HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/2/1989Tuesday, May 2, 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,
May 2, 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.
David C. Lord, Pastor, Trinity Episcopal Church, gave the
invocation, and County Attorney Vitunac led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Wheeler advised that he wished to add the following
items to the Agenda:
1) Discussion of Joint City/County Meeting proposed to be held on
May 18th to be added under the Administrator's matters as 8A.
2) Two Resolutions needed for the closing on the FmHA loans to
be added under the County Attorney's matters as 10B.
3) Request by Supervisor of Elections for Resolution opposing
House Bill 1529 and Senate Bill 499 to be added under
the Chairman's matters as 12A (1).
4) Request by Commissioner Eggert to add a report on the
Volunteer Ambulance Squads under her matters as 12B (2).
Commissioner Bird advised that he wished to add a report on
the South County Park under his matters, and Commissioner
Scurlock wished to add under his matters discussion re scheduling
a workshop with the Sheriff to go over his budget numbers.
SAY 21999
P10QK v-11 U FACE �1 c
r
MAY 2 1989
BOOK 1 H.Gf.I.7�7,
Chairman Wheeler informed the Board that the applicant
requesting a Resolution for Licensure of Family Day Care Homes
has asked that item 7A(2) be removed from the agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added the
items requested above to the agenda and deleted
item 7A(2).
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Bird asked that Item H be removed from the
Consent Agenda for discussion.
A. Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 11, 1989
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 11, 1989.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 11,
1989, as written.
B. Out -of -County Travel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
out -of -County travel for Board Administrative Aide
Liz Forlani to attend the Florida Women in Govern-
ment Conference to be held at Hotel Intercontinental,
at Miami June 13-17, 1989.
2
C. Change of Use of Budgeted Capital Expense - BCC
The Board reviewed memo from Administrative Aide Forlani:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Liz Forlani, Administrative Aide
RE: Change of Use of Budgeted 1988/89 Capital Expense
.DATE: May 2, 1989
In the 19.88/89 Capital Outlay budget a Cannon
Microfilm camera was budgeted in the amount of $4,000. I do
not feel that the amount of microfilming for the year 1988
justifies buying a camera. I would like to recommend at
this time, that we have our microfilming done by an outside
company instead of buying a camera and doing it in-house.
Richard Woodard, Clerk's office sent a proposal,
of approximately $1,100.
Accurate Microfilm Services, Inc. submitted a
proposal of $900. This company did our microfilming last
year and we were very satisfied with the results.
I would like to recommend that we contract with
Accurate Microfilm Services, Inc. do the 1988 microfilming.
In addition, with the approximately $3,000
remaining in this Capital account I would like authorization
to purchase 2 Marantz Tape Recorder to replace two that we
have that have been giving us trouble and 1 Transcriber.
Purchase of these items would total out to about $800.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the
change of use of budgeted capital expense as set
out in the above memo dated May 2, 1989.
D. Proclamation - Teacher Appreciation Week
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously designated
the week of May 14 through May 20 as TEACHER APPRECI-
ATION WEEK.
3
MAY 21999
tkooK 76 PAGE /30
P R O C L A M A T I O N
j
BOOK Fd
WHEREAS, a strong, effective system of free public
education for all children and youth is essential to our
democratic system of government; and
WHEREAS, the Indian River County School system has made
considerable progress in the social, technological and scientific
fields due to our system of free and universal public education;
and
WHEREAS, much of this progress can be attributed to the
qualified and dedicated teachers entrusted with educational
development of our ch}ldren and their full potentials; and
WHEREAS, teachers should be accorded• high public
esteem, reflecting the value that the community places on public
education; and
WHEREAS, it _is appropriate that teachers be recognized
for their dedication and commitment to educating their students;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of
May 14 through May 20,1989 be designated as
TEACHER APPRECIATION WEEK
in Indian River County, Florida, and the Board urges all citizens
to pay tribute to our public school teachers.
Adopted May 2, 1989
4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Gary C _e heeler, Chairman
E. Release of Easement - Tropical Village Est. (Hubis)
The Board reviewed memo from Code Enforcement Officer Heath:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert 4eat'n , A C.P.
Community Development Director
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois
Chief, Environmental Planning
��7/
FROM: Charles W. Heathe
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: April 13, 1989
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY:
ANDREW B. & TERESA K. HUBIS
1826 DALLON AVENUE N.W.
PALM BAY, FLORIDA 32907
SUBJECT PROPERTY: LOTS 12 & 14,
BLOCK 11, TROPICAL VILLAGE ESTATES
SUBDIVISION UNIT No. 2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of May 02, 1989.
..,DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Andrew B. & Teresa K. Hubis,
owners of the subject property, for the release of the common
three (3) foot side lot utility and drainage easements of Lots 12
& 14, being the southerly three. (3) feet of Lot 12 and the
northerly three (3) feet of Lot 14, Block 11, Tropical Village
Estates Subdivision Unit No. 2, Section 00, Township 31, Range 37
East, Indian River County, Florida; according to the Plat thereof
as recorded in Plat Book 05, Page 65, of the Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida. It is the Petitioner's intention to
construct a single-family dwelling on the property.
The current zoning classification of the property is RS -6, Sin-
gle -Family Residential District. The Land Use Designation is
LD -2, Low Density Residential, allowing up to six (6) units per
acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell Telephone Company,
Florida Power and Light Company, Falcon Cable Company, and the
Indian River County Utilities, Road & Bridge Division, and the
Engineering Division. Based upon their reviews there were no
objections to.the release of the common side lot easements. Staff
analysis indicates there would be no adverse impact to utilities
being supplied to the subject property.
Ay 19 5 BOOK . � cE � �
MAY 21999
I RECOMMENDATION:
BOOKf 6 FgL 3,
Staff recommends to the Board, through the adoption of a resolu-
tion, the release of the common three (3) foot side lot utility
and drainage easements of Lots 12 & 14, being the southerly three
(3) feet of Lot 12, and northerly three (3) feet of Lot 14, Block
1, Tropical Village Estates Subdivision Unit No. 2, Section 24,
Tqhnship 31, Range 37 East, Plat Book 05, Page 65, of the RebQrds of Indian River County, Florida.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted Reso-
lution 89-43 approving release of the common 3' side
lot utility and drainage easements of Lots 12 and 14,
Block 11, Tropical Village Estates Subdv, as re-
quested by Andrew and Teresa Hubis.
below, and
RESOLUTION NO. 89-43
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING CERTAIN
EASEMENTS ON LOTS 12 AND 14, BLOCK 11, OF TROPICAL
VILLAGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION, UNIT NO. 2
WHEREAS, Indian River County has easements as described
WHEREAS, the retention of those easements serves no
public purpose,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
This release of easement is executed by Indian River
County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida,
whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach; Florida,
32960, Grantor, ''to Andrew B. Hubis & Teresa K. Hubis, his wife,
their successors in interest, heirs and assigns, whose mailing
address is 1826 Dallon Avenue N.W. Palm Bay, Florida 32907 Grant-
ee, as follows:
Indian River County does hereby abandon all right,
title, and interest that it may have in the following described
easements:
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERE TO AND
INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Bird , seconded by Commissioner
Eggert , and adopted on the 2nd day of
May , 19 89 , by the following vote;
s
6
Commissioner Wheeler
Commissioner Bowman
Commissioner Bird
Commissioner Eggert
Commissioner Scurlock
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Chairman there upon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 2nd , day of May , 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By-Z"V
Gary.W Whee er
Chairb6n
EXHIBIT "A"
The southerly three (3) feet of Lot 12 and the northerly
three (3) feet of Lot 14, Block 11, Tropical Village Estates
Subdivision Unit No. 2, according to the Plat thereof, as
recorded in Plat Book 05, Page 65, of the Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida, Section 24, Township 31 South,
Range 37 East.
F. Budget Amendment #070 - Premelter & Pavement Marker
The Board reviewed memo from the OMB Director:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: April 20, 1989
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT 070 -
THERMOPLASTIC PREMELTER AND
PAVEMENT MARKER 1987/88
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Board of County Commissioners authorized the award of Bid #
443, a Thermoplastic Premelter and Pavement Marker from Pavemark
Corporation on August 2, 1988. Funding was in the 1987/88 fiscal
year budget; however, the equipment was not delivered until
October 1988 requiring the asset to be accounted for in the
1988/89 fiscal year. The attached budget amendment appropriates
funding in the 1988/89 fiscal year.
Staff recommends that the Board approve Budget Amendment 070.
MAY 1989
4
MAY �9�9
BOOK .76 P' ,UL 35
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved Budget
Amendment #070 appropriating funding as described
above.
TO: Members of the Board SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
of County Commissioners
NUMBER: 050
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DATE: April 20. 1989
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
REVENUE
ROAD & BRIDGE/Traffic Eng.
Cash Forward
111-000-389-040.00
S20.000-00
S 0
ROAD & BRIDGE/Traffic Eng.
Other Machine & Eguipment
111-245-541-066.49
$20,000-00
0
G. South 6th Ave. Sewer Easement - (Citrus Woods Apts., Ltd.)
The Board reviewed memo from Lea Keller of the County
Attorney's Office:
TO: Board of County Commissioners -
E� �2 - 44A1& -AJ
FROM: Lea R. Keller, County Attorney's Office
DATE: April 21, 1989
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - B.C.C. MEETING 5/2/89
SOUTH SIXTH AVENUE SEWER EASEMENT
CITRUS WOODS APARTMENTS, LTD.
The County Utilities Department t is in theP rocess of
acquiring easements for the installation of a sewer line on
South Sixth Avenue.
In connection with thisj
roect it is necessary ry to acquire
an easement from Citrus Woods Apartments, Inc. The attorney
for this property owner rewrote the standard County form of
ease "
easement to include some special language, i.e., Grantee
[County] b acceptance Y Y P tance
hereof, agrees re a to air and
P
maintain, at its sole cost and expense, all of the
improvements located on the easement area necessary to
provide utility service to the benefited property," and made
a place on the easement document for the County to accept
these terms by signing the easement. Mr. William McCain,
the utility engineer, agreed with this proposed language and
said that it is their usual procedure to do as it states
anyway. Mr. Vitunac has approved the rewritten easement for
form and legal sufficiency.
Therefore, staff recommends and requests that the Board
execute the easement on behalf of the County so that we can
proceed with this special assessment sewer project.
8
® r r
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized the
Chairman to execute Grant of Easement with Citrus
Woods Apartments, Ltd., as recommended by staff.
COPY OF SAID GRANT OF EASEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK
TO THE BOARD.
H. Purchase of Computer & Printer - OMB Office
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Baird:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: April 26, 1989
SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF COMPUTER AND PRINTER
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT"AND BUDGET
FROM: Joseph A. Ba
OMB Director
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS
As a result of a personnel addition, we are -now in a situation where
people outnumber computers in the Office of Management and Budget
office. All four of us require constant access to the units for both
generation of reports and information retrieval from the mainframe.
Presently my unit is sitting on the new budget analyst's desk, leaving
me with no way to access information in a convenient, efficient
manner. I have been forced to take over my staff's work areas as I
require computer time, creating both an annoying break in
concentration from them, and a _definite interruption in work flow
during that period.
A second problem impeding our output relates to the lack of printers
.in our office. The nature of budget's paperwork requires a great deal
of high quality printing. The one unit capable of meeting this
requirement cannot -handle the entire volume of reports and
correspondence we generate on an average day. A letter quality
printer would not only relieve this burden, but would free our units
enough to allow us to create graphic presentation for both the
county's budget and other reports as needed. The cost of a new PC
would be approximately $5,000.00; a quality printer would cost about
$1,700.00.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve a budget
amendment transferring funds in the amount of $6,700.00 from General
Fund Contingency to purchase a personal computer and printer.
MAY 199 9 Door FrcE:
Bou d r6 Fr9�L 1p�
�`��Y 1999
Commissioner Bird commented that he is not denying the need
for a computer for the OMB office, but he did hope that the
Administrator can get a good handle on assessing the need for all
of these computers and see if we possibly can free up any
computers for sharing in some way.
Administrator Chandler informed the Board that he has looked
at this request, and with the workload they have and their use,
there is no question that there is a need in this particular area
at this time. He did agree, however, that there is a need for an
overall coordinated approach on data processing so we can get on
a more cost effective basis.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that actually as you look
into this situation, you will find that most of the typewriters
in the county.have been replaced with small computers and
printers. He felt that at some point, however, there should be
some sort of central pool concept where we can fully utilize our
computers because not every computer is in use all the time every
day. He noted that right this year with the dollars we have
approved for computers for the Property Appraiser, the Sheriff,
the Supervisor of Elections, plus the funds in Utilities budget
and the $350,000 we recently agreed to set aside, we are seeing
requests in the range of $500,000.
It was suggested that this discussion be continued under the
next item, which is the Clerk's request for a computer.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved Budget
Amendment #074 transferring $6,700 from General
Fund Contingency as requested by the OMB Director.
10
W
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director 1k
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 074
DATE: April -26, 1989
Entry
Number
Funds De artment Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Budget
Office Furniture & Ecruipment
001-229-513-066.41
S 6,700.00
S 0
R serve for contingency
001-199-581-099.91
0
S 6.700.00
COMPUTER PURCHASE - CLERK TO THE BOARD
Clerk Barton came before the Board to review his request
which is set out in the following memo:
JEFFREY K. BARTON
Clerk of Circuit Court
P. O. Box 1028
Vero Beach, Florida 32961-1028
To:
From:
T1rLq@brie&e .49916gp§9A§No
The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk of the Circuit Court
Subject: Computer Purchase
I am requesting the purchase of an IBM AS/400 to
replace the IBM System 38 computer.
When the System 38 was purchased in 1980, I anticipated
a useful life of seven to ten years. Over the last
nine years, many different applications have been put
on the System 38 such as building permits and inspections,
fleet management, purchasing, personnel, Board minutes
index, recording index, criminal court, traffic court,
child support, budget, welfare, probation and jury
selection. Presently, we have one hundred fifty
devices attached to the System 38 and anticipate
adding another twenty to thirty devices over the next
eighteen months. The System 38 has been expanded to
its maximum capability in terms of response time and
is close to the maximum capacity for storage of infor-
mation. The need for additional storage is critical
and it would cost approximately $26,000.00 to add more
storage to the System 38. I do not feel that
increasing the capacity of the System 38 is a wise use
of County funds.
MAY Boor FSU 1,30
BOOK 7
IBM has ceased to provide updates for the System 38 and
I believe that they will eventually cease to provide
technical suport for the System 38.
Presently, the Sheriff, the Supervisor of Elections and
the Circuit Court Judges are using the IBM AS/400 and
the Property Appraiser will have an IBM AS/400
installed in the next few months.
Because of the capacity constraints of the System 38,
the potential lack of technical support for the System
38, and my desire for all computers in the County to be
able to.communicate with each other, I am requesting
$440,000.00 to purchase an IBM AS/400 Model 60. The
IBM AS/400 Model 60 will have 64,000 bytes of memory,
which will significantly increase our response time,
and sufficient capacity to meet our needs for the next
eighteen months.
Clerk Barton stated that he is here today to try to relay
the needs within the Clerk's office, where they are today and
where they are heading with the System 38. The basic problem is
storage capacity. He then reviewed the history of purchasing the
System 38, noting that it started off with a straight lease and
then went to purchase. It was originally intended that the
technology of that particular machinery would last between 7 and
10 years. The System 38 was installed in 1980 and paid for in
Federal Revenue Sharing money, and we are now in year 9 and
running at 91% of the storage capacity in the machine. Mr.
Barton, stated that in his opinion, and the opinion of those who
work in Data Processing, when you work above 80% dedication of
your storage space, you should look for an expansion or
alternative. The expansion they would need to keep going on a
short term basis costs $26,000 for hardware and another $24,000
to pay off some things tied to the existing machine, and he felt
that would only last them 11 years at the most, at which point,
they would have a machine they cannot upgrade to the technology
that is out there.
Clerk Barton then passed out the following list of every
application that is presently stored on the System 38:
12
LIBRARY NAME
BYTES
PERCENT
Recording
613,046,784
21.29
Civil
206,541,824
7,17
Criminal
137,221,120
4,77
Building
107,246,080
3.73
Utilities
142,940,672
4.96
Traffic
382,962,688
13.30
Support
137,152,512
4.76
Probation
206,541,824
7.17
Jury
43,907,072
1.53
Voter's List
6,430,208
.22
System
224,365,292
7.79
Fleet
28,867,072
1.00
Payroll
35,594,240
1.24
Sheriff
25,381,376
,88
Budget
10,000,896
.35
Minutes Index
10,656,768
.37
Court Payroll
13,425,152
,47
Fixed Assets
18,876,416
.66
Purchasing
46,136,240
1.60
Welfare
10,561,024
,37
Landfill
12,134,524
.42
Vehicle Maintenance
28,618,752
.99
Accounting - current
yr 94,408,704
3.28
Accounting - previous
yr 68,057,088
2.36
Test
1,025,536
.04
90.73
Total bytes available
2,879,000,000
The Clerk noted that the largest applications are Recording
and Traffic. The applications on the system that are Board
applications are the Building Department, Utilities, Probation,
Fleet Management, Budget Office, Purchasing, Welfare, and
Landfill. If he took everyone of those applications off the
system, they represent only 190 of the dedication, and he still
has a problem.
Commissioner Bird asked if the Clerk hadn't explained that
he really couldn't take these applications off completely cause
of the responsibility the Clerk's Office has, and Mr. Barton
confirmed that a certain portion of all of these still would
remain because of the accounting part of it.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that 910 of the total ability is
already consumed, and if you took Landfill and Utilities off, it
would amount to something less than 5% because you still have to
MAY13
BOOK I PAVE
��
4
��M
BOOK F�} F,ti, E 14.E
maintain part of that. He believed he has given the Clerk a
personal commitment that he does support the System 400 for the
Clerk's office, but he felt the timing they were looking at was
to fully utilize this resource as long as we can and be sure that
we have planned so that when we get to the point where the
decision has to be made, the 400 would be ready to come on line
for the Clerk's office. His only question is whether right now
is the time we have to make the decision or do we have a year or
6 months.
Clerk Barton advised that IBM is saying it would take 30-45
days to get the System 400 physically in house, and then you
start the switching of the applications from the one computer to
the other. He informed the Board that he has in his budget
enough money to pay the lease payment if we go on a lease/
purchase for the balance of this fiscal year, and then we can
address at budgettime whether the Board wants to pay it off or to
continue with the lease. The lease/purchase is about $8,700 a
month or $104,400 a year.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if there is any value left in
the System 38, and Mr. Barton commented that because of the
timing to start transfer, you really can't put a today value on
it, but in talking to IBM, he has gotten the impression that it
would be worth more by the piece than for resale as a system.
Commissioner Scurlock inquired about any impact on the
Clerk's staffing level as he understands it is hard to get
programmers for the 38. Mr. Barton confirmed that it is hard to
get programmers because it is in the language of an RPG3, which
is what we have been using. He advised that he specifically has
asked for the System 400 with compilers so it can talk in dual
language - RPG3 and COBOL - so they would be much more flexible
in the future both from the development standpoint or the buying
of package programs. He noted that most of the Clerk's office is
computerized at this point (about 990) - they just must face
whatever changes the Legislature makes.
14
Chairman Wheeler asked if we owe money on the System 38, and
Clerk Barton confirmed that we owe probably about $40,000, but
part of that is salvageable. Most of it is the power supply
source which we have so that in case the lights blink, etc., we
will have no problem with the computer, and that will stay no
matter what machine we have.
Commissioner Scurlock asked about the money the Board
recently authorized for the new links to the Courthouse, and
Clerk Barton explained that is the cabling between the County
buildings, and that will still be needed.
Chairman Wheeler stated that he would like to turn this over
to the Administrator to do an in depth analysis of what the Board
needs and what the Clerk needs, Utilities, etc., and come back
with a recommendation as to what direction we should be heading.
With the addition of this computer for the Clerk, we will be
spending about 1# million for computers just in the last year or
two. The Chairman noted that he talked to the Clerk a month or
two ago and was told there were about 2-3 years left. He also
talked to former Data Processing Manager Hylton before he left,
and he stated there was 3 to 5 years left in the System. The
Chairman noted that he is not all that familiar with computers,
and he, therefore, wants an in depth analysis as he does not feel
comfortable approving half a million dollars at this point
without knowing that we are doing the right thing.
Commissioner Eggert felt there is no doubt that the Clerk
needs to have adequate computer service, and she did not see that
he has 3 years left if it is at 90% capacity now.
Chairman Wheeler noted that he has been getting conflicting
stories about what is left in capacity, and he would like to have
someone do an analysis who can look look at our whole County
system objectively and tell us what we need.
Commissioner Eggert understood the Chairman's concern with
all the different entities and departments that are asking for
their own computers.
' S
MAY 2 1989 BOOK 76 74
800K .76 Fid, 74,E
MAY 21989
Clerk Barton stressed that his big problem is two areas
which just continue to grow and you must keep those records on
line; you don't wipe them out each year - that is Recording and
Traffic.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know how long the 38 could
continue to function before we would have to make the purchase
if we could say right now that we could relieve the Clerk's total
load 10%.
Clerk Barton believed the way all areas are growing, that in
6 months, he will be at 100%; so, even with removing 10%, he
would be right back where he is now.
Discussion continued, and Commissioner Scurlock believed
what the Chairman is getting at is valid. He did not feel the 5
Commissioners have the in depth knowledge necessary to make a
decision today, but should let Administrator Chandler work with
Mr. Barton to study this and come back with a timely
recommendation either to purchase it or say we don't have enough
facts and we need some analysis outside of the county.
Administrator Chandler advised that he has met with Clerk
Barton briefly, and he has no question that the Clerk has needs
and we do also, but he has not had time to assess what the
overall needs are and how they come together. When he first came
to the county, he had believed that he would not have to address
computers until after this year's budget, but with all that has
come up on this subject recently, he realizes that it will be
necessary to move up the priority to get into this study.
Commissioner Bird commented that in talking to all the Con-
stitutionals and department heads over the years, it has become
very apparent there is no way we can go to one computer for the
whole county. It is obvious there are major needs that need to
be satisfied, however, and he felt the main thing is to get them
computer systems that will do their job but that have the ability
16
to talk to each other so they can share information. Apparently
they need different systems or different models.
Clerk Barton agreed, but noted that he is telling the Board
that he has a need; it is immediate. There are two choices - how
do we want to pay for it - time payments or cash. He stressed
that he has the ability as a Constitutional Officer to ascertain
what he needs both to operate his office and to do what he has to
do on the Board's behalf.
Commissioner Bird believed we can address how to pay for it
at budgettime; he felt what the Clerk is asking today is for the
Board to say yes or not to the acquisition of the computer.
Administrator Chandler commented that he had assumed there
was a third alternative, and that is to spend money for the short
range expansion of the existing system. However, the question is
whether that is cost effective.
Clerk Barton advised that he does have the money currently
in the budget to accomplish that alternative, but he personally
does not feel that it is cost effective for anyone.
Discussion continued regarding the percentage that could be
removed from the 38 and then the question of what computer you
shift those applications to.
Commissioner Scurlock believed that at least one thing
finally has been settled and that is that he does not hear any
discrepancy that the System 400 is the hardware to go to. We
seem to be headed in that direction, and the question is how many
and where.
Administrator Chandler felt the question also is whether
going that way with the Clerk meet all our needs or are we going
to need our own System 400 in addition.
Mr. Barton pointed out that if the Board is talking about
their own computer, they have to staff it also.
Discussion continued at length regarding the possible
extension of the life of the 38. Chairman Wheeler contended that
the Clerk could
increase his storage capacity 40o
with
the
MAY 6
17 BOOK
76
74
Ay 2 1989 mor 16 l
$26,000 addition, and further noted if that would last 18 months,
$26,000 is not a lot of money compared to the interest we would
be losing on $440,000. Also, that extension would give us more
time to decide the direction we are going.
Commissioner Scurlock believed Mr. Barton is saying that
whether it is today or tomorrow, he will be wanting a 400, and
Chairman Wheeler emphasized that he would rather see it tomorrow.
Commissioner Bird asked if the need for Utilities, Public
Works, etc., to have their own computer would be eliminated if
the Clerk had the 400.
Clerk Barton stated they would have the ability to come on
that machine. The key to their application would be type of
program they were buying or were going to have developed.
Commissioner Bird believed Utilities Director Pinto had told
him that he needed to have his own 400 within his department.
Director Pinto informed the Board that the Clerk's 400 will
not run engineering; it will be necessary to have sub level
computers. He stressed there is no way to get around that, but
they will store on the Clerk's machine.
Clerk Barton agreed that the user department is more
familiar with their data and what they need from it. If they
have a smaller subsystem, they can do some of the application and
then send it up to the host system for storage. There are
smaller versions of the 400 that hook into the larger version and
also you can go from one to the other, and he believed that is
where we are heading.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the real answer is that you
will see a number of System 400s throughout the county, and the
Clerk wants one for his needs no matter who else has one.
The Chairman continued to stress the importance of getting
the fullest use out of the 38 and the need for an in depth
analysis and compared it to deciding to buy a new car while there
are still miles left in the old one.
18
Commissioner Bird asked the Administrator what kind of time
we are anticipating for him to come back with an analysis, and
Administrator Chandler felt to study the Clerk's need would take
around 30 days, but the overall study would take longer.
Commissioner Bird asked Mr. Barton if he could live with the
expansion, and Clerk Barton replied that he could live with it,
but he preferred to make the change because of the new technology
that will be more responsive not only to his needs but to the
Board's needs.
Considerable discussion ensued. Commissioner Eggert agreed
with the concern about getting the most out of the 38, but felt
we are only kidding ourselves because it seems the need is here.
The Chairman noted that you get so many conflicting stories,
and since he is not an expert, he wished to have the analysis.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to try a Motion.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, to authorize staff to work with
Clerk Barton to come up with an answer to his particular
dilemma, but since we are past the middle of the budget,
he would like to see any program implemented in the next
budget year, including Utilities.
Commissioner Bird agreed with the Motion except that we
already have the money budgeted for the computer for Utilities in
this year.
Administrator Chandler believed that is only the software.
Director Pinto stated that is not correct. It is budgeted
for hardware and software, and the reason they budgeted it is
because there are certain things the 38 and 400 won't do and
shouldn't do; they are engineering type things. He noted they
are not worried about whether the Clerk has room on the 38. The
fact is that the program that is on there won't work and it is
crippling Utilities.
19
say
boos 6 F{GE:-14t`
AY
BOOK
76f�c�74
7
Clerk Barton agreed that program is a mess.
It was
a
package that was developed in-house and put together by 5
different people over a span of 3 years. It did not have any
documentation as to what it should do, and Mr. Hylton spent
probably 700 of his time trying to patch that program to make it
work.
Director Pinto further informed the Board that, according to
the RFPs they received on the programs for Utilities, they
actually want $12,000 more to program for the 38 than the 400.
That machine is a thing of the past.
Commissioner Eggert thought Utilities had said they wanted
to get a 400, and now it seems that Mr. Pinto is saying that
engineering does not work on a 400.
Director Pinto explained that the 400 is designed as a
business computer. He pointed out that Public Works Director
Davis has another element for his engineering that goes between
him and the 400; he just uses the 400 for storage. Mr. Pinto
emphasized that Utilities must have a sub level computer and then
only send up to the Clerk's computer the information they want
stored.
Public Works Director Davis informed the Board that what
Director Pinto is talking about is called networking whereby you
have a hierarchy of computers, and the one at the top comes down
and networks with a P.C. or some smaller unit to do the applica-
tions. Director Davis concurred that they are getting away from
the 38 for this purpose, and he believed what we probably should
come up with is a master networking plan for the county.
Commissioner Scurlock stressed that we are 8 months into the
budget already and the analysis will take some time; so, you are
talking the end of the budget year. He felt we should take this
over into the budget when we can all feel comfortable with it'.
Commissioner Eggert felt if it was proven that someone had a
definite major need now, that option still should be left open.
20
Commissioner Bird agreed. He stated that if the Adminis-
trator's analysis shows that it looks like someone needs these
computers and they already have it in their budget and RFPs have
gone out, he would hate to see it automatically get delayed into
the next year regardless of what we do with Mr. Barton on the big
computer.
Commissioner Eggert noted that she would find it easier to
vote on a Motion that just says we will study this rather than
that we will go to the next budget year on it.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT IF THE BOARD WILL FEEL
MORE COMFORTABLE, HE WILL REMOVE FROM HIS MOTION THE ABSOLUTE
THAT WE WAIT UNTIL NEXT BUDGET YEAR AND JUST SAY THAT STAFF HAS
THE ABILITY TO ANALYZE THIS SITUATION AND COME BACK WITH A
RECOMMENDATION IN A TIMELY FASHION.
COMMISSIONER BOWMAN CONCURRED AND RENEWED HER SECOND.
.THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION ON THE MOTION AMENDED
AS STATED ABOVE.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
SHERIFF'S REQUEST FOR FUNDS FOR ACCREDITATION
Undersheriff Roy Raymond came before the Board and advised
that at the Meeting of April 18th the Commission had asked for
additional information on the standards to be met, policies,
etc., plus the video tape, and a package was provided to them.
In addition, the following memo sets out a scaled down fee amount
of $13,775, instead of $14,500, which would apply on a two -
payment plan, and the remaining figures cost out the equipment
and supplies that would be required.
21
BOCK 76 r,%; 748
S4jeriff'
P.O. BOX 608
PHONE 568-6700
BOO
R.T. "TIM" DOBECK • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32961.0608
TO: Un rsheriff y Raymond
FROM:J;ox
S t. Ga Get h 11
DATE: April 26, 1989
RE: ACCREDITATION BUDGET
As per your request I have revised the Accreditation Budget to be more
specific (see attached).
On the Accreditation fee, I contacted Mr. Frank J. Leaky Jr., Director
of Headquarters Operatiorfs, Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies on Thursday, April 20, 1989 regarding the actual
amount. He advised the formula used in determining this figure is; the
amount of full time sworn law enforcement officers, plus full time
support staff, excluding Corrections. This leaves us with 202 full
time positions used for delivery of law enforcement services. With
this figure it will not change the Accreditation fee.
If you have any further questions, please contact me.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
ACCREDITATION BUDGET
1. Application Fee�fot 202full'time law enforcement and support
staff. '
2. Computer P/C
1,@ $13,775.00 x 1 - $13,775.00
(Paid in one installment)
$3,074.00
A.
Five Star 286/10
1
@
$1,230.00
x
1 e $1,230.00
B.
F. S. Colo —
1
@
$450.00
x
1 -
$450.00
C.
Samsung 14" CGA
1
@
$399.00
x
1 e
$399.00
D.
Fujitsu 360KB Black
1
@
$100.00
x
1 -
$100.00
E.
Seagate+ 40 MB 35 MS
1
@
$895.00
x
1 a.
$895.00
3. Computer Software ....................................
$140.00
A.
OrgPlus
1
@
$80.00
x
1
$80.00
B.
Standards Manual on D'.sk
1
@
$35.00
x
1
$35.00
C.
Standards Titles on D:.sk
1
@
$25.00
x
1
$25.00
4. Computer Supplies......... 0..*
.......................
$656.00
A.
Computer Stand 1
1
@
$200.00
x
1
$200.00
B.
Printout Papier
lcs
@
$114.00
x
4
$456.00
5. Printing and Binding .................................. $4,395.00
A. 3 Ring Binders
B. Printing _
1 @ $4.65 x 300 $1,395.00
1 @ 30.00 x 100 $3,000.00
TOTAL: $22,040.00
22
Undersheriff Raymond noted another question asked was why
they would not need to hire additional personnel to carry this
out. He advised that it is impossible to utilize new personnel
for this because it takes people who are familiar with the
workings of the department and primarily administrative people.
Chairman Wheeler asked about the need for new people to take
up the slack caused by present personnel taking on additional
responsibilities; in other words, they are saying that we are not
talking about any new people whatsoever for this program.
Undersheriff Raymond stated that they would not need any new
personnel because of this program. The man who will be heading
it up is the head of their training division; it will be an
additional duty to him, and he is committed to it. He further
noted that the majority of the people involved are on a straight
salary basis and not entitled to overtime.
Commissioner Eggert commented that she had read through all
the material provided by the Sheriff and thought there were some
excellent policies. She did not, however, see any determination
those policy adjustments would be put into effect.
Undersheriff Raymond advised that in order to be recognized
through accreditation, they would have to be put into effect.
Commissioner Scurlock believed it is necessary to reach a
certain level or you don't get certified, and Chairman Wheeler
further noted that you have to continue to be reviewed and
updated or you lose the accreditation.
Commissioner Bird asked if the program has enough flexibil-
ity so that it can be tailored to local needs and problems since
what works in Los Angeles may not work here.
Undersheriff Raymond confirmed that it is geared to the
individual department as evidenced by the fact that Mount Dora
Police Department is accredited as is the Palm Beach County
Sheriff's Office, and they are at the far ends of the scale.
Chairman Wheeler reported that he talked to accreditation
people in Fairfax, Virginia, who explained how this is analyzed
23
MAY 2 199
SAY 2 19 9 nor 76 FP,t 751
in-house and set up over two years, after which they send in a
team of 5, all from an outside state, to go through the manuals,
observe and suggest corrections. He also talked to the Ocala
Police Department about this, and the biggest single plus he sees
is the fact that it is catching on rapidly all across the
country. He felt this would help streamline the department and
make it a lot simpler when the Sheriff or Police here are
standardized with the rest of the country.
Commissioner Bird noted
that
the
results of this will
be
only as good as what you put
in it
and
the way you use it,
but he
did feel it does tend to lead us towards more professional law
enforcement, and since the cost is to come out of the LEA Funds,
he saw no reason to delay it any further.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, to approve the Sheriff's request to
use LEA Trust Funds to pursue the accreditation process.
Commissioner Scurlock assumed everything would be public
record, and this was confirmed by Undersheriff Raymond.
Chairman Wheeler believed that Sgt. Getchell acting as the
accreditation manager is going to have to devote possibly 800 of
his time to this program; so, he wished to be assured one more
time that we don't need another person to fill his position.
Undersheriff Raymond agreed that Sgt. Getchell is going to
have to devote additional time to this, but he assured the
Commission that while they all realize it will take additional
time, they feel that there is enough benefit to be gained that
they are willing to provide the extra time. He stated that he
personally is willing to come in nights; they are committed to
moving forward with this process.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
24
PROPOSED WORKSHOP WITH SHERIFF
Commissioner Scurlock asked that his added item in regard to
setting up a workshop with the Sheriff be discussed while
Undersheriff Raymond is present, and the Board had no objection.
Commissioner Scurlock advised that he would really like an
opportunity for the Commission to have a workshop with the
Sheriff on his budget to go over the numbers he personally has
generated and any numbers the Sheriff has generated so we can
make sure all the numbers on both sides are accurate and that we
are comparing apples to apples. He believed each Commissioner
has been trying to meet with the Sheriff, but felt it would be
more productive if we could have a workshop so all could meet
with him at one time.
Undersheriff Raymond asked about a date, and the Chairman
felt we should have our Administrator coordinate with the Sheriff
on this as he believed everyone is in favor of such a meeting.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously instructed
Administrator Chandler to schedule a workshop
meeting with Sheriff Dobeck as discussed.
AMENDING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND FLOOD PROTECTION ORDINANCE TO
INCORPORATE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE STANDARDS
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:
1989 25
moK 76 par,F 75
mm
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'�I�ts -
in the matter of 4X X�.
. in the _ Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this �Tr 7 daygf A.D. 19
` (Business Manager)
(SEAL)
The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows:
26
via ' '
Boor. l rrL kj
PUBLIC NOTICE - y
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, will conduct a Public,
Hearing on Tuesday, May Z, 1989 at 9:05 am. In
-the Commission Chambers-aHOW 25th-$Veet,
Vero Beach, FL 32960, to consider the adoption
of an ordinance entitled:Y_•.::4.
AN ORDINANCE OF •INDIAN 'RIVER.,� .
COUNTY FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAP-
TER 2114, • STORMWATER MANAGE•` i-
MENT AND FLOOD PROTECTION, TO..—, -
INCORPORATE THE STANDARDS OF
THE NATIONAL ,FLOOD INSURANCE
PROGRAM REGULATIONS AS SET OUT;
IN 44 CFR 60.3(dXe} ;;e,�,r .� *
Anyone who may with 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 appeal is based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS •
GARY C. WHEELER, CHAIRMAN
April 14,1989 .
TO: The Honorable Members of the Board
of County Commissionersn L
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP 4N
Community Development Director
William G. Collins
County Attorney
James Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director'
DATE: April 14, 1989
SUBJECT: FLOOD INSURANCE AMENDMENTS TO THE STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of May 2, 1989.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Recently, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) complet-
ed a reevaluation of flood hazards for Indian River County. The -
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) resulting from this study was
presented to the county last summer, and since that time the FIRM
has been reviewed and has undergone a mandatory ninety day appeal
period. Since no appeals were filed to the FIRM, it will become
effective on May 4, 1989.
FEMA requirements mandate that the county, in conjunction with
adoption of the new maps, update its flood regulations to incor-
porate new FEMA requirements. Because the county's flood regula-
tions are part of the stormwater management ordinance, it is
necessary to amend that section of the code. The proposed
amendments are attached to this agenda item.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
To maintain its eligibility for the National Flood Insurance
Program, the county must adopt the applicable FEMA regulations.
Essentially, the county's only other alternative is to adopt
regulations which exceed FEMA's requirements. Failure to adopt
such regulations will result in"the county's termination from the
flood insurance program.
As presently structured, the stormwater management ordinance
meets most of FEMA's requirements. The proposed amendments
attached to this item incorporate the new FEMA requirements into
the stormwater management ordinance. Adoption of these amend-
ments will ensure continued eligibility of the county in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
One minor problem has arisen in scheduling the public hearing for
the proposed amendment. Because of Confederate Memorial Day, a
recognized legal holiday in Florida, the legal notice was adver-
tised one day less than required for a regular public hearing.
To resolve this problem and still take action within the neces-
sary - timeframe, it will be necessary for the Board of County
Commissioners to adopt the proposed amendments as an emergency
ordinance. To do so, the board must waive the notice require-
ments by a four-fifths vote, declare that an emergency exists,
MAY 1989 27 �coK �� F,�uL 754
,Root; I r+�Ut-
and declare that the immediate enactment of the proposed ordi-
nance is necessary. In this case the emergency is the loss of
NFIP eligibility if applicable FEMA regulations are not adopted
by May 4, 1989, and adoption of the proposed amendments is
necessary to ensure continued eligibility.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt
the proposed ordinance amending the county's stormwater manage-
ment ordinance.
Asst. County Attorney Collins confirmed that the proposed
ordinance will have to be adopted as an Emergency Ordinance
because of the problem in meeting the publication requirements.
This is necessary in order to remain eligible for the National
Flood Insurance Program. What it all boils down to is that the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified the
base flood elevations in the 100 year storm, and you are required
to have your lowest floor elevation above that level. Also, you
are not allowed to fill in the areas identified as floodways,
such as the Main and South and North Relief Canals, and the areas
around them.
Commissioners Scurlock and Bird inquired about the monetary
impact of this on the housing industry.
Attorney Collins explained that if we don't have it, then
flood insurance rates are higher, if that insurance is available
at all, and he believed lenders require flood insurance. There
will be an economic impact in that someone planning on building
in these flood zone areas will either have to fill to bring the
lot up to the 100 year storm level or they may be required to
build on pilings.
Public Works Director Davis explained that the major impact
with the new maps are some new 100 year floodplains west of the
one -mile ridge, and the studies used to delineate those areas
coincide closely with the new study that the Indian River Farms
Water Control District had done. We, therefore, are having two
studies that are coming together and dictating to us about the
same situation. The Drainage District water control system
simply does not have the ability to handle the 100 year storm,
28
� � r
and as a result we have some areas west of 43rd Avenue that are
in the 100 year floodplain. Director Davis noted that those
areas need to be developed with that in mind. We just had a new
small single family subdivision come in for approval in that
area, and we granted a waiver for the cut and fill balance until
this ordinance was adopted. He felt we are going to have to work
with the new ordinance to see what kind of design will be
compatible with the 100 year floodplain and also be sure that the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan does not drive densities too far up
in those areas to preclude the setting aside of retention areas
and providing ways to mitigate the 100 year storm.
Discussion continued regarding the regulations, and Attorney
Collins clarified that the area of the floodway that would be
under water during the 100 year storm could not be filled in.
Commissioner Bird noted that our whole county is based on
the canal system and drainage ditches.
Director Davis advised that he will be meeting with Indian
River Farms Water Control District later this month, and he
believedit will be a very enlightening meeting. There are many
questions regarding their manipulated flood control structures
and how you evaluate them regarding the system, i.e., whether you
assume them to be in an up or down position when the storm hits.
In any event, the only areas that are significant are west of
43rd Avenue. Now that the two studies are complete, however, he
was not sure that we should continue to grant waivers for fill in
the floodplain along the Indian River. For instance, in the
Garden Grove development there are certain sections along the
bank of the river that are below elevation 5, and as you fill
below that elevation, you are consuming some of the areas where
the water would be stored in case of an 100 year flood. Director
Davis referred to the wording on page 9 of the ordinance -
"Encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial
improvements, and other development within the adopted regulatory
floodway that would result in any increase in flood levels within
29 ROG� 16 F1GE 75—
WAY 2 1989
Roar l r., c 757
the county during the occurrence of the base flood discharge
shall be prohibited." He emphasized that it specifically says
any increase.
In discussion it was noted that taking the capacity for
storage out of the system results in raising the flood levels
elsewhere and also extends the period of time that area would be
under water.
Commissioner Bowman commented that she had always felt that
one day we would have to stop doing this.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if this would make our acquisi-
tion of the Hoffman property less expensive, and Director Davis
felt that any lands within the 100 year flood plain would be less
valuable.
Commissioner Bird noted that there is a tremendous amount of
property along the river in our county, and Attorney Collins
commented that the sentence just before the one quoted by
Director Davis says that "......the area chosen for the
regulatory floodway must be designed to carry the water of the
base flood without increasing the water surface elevation of that
flood more than one foot at any point." He felt that may
provide a little bit of leeway. He explained they are not saying
you can't build within areas that are subject to flooding. What
they are saying is that in order to get insurance, the base
building elevation must be at least as high as what they know the
100 year flood will be. The restriction on filling applies only
to those areas that are designated as floodways themselves.
Commissioner Bird noted that this would be a cumulative
thing because no one development would cause that result by
itself, and he continued to express his concern about how far we
can go in denying people use of their property if they can't get
the flood insurance.
Commissioner Scurlock believed we must look at the cumula-
tive effect, and we must look at the long range effect'of human
impact on environment so that we don't exceed the limit of the
30
M M r
community in terms of having a safe and healthy environment,
which is what occurred in Los Angeles. There are billions of
acres of undeveloped areas all across the country, but people
tend to crowd into certain areas.
Commissioner Bird noted that if you look at the map, a
tremendous area of this county falls under the restricted areas,
and he felt that could tend to pack people in other areas.
Chairman Walker noted that there are people who will be
jeopardized if we allow others to build where they shouldn't.
Director Davis did not feel it is that drastic a problem.
He advised that the Indian River Farms Water Control District
study is just saying that in those areas, the developer should
set aside 40 of the land mass to hold the water on the site.
Discussion continued at length regarding drainage and the
possibility of pumping water back into the marsh area in the
future rather than in the river. It was generally felt we must
set proper density levels taking all this into consideration.
Director Davis felt 1/2 acre lots could be accommodated in
the floodplain areas, but did not feel we should get into 1/4
acre or smaller lots.
Commissioner Bird questioned how having more smaller lots
affects this problem, and Director Davis stated that having more
of the smaller lots creates more impervious surfaces.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none, and he thereupon closed the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, to acknowledge the emergency
nature of this situation and to adopt Emergency
Ordinance 89-12 amending the Stormwater Management
Ordinance.
a
Commissioner Bird stated that he will vote against the
Motion because he
just doesn't feel
we know enough
about
the
Y
2 1989
31
BOOK.
758
- - - BOOK
economic impact of the ordinance on future development of this
county.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commis-
sioner Bird voting in opposition.
ORDINANCE NO. 89- 12
AN ORDINANCE OF - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 211,
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND FLOOD
PROTECTION, TO INCORPORATE THE STANDARDS
OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
REGULATIONS AS SET OUT IN 44 CFR
60.3(d)(e).
WHEREAS, Indian River, County has adopted Chapter
211, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances,
Stormwater Management and Flood Protection; and
WHEREAS, Section 211-7(a)(19)e provides in part
that "as new or better information becomes available, this
chapter will belamended to incorporate new maps and flood
elevations and other data"; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
has reevaluated the flood hazards in Indian River County,
and adopted final base flood elevations (BFE); and
WHEREAS, the new flood insurance rate maps (FIRM)
will become effective on May 4, 1989; and
WHEREAS, in order to maintain participation in the
National Flood insurance Program, Indian River County must
adopt or show evidence of adoption of flood plain management
regulations that meet the standards of Section 60.3(d)(e) of
the National Flood Insurance Program regulations set out as
44 CFR 59, etc.; and
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE 89-12 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO
THE BOARD IN ITS ENTIRETY.
32
DATE FOR PROPOSED JOINT MEETING W/CITY OF VERO BEACH
Administrator Chandler informed the Board that City Manager
Little has indicated the City Council would like to have a
meeting on May 18th at 9:00 A.M., but he did not have a list of
specific items for the agenda.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that his thoughts about this
are that we have a very good professional staff, as does the
City, and while he did believe to develop interaction with the
City is great, he would prefer more of a formal procedure
established with adequate time for staff to research the items to
be discussed and give us recommendations as he felt this would
make the meetings more productive.
Commissioner Bird agreed that staff should have a chance to
prepare before we set these meetings, and Chairman Wheeler
concurred.
Commissioner Eggert noted that her only problem is that we
sat there at the last City/County meeting; none of this was said;
and we agreed to have a meeting in May.
Commissioner Bird suggested that we send the City the
message that we would like to have a meeting but with those
guidelines, and if that can't be done in time, then have the
meeting at a later date.
The Board agreed that Administrator Chandler should convey
that message to the City.
AMEND INDIAN RIVER SHORES CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE &
NECESSITY AUTHORIZING INTERNAL CERT. UNDER COUNTY ALS
The Board reviewed memo from the Director of Emergency
Management Services, as follows:
33
BOOK F A R- 61
--0
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Doug Wright, Director
Emergency Management Services
DATE: April 26, 1989
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR EMS ALS SERVICE
AUTHORIZING AN INTERNAL CERTIFICATE UNDER THE COUNTY
ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT LICENSE
REFERENCE: Indian River County Ordinance 87-66, as amended and
Chapter 401, Florida Statues
It is respectfully requested that the information contained
herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at the next regular scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On May 24, 1988, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity for the Town of Indian River Shores to provide EMS
emergency service at the Basic Life Support level.
On December 20, 1988,,the Board of County Commissioners ap-
proved a proposal wherein the County would assume management
and operational control of the Advanced Life Support service
with a single focus of management within the Department of
Emergency Management Services. An Advanced Life Support'
license was obtained from the Florida Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services for Indian River County and all EMS
providers within the County were issued an internal certificate
operating under the auspices of the ALS license.
The Town of Indian River Shores now requests an internal
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to provide EMS
ALS service with the understanding that all protocols, poli-
cies, procedures, ordinances, and statutes must be followed at
all times.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The Town of Indian River Shores currently has on staff three
paramedics and sufficient EMT's to staff the emergency trans-
port vehicle 24 hours per day. Per diem paramedics will be
hired by the Town to fill any vacant shifts that occur for
various reasons. A new emergency transport vehicle purchased
by the Town has been equipped for ALS service and all necessary
medical supplies required per Rule 1OD-66 is in place. The
Chief Paramedic has certified the vehicle and equipment as
meeting state and county specifications.
The Medical Director has agreed to assume medical control for
the pre -hospital EMS service. It is felt that this is appro-
priate and necessary since the EMS service will be operating
under the authority of the County Advanced Life Support li-
cense. The EMS Director will monitor the run sheets and review
the day to day operations to assure compliance with the quality
assurance program and adherence to medical protocols as well as
standing orders.
The alternative is to provide the EMS ALS service from the
IRCVAS Beach Station for the populace of Indian River Shores.
34
This is not recommended inasmuch as a more timely response can
be provided from the provider location within the municipal
limits as currently located. The Town has also agreed to
provide mutual aid as needed by the Indian River County ALS
service for other locations within the County.
The Town of Indian River Shores understands that the issuance
of the internal Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
will require the surrender of the Certificate of Public Conve-
nience and Necessity issued to the Town by the Department of
Health and Rehabilitative Services for BLS service.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends amendment of the existing Town of Indian River
Shores Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity author-
izing an internal Certificate of Public Convenience and Neces-
sity for EMS service increasing the level of service from BLS
to ALS under the auspices of the Indian River County Advanced
Life Support license.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
approved the amendment of the Town of Indian
River Shores Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity, and authorized an Internal
Certificate for EMS service increasing the level
of service from BLS to ALS.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
CERTIFICATE OF .PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.•...
Town Of
WHEREAS, the --:Indian River Shores has requested authorization to provide
ALS EMS Transport services to the citizens of Indian.River-
(Advanced Life or Basic Life Support) _
County; and..
.WHEREAS,'there has been demonstrated there is a need to provide these
essential services to tiie citizens of this county; -and, -
WHEREAS,, the above named service affirms that it will maintain compliance
with the requirements of the Emergency Medical Services Act (Chapter 401, F.S.)
and rules (Chapter 1OD-66, F.A.C.), including Indian River County Ordinance
#87-66, as amended,
THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners -of Indian River County
hereby issues a certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to said
Company to provide ALS EMS Transport services with
(BLS,ALS-transport,ALS non -transport) _
limitations as prescribed on this certificate.
In issuing this certificate, the governing body of Indian River County has
recommendations of affected municipalities. -
Date Issued June 7, 1988 Date of expiration June 6, 1990 '
(Amended May 2, 1989) (unless certificate is sooner revoked or
suspended)
Limitations: Primary response service area is the Town of Indian River Shores
with Mutual Aid service as requested by the EMS Director.
• - sem, e:.•. %� %.��%.c� .. .. ..
(ChainnFC. Board of County Commissioners)
AY 2 1989 35
BOOK.
. �• . n ._... •ate. �` n ��;�'
7RZ,
MM
U(](]K frq.UE fj
REPORT ON VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE SQUAD
Commissioner Eggert asked permission to bring up her report
on the ambulance service at this time, and the Board had no
objections.
Commissioner Eggert noted that there have been some comments
that perhaps she, as a County Commissioner, and Emergency
Management Director Wright, and some others, are working very
hard towards a paid ambulance service, and nothing could be more
wrong. Commissioner Eggert stressed that she has supported the
volunteer ambulance system as long as she can remember and will
continue to support it. She feels that Fellsmere falling back
into its area that it can handle will do well with its volunteer
ambulance service, and she would hope we can keep IRCVAS
functioning, possibly even at an expanded level, for as long as
possible. She did not know where this feeling came from because
the last thing on earth she wants is for the volunteer ambulance
service to cease, and the only possible way she sees it ever
ceasing is if the squads come in and say they can't do it any
more. She felt we are quite a ways from that and actually hopes
we are never at that point.
Commissioner Bird agreed that it is good to clear the air on
this. He believed our primary objective is to provide the most
efficient and effective emergency medical service we can, and his
preference is to do it with a combination of the paid and the
volunteers. We only got into paid because we felt it was
necessary in order to maintain that level of service. He
believed there unfortunately is some feeling in the community
that the Commission or some of the staff are working towards the
demise of the volunteer ambulance squad, but he felt that could
not be further from the truth.
Commissioner Eggert was also concerned that there was an
interview in the Press Journal where Mr. Evans of the United Way
made a statement that now that the County has taken over the
Ambulance Squad, possibly the United Way wouldn't have to support
36
L
it. Commissioner Eggert emphasized that the county has not taken
over the volunteer ambulance squad. We are working in coopera-
tion with it, and every bit of community support possible should
be given to the ambulance squads. She does not want that
misunderstood. The other thing that has come up is that
everything has seemed to hone in on the cost and whether the
relative cost is more or less than before. She wants people to
remember that the reason this came up in the first place is that
the Ward Report that the Hospital had done was concerned #1 with
operations. It focused on the fact that there was no central
point operating these squads; that we had too many cars on the
road responding all at one time; and that territorialism had
developed among the different entities. Then we came to the cost
factor - the other factors were much stronger. Commissioner
Eggert emphasized that we have wonderful cooperation going now
and she continues with her desire to support the volunteer
ambulance squads as much as we can.
Chairman Wheeler concurred and believed the whole Board
does. He noted that he sits on the Board of the United Way, and
he wished to clarify the statement made by Mr. Evans, President
of the United Way, so it doesn't become a further misunderstand-
ing. Although he has not read the article referred to, he
assumed Mr. Evans was referring to the fact that the United Way
had expanded its contributions to Fellsmere Ambulance Squad when
it took over Sebastian, and in no way was United Way looking at
not supporting the Fellsmere Ambulance Squad. Possibly they were
looking at that portion that had been spent on Sebastian because
they were no longer a volunteer agency and no longer providing
the service to Sebastian. The Chairman did not feel that United
Way's support of the Ambulance Squad has in any way diminished,
nor did he believe there is any intention of that. He
personally always has supported the volunteers, and they do an
excellent job.
37
MAY 21989
1 `�' l
MAY 198 �E
R00� f F�.
Commissioner Bowman commented that not only do the
a '
volunteers do an excellent job, but they save us millions of
dollars.
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS REQUESTS RESOLUTION OPPOSING HOUSE BILL
1529 AND SENATE BILL 499
Ann Robinson, Supervisor of Elections, came before the Board
in regard to her request for the Board's support in opposing
House Bill 1529 and Senate Bill 499. She apologized for not
reviewing these Bills thoroughly sooner, but noted that these
Bills have been moved along rapidly and will be going to
appropriations this week. Mrs. Robinson handed out the following
statement setting out her objections to said Bills:
OBJECTIONS
1. Section 1, HB 1529 & CS for. SB 499 _
Proposed: This act shall be known as the "Voter Protection Act."
Objection: The title is misleading. A more suitable title would be
the "Voter Taxation Act" or "An act that creates the Bureau of Voting
Systems Certification within the Division of Eleptions of the Depart-
ment of State and establishes sixteen initial positions in the bureau
at a cost of $669,000."
THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR THE
EQUIPMENT AND ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH ALL -THE NEW
RULES AND TO DEAL WITH -THE SIXTEEN INITIAL BUREAUCRATS IN TALLAHASSEE.
2. Section 4, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499
Proposed: To add Section 101.015 Florida Statutes, Department of State
to adopt rules establishing minimum standards for hardware and software
for voting systems and requiring that voting systems in use on or after
July 1, 1993, must meet the minimum standards.
Objection: If a county's system does not meet the standards that are
set by the Department of State by the deadline of July 1, 1993, who is
required to pay for a new voting system and what is the estimated cost?
THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
1
4. Section 5, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499
Proposed: To add "ballot cards" in the definition of F.S. 101.292(2).
Objection: It is absurd to include supplies such as ballot cards in
the definition of voting equipment. Used ballot cards cannot be reused,
and thus they are clearly supplies. In F.S. 97.021, ballot cards are
• listed as an example of paper supplies.. In Florida only a governing
body can purchase voting equipment. There'is no need to involve a
governing body in the purchase of bonsumable supplies for an election;
those purchases should remain the responsibility of the supervisors of
elections. If the supervisor of elections of a county is asked to run
an election for a school board or municipality, then the governing body
that called the election would be involved in the purchase of ballot
cards, about which it knows nothing.
THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
38
5A.Section 6, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499
Proposed: To add wording to F.S. 101.294 so that no governing body shall
purchase any voting equipment unless__the purchase contract has been
reviewed by the Department of State. [F.S. 101.294(3)]
Objection: A governing body cannot purchase voting equipment unless if
has been certified for use in Florida. There is no need for the extra
wording; if the county wants the Department of State to review its
contracts, it -may ask it to do so now.
5B.Section 6, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499
Proposed: To add part (4) to F.S. 101.294 to allow the_ Department of
State to negotiate and execute purchasing agreements and contracts under
which any governing body may purchase any element of a voting system.
Objection: If this is permissive, it's not necessary. If it's not
permissive, it is an interference in the county's budgetary authority.
If the Department of State negotiated and executed an invalid contract,
who would be responsible for the damages? If the Department of State
took such extra time to negotiate and execute a contract for used voting
equipment that the equipment was sold to another purchaser, who would
bear the extra cost if no other used equipment was available?
THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
6. Section 10, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499
Proposed: To -add part (12) to F.S. 101,5606 so thatn.o electronic or
electromechanical voting system shall by approved unless it is capable of
providing records from which the system may be audited.
Objection: A voting machine is an electromechanical system, strictly
defined, because it is a mechanical system which operates on electricity-
Counties using voting machines would have to buy a new voting system.
THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
7. Section 11, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499
In the bills, it states "Substantial rewording of section," see 101.5607.
It is not a rewording. F.S. 101.5607(1).and 101.5607(2) remain the
same, but many new parts are added --(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c), (1)(d),
and (2)(a) and'(2)(b).
la Proposed: Requires that material from the vendor relating to an
approved voting system must be filed with the Department of State by
the supervisor of.elections, and if it is not on file, it may not be
used in an election.
Objection: It should be the responsibility of the vendor to file the
material with the Department of State when the system is submitted for
certification. Any updates should be filed when the vendor makes a
change. A vendor may sell a system to many counties, and it should be
his responsibility to see that each county has the updates and to so
notify the Department of State.' Why add this to 101.5607 when there
is a different statute covering -requirements for approval of voting
systems, and that is F.S. 101.5606?
lbProposed: Requires the supervisor of elections to send by certified
mail within 24 hours a copy of the tabulation program which was used
in the logic and accuracy testing.
Objection: What is the purpose of this requirement when none of the
other numerous items which must be submitted by supervisors have to be
:sent by certified mail within 24 hours? There is no requirement that
any of the items that must be sent to the supervisor of elections by
the Department of State have to be sent by certified mail with 24 hours.
Why add this to 101.5607 when F.S. 101.5612, Testing of Tabulating .
Equipment, covers the other requirements for the logic and accuracy test?
lcProposed: The Department of State may, at any time, review the voting
system of any county to ensure compliance with the Electronic Voting
Systems Act.
Objection: This sounds like the Gestapo. It should read, " The Depart-
ment of State may, at a time agreeable to the supervisor of elections,
review the voting system of any county to ensure compliance with the
Electronic V6ting Systems Act.
I
WAY 1989
BOOK 76 r,�ij,i: 76 d
1dProposed: Section 119.07(3)(r) applies to all software on file with the
Department of State.
Objection: None.
2aProposed: The•department of State may develop software for use with an
electronic or electromechanical voting system.
Objection: It will be interesting to hear the vendors' reactions when
they learn that they must submit copies of their software, the programs,
operating manuals, tabulating cards, printouts, etc. in order to get
their systems certified by the Department of State, only to find out that
the Department of State may develop software for use with an electronic
or electromechanical system and go into competition with the vendors.
NO MENTION IS MADE OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
8.Section 14, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499
In Section 14, there are numerous and far reaching new parts of 102.166,
Florida Statutes regarding manual recounts.
4aProposed: Any candidate whose name appeared on the ballot, any political
committee that'supports or opposes an issue which appeared on the ballot,
or any political party whose candidates' names appeared on the ballot may
file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual
recount.
Objection: It would be reasonable to suppose that every losing candidate,
political committee, and political party would file a request for a
manual recount when no reason whatsoever is required and the cost is
paid by the local governments. There are provisions currently in this
statute allowing protests to be filed if error or fraud is alleged, and
there is no need to make wholesale changes that are so broad.
4bProposed: Such request must be filed with the canvassing board prior
to the time the canvassing board adjourns or within 5 days after mid-
night of the date the election was held, whichever occurs later.
Objection: The meaning of the entire sentence is confusing because
of the phrase, "whichever occurs later." However, it appears that the
intent is to have the canvassing board be ready to accept requests for
manual recounts for the five days after the election. Does this mean
that vote tabulations are not official for five days?
4cProposed: The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount.
Objection: What criteria are supposed to be used by the canvassing
board in order for it to make a decision that is on firm legal ground?
I doubt if the members of the canvassing board --the judge, the county
commissioner, or the supervisor of elections --will accept such sweeping
authority with no basis whatsoever.
4dProposed: The manual recount must include at least three precincts and
at least 1 percent of the total votes cast for such candidate or issue.
Objection: In elections with many candidates for one office, the losers
could get together and each could choose three different precincts to
be manually recounted, so that in a municipality it would be necessary
to manually recount all precincts. It is a time consuming process that
is expensive, and it would postpone knowing the official final returns
until the recounts wete completed. It would be a serious interference
in mailing absentee ballots and in preparing for the next election if
the recounts were requested after the first primary or the second
primary. If a statewide candidate requested a manual recount, all 67
counties would be affected.
THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
9. Section 15, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499
Proposed: There is created a Bureau of Voting Systems Certification
within the Division of Elections of the Department of State which shall
provide technical support to the supervisors of elections and which
is responsible for voting system standards and certification. Sixteen
40
initial positions are established in the bureau, and the sum of
$669,000 is hereby appropriated to the Divsion of Elections from the
General Revenue fund for purpose of carrying out the provisions of this
act.
Objection: Rather than creating such a far reaching bureau at one time,
perhaps it would be more effective and less expensive to make a gradual
approach. This would allow the Division of Elections and the supervisors
of elections to absorb the changes and new rules gradually, to analyze
the value to the voters and to the administration of elections in each
county. There will have to be a corresponding increase in the number
of employees in the supervisors of elections' offices to deal with the
additional requirements by the Department of State and the Divison of
Elections.
THERE IS NO 14ENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
Commissioner Scurlock believed Supervisor Robinson has
clearly set out that there is significant impact that has not
been well thought out in these proposed Bills as well as an
infringement on local government. He agreed that we should send
the message that we do object and request that these Bills not
move forward.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to adopt Resolution 89-44 express-
ing our opposition to House Bill 1529 and Senate Bill
499 relating to elections.
Chairman Wheeler suggested that a copy of this Resolution,
including Mrs. Robinson's statement, be sent to the League of
Counties who are opposing state mandates without funding, and
also copies to the Senate and the House, with a copy to the
Governor and whoever the appropriate committee people are as well
as our delegates.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
41
1989 (�OGK �� F.1GE 76P
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 44
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, IN OPPOSITION TO HOUSE BILL
1529 AND SENATE BILL 499 RELATING TO
ELECTIONS.
WHEREAS, Section 6 of House Bill 1529 amends
Florida Statute 101.294 to -wit:
"No governing body shall purchase or
cause to be purchased any voting
equipment unless such voting equipment
has been certified for use in this state
by the Department of State and the
purchase contract has been revs we ed -'Ey
ttf a 6epaartment 67—State.11
and
WHEREAS, the Florida Association of Counties and
the Florida Association of Supervisors of Elections were not
consulted during the creation of election bills known as
House Bill 1529 and Senate Bill 499; and
WHEREAS, the amendatory language may involve
substantial delay in the execution of purchase agreements
for voting equipment already certified for use in the state
by the Department of State; and
WHEREAS, such delays may frustrate desired and
necessary purchases for the Supervisor of Elections Office;
and
WHEREAS, the elections for federal, state, and
county officials are paid for by the Boards of County
Commissioners and administered by the Supervisors of
Elections; and
WHEREAS, such review of purchase contracts by the
Department of State may be an improper interference with the
home rule of a county as set out in Article Vill of the
Constitution of the Florida; and
WHEREAS, such review of purchase contracts by the
Department of State may be an improper interference with the
specific authority to expend funds, enter into contractual
42
obligations, and purchase or lease personal property as set
out in Florida Statute 125.01(3)(a); and
WHEREAS, the authority which the legislation
contemplates delegating to the Department of State, i.e., to
review purchase contracts approved by local governing
bodies, may be an improper delegation of the budgetary
authority which resides in the County Commission to an
executive branch agency by the Legislature;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
1. The Board of County Commissioners is
specifically opposed to the mandatory provision of Section 6
of House Bill 1529 requiring review by the Department of
State of purchase contracts for the purchase of voting
equipment previously certified for use in the state by the
Department of State.
2. A revision to Section 6 of House Bill 1529
making Department of State review of purchase contracts
voluntary rather than mandatory would be appropriate and
supported.
3. The Board of County Commissioners generally
objects to the passage of House Bill 1529 and Senate Bill
499 or their committee substitutes and suggests that
i legislation on these bills be postponed until those who have
the responsibility for paying for them and administering
them have an opportunity to thoroughly review and discuss
the proposed legislation.
4. The objections of the Supervisor of Elections
of Indian River County, attached as Exhibit "A" to this
resolution, are hereby incorporated by reference and adopted
in their entirety.
The foregoing having been moved by Commissioner
Scurlock and seconded by Commissioner Eggert , upon
being put to a vote, was carried with a vote as follows:
�Y �9�9 43 RooK rWj 77
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
BOOK
16 F'A;F7
AXe
Aye _
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this 2nd day of MaY , 1989.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By
Gary C. Wheeler, Chairman
Objections of the Supervisor of Elections incorporated as
Exhibit "A"
STATUS OF INDIAN RIVER BLVD. PHASE III EXTENSION
Public Works Director Davis reviewed the following:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Status of Permitting and Florida DOT Funding - Indian
River Boulevard Phase III Extension to
Barber Avenue (37th St)
DATE: April 20, 1989
This date, I received a telephone call from Terry Klitzkie, US
Army Corps of Engineers Permitting Section, in regards to the
subject project. Terry advised me that his supervisor has
determined that a permit cannot be issued to the County for
construction of the subject project until right-of-way
acquisition is complete. 'It appears that the Florida DER could
also be forced into an Administrative Hearing by the right-of-way
property owner, Mr. Hoffman, if continued objections by Mr.
Hoffman remain. If this occurs, the Corps would put the project
on a "deactivated" status until resolved or for a one year
maximum period. If not resolved in one year, the application
would be denied.
44
In addition, the DOT has advised us that a Joint Project
Agreement is being sent for the $736,100 LGCAP grant for FY88-89.
We are ready to go to bid, a contract could be issued.by June 30,
1989, however, the Contractor could not proceed until permits are
acquired and right-of-way is purchased.
Staff is proceeding with obtaining appraisals for the
right-of-way and property acquisition.
Director Davis informed the Board that he has sent letters
to about 16 appraisal firms who have been prequalified by the DOT
in this type of appraising, and he received about 8 responses.
Some of these can respond in about 3 weeks, and some not for
months; so, they have narrowed it down to about 3 firms. The
Statutes require that if the value of a parcel is 1/2 a million
or more, 2 appraisals must be made, and he, therefore, would like
to select 3-4 of the best qualified appraisers and go ahead and
receive quotations and select the best 2.
Commissioner Scurlock stressed that we want to move ahead as
rapidly as possible, and he frankly felt we are fooling ourselves
if we think Mr. Hoffman is going to negotiate with us in terms of
what is best for the county. He would just. hope we do everything
we can to move on as fast as possible, and indicate to Mr.
Hoffman that we are going to move forward and will take whatever
route is available to get the Boulevard built. He believed we
must be very aggressive.
County Attorney Vitunac commented that the indication is
that Mr. Hoffman is going to fight this all the way, and, in
fact, already has hired Attorney Jim Richardson, who is known
statewide for fighting governments and getting big awards. There
are at least 8 different properties; so, Attorney Vitunac
recommended that his office be authorized to hire an assistant
attorney, Bob Sechen from Miami, who is an expert in condemnation
fighting for local government. Otherwise, because of the
workload this would involve, he felt they will have to hire
another attorney in their office full time.
Commissioner Scurlock asked how we take a quick action so we
�J,AY �
45 BOOK % � F',jGf= 77�
SAY 1989 noc�� '. 73
can go put ourselves in a position to move ahead and build the
Boulevard and then determine later what we have to pay.
Attorney Vitunac advised that for a quick taking we need at
least one appraisal of the 8 properties, and Attorney Collins and
Director Davis are working on that now. In the meantime, we
should go ahead and hire the lawyer he has recommended to prepare
the taking Resolution, and then we will be ready to go to battle
with Mr. Richardson. He believed Mr. Hoffman will even file
administrative challenges along the way so this will require a
full time attorney for many months.
Commissioner Scurlock inquired about a time frame for
getting in a position where we could move ahead with our
permitting and actual construction, and Attorney Vitunac stated
that for the quick taking we need the appraisal, and the other
side has 30 days to respond. If they don't challenge the
necessity part, it would give us an Order of Taking when we make
a deposit based on the appraisal. Then, later on you can set the
trial on damages.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that while we may be able to
go in through condemnation, Hoffman still may be able to delay
the project beyond where we want it delayed by asking for
administrative hearings. He believed over the 8 years one of our
options was to cooperate with Hoffman and move the alignment, but
according to Director Davis, the permitting agencies have
indicated that they have more problem -environmentally with the
alignment Hoffman wants us to take.
Director Davis confirmed that the alignment we are working
on is the one the agencies have agreed is the least environmen-
tally damaging. We tried to accommodate Mr. Hoffman's alignment
which required about 7% more fill and took it to the agencies,
but the DER and EPA indicated they prefer our alignment. -Mr.
Hoffman is taking a more aggressive stance with the agencies in
regard to his legal rights, and Director Davis advised that the
EPA has indicated to him that if the court issued above their
46
objections, they would appeal it to the Atlanta district office
for an administrative hearing.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that Hoffman is in a win
situation. Timing means nothing to him; he is just waiting to get
his price.
Director Davis further advised that staff has been working
with Mr. Hoffman's local Attorney, Chester Clem. He asked that
the Board authorize the funding for appraisals he has recom-
mended, noting that most of the appraisers have indicated a fee
of about $125 an hour, which he felt may amount to $10-12,000.
He emphasized that we need to move quickly into that appraisal,
and then make Hoffman an offer. Director Davis advised that our
Right -of -Way Agent Don Finney has done some research, which shows
that in condemnation suits, some of the courts are paying about
167% of the appraised value to the property owner. He suggested
that possibly we could offer Hoffman more than the appraised
value; then if it goes further, at least the attorney's fees
would be predicated on the increase that the court awards above
and beyond the offer amount.
Commissioner Bird asked if it were possible to move ahead in
an absolutely best case scenario, when could people be driving on
this phase of the Boulevard expansion. Director Davis felt
sometime in 1991.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, to authorize staff to select
finalists in the appraisal process and start negotia-
tions to hire two appraisers and to authorize the
County Attorney to seek whatever additional legal
counsel he feels he needs to proceed with this.
Commissioner Bird asked if there is any possibility of
getting everyone together and having a meeting between our staff,
Hoffman's representatives,
and possibly
some of the
agencies
SAY
21989
``'
BOOK
�Ib FacE i`
Boor 7
involved, to see if there is any way of resolving this dilemma
other than hiring high priced attorneys.
Asst. Attorney Collins believed the only way to do that is
to pay Hoffman's price. No specific price has been named, but
from what has been said, he would draw the conclusion that
Hoffman is talking about $70,000 an acre. Possibly it would be
cheaper to pay that for the 17 acres than litigate, but he would
like to see what the appraisals come in at.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
REQUEST BY PEBBLE BEACH VILLAS CONDO. ASSOC. TO ACQUIRE SOUTH 3'
OF COUNTY PROPERTY AT TRACKING STATION PARK
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Davis:
TO: James Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Request by Pebble Beach Villas Condominium Association
to Acquire a Easement or to Purchase the South 3' of
the County's Property between SR AIA and the Tracking
Station Park Site
REF. LETTER: John C. -McDonald to Jim Chandler dated 3-10-89
DATE: April 20, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Due to the close proximity of the Pebble Beach Villas Condominium
parking lot to the south property line of the county owned
property located between SR AIA and the Tracking Station Park
(map attached), the Pebble Beach Villas Property Owners
Association is requesting that the County sell or grant an
easement to the Association for the south 3' of the county
property, which at this time is planned.for future park use. The
size of the county's property in this area is approximately 320'
(north/south) by 710' (east/west). Along -the south property line
of the county property, the property is 654.26' in depth. The 3'
area being requested contains approximately 1,963 s.f. or .045
acres. In Sept. 1987, the County had the property appraised at
$90,000 per acre, which would value the 3' x 654' strip at
$4,056.
48
a
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative #1
Sell the 1,963 square feet area to the Property Owners
association. Since the County's appraisal is almost two -
years old, staff recommends a $5,000 minimum price. The 3'
in question will not detract from the usability of the
property for future park use.
Alternative #2
Lease the 1,963 s.f. area to the Property Owners Association
for a nominal fee for a 5 year period with renewal
,provisions. If. this alternative is selected, the Property
Owners Association should insure the property and indemnify
the county of any and all liability.
Alternative #3
Enter into a license agreement whereby the county grants the
Association the right to use the property for landscaping.
The same insurance and liability provisions would apply as
provided for in Alternative #2.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
At this time, staff is reluctant to recommend sale of the south
three feet of the parcel since future County needs are not
certain. Staff recommends Alternative No. 3 whereby a license
agreement would be prepared to allow the Property Owners
Association use of the 3'. Staff recommends that the County
Attorney's office be authorized to draft the agreement and it be
brought back to the Board for final approval.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative #3 and authorized preparation of a License
Agreement as recommended by staff.
CATHODIC PROTECTION SYSTEM REPAIRS FOR SOUTH COUNTY S GIFFORD
ELEVATED_ STORAGE TANKS
The Board reviewed memo from Utilities Director Pinto:
RAH 49 BOOK 16r.,.E7
Mao
�9� BOOK.�' r:sGF. n.�•. 7
DATE: APRIL 21, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO01?
DIRECTOR OF UTILIT ERVICES
SUBJECT: CATHODIC PROTECT -ON SYSTEM REPAIRS FOR THE
SOUTH COUNTY AND GIFFORD ELEVATED STORAGE
TANKS
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: JOHN F. LAN
ENVIRONMENTAL PECIALIST
DEPARTMENT OF TILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
The Department of Utility Services currently owns four elevated
water. storage.tanks. All of these tanks have Cathodic Protection
_Systems installed in the tanks to help prevent corrosion. Harco
Technologies Corporation is providing the inspection service for
fiscal year 1989. This firm was the original supplier of cathodic
services to the County for the Gifford and Mid -Florida Systems.
South County Tank: The anodes have been depleted and must be
replaced. The old anodes were aluminum and depleted in one-third of
the time in which platinum anodes would deplete. Platinum anodes
run approximately 150% over the cost of aluminum and are included in
the proposal. The rectifier which puts out current to the anodes is
not a self-adjusting unit as are the other tanks' rectifiers.
Furthermore, the unit is weathered due to a deteriorating mild steel
cabinet.
Gifford Tank: The rectifier's controller has been shorted out due to
water damage. The cabinet is a mild steel cabinet which has heavily
deteriorated.
ANALYSIS
Harco has provided a proposal of $7,710.00 to do the following work:
1. Replace the South County rectifier with an automatic unit in a
galvanized cabinet.
2. Install appropriate platinum anodes in the South County Tank.
3. Replace the Gifford rectifier with an automatic unit in a
galvanized cabinet.
4. Install a County provided bulb and globe for the aviation light
at no cost.
Wallace and Tiernan has provided a proposal to accomplish item #3
of the above at a price of $2,695.00. Wallace and Tiernan,
however, has still not satisfactorily accomplished the installation
of the Cathodic Protection system at the Kings Highway tank as
approved by the Board on September 1, 1987.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board award
the repair contract to Harco Technologies Corporation for the
Cathodic Protection Systems for the South County and Gifford
Tanks. The funding for this project will come from Account
#471-219-536-044-74.
L—_
50
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded the
repair contract to Harco Technologies Corporation
as recommended by staff.
PIAJMTECHNOLOGIES
aCORPORAPON
April 20, 1989
Indian River County Utilities Department
P.O. Box 1750
1800 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Attention: John Lang
Reference: Cathodic Protection
Two (2) Elevated Water Tanks
Harco Reference Number 202-01179
Dear John,
2567 Park Central Blvd
Decatur, GA 30035
Phone: 404-981-3150
. FAX: 404-987-8216
Harco Technologies Corporation is pleased to provide the
following quotation for repairs of the above referenced project.
This proposal covers only the cathodic protection associated
repairs and recommendations.
SOUTH COUNTY TANK `
CAST
Labor and Expenses
$1,023.00
Rectifier (24 Volt, 12 Amp)
Anodes and Associated Materials
2,315.00
1,512.00 -
Total
50.00
GIFFARD TANK.
Labor and Expenses -
$ 693.00
Rectifier (18 Volt, 12 Amp)
2,167.00
Total
2, 0.00
Harco Technologies Corporation will provide all necessary labor,
materials, equipment and expenses for the lump sum total of
$7,710.00. This price is contingent on one mobilization to make
repairs to both tanks. Additional trips would be at an added
cost. Payment terms would be net 30 days based on work completed
to date. Validity of this proposal is 90 days.
Should the terms and pricing be deemed acceptable, please
acknowledge your acceptance by signing the space below and
returning this document to Harco Technologies Corporation where
it will be treated as a formal contract.
Respectfully Submitted, Accepted For:
HARCO TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
J s T. Lary
utheast District Manager
JTL:11
51
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES
By; ary C. Wheeler
Title: Chairman
Date: May 2, 1989
BOOK
7 7S,
I
MAY 2 Boa
ASSESSMENT OF WASTEWATER PROJECT - WEST SIDE U.S.1 (10TH ST. TO
4TH ST.)
The Board reviewed memo from Utilities Director Pinto:
DATE: APRIL 21, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI SERJICES
STAFFED BY: WILLIAM F. McCAINk,-
PROJECTS ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY S VICES
SUBJECT: WEST SIDE OF U.S.#1 FROM 10TH ST. TO 4TH ST.
ASSESSMENT OF WASTEWATER PROJECT
IRC PROJECT NO. US -88 -22 -CCS
BACKGROUND:
The land on the west side of U.S. #1 between 10th Street and 4th
Street is zoned commercial and, as such, should be serviced by a
municipal wastewater system. We are expanding our wastewater
service as is feasible and feel this area should receive wastewater
service before any more development or redevelopment occurs. To
this end, we are proposing an assessment wastewater project to fill
the community's needs.
ANALYSIS:
We have assessed the.feasibility of providing sewer service to this
area and feel we have negotiated a reasonable fee for these services
from our primary short-listed consultant in this area. We have
proposed a Work Authorization with Masteller & Moler Associates,
Inc. (See Attachment).
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approve the
attached Work Authorization so that we may commence with this
project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Work Authorization WW -1 with Masteller 8 Moler
Assoc. for the above project.
52
ENGINEERING WORK AUTHORIZATION
DATE: April 21. 1989 WORE: AUTHORIZATION NO. WW -1 FOR CONSULTING
SERVICES. PROJECT NO. COUNTY I.D. MASTELLER & MOLER
ASSOCIATES. INC. WASTEWATER. REVISION #1.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Title: Consulting Engineering Services for a Feasibility Study and
Design for a Sewage Collection and Transmission System to service the
properties on the west side of U.S. Highway #19 between 10th Street and
4th Street, Indian River County, Florida.
The engineering design services will include the preparation of
contract plans, specifications and bid documents for sewage collection
system which includes approximately 15 high head low.flow grinder pump
stations, approximately 4,600 LF of 4" -diameter force main including a
road bore of 8th Street.
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND LUMP -SUM FEE FOR SERVICES
Reference is made to the "Master Agreement for Utilities Service"
dated October 4, 1988, and specific Article numbers and paragraph numbers
which are listed hereunder to describe the scope of services included on
this project. I
A. Project Design Services per Master Agreement. `
P. General Services During Construction per Master Agreement.
The Resident Inspector shall be a full-time employee of the
Engineering Consultant. The Resident Inspector's duties shall be to
monitor construction and be at the job site when project
construction is taking place,•on.a prescheduled periodic basis.
C. General Services During Construction per Master Ayreement. -1\
In addition, services shall include field surveys necessary for
design and preparation of construction plans and, with assistance
from the County, obtaining various permits and approvals for
construction (permit fees to be paid by the County).
Also, in addition, the consultant shall, with the approval of this
authorization, submit a time phased job completion schedule. This
task oriented schedule, as negotiated, shall include these elements
of work::
1. Releases from each public utility pertaining to underground
installations and/or interfering utility structures.
2. Submittal of all required permits and inspection schedules.
3. First and final submittal of construction drawings.
4. Submittal of construction contract bid packages (5), with
recommended construction completion time frame and a complete list
of all material required for project installation.
Note: Failure to meet these negotiated schedules will leave
consultant open for a negative performance evaluation, and/or -
contract cancellation, or liquidated damages.
D. Consultant Engineer Insurance Requirement
1. Workers Compensation Insurance in accordance with Florida
Statutes.
. Comprehensive and Automobile Liability with a minimum coverage
of $ 100/300 per occurrence for bodily injury or accidental death.
3. Comprehensive General Liability with a minimum limit of
$ 100/300 covering property damage.
4. Liability for Property Damage, while operating motor vehicle,
with .minimum limits of $ 100/300 per occurrence.
5. Contractural Liability including limits established for Items
D, 2.9 3., and 4.
6. Umbrella coverage, Excess Liability with minimum limits of
$ 1,000,000.00 per occurrence.
.. W 5 3 B00!( ,780
Bou .76 FAG, 781
DATE: April ^1, 1989 WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. WW -1 FOR CONSULTING
SERVICES. PROJECT NO. COUNTY I..D.--- . MASTELLER MOLER
ASSOCIATES. INC. WASTEWATER. REVISION #1.
E.. Comoensation for Services
This authorization shall be bid with two price elements:
1. Total design, permitting, and bid pack -age preparation, and
2. On-site Resident Inspection Services.
Billing will be submitted monthly based on a percentage of
completion of cost element #1, with 100% billed upon approval of
engineering design. Billing for cost element #2 will be made
monthly in accordance with the construction percentage of
completion. The County shall make payments within thirty (30) days
of the invoice billing date.
Cost Element #1 $12,000.00
SUBMITTED BY:
MASTELLLR.& MOLER ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
By &1 1 -14 -- . r �•j
Ear 'Mas t 4 11 e t,', -'F' - E.
President
Cost Element #2 $4,500.00
APPROVED BY:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMPIISSIONERS
By _ _ _� w
Gary rt Wheeler,
Chairran
Date �(,m Date
RECYCLING AND EDUCATIONS GRANTS - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (SWDD)
The Board reviewed memo from Ron Brooks, Manager of the
Solid Waste Disposal District:
DATE: APRIL 25, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO, DIRECTOR--'Ork
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
FROM: RONALD R. BROOKS, MANAGER
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
SUBJECT: RECYCLING AND EDUCATION GRANTS
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BACKGROUND
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) is
providing last minute 1988-1989 budget year grant funds to the
-Counties for the development and implementation of a Recycling and
Education Program. Application for these grant funds must be in the
DER office by May 19, 1989.
Individual applications for these funds may be submitted by the
Counties, and by those Cities having a population of 50,000 or more.
Cities with populations less than 50,000 cannot individually_ apply
54
for grants but may apply jointly with the Counties. The Cities in
Indian River County, therefore, must apply jointly with the County
to obtain any funds. The funds that would be available by the
Cities applying jointly would be based on the population of those
Cities.
If the County were to apply individually for funds it would be
required to provide equally matching funds in order to use the
grant. However, if the Cities representing over 75% of the
incorporated population apply jointly with the County, no matching
funds will be required.
The Solid Waste Disposal District is proposing an education program
and a basic recycling program that would establish recycling centers
at the landfill and at our currently existing Solid Waste Collection
Centers. In as much as the Cities are not •prepared at this last
minutes notice to .utilize grant funds for implementation of a
recycling program, they have tentatively agreed to apply jointly
with the County and allow the County to distribute these initial
1988-1989•funds to The Solid Waste Disposal District for utilization
as follows:
A. Capital costs for recycling and education, if justified to, and
approved by, FDER;
B. Establishing recycling centers at the County Landfill and the
existing Solid Waste Collection Centers for recycling paper,
glass, plastic, Compostable debris, white goods, and metals;
C. Shredding of organic materials for composting and or reuse as
mulch; '
D. Promotion of recycling, volume reduction, and proper disposal;
E. Market development for recyclable materials; and
F. Other uses provided for under the grants program and authorized
by the FDER.
In order to apply jointly for grant funds the Cities and the County
must enter into an Interlocal Agreement that specifies how the grant
funds are to be distributed and utilized. This agreement must be
recorded and then forwarded to DER by May 19, 1989.
ANALYSIS
Attached are copies of Interlocal agreements for the municipalities
of Vero Beach, Fellsmere, Sebastian, Town of Orchid, and Town of
Indian River Shores.
The agreements provide for a City/County j6'int application with all
received funds distributed to The Solid Waste Disposal District for
implementation of a County wide Recycling and Education Program.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that The Board approve the subject agreements and
authorize the Chairman to sign them on behalf of the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Interlocal Agreements with the City of Vero Beach,
Fellsmere, Sebastian, Town of Orchid and Town of
55
BOOK I FACE 4�
_I
Indian River Shores, regarding a joint application
for recycling and education grants, all received
funds to go to the SWDD.
COPIES OF SAID INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS AND GRANT APPLICATION ARE ON
FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT - DEMOLITION LIEN/PROPERTY OF A. BROOKS, JR.
The Board reviewed memo from Asst. County Attorney Collins:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: �c, William G. Collins II - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: April 26, 1989
SUBJECT: Proposed Settlement for Demolition Lien Against
the Property of Alexander Brooks, Jr.
A building at 845 8th Avenue, S.W. was demolished by Indian
River County, and a lien was placed against the property for
the cost of demolition. The building had been destroyed by
fire and was determined to be hazardous. Pursuant to County
ordinances and Board approval, a lien was recorded on March
14, 1989 to secure the cost of demolition and removal of the
structure in the amount of $2,723.43.
The owner of the property, Mr. Alexander Brooks, Jr., is
serving in the armed forces in Germany. A lien -on property
cannot be foreclosed against an individual serving in the
armed forces until such time as he leaves the service.
Thus, it could be years before the County could recoup its
costs of demolition.
The County has been contacted by Mrs. Emma E. Jackson of
Vero Beach who holds a Power of Attorney from Mr. Brooks.
Mrs. Jackson is not able to pay off the entire $2,723.43
lien in a lump sum amount. Mrs. Jackson has proposed the_
following agreement to resolve this lien:
1.
A down
payment of
$500.00.
2.
Monthly
payments
in the amount of $200.00 for 11 months.
3. A final payment in the amount of $23.43.
4. Waiver of interest accruals as long as the agreement Is
performed within the 1 -year time frame as proposed
above.
56
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend that we approve the agreement proposed by Mrs.
Jackson, since the County cannot foreclose this lien and
recoup its expenses for a number of years otherwise. This
way our expenses will be recouped, and Mrs. Jackson can pay
off the lien against Mr. Brooks' property in manageable
amounts. In the event of failure of performance, all
accrued but unpaid interest would not be waived.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the
agreement proposed by Mrs. Jackson as recommended by
staff'.
RESOLUTIONS RELATED TO ISSUE OF REFUNDING WATER & SEWER REV.BONDS
Attorney Vitunac passed out proposed Resolutions for the
Board to review. He explained that the first Resolution
continues in force the 1982 Resolution under which the FmHA loans
were first given. Since we are refinancing tomorrow all those
loans, there.won't be any outstanding loans under the 1982
Resolution, and normally it would become of no further force and
effect. However, we are going to use that old Resolution for the
Gifford refinancing several months from now; so, we need to keep
its vitality intact.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-45 supplementing Resolution 82-61.
BOOK. �E 7,8
57
AY 2 199
�.
Boor 76 r`.f;c 7�.�
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 4 5
A RESOLUTION SUPPLEMENTING RESOLUTION NO. 82-61 OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ENTITLED:
"RESOLUTION NO. 82-61
RESOLUTION COMBINING ALL WATER AND/OR SEWER SYSTEMS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, INTO ONE INTEGRATED
SYSTEM; PLEDGING THE GROSS REVENUES OF SUCH COMBINED
SYSTEM TO SECURE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST
ON ALL WATER AND SEWER REVENUE OBLIGATIONS OF THE
COUNTY; REVISING CERTAIN COVENANTS IN THE RESOLUTIONS
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ALL OUTSTANDING WATER
AND/OR SEWER REVENUE OBLIGATIONS OF THE COUNTY; AND
PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE HOLDERS OF'. SUCH
OBLIGATIONS."
TO PROVIDE -FOR THE CONTINUING EFFECTIVENESS THEREOF
NOTWITHSTANDING PAYMENT OR PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF ALL
OBLIGATIONS SECURED THEREBY.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. Authority for Resolution. This resolution is adopted
pursuant to Chapters 125 and 159, Florida Statutes (1988), as amended, and other
applicable provisions of law.
that:
SECTION 2. Findings. It is hereby ascertained, determined and declared
A. The Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") of
Indian River County, Florida (the "County"), on July 7,
1982, duly adopted a resolution entitled as follows:
"RESOLUTION NO. 82-61
RESOLUTION COMBINING ALL WATER AND/OR SEWER SYSTEMS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, INTO ONE INTEGRATED
SYSTEM; PLEDGING THE GROSS REVENUES OF SUCH COMBINED
SYSTEM TO SECURE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST
ON ALL WATER AND SEWER REVENUE OBLIGATIONS OF THE
RESOLUTION 89-45 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
IN ITS ENTIRETY.
58
Attorney Vitunac explained that the second Resolution is a
recopy of a February Resolution already passed, and it contains
the changes that are made necessary by the last several weeks of
activity, i.e., now we know exactly the price of the bonds, the
insurance, etc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by.Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-46 amending Resolution 89-19.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 46
A RESOLUTION'AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 89-
19 OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ENTITLED:
"RESOLUTION NO. 89-19
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING
FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING $7,500,000 WATER AND
SEWER REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1989, OF THE
COUNTY TO REFUND CERTAIN OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE COUNTY
HERETOFORE ISSUED TO FINANCE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION
OR ACQUISITION OF THE COMBINED WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM
OF THE COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE
REGISTERED OWNERS OF SAID BONDS; PROVIDING FOR THE
PAYMENT THEREOF; MAKING CERTAIN OTHER COVENANTS - AND
AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF SAID
BONDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE."
TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS UPON
WHICH THIS COUNTY MAY ISSUE WATER AND SEWER REVENUE
BONDS AND PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT AND SECURITY THEREOF.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. Authority for Resolution. This resolution is adopted
pursuant to Chapters 125 and 159, Florida Statutes (1988), as :amended, and other
applicable provisions of law.
SECTION 2. Findings. It is hereby ascertained, determined and
declared that:
RESOLUTION 89-46 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
IN ITS ENTIRETY.
l
59BOOK �
MAY 2 1 IOU
SOUTH COUNTY PARK UPDATE
BOOK 76 F,�G'L 7+8
Commissioner Bird informed the Board that the closing on the
property for the South County Park was held yesterday, and the
County now owns the land and has the deed. The next step is to
work at budget time to find the fund to develop the 80 acres.
Director Davis reported that a registered engineer and park
designer, who has done a lot of work in South Florida, has
volunteered his services to revise the master plan for the 40
acre site we originally looked at to the 80 acre site we ended up
purchasing. Recreation Director Pat Callahan has worked with
thi.s man.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Commissioner Eggert reviewed the following memo, which she
felt is self-explanatory:
TO: Board of County DATE: April 26, 1989 FILE:
Commissioners
SUBJECT: $1,000 Fee Request for
Industrial Revenue Bonds
FROM: Carolyn K. Eggert �A REFERENCES:
•Roger McMurray of Advanced Design Concepts has applied to
Indian River County for Industrial Revenue Bonds in the s&YP of
$9,950,000.00. We have been unable to start processing his
application because he will not pay more than $100.00 of the
$1,000.00 fee. Because of this, the Economic Development Council
voted that they conceptually like the type of industry that`he is
planning to bring to Indian River County but that they would
leave to the Finance Committee the investigation for the
Industrial Revenue Bonds.
Mr. McMurray asked that the fee be cut saying State law does
not show a fee for this type of matter. In prior years, everyone
applying for Industrial Revenue Bonds has paid the $1,000.00.
The recommendation is that the Board of County Commissioners
direct Mr. McMurray to pay the full $1,000.00 fee prior to his
application being investigated.
60
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously directed that
Mr. McMurray of Advanced Design Concepts be required
to pay the full $1,000 fee which is the normal fee for
investigation of an application for Industrial Revenue
Bonds.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board unanimously adjourned at 11:25 o'clock
A. M.
ATTEST:
(fCh
Y EOOK 7F',,GF 78
61