplain areas in
detail.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that a waiver of the cut and fill balance be
granted to Laurel Oaks Subdivision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously granted a
waiver of the cut and fill balance requirement of
the Stormwater and Flood Protection Ordinance to
Laurel Oaks Subdivision as recommended by staff.
FLORIDA BOATING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - AGREEMENT RE SEBASTIAN MAIN
STREET BOAT DOCK REPLACEMENT
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Davis:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Florida Boating Improvement Program
Development Project Agreement - Sebastian
Main Street Boat Dock Replacement
REFERENCE LETTER: Linda Reeves, Project Manager, Florida D.N.R.
to Ralph Brescia dated March 28, 1989
DATE: April 10, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On July 12, 1988, the Board of County Commissioners approved
Resolution 88-43 authorizing staff to apply to the Department of
Natural Resources for F.B.I.P. funds in the amount of $4,705.92
to replace the City of Sebastian Main Street Boat Docks. This
project funding was requested by the City of Sebastian on May 5,
1988, and approved by the Parks and Recreation Committee and
Board of County Commissioners.
At this time, the Department of Natural Resources has transmitted
a Project Agreement to the County for Execution by the Chairman.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Chairman be authorized to execute the
Project Agreement. Approximately $140,000. is the F.B.I.P. fund
balance. 56
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the
Chairman to execute the Project Agreement for the
Sebastian Main Street Boat Dock Replacement as recom-
mended by staff.
COPY OF PARTIALLY SIGNED AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
PETITION PAVING - PROJECT SCHEDULING & COSTS TO ACCELERATE PAVING
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Davis:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Petition Paving Program - Project Scheduling and Costs
to Accelerate Paving
DATE: April 11, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In the past few years, the petition paving program has seen
an increase in voluntary petitions for paving of local roads. In
addition, two large Petition Projects, Dixie Heights Subdivision
and Florida Ridge Subdivision (8.3 miles of roads), are currently
under construction/design and these large projects are time
consuming to implement. To accommodate the increased requests
for paving, staff has investigated alternatives to accelerate the
surveying, engineering design, preparation of assessment rolls,
public hearing notification and advertisement, stormwater
permitting, construction stake -out, utility sleeve installation,
-and final construction of the following projects currently on the
petition paving list:
Project# Description Length Est.Const.Cost Valid
($23.70/LF)** Petition
8610 Floral Park & Ranch Est. S/D. * 4,955 LF .$117,433 yes
8627 Granada Gardens 1,860 LF 44,082 no
llth St/lith Pl/Madrid Ave.
8639 84th St - Old Dixie to US1 570 LF 13,509 no
8640 83rd Pl.-Old Dixie to US 1 660 LF 15,642 no
8641 Tropical Ave. -Old Dixie to US 1 370 LF 8,769 no
8702 10th Ct. SW north of Oslo Rd. 1,298.5 LF 30,774 no
8705 42nd Avenue -8th St to 6th St.* 1,312 LF 31,094 yes
8706 8th Ave. -South of 2nd St. * 385 LF 9,125 yes
8707 13th Ave. -12th St. to 14th St. 1,316 LF 31,190 yes
8708 9th Ave. - South of 2nd St.* 568 LF 13,462 yes
APR 18 1989
57
fkOOK 76 FME 646
APP 18 1989
BOOK 76 f?.GE 647
8709 42nd Ave. -10th St. to 12th St.* 1,345 LF 31,877 no
8711 44th Ave. - 16th St to 18th St. 1,240 LF 29,388 yes
8712 10th Ave. - South of 2nd St. * 884 LF 20,951 yes
8820 15th Place - US 1 to 7th Ave. 585 LF 13,855 no
8821 12th Ave. - 12th St. to 14th St. 1,286 LF 30,478 no
8822 85th Ave & 85th Ct.-Paradise Park 4,440 LF 105,228 no
8846 13th Ave. from 2nd St. to 4th St. 1,250.5 LF 29,637 yes
8847 2nd St. - 23rd Ave to 24th Ave. 272 LF 6,447 yes
8901 134th St - South of Roseland Rd. 2,840 LF 67,308 no
to St. Sebastian Church
8903 35th Ave. from 4th St. to 6th St. 1,900 LF 45,030 yes
8845 Frangipani-No.of CR510 to Magnolia 1,900 LF 45,030 yes
31,237 LF $740,319
Contingency 20% 148,064
Total Road Construction Cost by County Crews $888,383
* - survey work and initial drafting complete
**- County crews doing construction & design
Average length of 21 projects is 1487.5 LF/project.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives for surveying, engineering design,
permitting, preparation of assessment rolls, and public hearing
notification are presented:
Alternative No. 1
Surveying - At the present time, an existing vacancy in a
Party Chief position has limited in-house survey capabi-
lities. If the position is filled quickly, the County
Survey crews anticipate that the construction stake -out of
Florida Ridge Subdivision and Dixie Heights Subdivision (8.3
miles of roadway) would take approximately 9 months. Two
applicants for this position appear qualified, and we
anticipate hiring soon. These projects will consume 30% of
our surveying resources.
Unexpected projects have historically demanded 20% of the
crews time. Other scheduled projects will consume 40% of
the crews time. In the next 2 months, the County crews can
survey six of the above 21 projects. Since six of the above
projects have survey complete, there remains nine projects
that outside surveying is required. Staff recommends that
all surveying of the remaining nine projects be contracted
out to local consultants using our Continuing Contracts
already in effect. It is estimated that a typical project
would cost $2000 for outside surveying. For nine projects,
the estimated cost is $18,000 for surveying.
Engineering Design - Currently, the Dixie Heights Petition
Project is being designed in-house. It is projected that
this project will be complete June 30, 1989. This will
consume all of our design resources. As a result, staff
recommends that final design, stormwater permitting and
other permitting as necessary, summary of quantities, and
cost estimates be contracted out to local engineering firms
using our Continuing Master Agreements. It is- estimated
that engineering design for a typical project would cost as
follows:
Original layout & drafting 60 hrs. @ $35/hr =$2,100
Design by Project Engineer 40 hrs. @ $60/hr =$2,400
Permitting 24 hrs. @ $60/hr =$1,440
Contract Doc., Spec.,
Cost Est. Summary of Quantities
and Reimbursibles 16 hrs. @ $60/hr =$ 960
$6,900/
each project
58
'ask
For the 21 projects being considered, a total engineering
cost of $144,900 is estimated. If the work was performed by
County staff, the cost would be approx. $1,299 per project
or $27,279.
Assessment Roll Preparation/Resolution If the following
existing positions are filled
1 - Engineering Tech. II
1 - Engineering Tech I
1 - Cap. Project Manager
1 - Field Operations Manager
the assessment rolls and resolutions could be prepared by
staff. Public notifications (registered letter to each
property owner and legal ad to newspaper) could be performed
by County staff. The cost per project is $1,086.
Construction Stake Out - To be performed by Contractor
construction project. Estimated cost $1000 per typical
project.
Utility Sleeve Installation - This work will be included in
a construction contract. Estimated cost per project is
$1,280. This work has been performed by County crews in the
past, however, if the construction is to be contracted out,
this work should be included.
Final Construction - To expedite construction, staff pro-
poses to publicly bid all projects, with the construction
and stakeout to be performed by outside contract. For the
21 projects, the average County construction cost is $42,304
per project. The total contracted cost for all 21 projects
is estimated to be $1,066,060, which is 20% greater than the
County crews construction cost($888,383). The average
increased cost would be approximately $8,461 per project if
construction is contracted. For the 21 projects currently
being considered, the total increased cost would be
approximately $177,681 for contract construction.
Summary - Alternative 1 - The estimated increased cost per
typical project (based on average length) to expedite the
program is as follows:
County Staff County Staff Outside Services Total
Performing Consulting # of Projects Additional
All Work Services, and Cost
Contract Construction
surveying $ 556 $ 2,000 9 $ 18,000
.ngineering Design $ 1,299 $ 6,900 21 $117,621
assessment Roll Pre- $ 1,086 $ 1,086 0 $ -0-
preparation & Resolutions
:onstruction Stakeout $ 184 $ 1,000 21 $ 17,136
itility Sleeve $ 1,280 $ 1,280 21 $ -0-
Installation
:onstruction $42,304 $50,765 21 $177,681
typical 1,487.5LF $46,709 $63,031 $330,438
project)
The estimated assessments will increase from $11.78/Front Foot to
$15.89/Front Foot.
The total cost to expedite all 21 projects is $1,323,651.
59
R '�' 8e��a 76 r GE 648
1989
76d
�ooF ,!,U649
Time to Accomplish 21 Projects
If the County staff continues with the Petition Paving Program as
historically implemented, it is estimated that all 21 projects
could be complete by June 30, 1991 (Labor and Engineering by
County Crews).
If the above program is implemented using outside services, the
following schedule is anticipated:
May
30, 1989 - Receive Proposals from Consultants for
Engineering and Surveying
July 25, 1989
Dec.
- Assessment Rolls Complete
- Public Hearing process commences
30, 1989 - Design/Permitting Complete
Jan. 31, 1990
- Bids Received
Sept. 30, 1990 -
The above time
timely fashion.
including:
1) Consultants not completing work on time;
2) Since only a few contractors in the area are large
enough to handle 21 projects in an eight month
construction period, construction could take longer or
few bidders may respond.
3) The cost could exceed or be less than the estimated
costs above. If the costs are excessive, rebidding may
be necessary. Rising petroleum prices could inflate
the cost. -
4) Poor weather could delay the work.
Construction Complete
schedule assumes the work will progress in a
There are numerous items that could cause delays
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that staff be authorized to proceed with
negotiations for outside engineering services to implement the
contractual program outlined above. No funding is to be
considered until engineering contracts are prepared.
Commissioner Bird had questions about the petitions we
approve and those we turn down, and Director Davis noted that in
the case of some petitions that don't have 66.6% signatures, but
staff feels there was a majority of the people who owned
property, they believe these should be brought to the Board.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the Board can move ahead with
the paving whether we have the recommended percentage or not.
In discussion it was noted that the policy is 2/3 of either
the front footage or the number of property owners, but we have
varied from that.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that originally we required
100% in favor of the paving and then decreased the percentage to
60
75% and again to 66.6%, but the bottom line is that it has been
up to the discretion of the Board, and the Board consistently has
looked at the people who are impacted, and if a majority of them
want it, it has been up to the Board to approve it.
Commissioner Bird noted that, in any event, we do have a
public hearing, and Administrator Chandler confirmed that we
still follow the same procedure.
Commissioner Scurlock believed there are some projects where
they will not wish to be accelerated due to the cost.
Discussion continued about determining the facts at the
public hearing, and Commissioner Eggert noted that in some situa-
tions, such as Paradise Park, you have some really bad roads and
grading problems.
Director Davis advised that a few of these projects do not
have a petition at all, but staff has looked at the situation and
sometimes recommends special assessment paving.
Commissioner Scurlock inquired how long it takes Public
Works to run the grading route just in Paradise Park, for
instance, and Director Davis stated that it takes about a week.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to proceed with negotiations for outside
engineering services to implement the contractual
program outlined in the above memo dated April llth.
F.E.0 RAILWAY EASEMENT FOR NORTH COUNTY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
Utilities Director Pinto reviewed the following:
APR 18 1989
61
BOOK
[.,,E 65O
Pr -
APR 18 "1989
BOOK 76 F,1GE 651
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
MARCH 28, 1989
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PIN
DIRECTOR OF UTI V ERVICES
PREPARED AND
STAFFED BY: WILLIAM F. McCAIN
PROJECTS ENGINEE
SUBJECT: FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY (F.E.C.) EASEMENT
FOR THE NORTH COUNTY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
BACKGROUND:
We are currently involved in obtaining easements for the North
County Sewer Collection System. There are several locations where
the collection system crosses the F.E.C. Railway.
ANALYSIS:
When easements are required from the F.E.C. Railway, Easement
Agreements must be entered into. The F.E.C. has agreed to give the
necessary easements at a nominal yearly fee for maintenance, etc.
(see attached copy of the agreement).
RECOMMENDATIONS: 4 -
The
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the signing of the F.E.C. Easement
Agreement. We also recommend that this item be put on the Consent
Agenda.
Commissioner Bird noted that the Agreement was not submitted
with the backup, and Director Pinto explained that the agreements
are very thick, and a copy was supplied to the Board office for
anyone who wished to see one.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the
Chairman to sign the F.E.C. Easement Agreements as
recommended by staff.
FULLY SIGNED LICENSE AGREEMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD.
62
BRADY LAWSUIT AND SETTLEMENT OFFER
Assistant County Attorney Collins reviewed the following
memo:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: ChareN. Vitunac - County Attorney
FROM: William G. Collins 11 - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: April 12, 1989
SUBJECT: Brady Lawsuit and Settlement Offer
On March 27, 1989 the County was sued by Kenneth and Mae
Brady for inverse condemnation. The suit arises out of an
agreement to reserve right-of-way for the widening of 4th
Street prior to the issuance of a building permit. Such
reservations were a requirement of a County ordinance which
was in effect for the first half of 1988 until the County
Commission suspended its operation upon the recommendation
of the County Attorney's Office.
ANALYSIS:
There are a number of cases in the Fourth District Court of
Appeal holding that reservation agreements for future road
widening are invalid and unenforceable. The Supreme Court
of Alabama has held that unless a local government decided
to abandon the reservation, the property owner is entitled
to compensation, and that should the local government
abandon the reservation, the property owner would still be
entitled to compensation for a period during which the
reservation existed. This is consistent with the United
States Supreme Court holding in First English Evangelical
Church "that where the government's activities have already
worked a taking of all use of property, no subsequent action
by the government can relieve it of the duty to provide
compensation for the period during which the taking was
effective." (emphasis added)
It may be arguable whether the reservation agreement denied
the Bradys of "all use" of their property, and the Supreme
Court also stated in First English "that in the context of
condemnation proceedings, a taring does not occur until
compensation is determined and paid, and ... a reduction or
increase in the value of property may occur by reason of
legislation for or the beginning or completion of a project,
but such changes in value are incidents of ownership. They
cannot be considered as a 'taking' in the constitutional
sense."
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The County can release the reservation and probably
argue successfully that no taking has occurred. This would
essentially be a no-win situation for all parties. The
Bradys would take nothing, the County would take nothing,
and the legal expenses could mount, and the property will
ultimately need to be acquired.
APR 1 19U9
63
[ AS, c E
6K ( ", 6
PO2
APR 1E 1989
boor 76 PACE 653
2. The County can answer and fight the lawsuit, with
questionable prospects and mounting legal expenses. Should
the County lose an action for an inverse condemnation, it
will be liable for the prevailing party's attorney's fees.
3. The County can settle the lawsuit through acquisition of
the property. Public Works Director Davis has indicated
that the right-of-way reserved will ultimately be needed for
the widening of 4th Street, and that the funding is
available to acquire the property. Right -of -Way Acquisition
Agent Don Finney and I have reviewed an appraisal of the
property done by Armfield-Wagner which valued the Toss at
$9,515.00. Through negotiations with Mr. Finney, the
Bradys, and their attorney, we have arrived at what we feel
is a fair purchase price of $8,500.00. However, the Bradys
are also requesting attorney's fees in the amount of
$3,871.50 and court costs in the amount of $86.50, an
appraisal cost of $350.00 which brings the total settlement
amount to $12,808.00.
4. The County is liable for court costs and appraisal costs
if a taking is found. We would also be liable for
reasonable attorney's fees. I do not feel that the
attorney's fees requested are reasonable. For example,
there is a 1.2 hour charge to review an Armfield letter and
County Attorney's correspondence which amounted to a total
of 3 pages. A settlement phone call that lasted 5-10
minutes is listed on time sheets as hour. The lawsuit is
approximately 5 pages in length. I feel a reasonable fee
for the work done in this case and the settlement
negotiations may be $900.00 based on the time involved.
When civil actions are settled before the answer, an
appropriate attorney's fee may be 1/3 of the benefit to the
client, which in this case would be $2,833.33. However,
almost $4,000.00 in attorney's fees does not seem reasonable
to me. A settlement of $8,500.00 for the property and
damages incurred, plus $2,833.33 for attorney's fees, $86.50
for court costs, and $350.00 for the appraisal fee would be
reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Offer to purchase the Brady property for $8,500.00, and
$2,833.33 in attorney's fees, plus $350.00 for the
appraisal, and $86.50 for costs, or
2) If this is not acceptable to the Bradys, offer to
purchase the land and go to hearing to determine attorney's
fees.
Attorney Collins advised that the Attorney's Office has
recommended that we not enforce the ordinance because they had
questions about its Constitutionality. He noted they are
recommending settlement of the suit, and the only issue he had
difficulty with was the amount of attorney's fees which Mr.
Petersen is asking. There were some charges he did not feel are
reasonable, and he felt a reasonable fee should be about $1,000
less. We have the option of settling the suit but going to court
on the attorney's fees.
64
Commissioner Bird commended Attorney Collins for scrutin-
izing the fees and for his comments, but Commissioner Scurlock
noted that we must pay even more if this goes to court.
Attorney Russell Petersen came before the Board and
commended Attorney Collins for trying to expedite this matter and
settle the case. He advised that his clients have incentive to
settle as Mr. Brady is dying of cancer. This is the only
property they own, and he would like to remove the Brady's from
this as quickly as possible. Attorney Petersen suggested that
moving forward with the suit would expose the county to
additional fees. He advised that he did turn a lot of the work
over to a paralegal and his associate to try to get the fee down,
and he does feel the $3,800 is already a compromise. Mr.
Petersen spoke of his possible incentives to go to court, but
stressed that he would like to settle this today.
Chairman Wheeler asked if Attorney Peterson would agree to
split the difference, and he answered yes.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED.
by Commissioner Eggert, to approve the staff recommen-
dation to purchase the Brady property for $8,500 and
split the difference in the attorney's fees, making it
$2,833.33 plus $500 plus $86.50 for court costs and $350
for the appraisal fee, or a total of $3,769.83.
Commissioner Bird commented that even based on Attorney
Petersen's top fee of $120 an hour, a $3,800 fee would represent
about 30 hours of legal work, and he wondered if it is reasonable
to assume that many hours were spent.
Attorney Peterson explained the situation where the grid for
roads took part of the Brady's property and they could not use it
and the problems they encountered in getting site plan approval.
Commissioner Bird noted that he had no problem with the
Brady's position, only with Attorney Petersen's fees.
65
APR 18 tlS8Y
mor 76 tJ J'±
APR 18 '989
BOOK l F [ 655
Attorney Petersen explained that the reason for the fees is
that there were no cases you could rely on at the time; so, it
was agreed to back off for a while. If the county had agreed
with his position in the beginning and settled, his fees would
have been much less.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried, 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Bird voting in opposition.
Attorney Collins felt that this case points out a larger
problem. There are others in a similar situation who entered
into reservation agreements with the county while this ordinance
was in effect, and while some may be willing to set their houses
4.
back from the R/W line, they may not be able to meet setback
requirements. He, therefore, felt we should go back and review
the ones we have entered into this reservation agreement with,
and if Public Works Director Davis says we need those R/Ws now,
we should purchase them or else we should sign releases so we are
not faced with random lawsuits. Attorney Collins did not feel
our position is defensible in court; so, he would like to have
authorization for staff to develop a list of all property owners
who have entered into reservation agreements for R/W above and
beyond our minimum standards, and then staff can review them to
see which we want to purchase and which to release and bring that
back to the Board.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to proceed as requested by Attorney Collins and
described above.
66
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board unanimously adjourned at 11:40
o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
APR 18 1989
67
Chairman
BOCK
1 . h
[An u5 .i)