HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/16/1989Tuesday, May 16, 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
16, 1989, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Gary C. Wheeler,
Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird;
Margaret C. Bowman; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were
James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac,
Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Barbara
Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Rabbi Jay R. Davis of Temple Beth Shalom gave the
invocation, and Commissioner Scurlock led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Wheeler requested the deletion of Item F from the
Consent Agenda - Underwriter for North County Sewer Assessment
and the addition of the following two items:
1) Appointment of representatives to the budget committee of the
Tri -County Medical Examiner Committee.
2) Authorization to use two appraisers on right-of-way for Phase
III of Indian River Boulevard. _
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously added and
deleted the above items from today's Agenda.
e`j��.
F U. 8:�
MI 1 6 1989
MAY 16 1989
ROCK 76 F,,,JE 8:35
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of 4/25/89
Chairman Wheeler asked if there were any changes or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 4/25/89.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 4/25/89, as
written.
B. Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting of City/County 4/20/89
Chairman Wheeler asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of City/County on
April 20, 1989. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of City/County on
4/20/89, as written.
C. Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting of 4/27/89
Chairman Wheeler asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of April 27,
1989. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 4/27/89, as
written.
2
D. Approval of Out -of -State Travel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
out-of-state travel for Commissioner Scurlock to
attend American Water Works Conference in Los Angeles,
California, June 18-22, 1989.
Approval of Grant Application- IRC Main Library
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/16/89:
MEMORANDUM.
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman.`(
Public Library Advisory Board
DATE: May 16, 1989
SUBJECT: Grant Application/Indian River County Main
Library
We ask approval and signature by the Chairman of the
Resolutions and other items required for the Indian River County
Main Library Grant so that we may begin processing them. The
total grant package is available in the Commission office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolutions 89-47, 89-48, and 89-49, all of which are
required in the grant application for the Indian River
County Main Library.
3
PLAY 1 6 1989
836
BOOK . 6 06E8:37
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 47
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
DIVISION OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES
REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1989-90 RELATING TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MAIN
LIBRARY.
WHEREAS, Indian River County has been offered a library
construction grant of $200,000 from the State of Florida,
Department of State, Division of Library and Information
Services (State) and to obtain this grant must submit a
completed grant application;
WHEREAS, as part of the grant application Indian River
County must complete the certification of application
attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A" and an "Assurance
of Compliance with the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare Regulation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964" which is attached as Exhibit "B"; and
WHEREAS, the grant application must include an
authorization for submission of the application, an
assurance that the required 50% match will be available and
unencumbered at the time of grant award, the name of the
person authorized to sign the application, assurance that
funding Is sufficient and will be available in order that
the project will result in a completed library building, and
assurance that upon completion of the project sufficient
funds will be available to operate such facility,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
is authorized to execute the certification of application
shown as Exhibit "A."
2. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
is authorized to execute Form HEW -441, attached as Exhibit
5B,° which Is assurance of compliance with the Department of
Health, Education. and Welfare Regulation under Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
3. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
is authorized to submit the grant application.
4. The 50% match, i.e., $200,000. will be available
and unencumbered at the time of grant award.
5. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
Gary C. Wheeler is authorized to sign the application.
6. Indian River County assures the State that the
County has fee simple title to the land on which the library
will be built and has the unconditional right to use the
land and building for a public library.
7. Indian River County assures the State that
sufficient funding will be available in order that the
project will result in a completed library building.
4
RESOLUTION NO.
89-47
8. Indian River County assures the State that upon
completion of the project sufficient funds will be available
to operate the facility.
The resolution was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Scutlock , and the motion was seconded by
Commissioner Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 16th day of May , 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
er
C 1 rman
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 48
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO
THE STATE OF FLORIDA CERTIFYING THAT THE COUNTY
OPERATES A PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM AS A FUNCTION OF
COUNTY GOVERNMENT.
WHEREAS, Indian River County has applied for a,grant
from the State of Florida for the development of its main
library;
WHEREAS, one of the conditions of the library grant Is
that the County provide documents showing that the library
is a public facility; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County has chosen to provide a
public library funded by taxes raised through the General
Fund under the Board of County Commissioners,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. This resolution certifies that Indian River County
provides a main public library available to the residents of
Indian River County on a non-discriminatory basis funded
from ad valorem taxes raised under the General Fund of the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County.
2. This resolution further certifies that the main
branch of the Indian River County Library System is operated
as a department under the control of the Board of County
Commissioners acting through its County Administrator.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this
AY.161999
16th day of May
5
, 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Gar l er
Cha rman
HOF 76 FGE 838
6AY161989
',of(
RESOLUTION NO. 86- 49
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
DIVISION OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES
REGARDING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FOR FISCAL`YEAR i
1989-90 RELATING TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.MAIN
LIBRARY.
WHEREAS, Indian River County has been offered a library
tructlon grant of $200,000 from the State of Florida,
Department of Stete. Division of Library and Information
Services (State) and to obtain this grant must submit a
completed grant application;
WHEREAS, as pert of the grant application Indian River
County must complete the certification of appllcatlon
attached to this Resolution es Exhibit "A" and an "Assurance
of Compliance with the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare Regulation, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964" which Is attached as Exhibit "B", and ,
WHEREAS. the grant application must Include en
authorization for submission of the appllcatlon, an
hat the required 303 match will be available and
unencumbered at the time of. grant award, the name of the
person authorized to sign the application, assurance that
funding Is sufficient and will be available In order that
the protect will result In a completed library building, and
that upon completion of the project sufficient
funds will be;evailable to operate such facility,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
Is authorized to execute the certification of application
shown as Exhlblt "A."
2. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
1s authorized to execute Form HEW -111, attached es Exhlblt
"B." which Is assurance of compliance with the Department of
Health. Education. and Welfare Regulation under Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1161. . .
3. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
Is authorized to submit the grant application. .
4. The 303 match. 1.e.. 3200.000. will be available
and unencumbered at the time of grant award.
6. The Chairman of the Board of County Commis',
Gary C. Wheeler Is authorized to sign the application.
6. Indian River County the State that the
County has fee simple title to the land on which the library
will be built and has the unconditional right to use the
lard and building for s public library.
7. Indian River County assures the. State that
sufficient funding will be available In order that th0
project will result In a completed library building.
•8. Indian River County assures the Stale that upon
completion of the project sufficient funds will be available
to operate the facility.
The resolution was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Scurlgck , and the motion was seconded by.
Commissioner Bird and, upon being put to a vote. the
vote was as follows:
Chairmen Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 16th day of Nay . 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA
6
By
ry C-WFee ar
Ch anon
1) FAUF.8:
F. Underwriter for North County Sewer Assessment
(Deleted)
G. Report - Occupational License Taxes
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/8/89:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
DATE: May 8, 1989
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be
informed that $3,151.41 was collected in occupational license taxes
during the month of April, representing the issuance of 161
licenses.
Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted
the above report.
H. Final Plat Approval - Replat of Tract 4, Sea Oak's River
Homes IIIA PRD Subdivision
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/4/89.:
MAY 1 1989
7
aoor f d [V,,.84O
MAY 1 6 1989 EOOK 76 ME 841
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Ro
ert M. Keat
g,
Community Deve opm
P
Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling; AICP
Development
FROM: Robert E. Wiegers
Staff Planner, Current Development
Chief, Current
DATE: May 4, 1989
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE REPLAT OF TRACT 4 SEA OAK'S
RIVER HOMES IIIA PRD SUBDIVISION
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 16, 1989.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The replat of Tract 4 River Homes IIIA PRD
subdivision of a previously platted tract
interior of the Sea Oaks West project.
RM -6, (Multi -Family Residential, up to 6
use designation of LD -2, (Low Density
units/acre) .
Subdivision is an 8 lot
of land located in the
The current zoning is
units/acre) with a land
Residential, up to 6
With this application the developer is proposing to replat Tract 4
of the final PRD plat that was approved by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of February 23, 1988. During
the preliminary PRD stage Tract 4 was designated a future eight
(8) lot multi -family area within -the overall Sea Oaks community.
The proposed replat is in conformance with the approved conceptual
and preliminary PRD plans and does not result in any modifications
beyond what has been previously approved.
The owner, Sea Oaks Communities, Inc., is now requesting final
plat approval and has submitted:
1. a final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary
plat, and approved conceptual PRD plan.
ANALYSIS:
All required improvements have been constructed and have been
inspected and approved by Public Works and Utilities Departments.
All requirements for final plat approval have been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval to the Replat of Tract 4 Sea Oaks River Homes
IIIA PRD Subdivision.
8
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously granted
final plat approval to the Replat of Tract 4 Sea
Oaks River Homes IIIA PRD Subdivision, as recommended
by staff.
1. IRC Bid #89-17 - Alkyd Thermoplastic
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/5/89:
DATE: May 5, 1989
TO: Board of County Commissioners
TI U: James E. chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Sgrvi
FROM: Dominick L. MascolaCPO Manager
Division of Purchasing
SUBJ: IRC BID NO.#89-17-ALKYD THEOPLASTIC
. y.. not, ♦.r a
BACKGROUND:
IRC BID NO #89-17 dated August 24, 1988 for Alkyd Thermoplastic
was awarded to CATAPHOTE, INC., Jackson, Ms.
ANALYSIS:
The pavement marking crew, frau Traffic Control have reported
the following problems with Thermoplastic Material being supplied
now by Cataphote, Inc.
1) 50 degree to 75 degree higher temperature is
needed to melt blocks increasing propane
fuel costs. -
2) The melted material is thinner making it more
difficult for the operator to do a neat job
on uneven surfaces.
3) The glass beads separate and sink to the bottom
of the applicator causing valve clogging.
4) The cardboard boxes the material is shipped in.
are not strong enough to be re -used to hold
left -over material when the equipment is emptied
for cleaning.
5) After it is on the road, the material appears
to absorb oil and grease erre readily causing
discoloration.
R C DATIC N:
BID #89-17 Alkyd Thermoplastic be cancelled and awarded to
the Second Low Bidder, Pavemark Inc. Pavemark Inc. has worked
fly well in the past.
MAY 161989
9
/�
FF''rr H�-//�6 C
KU.f'. d I ,'•AJC 46
MAY 1989
POOK FIG[ 843
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation as set out in the above memo.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID;TABULATION
\I
� e
`�
T (i,
l‘ % k��
G \� i r`
V\ �� (�
v 111 �J
La'
�
0
\cX'
�VVV
...••
BID N0.
0891`-1 7
DATE OF OPENING
BID TITLE
ALKYD THERMOPLASTIC MATERIAL
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT
PRICE
UI
1. White Alkyd (Blocks)
e39
fic.f)
• 3V
, 7
, 5
0
%JVP)\d
Per LB. $
2. Yellow Alkyd
(Blocks)
$
,?�t1c
77
5
,4'1
1;.L--:
e7E
.. )
Per Lb.
3. White Alkyd (Grandular)
0:T7S---
,30
/Yp
IS)d
,4/7(,
Por Eh_ S
4. Yellow Alkyd (Grandular)
.3375
, 3ii
//e/
,(�`Jc
Per Lb. $
r
14f...
Zri Z
�
1.°110
/. 9s
(1.371"
J. Release of County Liens
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/8/89:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Lea R. Keller, County Attorney's Office
DATE: May 8, 1989
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 5/16/89
RELEASE COUNTY LIENS
1 have prepared the following lien releases and request the
Board authorize the Chairman to execute them:
Lot 159 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name of
REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
10
Lots 34 and 35 of KINGSWOOD ESTATES SUBD. in
the name of KINGSWOOD WEST
Lot 44 of OLD SUGAR MILL ESTATES, UNITS FIVE
AND SIX, in the name of SEXTON
Lot 39 of OLD SUGAR MILL ESTATES, UNITS FIVE
AND SIX, in the name of SEXTON
SATISFACTION OF IMPACT FEE EXTENSION, in the
name of KENNETH VERDERBER et ux, Lot 1 of
Block E of INDIAN RIVER HEIGHTS, UNIT #8
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the Release of Liens listed
the above memo dated 4/12/89.
RELEASE OF LIENS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD
in
PRESENTATION ON ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S LOCAL
GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 2/17/89:
13. JOHNS PNEP 't
;7, r...•9 >. ,WATER
MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT
February 17, 1989
Henry Dean, Executive Director
Mildred G. Horton, Assistant Executive Director
John R. Wehle, Assistant Executive Director
POST OFFICE BOX 1429 • PALATKA, FLORIDA 32078-1429
904/328-8321
❑ 2133 N.Wickham Rd. 0 7775 Baymeadows Way 0 618 E. South St.
Melbourne, FL 32935-8109 Suite 201 Orlando, FL 32801
(407) 254-1761 Jacksonville, FL 32256 (407) 894-5423
(904) 730-6270
The Honorable Gary Wheeler
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 - 25th Street
Vero Beach Florida 32960
Dear Mr. Wheeler:
�, f's
During the last year, the St. Johns River Water Management Distri(
renewed a commitment to assist local governments in their com eni
�`6
P --
reh
planning efforts. The District has specifically authorized an expansion of
the District Planning Staff to better coordinate with local governments.
This commitment has extended to the authorization of planning staff for the
Jacksonville and Orlando Field Offices of the District.
MAY 16 1989
11
E40[4.
76 FA ; . 84 4
MAY 1 61989
POOK 76 F"q,E845
District staff have been working closely with many local governments during
the last few months. This activity has primarily focused on making local
governments aware of the type of data and information that is available from
the.District, and the review of draft plan elements.
I would like the opportunity to further explain the District's local
government technical assistance program at one of your commission meetings.
I have prepared a brief (10 minute) slide show to illustrate how the St.
Johns River Water Management District is assisting local governments and I
think that the Commission might find this information helpful. The
Executive Director,Henry Dean, or John Wehle, Assistant Executive Director,
will be present when I make the presentation and will be available to answer
questions if you so desire.
Please consider what meeting days and times might
I will call on you in the next couple of weeks to
Board of County Commissioners might"be interested
Sincerely,
MICHAEL K. MILLER, Director
Division of Policy and Planning
MKM/nkf
cc: Governing Board, Henry Dean, John Wehle,
John H. Hankinson, Jr.
be the most convenient and
inquire about when the
in such a presentation.
D1STi,lBUTION LIST
Commissioners
Administrator
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
Corn .-unify uev. v
:t:es
rinL
Mildre4. G ,Morton
Mike Miller, former County planner, showed a 10 -minute
slidefilm presentation and explained the District's local
government technical assistance program with regard to helping
counties to manage these resources wisely.
A Comprehensive
Planning Strategy
for the
St. Johns River
Water Management District
❑ Local Government Comprehensive
Plan Assistance and Review
❑ 5-Yea`r Plan
• Policy Plan
▪ Basin Specific Plans
12
MAY 1619
i'LI!
9
Basin Specific
5 -Year Plan
O Coordination of District planning
activities
isBasin management plans
Pr' SWIM plans
— Land acquisition plans
.r Area specific regulatory
requirements
❑ Development of intergovernmental
recommendations
O Development of short and long term
budget priorities
❑ Creation of subdistrict planning areas
O Assessment of basin water resource
conditions
O Identification and evaluation of existing
District activities
❑ Establish action priorities and
basin specific policies
O Identify "new" District programs
and activities
Policy Plan •
Will provide clear policy guidance
for both the District's activities
and the District's interactions
with other agencies and local gov-
ernments in addressing the water
resource problems facing the Dis-
trict.
❑ Wellfield protection
❑ Recharge areas
❑ permitting efficiency and
effectiveness
O Wastewater management
and reuse
O Minimum flows
❑ IT loodplain management
❑ Interbasin transfer
O Stormwater management
❑ Groundwater management
O Surface water management
❑ Water conservation
O Water supply
❑ Land acquisition
❑ District land management
O Intergovernmental coordination
O SWIM coordination
O Environmental restoration
13
[qv 76 PD.Gt 846
SAY 163 1989
LCOS 76 Fa:,E84 d
Commissioner Eggert asked if this policy plan interfaces
with the water districts to the south of us with respect to the
Regional Planning Council, and Mr. Miller explained that there is
an on-going basis of coordination with other water districts, and
he felt their goals are the same.
Commissioner Scurlock wondered about that since SJRWMD is
buying land while the water districts to the south are building
on their lands.
Chairman Wheeler thanked Mr. Miller for coming this morning.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION - C.N. KIRRIE'S PROBLEM IN COMPLETING SITE PLAN
IN ROSE -4 DISTRICT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/10/89:
Tong
Board of County CommissionersDATE: May 10, 1989
SUBJECT:
FROWN .. James E. Chandler REFERENCES:
County Administrator
FILE:
During the month of February I had several discussions and meetings with
Mr. C. N. Kirrie concerning his site plan that was approved by the
Commission on May 17, 1988. In the process I thoroughly reviewed the
factors relating to the site plan and questions raised by Mr. Kirrie. As a
result, those questions were satisfactorily resolved, with the exception,
evidently, of the question relating to the number of employees authorized.
As you are aware the site plan was processed and approved under the
provisions of the old Rose -4 district (Ord. 87-22), which had been repealed.
One of the Rose -4 provisions was that the number of employees was limited to
on-site family members. However, in the course of the May 17th deliberations
it appeared the Commission was willing to extend that number to off-site
persons employed at the time by grandfathering them in. That determination
was transmitted to Mr. Kirrie by letter dated June 9, 1988 from the Current
Development Staff Planner, County Attorney and former County
Administrator.
14
During my meetings with Mr. Kirrie he indicated that he could not give or
document one specific number of offsite employees. He advised that was
because due to the nature of his business the number varied during the
course of the year. In an effort to equitably resolve the matter from Mr.
Kirrie's standpoint and consistent with what in my opinion appeared to be the
Commission's intent, I indicated that I would approve a total of nine (9)
employees. This was predicated on family members and the number of off-site
employees his type facility would normally accommodate. Considering the total
circumstances surrounding this particular site plan, I felt a total number must
be established. My decision was related to Mr. Kirrie at our February 28,
1989 meeting and in response to his request confirmed by letter dated March
30, 1989.
Although not related to the employee issue, due to the timing, two additional
questions may need to be addressed and resolved. At the time of my
meetings with Mr. Kirrie he had applied for a building permit and was subject
to 1988 traffic impact fee rates. That time element has since lapsed and the
1989 rates are applicable. Additionally, since the site plan was approved on
May 17, 1988, the approval normally would expire May 17, 1989, unless
extended by the Commission.
Administrator Chandler noted that there are 3 issues to be
considered this morning:
1) Total number of employees allowed
2) Traffic impact fee rates
3) Extension of site plan for expansion that was approved
5/17/88
Commissioner Scurlock asked how many employees had been
requested, and Administrator Chandler explained that he was
unable to get a specific number from Mr. Kirrie because Mr.
Kirrie indicated that he was not able to demonstrate what the
numbers were at any given time due to the nature of his business.
At one point, Mr. Kirrie threw out the figure of 20, but later on
they discussed 12-15 employees.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we had verified the maximum
number of employees at any one time and whether staff had checked
directly with FICA records, and Administrator Chandler emphasized
that we have never received any documentation on the number of
employees.
Chairman Wheeler asked if Ordinance 87-22 specifically
points out the number of employees allowed, and Administrator
Chandler stated that Ordinance 87-22 does not specify the number
of employees, but does state that employees would be on-site
family members. However, the Minutes of the meeting at which
MAY 1 1989
15
co °lb F' ,F 84
ItAY 16 1989
BOOK 76 P,iGE 841
the site plan for expansion was approved (May 17, 1988) show that
the Commissioners seem to be amiable to grandfathering in those
persons who were employed at that time irrespective of whether or
not they were on-site family members
Commissioner Bird felt that the argument that will be made
today is the definition of "conducted" in that section of
Ordinance 87-22 where it states that the activity is to be
"conducted only by members of the family living within the
residence". He anticipated that Mr. Kirrie will argue that
family members will "supervise" the activities and that it
doesn't mean that everyone who works there has to be family
member.
Administrator Chandler agreed that this seems to be coming
down to a matter of interpretation and judgement.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if Administrator Chandler had
determined that there was a good faith effort by Mr. Kirrie
throughout this process to go ahead and procure his necessary
approvals and actually begin construction.
Administrator Chandler stated that there were no problems in
that respect. Mr. Kirrie had submitted his site plan and plans
for building permits and as we got into our discussions, there
were no problems other than trying to resolve those questions
that were open.
Commissioner Scurlock assumed then that staff would have no
objection to a site plan extension. The other questions are 1)
Did we impede his orderly progress in terms of the impact fees?
2) Did he vest? and, 3) Was there anything that we caused?
Administrator Chandler advised that Mr. Kirrie submitted his
plans in December, 1988, and the new rate would have kicked in on
March 1, 1989. When Mr. Kirrie approached him the first part of
February, he recognized the critical time element as it relates
to the traffic impact fees, and made the time to make sure that
we could get into it and try to resolve it in advance so there
16
would not be a question on which rate would be paid. In fact,
our meeting was on February 28th, so if we had reached accord, he
could have pulled the permit and the 1988 traffic impact fees
would have been applicable. However, the fact that Mr. Kirrie
did not accept the decision on the number of employees brings
that time element into play again.
Commissioner Bird asked if the Board has the flexibility in
making a determination as to whether the old or the new traffic
impact fee rate would apply.
Attorney Vitunac did not believe the Board has the power to
waive the traffic impact fees, but if there was a good faith
dispute that wasn't clear, the Board could make a determination
one way or another. Staff has given the Board an opinion, and
has made every effort to allow him to come in under the old,
cheaper rates if he had made an effort.
Commissioner Scurlock understood the intent in the
discussions of the Commission was some sort of reasonableness.
He felt that if you took a strict interpretation of Ordinance
87-22, home occupations would be limited to on-site family
members, and no other employees would be allowed. He felt that
if the number was 9, 10, or 20, any of those conditions were more
liberal.
Robert Keating, Director of Planning & Development, felt
that the number of employees proposed by staff is very generous.
Not only was there a consideration for how many employees would
have been grandfathered given the size of the structure that was
there in the first place, but staff also considered the size of
the structure that was approved in a site plan expansion and
worked backwards in figuring out how many employees would be
there normally given the square footage and the average number of
employees per square feet.
Commissioner Eggert didn't feel there was any doubt as to
what the Board was talking about in discussing this matter at
past meetings. She believed it is just a question of how many
9VIAY 16 1989
FK,E 850
r
MAY 16 1989
Roos 76 PAGE 851
employees he had and what is the most he has had. Administrator
Chandler repeated the 3 options given by staff, and explained
that he had gone with the third alternative in an attempt to
equitably resolve the matter from the standpoint of Mr. Kirrie
and the intent of the Commission. He reiterated that he never
received documentation as to the average number of employees or
the maximum number of employees.
Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing the applicant, noted
that he has been involved with the ROSE 4 District and Mr. Kirrie
for several years now. He felt the real issue is that Mr. Kirrie
was given site plan approval by this Board with no conditions
except one, and that was that he reduce the scope of his proposed
expansion by one half. He did that and submitted plans to staff,
and subsequently applied for a building permit. At this point in
time, however, the building permit is being held up. Building
Director Ester Rymer has advised that the Planning Dept. will not
release the site plan that was approved a year ago. Everything
that the Building Dept. needs to issue the permit has been
submitted in order, but the Planning Dept. will not release the
site plan because they are requiring Mr. Kirrie to state on the
site plan the number of employees he proposes to have. Attorney
O'Haire advised that he and Administrator Chandler have been
going back and forth with staff on this, but Mr. Kirrie feels the
issue is that there is no requirement by this Board or in the
ordinances that the number of employees be stated on the site
plan as a condition of release of site plan.
Mr. Kirrie feels a little paranoid about this because ROSE -4 was
opposed by staff; his site plan was opposed by staff; and his
building permit has been opposed by staff. Staff does not like
what ROSE -4 is or what Mr. Kirrie is doing because it lies in the
face of conventional theory. That may be, but Mr. Kirrie is
perfectly legal, and he doesn't feel he should be subjected to
limitations for his site plan when other site plans in the county
are not required to state the number of employees. The only
18
restriction on the employees or the number of people are the
physical limitations of the plants or whatever it is that is
being permitted. Attorney O'Haire noted that the last site plans
he was involved with were Walmart and a Publix at the corner of
Oslo Road and U.S. #1, and he could guarantee that the number of
employees has never come up. That is a huge project at that
corner, but the number of employees is not an issue. It is the
physical limitations of what is approved that is going to
determine the number of employees permitted.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that Attorney O'Haire's
position is that the number of employees should not appear on the
site plan, and that if the number of employees is questioned at
some point, it would be a Code Enforcement problem.
Attorney O'Haire said that is exactly his position, because
that is what it is everywhere else in the County. Mr. Kirrie
feels that this is an unreasonable limitation that has been
imposed on him for no good reason other than to stymie him. It
is not asked of anybody else, and that, quite simply, is Mr.
Kirrie's position.
Administrator Chandler had a problem with that because
without setting a specific limit, it would be difficult for a
Code Enforcement officer to determine how many employees are
allowed out there.
Attorney O'Haire emphasized that at one point in time, Mr.
Kirrie was grandfathered, and then he was made legal. So, one of
the legal issues is how many employees is he entitled to as a
grandfathered use. Another legal issue is the text of Ordinance
87-22 itself where it states "a business conducted by family
members". It doesn't resolve the number of employees. Nobody
ever is going to go to Piper Aircraft Corporation and say we are
going to count your employees. It just is not done. Mr. Kirrie
is the only one that ever applied for site plan approval under
Ordinance 87-22, and yes, if you go to the text of Ordinance
MAY 16 i1J89
19
Roos 76 ['AGE 852
VAYle1989
BooK 76 FG[853
87-22, one of the conditions of site plan approval for expanding
a home occupation use in Rose -4 is that the business is to be
conducted by family members. It is Mr. Kirrie's contention that
language was put their intentionally because "conducted" was
intended to mean "managed".
Neither Chairman Wheeler or Commissioner Scurlock felt that
was the intent at all.
Attorney Vitunac emphasized that the analogies to Walmart
and Piper are not applicable here as this is a unique type of
ordinance. Mr. Kirrie is probably the only one in the world to
come under this particular zoning and try to get grandfathered.
We don't ask for the number of employees for Walmart for a good
reason -- they have the proper zoning. Mr. Kirrie is a
disfavored use, a grandfathered use. We don't want it; we never
should have had it; and we let him in because when we passed the
ordinance he made an effort to comply with it at one time. It is
our opinion that he never did comply with it properly, but the
Board has bent over backwards to let him try to comply with it.
One of the issues with which he must comply is that it has to be
his own family members. "Business conducted by family members"
is clear on its face. It doesn't mean that each one can hire 100
sub -workers, who would be legal too. We have been consistent
that it had to be family members only, and because of that, it is
not like Piper, K -Mart or Walnut.
We need to know how many
family members he had there at one time. It is different. It is
unique. Attorney O'Haire has agreed that it is unique, and if
Mr. Kirrie wants a building permit without stating the number of
employees, he will be constructing a building for which the
County will be out there the following week citing him to stop
it. We are trying to save him right now by getting the issue
resolved before he spends another $1 -million in putting up a
building.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that we didn't confine him
to family members, we grandfathered in the number of non -family
20
MIN
members he had there, and she felt that was our problem right
now.
Attorney Vitunac stressed that we even bent over backwards
further than that, which probably is more than the law allows.
We gave him more than family members and gave him whatever
members he had working there at that particular time in history,
and he won't tell us what that number is. Why not?
Attorney O'Haire felt that it is because it is a requirement
being made of him that is not being made of anyone else. He
maintained that Mr. Kirrie is not improperly zoned, and has not
been improperly zoned. ROSE -4 is a zoning category just like our
1-A and Mr. Kirrie made application for site plan approval on
that. He is not illegal.
Director Keating stated that Attorney O'Haire is incorrect.
There is a provision in the ordinances to allow home occupations
throughout the county, and one of the provisions in there is very
similar to ROSE -4. The ROSE -4 district only allows the activity
to be conducted by family members residing in the place where the
home occupation approval is given. Director Keating emphasized
that staff approves home occupations all the time and asks for
the number of people who will be engaged in that activity.
Commissioner Scurlock understood then that it is common
practice for the county to ask the number of people who will be
employed in that operation and that the ordinance limits it to
family members, and Director Keating confirmed that the County
has a form for that that has to be filled out, signed and
notarized.
Chairman Wheeler was sympathetic toward Mr. Kirrie, but in
looking at home occupations under the ROSE -4 ordinance, he didn't
feel that "conducted" meant "supervise".
Commissioner Scurlock felt that the whole effort at the time
was to try to be fair and say we will hold you harmless and what
you have now is what you got, and we are not going to come in and
reduce the number of employees, but just tell us how many
y y t6 0 9
ti
21 mor PAGE. 854
MAY 16 1989
fools
eff
employees you have under the current conditions, family members
and others, that are working there and we will grandfather them
in. We don't want you there in the first place, and in the long
run and at some point in time, maybe 20 years from now, we want
this grandfathering situation to come into compliance. That is
what you do when you rezone; you hope that at some point
everything comes into compliance.
Attorney O'Haire stated he would agree with everything
Commissioner Scurlock has said were it not for the fact that
ROSE -4 Ordinance 87-22 contemplated the expansion of the use in
the terms provided for site plan approval. We were not freezing
everything in place, and it was, indeed, the intention that the
use could be expanded under the circumstances set forth in this
ordinance.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that it says "within the
framework of the family doing it", and Commissioner Scurlock felt
that expanded or increased warehouse area would imply that there
would be no additional employees.
Attorney O'Haire interjected that it could be for general
contract, for example, and depends on the use involved.
Commissioner Scurlock didn't feel that it could track back
to more employees, but Attorney O'Haire maintained that it very
well could.
Chairman Wheeler remembered the conversation where Mr.
Kirrie said that he needed the additional space for the work he
was doing; that he had to move some equipment or reuse it; and
that it just wasn't well organized and he needed additional
space.
Commissioner Eggert remembered that Mr. Kirrie had said that
most of his stuff was outside and exposed, and needed to be
warehoused.
C. N. Kirrie, 12855 79th Avenue, Roseland, wished to direct
the Commission's attention to Page 2 of the packet of material he
had given to each Commissioner at the beginning of today's
22
NAY
meeting. He stated that the point he was trying to make is that
he helped author Ordinance 87-22 and that the intent of the
wording "conducted" is very specific. The intent was to protect
those who lived there from having an absentee owner, rental/lease
business type situation. They felt that those people who were
there and had been there for years operating these small
businesses needed that protection. Therefore, it was written
into Ordinance 87-22, and the wording "conducted by a family
member living on site" was to preclude an absentee owner from
turning it into a junkyard type situation. Mr. Kirrie emphasized
that Ordinance 87-22 stands by itself. It has absolutely nothing
to do with the other county ordinances that have home occupations
written into them. They are not concerned with other home
occupations, but are concerned with expanded home occupations.
Expanded means uses and intensity beyond a normal home
occupation. That is why it says expanded home occupation. He
felt that if you are going to expand, it is reasonable that you
not only will have a larger type operation, but somewhere you
would have more employees. It also was the intention of this
Commission at the time that they passed Ordinance 87-22 that
employees would in fact be a part of Ordinance 87-22. He
emphasized that legally he is still under Ordinance 87-22.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that the transcript of Minutes
shown on page 2 of Mr. Kirrie's packet, shows that Commissioner
Eggert is talking about a Motion to find a way to make the people
that are there now legal. It doesn't say for the people to come;
it says now. It seemed very clear to him that Commissioner
Eggert's intent was to make the existing number of people that
were there "now" legal and didn't mean to expand it and have 20,
50 or 200 people. It was the people that were "now".
Mr. Kirrie pointed out at the top of page 3 where Attorney
Vitunac says, "change the ROSE -4 criteria to make everyone legal
instead of grandfathered so they can expand in the future." That
is followed by Commissioner Eggert saying "whatever it takes is
989
23
KO 70 f'AGE ODU
r -
MAY 16 1989
ROOK 76 PAGE 857
what we are asking", and then Attorney Vitunac advised that "one
of the changes will be that home occupations in the ROSE -4 will
be allowed to hire outside employees". Mr. Kirrie wondered how
much more specific can we get.
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that it didn't say
"additional outside employees", and Commissioner Eggert pointed
out that Mr. Kirrie already had them.
Administrator Chandler explained that the approved Minutes
of that meeting, which is the official record, showed that the
intent was to try to let Mr. Kirrie maintain the numbers of
individuals he had there at that point in time. The
Administrator didn't feel there was any question, as you go
through the full set of the Minutes and look at the
representations that were made by the applicant, that this whole
site plan was related to on-site family members, including
representations made by the traffic engineer for the applicant
where they went through trip generations, etc. He noted that
there is another provision in this ordinance which ties into the
trips related to or equal to what would ordinarily be a single
family residence.
Commissioner Scurlock explained to Mr. Kirrie that he knew
exactly what he had meant in that meeting. The intent then was,
as it is now, and there were a number of people who would have
been quite happy to have Mr. Kirrie out of there, but this
Commission said no, that was not fair. We were trying to allow
him to have some expansion in terms of his physical structure
there, to let him improve his business, to allow him and his
family to conduct a business for another period of time, and
allow whatever number of employees that he presently had working
there on a day to day basis. The intent was to allow that number
to continue, not the same individuals, but that number. If Mr.
Kirrie can tell us, as an honest man, that the number was 20 or
10 or 12, then we can deal with that.
24
Mr. Kirrie responded by saying, "Let's get down to an actual
number". He explained that he has not responded to the request
because the request was very, very specific as to a precise time.
The time was the passage of Ordinance 87-22, at which time he had
zero employees other than family. However, the year prior to
that he had 8 employees. Mr. Kirrie stated that the maximum
number of outside employees he has ever had, with no expansion,
was 8 plus 4 family members.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that 8 and 4 makes 12, and staff
is already at 9.
Mr. Kirrie asked if the Commission would be satisfied with
limiting him according to the ROSE -4 criteria for traffic
generation, which is the criteria for limiting him in the first
place.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that what Administrator Chandler
is trying to accomplish here is to have something in black and
white so that if the problem arises, we have a specific number
for a Code Enforcement officer to refer to. If Mr. Kirrie is
talking about just relating it to trip flow, then you have a
traffic counter and you would have peak or average daily flow.
He felt a specific number would be much clearer for everybody.
Mr. Kirrie understood that, but felt that if the Board feels
that it must limit him to a specific number, it should be done by
the numbers. On page 5 of his packet, it says that "traffic is
not generated in excess of that customary for residential use."
Commissioner Eggert felt that would be more restrictive, but
Mr. Kirrie didn't think it would be. He then addressed the
formulas for vehicle trip ends shown on page 23 of his packet,
and pointed out that if we look at the overall picture, the
bottom line is that he has sufficient property there to put in 7
dwelling units. Staff's own numbers from their memo dated
5/9/88, says that 7 trip ends would be produced per 1000 sq. ft.,
and since he has 4.7 thousand feet, that would make him 16.5
MAY 161989
25
Rona 76 PATE 8b8
AY 161989
BOOK 76 PAGE 859
employees. The average for all of these types of calculations is
26 employees. He didn't know what he would do with 26
employees, because he didn't intend to start General Motors in
his backyard. He couldn't hang them from the chandelier, or for
that matter, afford to pay them. Mr. Kirrie just felt that the
number 9 is restrictive as he had 9 before he ever applied for an
expansion. He wondered who in his right mind would put up a
building, ask for an expansion, and turn around and be limited to
exactly the same number of people he had in the first place. You
don't buy 2 or 3 more trucks and put up more buildings and wind
up with the same number of employees.
Director Keating advised that the purpose in developing the
criteria for trip end formulas is to determine road capacity.
Chairman Wheeler was very sympathetic to Mr. Kirrie's needs
there, but in going back through those Minutes, he felt the Board
was talking about family members conducting home occupations.
Piper Aircraft is not a home occupation. He really felt that Mr.
Kirrie may have been caught in a bad crunch with the growth that
has taken place in Florida in recent years, but pointed out that
the Board has to look at the total picture. He felt that the
Commission has tried to do that and give him all the slack we
can, but still make this neighborhood work.
Mr. Kirrie appreciated that very much, but pointed out that
he has been put in place by a number of different Commissions
over the years. If this Commission feels it must restrict the
numbers, then the restriction is acceptable -- it is something
that is on the books -- it is something that is workable. He
stated that he is not an unreasonable person, but when somebody
tells him he can have an expansion, but is limited to virtually
the same number of people that he had before the expansion, he
wonders what good it is. He felt it is a deliberate attempt to
kill it.
26
Commissioner Eggert wanted to try a Motion at this point
because she was tempted to accept Mr. Kirrie's word that the
number of employees that he had to grandfather was 8 plus 4.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board allow Mr. Kirrie
to have 12 employees; allow Mr. Kirrie to pay the 1988
traffic impact fees; and grant a one-year extension to
Mr. Kirrie's site plan for expansion of his business.
Under discussion, Frank DeJoia wished to make a few
comments. First of all, he felt the County Commission had bent
over backwards in allowing this tremendous physical expansion in
a home occupation in the ROSE -4 district. They had understood
that the expansion was for warehouses and that type of thing, but
now, the Commission is talking about more than family members.
He felt it was unconscionable of the Commission to allow more
than just family employees. Mr. DeJoia emphasized that we are
talking about making an exception for an industrial use in a
residential area. He didn't believe that even the CH (Heavy
Commercial) zoning would allow this type of operation without
administrative permits or special exceptions, and was surprised
that staff would come up and entertain increased numbers over the
family members. That really bugged him and a lot of other people
in Roseland.
Commissioner Eggert appreciated his feelings, but felt the
problem that all of the Commissioners have on this is that back
in 1987 we,:grandfathered in the number of non -family employees
that were there, and we are still functioning with that.
Mr. DeJoia wanted to hear from the County Attorney on that,
but Commissioner Scurlock interjected that Mr. Kirrie has given
us the Minutes of that meeting and that he accepts that they are
correct. It is very specific when they were talking about the
Motion. The Motion was to find a way to make the people that are
MAY i 6 1989
2 7 BOOK 76 r',A, ;;;. 860
MAY 16 1989
BOOK76 FACE 861
there now legal, and that included the family members and the
outside employees. Commissioner Scurlock understood that Mr.
Kirrie has indicated to the Board that the number of employees
that he has had outside of his family members is 8. Eight
employees plus his 4 family members make a total of 12.
Mr. Kirrie stated that he could document the 8 employees,
but could not document them in the timeframe that staff had asked
for. That is the only difficulty.
Mr. DeJoia understood then that if those employees could not
be documented during the timeframe, they could have been spread
out. over a longer period of time.
Commissioner Eggert emphasized that the Commission asked Mr.
Kirrie what was the most employees he had at one time.
Commissioner Scurlock explained that Mr. Kirrie has
indicated that the most non -family employees he has had at one
time was 8.
Mr. DeJoia wanted to see Mr. Kirrie document the fact that
he had 8 employees at one time, because he didn't feel that he
did.
Chairman Wheeler explained that Mr. Kirrie is saying that he
can document 8 employees at one time.
Mr. DeJoia still wanted to hear from the County Attorney on
whether they would have to live with the increased employees
based on that interpretation of the Motion.
Attorney Vitunac explained that when this was discussed 2 \
years ago, he had made certain arguments, but the Board
grandfathered in Mr. Kirrie's family members and outside
employees at that time. That was the clear direction from
Commissioner Eggert 2 years ago.
Commissioner Eggert interjected that she only seconded the
Motion and that it was the direction from the entire Board. She
didn't want that dumped on her because she wishes that wasn't
there at all.
28
Commissioner Bowman felt it is too bad that ROSE -4 ever
happened and that there wasn't better planning when Roseland was
laid out, but we are stuck with what we've got. She felt we have
a man here who has established a legitimate business in the area
and is trying to do the right thing.
Commissioner Eggert noted that he has gotten occupational
licenses all along.
Commissioner Bowman felt that he wants to expand his
business, because, as you know, you can't get by on what you used
to. So, he needs to have a bigger business and is looking to
take care of himself and his family. Commissioner Bowman stated
that she has found Mr. Kirrie to be very reasonable and fair, and
he has said that he has had 8 off-site employees in 1979 and that
was the maximum number of off-site employees that he has ever
had. She felt that was a legitimate figure to go by. It was
grandfathered in.
Margaret Hearndon, resident of Roseland, recalled that they
had a herd of cows back in 1979, and wished to know if they could
bring a herd of cows back now, but Commissioner Scurlock
explained that in order to be grandfathered in, it would have to
have been a continuous use throughout all that time.
Mrs. Hearndon stressed that Mr. Kirrie has not had 8
off-site employees there alt through the period from 1979 to
1987, and she felt that if he did, he should have to document the
names of the people. It seemed fair to her.
Commissioner Scurlock felt sure he would do that, because
while he and Mr. Kirrie have never been exactly the best of
friends, he did not believe him to be a Liar. He stated that Mr.
Kirrie has never lied to him and has always treated him in a
reasonable and honest manner.
Mrs. Hearndon emphasized that she is not accusing anyone of
lying, but she did feel that Mr. Kirrie would like the Commission
to break and extend all the rules for him. She asked about their
rights as neighbors and her children wanting to play in the
29
MAY 161989
EOOK 76 Ft. 86,?.,
r .
MAY 16 1989
BOOK
neighborhood where there is going to be lots of cars and lots of
traffic. She noted that the neighbors are also concerned about
the straight smokestacks with lead coming out of them, and she
intended to find out which environmentalist is checking Mr.
Kirrie out, because Mr. Kirrie is in a little neighborhood and
nobody really keeps an eye on him.
Commissioner Eggert felt that was a legitimate concern.
Mrs. Hearndon felt the Commission bent the rules and
stretched the rules, but she believed that if you give someone an
arm, they want to take a leg. She felt that little by little, he
will come in next year and want a few more.
Commissioner Scurlock felt there needs to be a little
fairness, because when Mr. Kirrie actually began his operation,
we had zero planning in this county. You could go anywhere in
this county and do anything, in terms of conducting activities,
without any government interference. However, the county
started implementing some attempt to try to regulate land use,
and that process has occurred. There has always been an attempt
by each of the Commissioners over the years to recognize property
rights and what people were allowed to do under the old law and
allow them to have an ability to continue, but at some point, try
to work towards phasing out those activities that are no longer
acceptable. Commissioner Scurlock felt that is a very difficult
task to balance where you have one guy doing his little thing and
doesn't bother anybody, and then people buy Tots around him, and
there is an interference on their rights. He really felt the
Commission has had a difficult job trying to address these issues
and trying to be fair in trying to find a way that Mr. Kirrie can
continue to make a living for his family and also provide a way
for some transition to take place to have that a residential
area, but that is not going to happen overnight.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that when you look at all the
history, the Commission is trying to do the fair thing for
30
everybody. He was sure that will not please everybody, however,
because it is an impossible task.
Mrs. Hearndon had no objection to Mr. Kirrie's business
being grandfathered in, because she didn't want to put anybody
out of business. That wasn't the point; she just wished to see a
limit put on the number of employees allowed.
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that is what we are doing,
but Mrs. Hearndon pointed out that they are putting it at 1987.
Commissioner Scurlock felt Mrs. Hearndon misunderstood and
explained that Mr. Kirrie wanted to go on transportation trips
and all that sort of thing, but staff came up with a number of 9
that they wanted to put right on his site plan so that when a
Code Enforcement officer goes out there, he can count heads, not
traffic trips and all those other things. The Motion, as it
stands now, is a total of 12 including his family. which is 4, so
that is 8 additional people. Now, if people complain because
they think there are 15, 20 or 30 people working there that
shouldn't be, a Code Enforcement officer will have something very
specific in black and white, and can take action if there are
more than 12 employees. Commissioner Scurlock felt that is what
Administrator Chandler and staff were trying to move along so
that it would not be an arbitrary number but something very
specific that we can move forward with and actually count and
document. If he has more, the Code Enforcement Board comes into
play with fines and all that sort of stuff.
Commissioner Bird emphasized that 12 is the total number and
includes family members and non -family members, and Commissioner
Eggert noted that if just traffic counts were used, the total
number of employees would be higher.
Robert Musante, 7925 126th Drive in the ROSE -4 district,
stated that he has always been on Mr. Kirrie's side in this
matter because he felt that if he had to fall into the original
ROSE -4, it certainly would have made his business much more
difficult. He noted that he has publicly stated many times that
Ay 161989
31
moor 76 [AGE 864
MAY i 1
BooK 76 uC.
Mr. Kirrie has been a special case and should have special
attention, which he has gotten. Mr. Musante explained that he
was a small businessman at one time with dozens of employees, but
he never had more than 3 at one time. Now, if Mr. Kirrie has had
8 employees and the Board is willing to put into writing that he
may have 8 employees, he felt it is incumbent upon the Board to
have him document that on a given day, at a given time, he had
all 8 people working, not one man on Monday, 3 on Tuesday, 2 men
on Wednesday, etc.
Chairman Wheeler advised that Mr. Kirrie has said that he
will do that, and that will be documented. Mr. Kirrie has said
that not in the last year, but in the year before, he had 8
employees in addition to his family that he can document at one
specific time.
Mr. Musante said he could accept that if it was past
practice and could be documented. However, he understood that
Mr. Kirrie had said that he wasn't able to document that.
Chairman Wheeler understood that Mr. Kirrie couldn't
document those employees in the time period that staff wanted,
which he believed was last year -- he didn't have them last year,
he had them the year before that.
Mr. Musante felt that it is incumbent to make sure that is
documented before you pass a ruling, and Chairman Wheeler said
that they will have that.
COMMISSIONER EGGERT STATED SHE WOULD BE GLAD TO ADD
THAT TO HER MOTION THAT MR. KIRRIE WILL PROVIDE
THAT DOCUMENTATION.
Assistant County Attorney Bill Collins asked if the Motion
included the impact fee rate, and Commissioner Eggert confirmed
that it did.
32
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
with the addition of the documentation was voted on
and carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE DRUG ABUSE TRUST FUND
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication, to
wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Ceach, 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
144)
in the matter of
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
/m
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 df 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.
,r
Sworn to and subscribed before me this __;3_51...% .ifay of A.D. 19 27
(SEAL)
. , , LFi$.
.'v/ (Business Manager)
.r'
lirlAY 16 1989
ida)-
xarshAt £nri J y ruin - U trance, InR.
33
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian'
River County, Florida, will conduct a Public
Hearing on Tuesday, May 16, 1989 at 9:05 a.m.
In the Commission Chambers at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960, to consider the
adoption of an ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAP-
TER 6 (COURTS) OF THE CODE OF OR-
DINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, TO ADD ARTICLE III ESTAB-
LISHING THE DRUG ABUSE TRUST
FUND; PROVIDING FOR AUTHORITY
'FOR ENACTMENT OF ARTICLE;
PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS;
PROVIDING FOR CREATION AND AC-
COUNTING OF DRUG -ABUSE TRUST
FUND; PROVIDING FOR EXPEND-
ITURES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL-
ITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; ADOPTION;
AND CODIFICATION.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
is made, which includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GARY C. WHEELER, CHAIRMAN
April 24, 1989
HOOK 76 .PAL Jb6
r
It AY 1 6 1989
BOOK 76 FAH 887
Liz Forlani, Administrative Assistant to the Board of County
Commissioners, read aloud the following title of the proposed
ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 6 (COURTS) OF
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO ADD ARTICLE III
ESTABLISHING THE DRUG ABUSE TRUST FUND;
PROVIDING FOR AUTHORITY FOR ENACTMENT OF
ARTICLE; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS;
PROVIDING FOR CREATION AND ACCOUNTING OF
DRUG ABUSE TRUST FUND; PROVIDING FOR
EXPENDITURES; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE; ADOPTION; AND
CODIFICATION.
The Board reviewed the following memo and letter dated
4/25/89 and 5/13/89:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Sharon P. Brennan - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: April 25, 1989
RE: Drug Abuse Trust Fund Ordinance
On March 28, 1989, this Board gave conceptual approval
to the proposed Drug Abuse Trust Fund Ordinance which
would establish a system for collection of funds to
assist drug treatment and education programs.
The Board authorized advertisement for public hearing, and
the ordinance is being presented today for public hearing.
34
State of Florida.
Nineteenth Judiciat Circuit
May 13, 1989
PAUL B. KANAREK
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Indian River County Courthouse
Suite 239
2145 14th Avenue
Vero Beach, FL 32960
(407) 567-8000
Mr. Gary C. Wheeler, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
1840 - 25th St.
Vero Beach, FL 32960
RE: Ordinance amending Chapter 6 of the Code of Ordinances
of Indian River County
Public Hearing: May 16, 1989
Dear Mr. Wheeler:
I am writing to you andl the commission in support of the
proposed amendments to Chapter 6. The change in state law is a
good idea however I am afraid that because of the limited
resources of most defendant's the program will not be able to
generate very much money. I will be unable to attend the
Commission meeting because I will be in Tampa at the Circuit
Judges Conference.
Siely,
PAUL B. KANAREK
Assistant County Attorney Sharon Brennan advised that the
proposed ordinance would establish a drug abuse trust fund for
the deposit of court imposed assessments for drug related
criminal defendants. She explained that State Statutes sets out
some criteria for the programs that these funds can be used for,
and they need to be authorized by HRS. Our mental health center
which is currently operating these programs, qualifies under the
Statues as a receiver of these funds.
Commissioner Eggert understood that the County Commission
and the County Administrator would administer the funds under
35 BOOK b FgGE 868
MAY 16 1989
MAY 1 6 1989
BOOK 6 882
procedures and criteria set by the State, and Administrator
Chandler advised that the process would be that the County
Administrator would bring recommendations to the Board for
allocations to the applicable programs.
Commissioner Eggert believed that the programs did not need
be just HRS approved, because she understood that it could be the
"Just Say No" group or some of the other programs.
Attorney Brennan confirmed that they do not have to be just
HRS approved, but they do have to meet some of the guidelines
that are set out by the State. After a recommendation by the
Administrator, the Commission can designate where the funds are
to go.
Commissioner Scurlock understood then that the Commission
has control, and that the Administrator will make some recommen-
dations at budget time and the Commission will expend the funds.
Commissioner Bowman asked what agencies would be our
options, and Commissioner Eggert felt that they would be the
Mental Health Center, the mental health agency in Ft. Pierce,
which has an office here in Vero Beach, or any other groups that
are working with drug education, such as the Sheriff's Dept.
Chairman Wheeler explained that the recommendation for this
ordinance originated in the Correctional Planning Council, and
the Council hopes that when these funds became available and if
the stockade becomes a realty, to try to develop some kind of a
rehabilitation program at the stockade for evenings and weekends.
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that there is an on-going
program in Gifford, but didn't know if it would meet HRS
standards.
Attorney Brennan explained that the State sets the standards
and that she had mentioned HRS only because they are working with
the Mental Health Center, which already meets the standards that
have been set, but that is not to say that other programs would
not qualify.
36
Commissioner Scurlock asked what amount is anticipated to be
generated by this ordinance, and Attorney Brennan advised that it
is not known at this time what sort of revenue will be generated
as St. Lucie County has had their program for only two months.
The amount to be fined is up to the discretion of the Judges.
Commissioner Eggert hoped that the Judges would not take the
attitude that they won't bother with this because this person
can't afford it. She felt that it helps as part of punishment to
try to afford something.
Chairman Wheeler opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard. There being none, he closed the
Public Hearing.
NAY 1 1989
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 89-14, establishing the Drug Abuse Trust
Fund.
37
400K
70 Fr15f 870
MAY 161989
BOOK 76 Dir 871
ORDINANCE NO. 89- 14
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 6 (COURTS) OF
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO ADD ARTICLE III
ESTABLISHING THE DRUG ABUSE TRUST FUND;
PROVIDING FOR AUTHORITY FOR ENACTMENT OF
ARTICLE; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS;
PROVIDING FOR CREATION AND ACCOUNTING OF
DRUG ABUSE TRUST FUND; PROVIDING FOR
EXPENDITURES; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE; ADOPTION; AND
CODIFICATION.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, has made the following
determinations:
1. Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, authorizes this
Board to promulgate drug treatment and education programs.
2. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, has deemed that it is desirable to
establish a system for the collection of funds to
financially assist such drug treatment and education
programs.
3. Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, authorizes
courts to impose assessments, in addition to fines and other
penalties authorized by law, against offenders who violate
criminal provisions relating to possession of and
trafficking in controlled substances.
4. Section 893.165, Florida Statutes, authorizes
the Board of County Commissioners to establish a drug abuse
trust fund for the deposit of court -imposed assessments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida:
SECTION 1.
Chapter 6 of the Code of Ordinances of Indian
River County, Florida, is amended by adding Article III•
CODING: Words in $tttbek/fMt6001A type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
1
38
after Section 6-24 to read as follows:
ARTICLE III. DRUG ABUSE TRUST FUND
Section 6-25. Authority for enactment of article.
This article is enacted pursuant to the authority
vested in the board of county commissioners by virtue of
Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, Sections 893.13 and 893.165,
Florida Statutes.
Section 6-26. Definitions.
For the purpose of this article, the following
terms have only those meanings ascribed to them.
Board of County Commissioners shall mean the board
of county commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
Clerk
shall mean the Clerk of the
Circuit Court
of Indian River County, Florida.
County shall mean the incorporated and
unincorporated areas of Indian River County, Florida.
Chief Judge shall mean the Chief Judge of
Florida's Nineteenth Judicial District.
Defendant shall •mean a person charged with a
criminal action pursuant to Chapter 839, Florida Statutes.
Section 6-27. Drug Abuse Trust Fund - Creation and
Accounting.
(a) Pursuant to Section 893.13, Florida Statutes,
when any defendant, on or after the effective date of this
ordinance, is found guilty of, or pleads nolo contendere to,
a violation of any provision of Chapter 893, Florida
Statutes, that is punishable as a criminal offense, in
addition to any fine or other penalty provided by law, may
be assessed an amount up to the amount of the fine
authorized for the violation. Such additional assessment
shall be used for drug abuse programs as provided by general
law and this Ordinance. Pursuant to said Section, the court
CODING: Words in ift0a/f0t600 type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
2
39
MAY 161989
BOOK 76 FACE 872
r
MAY 16 1999
BOOK /6 DJ," 873
is authorized to order a defendant to pay such assessment if
it finds that the defendant has the ability to pay the fine
and the additional assessment, and the defendant will not be
prevented from being rehabilitated or from making
restitution.
(b) Once assessed, the Clerk will keep a record
of assessments and those assessments shall be collected by
the Clerk. The Clerk shall forward all monies collected to
the Board of County Commissioners for deposit into a special
and separate fund titled The Drug Abuse Trust Fund. Once
each month, the Board of County Commissioners shall require
a full report from the Clerk as to the amount of assessments
imposed by its courts and the amount of funds collected and
deposited into the Drug Abuse Trust Fund.
Section 6-28. Expenditures.
Monies deposited into the Drug Abuse Trust Fund
shall be used to financially assist drug abuse treatment and
education programs. In order to receive assistance grants
from the Drug Abuse Trust Fund, County drug abuse treatment
or education programs shall be selected as program
recipients on the basis of selection procedures which shall
be developed by the County Administrator or his or her
designee. Such procedures shall include as a basis for
selection the success of the program. Final approval shall
be made by the Board of County Commissioners upon
recommendation by the County Administrator or the designee,
and selections shall be made annually.
SECTION 2.
Conflicting Provisions.
In case of a conflict between the provisions of
this ordinance and prior ordinances, the prior ordinance
shall be deemed repealed to the extent of such conflict.
CODING: Words in ift0elk/fMt600 type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
3
40
SECTION 3.
Severability.
If any section, or if any sentence, paragraph,
phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to
be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding
shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance,
and it shall be construed to have been the legislative
intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional,
invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 4.
Incorporation in Code.
This ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code
of Ordinances of Indian River County and the word
"ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other
appropriate word and the sections of this ordinance may be
renumbered or relettered to accomplish such purposes.
SECTION 8.
Effective Date.
This ordinance shall become effective upon receipt
from the Secretary of State of the State of Florida of
official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed
with the Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 16th
day of
May
, 1989.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press -Journal on the 24th day of April , 1989, for a
public hearing to be held on the 16th day of
1989, at which time it was moved for adoption by
May
CODING: Words in ittOtk/fiiitq'h bti type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
161999
4
41
BOOK .r16 PACE X7
PACE4
AY 16 1989
BOOK
76 rA'[875
Commissioner Eggert seconded by Commissioner
Scurlock and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By
ary 7 -Wheeler, Chairman
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD - PHASE III - RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION,
PARCELS 106 AND 107
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/3/89:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM:James W. Davis, P.E., C�_' A9
Public Works Director 't
SUBJECT: Indian River Boulevard Phase III
Right-of-way Acquisition - Parcel # 106 & 107
REF. LETTER: Charles A. Sullivan, Sr. to Donald Finney
dated April 4, 1989
DATE: May 3, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION
Mr. Charles Sullivan, Sr., owner of two parcels along the west
side of the proposed Indian River Boulevard Phase III project
(SR60 to 37th St), has agreed to deed the necessary road
right-of-way to the County for Indian River Boulevard subject to
access being provided to his two small lots (approx. 100' x 180'
in size each lot). At the present time, it does not appear that
the subject parcels have public road access. If access is not
provided, Mr. Sullivan requests that the County purchase both
lots at an estimated value of $60,000.
42
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The following alternatives are presented:
Alternative # 1
Accept the right-of-way donation and agree to provide a
single common access point for the two lots in question.
The access point would be from the southbound lanes only and
would be right turn in/right turn out. For the single
family land use proposed, this driveway should have no
adverse affect on the operation of the Boulevard. The
access point should be designed so that egressing vehicles
can turn onto Indian River Boulevard while in a forward
movement. No backing onto the Boulevard would be allowed.
Alternative # 2
Purchase the two parcels for the appraised value if the
compensation is agreeable to Mr. Sullivan. Appraisals
should be complete by June 1, 1989.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that staff proceed to offer Alternative No. 1
to Mr. Sullivan. No funding is applicable at this time.
Commissioner Scurlock advised that it has come to his
attention that the Vero Beach Country Club has some interest in
acquiring this property, and he would Like to table this item for
one week so that staff could explore the possibility of the
Country Club buying what they need and the County getting the
right-of-way.
MAY 1 689
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously tabled
this matter for one week and directed staff to see if
there is any interest on the part of the Vero Beach
Country Club to buy Mr. Sullivan's property.
43 NOOK 76 F'nE 87
MAY 1989
FELLSMERE TENNIS COURTS - FINAL PAYMENT
BOOK 76 [AGE 877
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/9/89:
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
James Chandler
County Administrator
James D. White, P.E.
Acting County Engine
Michelle A. Gentile, C.E.T.
Civil Engineer
/3
Fellsmere Tennis Courts
Final Payment
May' 9, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The construction of Fellsmere Tennis Courts has
Dennis L. Smith, Inc. as of February 21, 1989.
been accepted by the County Engineer.
At this time, final payment of
contractor.
RECOMMENDATION
$2,554.97
been completed by
This project has
is requested by the
It is staff's recommendation that the final payment in the amount
of $2,554.97 be paid in full at this time. These monies are
available from Account #004-108-572-066.39.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized final payment of $2,554.97 to Dennis L.
Smith, Inc. for the construction of Fellsmere Tennis
Courts, as recommended by staff.
44
REQUEST TO CLOSE 14TH AVENUE BETWEEN 2ND STREET AND 1ST STREET SW
FOR 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/5/89:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Request to Close 14th Avenue
between 2nd Street and 1st Street SW
for 4th of July Celebration
REF. LETTER: Perry M. Pisani to Board of County Commissioners
dated May 11, 1989
DATE: May 5, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION
Residents along 14th Avenue between 1st Street SW and 2nd Street
have requested permission to close a short section of 14th Avenue
on July 1, 1989 with a rain date of July 2 from 12 Noon until
approximately 10:00 PM for a July 4th Celebration. Staff has no
objection to this request, provided that:
1) Proper barricades as permitted by the Traffic Engineering
Division are installed.
2) A block representative be listed as a contact person in
charge of the event in case the road needs to be opened.
3) Access to emergency vehicles be maintained.
MY1 989
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the closing of 14th Avenue between 2nd Street and 1st
Street SW for a 4th of July celebration, contingent on
compliance with the 3 provisions listed in staff's
recommendation.
45 800K /6 FD,Gc 878
MAY 11 E 1989
BOOK 76 PAGE 879
APPRAISERS FOR PHASE III OF INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/12/89:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM --i% James Davis - Public Works Director
-0-)L William G. Collins 11 - Assistant County Attorney
1)... -1 -Donald Finney - Right -of -Way Agent
DATE: May 12, 1989
SUBJECT: Appraisers for Phase III - Indian River Boulevard
Pursuant to Board direction at the meeting of May 2, 1989,
staff has obtained fee quotes from a group of appraisers
with the ability and expertise to perform the appraisals for
Phase III of Indian River Boulevard. (See attached
summary.)
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Authorize retention of the two low bidding appraisal firms,
W. H. Benson & Company of Palm Bay, Florida for $9,500.00
and Callaway & Price, Inc. of Fort Pierce, Florida for
$11,500.00. (Proposals attached.)
Funding to be from Fund #309-214-541-033.13. Balance as of
4/30/89 is $256,916.
Assistant County Attorney Bill Collins advised that a couple
of weeks ago the Board authorized negotiations with the 4
appraisers who had indicated they could do the work within the
timeframe on Phase III of Indian River Boulevard, and staff is
requesting authorization to retain the two low bidders. He
explained that this item was placed on the Agenda today as an
emergency item because we are trying to move as quickly as we can
in order to meet the June 30th deadline.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
accepted the emergency in this matter and approved the
retention of the two low bidding appraisal firms, W. H.
Benson & Company of Palm Bay, Florida for $9,500, and
Callway & Price, Inc. of Fort Pierce, Florida for
$11,500, as recommended by staff.
46
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT - WALKING HORSE HAMMOCK
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 512/89:
DATE: MAY 2, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILIRVICES
PREPARED AND
STAFFED BY: SCOTT C. DOSCHER
STAFF ENGINEER S(—v
SUBJECT: DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT - WALKING HORSE HAMMOCK
IRC PROJECT NO: CDS-282
BACKGROUND:
Dennis L. Smith, owner and developer of Walking Horse Hammock
Subdivision, has oversized a water line on 5th Street southwest to
serve the Walking Horse Hammock Subdivision.
ANALYSIS:
Mr. Smith requires 1,334' of 8" line to serve his facility. The
County requires 10" per our Master Plan. The County wishes to
compensate Mr.Smith for oversizing of the line in the standard
amount of $2.00 per inch of oversizing, per foot of line, which is
calculated as follows:
1,334' x 2" = 2,668' x $2.00/inch = $5,336.00.
Compensation shall be by collection of future impact fees paid by
connectors to the line.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached Developer's Agreement with
Mr. Smith. ,.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Developer's Agreement with Mr. Smith, and
authorized the Chairman's signature, as
recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
MAY 1 6 1989
47 l'OCK 76 FrS:UL 880
,'SAY 16 1999
ROOK tr7,r,r 88.E
TRI -COUNTY "BUDGET COMMITTEE" - MEDICAL EXAMINER & COURT
ADMINISTRATOR
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/16/89:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Board of County Commissioners
DATE: May 15, 1989
RE: TRI -COUNTY "BUDGET COMMITTEE"
MEDICAL EXAMINER & COURT ADMINISTRATOR
Assistant County Attorney Sharon P. Brennan, who is Indian
River County's representative to the Tri -County Medical
Examiner Committee, informed me that it has been proposed
that a special Budget Committee, composed of representatives
from the Medical Examiner's Committee and the Court
Administrator's Committee, be formed. These people will now
meet to go over the proposed budgets for the upcoming fiscal
year for the Medical Examiner and the Court Administrator.
The Budget Committee's first meeting is tentatively
scheduled for 2:00 P.M. on Wednesday, May 24, 1989, at the
St. Lucie County Administration Building. It will be
necessary to have someone attend these meetings from our
County who is familiar with budgetary data.
Therefore, I request the Board of County Commissioners
officially appoint me and Joe Baird to attend these upcoming
"Budget Committee" meetings.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized Chairman Wheeler and OMB Director Joe Baird
to attend the upcoming "Budget Committee" meetings.
48
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:50 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
MAY 16 1989
Chairman
49 BOOK
7 F.,;F 882