HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/1989Wednesday, June 6, 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, June
6, 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.
Reverend Jack Diehl, Pastor of Our Savior Lutheran Church,
gave the invocation, and Chairman Wheeler led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Scurlock requested that Item 8-B (Variable Rate
Demand Utility Revenue Bonds Series 1983 - General Development
Utilities, Inc. Project) be taken up right after the Consent
Agenda.
JUN 8 1989
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously agreed
to address Item 8-B immediately after the Consent
Agenda.
BOOL;
" 0 Yi.G
JUN 6 1989
BOOK /6 ['AGE 94
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Eggert requested that Items G and H be removed
from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
A. Release Form
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/26/89:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
MEMORANDUM
TO: JIM CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: STARR JORDAN, RISK MANAGEMENT 4
DATE: MAY 26, 1989 v
SUBJECT: RELEASE FORM FROM SEWELL, TODD & BROXTON TO BE PLACED ON
THE JUNE 6TH AGENDA
Please sign the attached release form to be placed on the June 6,
1989 consent agenda.
This involved an accident which occurred on 9-8-88 wherein our
vehicle was totalled by a Ryder truck.
Our insurance carrier at the time, Florida League of Cities has
paid the amount of $7828.50 due for a new vehicle. They have
already picked up the salvage and all that remains of the old
truck.
The release form acquits and discharges Ryder Truck Rental, Marie
Dorothy Craft and Matthew Thomas Craft from any further claims or
actions.
If you require any further information please give me a call.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to sign the Release of All Claims,
acquitting and discharging Ryder Truck Rental, Marie
Dorothy Craft and Matthew Thomas Craft from any further
claims or actions.
COPY OF RELEASE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD
2
B. Budget Amendment #077 - Unemployment Compensation Charges to
the County
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/24/89:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: May 24, 1989
SUBJECT: UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
CHARGES TO THE COUNTY
BUDGET AMENDMENT - 077
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
FROM: Leila Miller
Budget Analyst
Description and Conditions
The State of Florida, Department of Labor has charged Indian River
County for Unemployment Compensation payments to former employees.
A budget amendment is required to reflect these payments.
Recommendation
Staff recommends. the Board of County Commissioners approve budget
amendment 077 to refund Unemployment Compensation payments,, funding
to come from contingencies.
1 JUN 6 1989
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment #077 to refund Unemployment
Compensation payments; funding to come from
contingencies.
3
Bo DK 76 ,i6jL 949
JUN 6 1989
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
BOOK yobrAE: 950
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER:
077
DATE: May 24. 1988
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND
Administrator/Unemployment Comp
001-201-512-012.15
$2.483.00
$ 0
Clerk to the
BCC/Unemployment Compensation
001-300-513-012.15
$ 570.00
$ 0
SUPV. Elections/Unemp.Comp.
001-700-519-012.15
$ 6.00
$ 0
Reserve for Continaencv
001-199-581-099.91
$ 0
$3,059.00
•
C. Release of County Liens
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/19/89:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Lea R. Keller, County Attorney's Office
DATE: May 19, 1989
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 6/6/89
RELEASE COUNTY LIENS
I have prepared the following lien releases and request the
Board authorize the Chairman to execute them:
Lot 101s of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the
name of REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot 11 of SUNNYDALE ACRES in the name
of GIBBONS
SATISFACTION OF IMPACT FEE, in the name
of DELORES P. WILLIS
SATISFACTION OF IMPACT FEE, in the name
of LANEY
Lot 10 of ANGLERS COVE SUBDIVISION in
the name of G & G DEVELOPMENT
Lot 8 & S i Lot 7, Block B of ROCK RIDGE
in the navies of HARRY & VERDA BECKETT
4
Lot 176 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH, in the name
of REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot 183 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH in the name
of REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot 232 of COUNTRYSIDE SOUTH in'the name
of REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the Releases listed above.
COPIES OF RELEASES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD
D. Resignation from Economic Opportunity Council
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 5/26/89:
1..93303/ /
MAY 1989 ap
N • RECEIVED co
cv row count co
'' COMMISSIONERS O
c)ll 9154 tO���`
J� G 1989
CAROL J. KIRKLAND
P. 0. Box 114
Vero Beach, Florida 32961-0114
May 26, 1989
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Commissioners DC -S
Administrator
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
Community Dev.
Utilities
Finance
Other ��...1�.. -k.el)
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock
1840 - 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Appointment to E. 0. C.
Dear Doug,
It is with regret that I tender my resignationfrom the
Economic Oportunities Council. I believe I have served
since 1982, and have enjoyed the opportunity to serve,
and truly appreciate your appointment.
There is a training session tentatively scheduled for
June 29, 1989, at the Gifford Community Center, starting
at noon. (Lunch is included.) If you could appoint a
replacement in time for he/she to attend that workshop,
it would be helpful.
Thanks again for including me in the governing. process.
The E.O.C. is such an important board, handling thousands
of dollars in Federal grants, careful consideration is
warranted in an appointment.
Sincerely,
Carol 1!/ (Petersen) Kirkland
:cjk
cc: Jean Strawter, Exec. Director, E.O.C.
Madeline Smith, Chairman, Bd. of Directors, E.O.C.
5
s�v a �. �
BOOK ID i':^. �f. J5
BOOK %6 FAGS 952
JUN G1999
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously accepted
the resignation of Carol J. (Petersen) Kirkland from
the Economic Opportunity Council.
E. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 9, 1989
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 9, 1989.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 9, 1989, as
written.
F. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 16, 1989
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 16, 1989.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 16, 1989, as
written.
6
G. Approval of Appointments of Deputy Sheriff by Sheriff Tim
Dobeck
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/6/89:
CLERK TO THE BOARD
JUNE 6, 1989
CONSENT AGENDA: Received and placed on file in Office of
Clerk to the Board:
A. Approval of Appointments
Sheriff Tim Dobeck:
Marshall R. Bruce
Douglas MacKenzie, Jr.
Michael Walsh
Ronald T. Kramer
Thomas E. Flynn
Melinda G. Brocato
Patrick S. Frazelle
Steven L. McDougall
James W. Lutz
John C. Pinto
James L. Karman
David T. Phillips
of Deputy Sheriff by
Frank Hein
Paul H,Harrison
David W. Chandler
Jesse H. Brock
James W. Thomas
Bernard Stecher
D.dnald K. Hawkins
William H. Roode
John R. Hill
Timothy J. Dare
James R. Pedrazzoli
Commissioner Eggert asked why we are getting
all these new
appointments right now when budget time is coming up in just a
couple of months.
Liz Forlani, Administrative Assistant to the Board of County
Commissioners, explained that these
appointments are mostly
loyalty oaths that are signed after the election of a
constitutional officer.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that these are not new
positions and that they are funded positions that are either
being filled or replaced.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously accepted
the Deputy Sheriff appointments by Sheriff Dobeck as
listed in the above memo.
COPIES OF APPOINTMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
7
JUN 6 1989
BOOK 76 FADE 953
JUS 6 1989
BOOK .76 F;",,GE 954.
H. Underwriter for North County Sewer Assessment
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/10/89:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: May 10, 1989
SUBJECT: UNDERWRITER FOR NORTH COUNTY
SEWER ASSESSMENT
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
In recent weeks the county has worked with Mr. Art Ziev of Gulfstream
Financial on the $6.5 million dollar Farmers Home Administration
Refinancing Bond Issue. The work involved could not have been done
without the assistance of a competent underwriter.
The County can choose an underwriter through formal means (by
advertising through Requests for Proposals) or the option of merely
selecting an individual or company that has already given good
service. Staff feels that Art Ziev's prior work record with us, his
extensive knowledge of the county utilities financing, plus our time
constraints, make him a suitable candidate for the complexities of
the North County Sewer Assessment bond issue.
Staff would like permission to utilize Art Ziev of Gulfstream
Financial as Underwriter on the North County Sewer Assessment with
the underwriters spread not to exceed 2.25%.
Commissioner Eggert asked why we are not going out to bid on
this, and Commissioner Scurlock explained that in most cases we
are going out to bid. The library issue, of course, is one that
will be a bid item. There are two different approaches that you
can take on these various issues. If it is a general obligation
or a very uncomplicated issue, like the library, the Finance
Advisory Committee and staff usually recommends to go ahead and
do it competitively. When it is a negotiated deal, such as a
special assessment bond which is somewhat unique, he felt it
suits well to work with a team of people who, in fact, can bring
some expertise and longevity to the program. In this case, Art
Ziev has been working on this particular issue, as well as
another special assessment, for a period of time, and
8
Commissioner Scurlock understood that the FAC and staff have been
happy with his performance.
Commissioner Eggert was not questioning Mr..Ziev's
performance, just the procedure.
Administrator Chandler confirmed that this has been a very
complex issue, and Attorney Vitunac advised that Art Diamond, the
County's financial adviser, had called yesterday to strongly
recommend going with this method rather than out to bid because
he felt that going out to bid would not be in the public interest
on this issue.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to utilize Art Ziev of Gulfstream Financial as
Underwriter on the North County Sewer Assessment with
the underwriters spread not to exceed 2.25%.
I. ReEort
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk:
DOT Tentative Five -Year Transportation Plan
July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1994
JUN 61989
9
EkOOK /t F'GE Cad.
JUN 6 1989
BOOK �6 FAG,E 956
RESOLUTION FOR VARIABLE RATE DEMAND UTILITY REVENUE BONDS SERIES
1983 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES, INC. PROJECT
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 5/31/89:
RDstRT M. LoNO, JR.•
CNARLCa L. SIECK•
LAWRENCE B. ABRAMS �•
RoeERT 1... BCAI.s, P.A.
JEN5 P4. DAMOAARO•
SIIADbCY ). GvNNIsON•
•A,.lO ADM,TTriD TO THE
AA MIA OM,
RHOADS a g:rtO
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432,
Suits 3GI
299 WEST CANINO GARDENS BOULEVARD
TELEPHONE (407) 393.3595
TCLEG6PIER (407) 395.9447
FILE NO.
Re: Indian River County. FloridR
May 31, 1989
Charles P. Vitunac, Esquire
Indian River County, Florida
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Charles:
410 NORTH THIRD STREET
P.C. Box 1146
NARRISBURQ. PA 17100
tigiapwoNE 1,,T1E2*•116731
ttLLCOO1tw /7/7)!01 IAOR
We have reviewed the documents which have been submitted to us in connection
with the changes requested by General Development Utilities, Inc. with regard to
their industrial revenue bond project with the County, including the proposed
resolution, We would like to see certain revisions made to said documents prior
to their final execution by the County. However, said revisions do not relate to
the nature of the desired changes themselves. Therefore, we feel from a legal
standpoint the County may adopt the proposed -resolution. We will be discussing
certain minor changes to the proposed resolution with counsel for General
Development and will see that a revised version of the proposed resolution
is delivered to the County prior to consideration by the Board of County
Commisioners.
Should you have any questions,
cc: Joseph A. Baird
Paul A. Lundeen
please do not hesitate to
Very truly yours,
RHOAD,S„-.&- IN
i
By: l�
arses L. Si
contact us.
10
Attorney Vitunac advised that the attorney with GDU is in
the audience this morning to explain the technical changes that
they -want so they can standardize their statewide bond issues
with the same remarketing agent, the same trustee, and the same
terms and conditions. Staff's feeling is that it really should
have no effect whatsoever on the County, but it will help GDU.
Chuck Sieck, the County's bond counsel, has reviewed this at
the expense of GDU, and made some changes which GDU has agreed
to.
Commissioner Scurlock advised that the Finance Advisory
Committee has reviewed this and found no liability to the County.
They feel the restructuring and the modifications are in the best
interests of GDU for continuity of the system. Commissioner
Scurlock recommended approval of the appropriate resolution.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-55, accepting the resignation of
Citibank, N.A., as remarketing agent for the $4,000,000
Indian River County, Florida, Variable Rate Demand
Utilities Revenue Bonds, Series 1983 (General
Development Utilities, Inc. Project) and appointing
Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. as the new remarketing
agent for the bonds.
11
JUN 6 9989
!IN( i6 EnE.95
r JUN. G 1989
BOOK 76 FAGS. 958
RESOLUTION NO. 89-55
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ACCEPTING THE
RESIGNATION OF CITIBANK, N.A., AS REMARKET-
ING AGENT FOR THE $4,000,000 INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA VARIABLE RATE DEMAND UTILITY
REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1983 (GENERAL DEVELOP-
MENT UTILITIES, INC. PROJECT) AND APPOINTING
MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST CO. AS THE NEW
REMARKETING'AGENT FOR THE BONDS; APPROVING A
REMARKETING AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE BONDS;
ACCEPTING THE RESIGNATION OF BANKAMERICA
TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE, REGIS-
TRAR AND PAYING AGENT FOR THE BONDS;
APPOINTING CHEMICAL BANK AS SUCCESSOR
TRUSTEE, REGISTRAR AND PAYING AGENT FOR THE
BONDS; APPROVING A FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST
INDENTURE RELATING TO THE BONDS; APPROVING A
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE LOAN AGREEMENT RELAT-
ING TO THE BONDS; APPROVING THE RELEASE OF
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FROM ALL
OBLIGATIONS AS GUARANTOR FOR THE BONDS OR
UNDER ANY GUARANTEES RELATING TO THE. BONDS;
ACKNOWLEDGING THE RELEASE OF THE MORTGAGE
WITH. RESPECT TO THE TRUSTEE FOR THE BONDS;
AND PROVIDING -AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Indian River County, Florida (the "Issuer") issued
its $4,000,000 Variable Rate Demand Utility Revenue Bonds, Series
1983 (General Development Utilities, Inc. Project) (the "Bonds");
and
WHEREAS, in connection therewith the Issuer entered into a
Trust Indenture. dated as of December 1, 1983 (the "Indenture")
with BankAmerica Trust Company of New York, as Trustee
("BankAmerica"); and
WHEREAS, the proceeds of the Bonds were •loaned to General
Development Utilities, Inc. ("GDU") pursuant to a Loan Agreement
dated as of December 1, 1983 (the "Loan Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, in connection with the Bonds, the Issuer entered
into a Remarketing Agreement dated as of December 1, 1983 with
GDU and Citibank, N.A. ("Citibank") as Remarketing Agent (the
"Remarketing Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, as further described in the Memorandum, attached
hereto as Exhibit E, presented to this meeting from GDU and its
bond counsel, the parties wish to make certain changes in the
provisions of the financing documents as described in said memo-
randum;
RESOLUTION 89-55 IS ON FILE IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
ROAD ACCESS TO VERO BEACH HIGHLANDS SUBDIVISION
Public Works Director Jim Davis presented staff's
recommendation for both the 20th Avenue south extension and the
17th Street SW extension to 27th Avenue as additional accesses to
Vero Beach Highlands:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Dikecto
SUBJECT: Road Access to Vero each Highlands Subdivision
REFERENCE MEMO: M.L. Orr to Board of County Commissioners
dated Aug. 13, 1987
DATE: May 25, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On August 25, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners considered
the southerly extension of 20th Avenue into Vero Beach Highlands
Subdivision. In preparation for staff recommendation, the
Traffic Engineering Division prepared the above referenced
memorandum (copy attached) which presented the staff analysis of
the additional Vero Beach Highlands access road. At that time,
both the extension of 20th Avenue to Vero Beach Highlands
Subdivision and the construction of 17th Street SW from 20th
Avenue to 27th Avenue were recommended.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Since the August 13, 1987 memorandum, the following additional
circumstances apply:
1) The attached Indian River County Traffic Engineering Traffic
Count records for 1989 (first quarter) show that both Old
Dixie Highway north of Oslo Road and 27th Avenue north of
Oslo Road are carrying 8,700 vehicles per day (vpd) and
7,800 vpd, respectively. In addition, U.S. Highway 1 is
approaching LOS "D" between Oslo Road and 4th Street(31,400
vpd). The existing traffic count along 20th Avenue
between Oslo Road and 4th Street is approximately 2,300
vpd.
As Vero Highlands Subdivision becomes developed, approxi-
mately 846 single family homes and 135 multi -family units
located in the western section of Vero Highlands Subdivision
(west of 12th Avenue SW) will generate approximately 8,902
trips. Assuming 50% of these trips are external, approxi-
mately 4,500 trips will demand access to western connections
(17th Street SW to 27th Avenue, 20th Avenue extended, or
both). By assigning all 4,500 trips to 27th Avenue via 17th
Street SW, the traffic count on 27th Avenue, attributed to
growth in Vero Beach Highlands only, would be approximately
10,000 vpd south of Oslo Road or LOS "D". In addition,
there are 1,000 lots in the southwest section of Oslo Park
which would distribute additional trips to 27th Avenue. If
only 30% of the Oslo Park Subdivision trips are added to
27th Avenue, a LOS "E" condition would occur on 27th Avenue.
If both 20th Avenue Extension and 17th Street SW to 27th
Avenue are constructed, both 27th Avenue and' 20th Avenue
could operate at LOS "C" unless future large developments
are approved within the area.
13
JUN 6 1989
L J
BOOK 6 EAU 95
JUN 6 1989
Page two
The alternatives are as follows:
BOOK 76 Fr1GE 960
Alternative No. 1
Implement both the 20th Avenue Extension and the 17th Street
SW connection to 27th Avenue,. This alternative would result
in adequate operating conditions along both 20th Avenue and
27th Avenue.
Alternative No. 2
Implement only 17th Street SW Extension to 27th Avenue.
This alternative will result in a need to five -lane 27th
Avenue prior to Vero Highlands and Oslo Park being fully
developed. This widening project will cost approximately
$1.5 million per mile or $7.5 million from 17th Street SW to
SR 60.
'In addition, Oslo Road widening between 27th Avenue and 20th
Avenue may be needed sooner due to additional trips on this
link.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that both 20th Avenue South Extension and 17th
Street SW Extension be implemented at this time. Total funding
of approximately $125,000 is estimated. The 1989/90 FY Road
Construction Program has included $100,000 for the Vero Highlands
Access Road Project. The additional $25,000 could be funded
through District 6 Impact Fees or Local Option Gas Tax.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if Old Dixie Highway is a county
road, and Director Davis confirmed that it is, but noted that
prior to 1978 it was a state road.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that back in August, 1987,
there was no question as to whether or not an additional access
to the Highlands was needed, and Director Davis confirmed that
the Commission has always supported additional access to the
Highlands.
Commissioner Scurlock recalled that when this matter came
before the Board in August, 1987, we found significant objection
to the extension of 20th Avenue SW from the residents of Oslo
Park, as well as residents along the 20th Avenue corridor. It
was at that time that the Commission looked for an alternative,
one of which was to take traffic out of the Highlands onto 27th
14
Avenue, which is a state road at the present time. He felt the
approach by the Commission back in 1987 was to please everybody,
and that was 1) to provide two very much needed additional
accesses to the Highlands, and 2) to try in the interim to
lessen the impact on the residents along 20th Avenue. However,
we have not had an opportunity to see how 27th Avenue works since
17th Street SW is not opened up yet due to a delay in obtaining a
permit from the St. Johns River Water Management District.
Commissioner Scurlock was very concerned about 20th Avenue where
it narrows down between 8th and 12th Streets. He felt that was a
very dangerous stretch under current conditions, and would only
get worse with the increase of traffic if 20th Avenue SW was
opened up. He asked if we have any plans to make any
modifications in that stretch of 20th Avenue in conjunction with
opening up 20th Avenue.
Director Davis reported that the County has a improvement
program at 8th Street and 20th Avenue. The right-of-way
acquisition is complete. Southern Bell and FP&L are both
relocating poles out of the intersection. We removed a Targe oak
tree that was causing a sight distance problem in the way of the
road widening project. The section of 20th Avenue approximately
400 feet to the north of 8th Street will receive a left -turn
lane, so that road way will be widened approximately 16 feet. At
that point it will transition to the existing 2 -lane road, which
has adequate right-of-way. However, there is a ditch on the east
side of the roadway that consumes a large portion of the
right-of-way. We do anticipate resurfacing and probably widening
as much as 3 feet of the existing roadway from 300 feet south of
12th Street where we have done recent improvements to the 3 -lane
section of 20th Avenue at 8th Street. Director Davis explained
that they have been waiting until that intersection is completed
before making those planned improvements. It really is a very
short section, approximately 1/4 of a mile, and it will be a
15 NOOK 76 F F.. 961
shill 61989
JUR 6 1989
BOOK 76 ftti.GL 95
2 -lane road transitioning to two lanes and then back to 3 lanes
at the intersection. South of 12 Street is a standard width
pavement (approximately 20 feet wide). The County now is going
to 24 -ft roadways, but 20th Avenue was constructed in the 1960s
or 1970s.
Commissioner Eggert understood that there would not be
another lane there where it could be widened by 3 feet, and
Director Davis stated that was correct, it would remain as 2
wider lanes.
With respect to traffic levels, Director Davis advised that
20th Avenue is operating fine now at level of service "A" with
almost 6,000 vehicles per day. We need the signalization at 8th
Street. The 4 -way stop at 4th Street probably will be the next
intersection to be signalized along that connector, and from that
point it would be signalized all the way down to Oslo Road. Oslo
Road is ready for a full signal as the poles are in and the
electrical service is in. Right now, we have a flashing beacon
there, and there will not be a fully actuated signal until the
traffic warrants for signalization are met.
Commissioner Eggert inquired if, in their considerations for
distributing traffic over the county, the Transportation Planning
Committee was discussing philosophically what they expect to
happen to residential, family neighborhoods. She felt there was
a point at which distribution of traffic becomes threatening to
nice family neighborhoods where you don't want zoom through
traffic.
Director Davis explained that because so much of the land
use in this county is either residential or agricultural, there
are single-family residential homes along every corridor you look
at, whether it be 43rd Avenue, 27th Avenue, or 20th Avenue, and
it is very difficult to try to isolate one particular roadway
that doesn't have single-family residential land use as opposed
to one that does.
16
Commissioner Bird asked the status of 17th Street SW, and
Director Davis advised that we are waiting for a stormwater
management permit from the St. Johns River Water Management
District. We applied for the permit 3-4 weeks ago, but they have
requested some additional information which we are putting
together. We have received the DOT permit and have completed the
public hearing to close the road north of the canal. Once we
receive the permit from the Water District, we can move a crew in
there to build the road. The actual construction of the road
should not take more than 30 days, unless we get into a
torrential rainy season and construction is delayed.
Commissioner Eggert wanted to make it clear to everyone that
what we are talking about today is a third access to the
Highlands. The second access of 17th Street SW onto 27th Avenue
was approved in 1987 and that street will be built just as soon
as we receive the permit from the St. Johns River Water
Management District.
Director Davis emphasized that staff is taking the position
that all of the collector roads in the county will be needed and
that to close one of them probably would be shortsighted when
looking at the future. We have tried to address the future with
our Thoroughfare Plan and our computer modeling to bring traffic
to the main arterial roads from the collector road network.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that in the 9 years he has been
here he has never heard 20th Avenue discussed as a main
north/south roadway such as Old Dixie Highway, 27th Avenue, 43rd
Avenue, 58th Avenue and Range Line Road.
Director Davis felt perhaps that the reason Commissioner
Scurlock had not heard about it was that there always has been
more discussion on the arterial system. Staff has always
considered 20th Avenue as a secondary collector roadway, and
staff is not changing that recommendation here today. It still
will be considered as a secondary collector roadway and not as an
arterial or a minor arterial.
JUN 6 1989
17 BOOK 76 963
JUN_ 6 1989,
BOOK 76 FADE 964
Commissioner Scurlock recalled that over the last number of
years this Commission has been concerned about additional
development along the 20th Avenue corridor because of increased
traffic and the need for intersection improvements. In fact,
this Commission sat here and voted against a day-care center at
20th Avenue and 12th Street because it would have been too close
to an intersection and nearby schools.
Chairman Wheeler asked if the third access is something we
need today, next year, or 5 or 10 years down the road, and
Director Davis explained that staff has Looked at the 27th Avenue
corridor and the traffic counts are growing at a rate of 500
vehicles per year, and when that growth rate is projected, we are
looking at a major improvement along there in 5-6 years, but that
is assuming we grow as we have grown in the past. Just one new
large development in there could change things dramatically.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that a large development
would go through a DRI, which would require certain mitigation by
the developer at his expense, or else his request would be
denied.
Commissioner Bird just wanted to stress, before the public
discussion begins, that there is going to be a second access to
the Highlands with the opening of 17th Street SW, which is
expected sometime this summer, and that what we are considering
today is a third access to the Highlands.
Chairman Wheeler opened the meeting up to public discussion,
and asked that anyone wishing to be heard in this matter come up
to either podium and give their name and address before speaking.
Jeanie Priore, 1445 18th Avenue SW, felt we should wait to
see how much of the problem will be solved by the access to 27th
Avenue. As a homeowner, she would hate to see all that traffic
from the Highlands going through the quiet subdivision of Oslo
Park.
Sheri Brown, 2296 19th Avenue, SW, resident of Vero
Highlands, didn't feel that the access through 20th Avenue would
18
be that great a deal, because it would affect only those
residents in the back part of the Highlands. She believed the
people living in the front part of the Highlands would still
travel Old Dixie Highway and U.S. #1. Mrs. Brown believed we
need all three accesses to the Highlands.
Dale Martin, 610 20th Place SW, resident of Vero Beach
Highlands, was very happy to have the 17th Street SW access to
27th Avenue, but felt that the County should finish 20th Avenue
because all they have to do is build a bridge over the canal.
Chairman Wheeler recalled that they tried to reach a
compromise two years ago that would please everyone, and that
compromise called for 17th Street SW to be extended to 27th
Avenue and the construction of a pedestrian bridge over the
Lateral J Canal at 20th Avenue. He felt very strongly about
protecting neighborhoods from encroachment, whether it be from
traffic or commercial encroachment.
James Carraway, 910 24th Place, SW, resident of Vero Beach
Highlands, felt the most important thing in this issue is that
the 20th Avenue access would provide a quicker response time by
the EMS and the Fire Dept. He felt the Commission has to
consider the safety of the residents of the entire county.
Chairman Wheeler agreed with the safety aspect, and asked
South County Fire Chief John Allen to address the response times
by the EMS and the Fire Dept.
Chief Allen calculated that the 27th Avenue access would
reduce the response time to calls from the back part of the
Highlands by 1-1/2 to 2 minutes. Right now it takes 4-5 minutes
to get there from Station #4 on Oslo Road. If they could go
20th, it would be quicker. Time is of the essence, and the
problem they are facing now is that there is only one way to go.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that if we are talking about
knocking off 1 to 1.5 minutes, maybe it's time to reevaluate and
recalculate the response times. With the future population
JUN 6199
19 TOOK 76 wE. 965
Pr"
JUR 6 1989
BOOK .76 f* 96b7
growth, perhaps we should be looking at a facility within the
Highlands to house the EMS and the Fire Department.
Chief Allen felt that is always a consideration, but
stressed that we are not looking at a response time of 1 to 1.5
minutes, we are looking at a 4-5 minutes response time with a
reduction of 1 to 1.5 minutes.
Commissioner Scurlock believed some people feel that if 20th
Avenue is opened up, the Fire Department will be there in a
minute.
Chief Allen emphasized that there is no way they could get
there in a minute's time. They may be able to reduce it by 1 to
1.5 minutes if 20th Avenue is opened up.
Commissioner Eggert advised that the Emergency Management
Department is in the process of investigating the county's
overall needs in terms of fire stations, etc.
Loxley Firth, 376 20th Avenue, adamantly opposed the
extension of 20th Avenue. He pointed out that traffic counts
taken in the first quarter of 1989 on 20th Avenue at 6th Street
show 5,600 vehicles per day, which is one car every 15 seconds.
He emphasized that 20th Avenue is a collector road, not an
arterial or even a minor arterial. East of 20th Avenue is a
large area of open land, approximately 610 acres, and he dreaded
what would happen if that becomes a -PUD (Planned Unit
Development) where you not only have single family housing, but
cluster housing and perhaps a small condominiums as well. He
hadn't heard anyone mention anything about future development
from the South Relief Canal to Oslo Road, nor had he heard anyone
address the amount of building that is yet to be done in Oslo
Park. Lastly, he urged the Board to approve a traffic light at
4th Street and 20th Avenue.
Wayne Vota, 2106 15th Street SW, resident of Oslo Park, was
concerned about the difficulty little children have now in
crossing 20th Avenue to get to Thompson Elementary School. There
20
are no sidewalks or crosswalks -- no way for them to get across
safely. He believed that if 20th Avenue is opened up to the
Highlands, it would be a dragway from the back of the Highlands
all the way to Oslo Road.
James Dial, 1316 25th Street SW, didn't feel this county
fully realizes how fast it is growing. He felt the Commission
should be thinking in those terms and do what is best for the
entire county, not just a small group in one little area. He did
not understand why anyone who did not want to live on a main
corridor would have located on 20th Avenue.
Roger Schmidt, 137 20th Avenue, wondered what was going to
happen to the value of the 100 -plus homes along 20th if it is
opened up to all the through traffic. If it is opened up, he
expected to see many homes go up for sale along there. He urged
the Board not to make their street into a highway.
Valerie Miller, 115 20th Avenue SW, opposed the opening of
20th Avenue SW because she is concerned about the safety of her
three children. Her immediate neighbor has called the Sheriff
about the speeders, only to be told that there are not enough
patrol cars to do the job now. She wondered what is going to
happen when 20th is opened up. Mrs. Miller agreed that the
people in the Highlands need another access, but felt it might be
a good -idea to wait and see what happens after the second access
to 27th Avenue is opened.
Beverly Thwealt, 1235 19th Avenue SW, 9 -year resident of
Oslo Park, also was concerned about the safety of her children
and was opposed to the opening of 20th Avenue.
Kevin Hawkins, 580 32nd Avenue SW, stated that he owns
approximately 300 lots in Oslo Park and feels that the opening
of 20th Avenue will do nothing but help that area and would bring
Oslo Park more into the scheme of things in Vero Beach. He
believed the problem right now is that Oslo Park has an image
problem because everybody thinks you are talking about Oslo Road
JUN 6 1989
21
BOOK 70 .967
40 6 1989
BOOK 76 ME 968
and the drug trafficking there. Mr. Hawkins felt that with the
second access from 27th Avenue, there will be less traffic on
20th Avenue. He wanted to see Oslo Park paved, but wanted
everyone's children to be safe. He was for the improvement.
Roy Ebie, 2436 13th Avenue SW, was concerned about the
safety of the children from both the Highlands and Oslo Park. He
was also concerned that rainfall from a major hurricane would
leave the narrow access at Highlands Boulevard under 6-8 feet of
water. He didn't feel that we should let one little area dictate
to thousands of people, and urged the Board to open up 20th
Avenue as fast as possible in order to protect the public's
safety.
Roger Gist, 2109 6th Avenue SW in Vero Highlands, presented
a petition signed by 20 people in favor of the 20th Avenue
extension. (This petition is in addition to the petitions with
approximately 500 signatures submitted at the Commission meeting
of May 23, 1989. PETITIONS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD.) Mr. Gist asked how many cars travel Old
Dixie Highway between Highland Drive and Oslo Road, and Director
Davis advised that stretch gets about 4800 vehicles per day. If
that growth continues we will be seeing an increase of 300-500
vehicles per day per year.
Mr. Gist understood that the County has the right-of-way all
along 20th Avenue from Oslo Road to St. Lucie County, but
Director Davis explained that we do not. There is a jog in the
Highlands at 21st Place and it is not continuous. There is a
section between 17th Street SW and the south county line that is
incomplete.
Mr. Gist further understood that staff is for opening up
20th Avenue, and Director Davis advised that staff analyzed this
on technical merit and recommended the opening to the
Transportation Planning Committee, who concurred.
Mr. Gist pointed out the delays in response time whenever a
fire truck or EMS vehicle has to respond by using Old Dixie
22
Highway between 4-6 a.m. He emphasized that there are 1100
homes in the Highlands with approximately 3000 residents, of
which probably 50% are over 50 years in age. Mr. Gist felt that
Oslo Park could raise money to hire a crossing guard and build a
sidewalk the same way as the people did in the Highlands. Mr.
Gist urged the Board to accept the recommendation from staff and
the TPC.
Joseph Theriault, 659 SW 20th Place in Vero Highlands, was
in favor of opening 20th Avenue between the Highlands and Oslo
Park. He felt the only people with a legitimate complaint about
this connection are the people who live on 20th Avenue between
17th Street SW and Oslo Road. Between 17th and 14th Streets,
which is the undeveloped part, there are 17 residences, 4 of
which are for sale, and 3 others which appear to be vacant. This
leaves 10 families with a vested interest in what happens to
their street. Those families definitely have a problem with
children playing in the street. He felt the problem is so
severe, that even without the connection being made to the
Highlands, those children should be taught to keep out of the
street. Mr. Theriault believed the needs of the many residents
in the Highlands should prevail over the 10 residents who live on
that stretch of 20th Avenue in Oslo Park. He urged the Board to
extend 20th Avenue.
Virginia Cessna, 375 20th Avenue, urged the Board not to
harm the Oslo Park neighborhood by opening up 20th Avenue just
because a mistake was made 20 years ago in the design of the
Highlands.
Ann Lau, 1695 20th Avenue, SW, Oslo Park, emphasized that
most people in Oslo Park are working families and many could not
come today. She also emphasized that this is not Oslo Road, this
is Oslo Park, and it is a caring community. She opposed the
opening of 20th Avenue because of her concern for the safety of
her children, and pointed out the difficulty in trying to tell
JUN 6 1989
23
EOOK " FSG 6
'JUN 6 1989
Boot /6 FE.9y70
small children not to play in the street. She urged the Board to
keep the children from having to walk along this dangerous road.
Willie Brown, 1295 19th Avenue SW, Oslo Park, was opposed to
the opening of 20th Avenue. He disagreed with the statements
made here this morning that this road was always planned. It was
not planned. He personally paid $100 to an attorney to give 10
feet of his property to the County, and a neighbor in back gave
40 or 50 feet. That is how 20th Avenue came to reach that far,
and he believed that was the beginning of the 20th Avenue
extension down to Oslo Park. The reason he gave the 10 feet is
because the County had no access to the utility poles, but now
they want to open it over to the Highlands. Mr. Brown didn't
know where all the traffic comes from now, but at night people
are driving through there at speeds up to 60-70 mph from Oslo
Road to 14th Street and it wakes him up 3 or 4 times during the
night. He suggested that the Highlands have a third exit by
going along 7th Place SW and along the canal to Oslo Road and
then out to U.S. #1.
Commissioner Bird asked Director Davis what improvements
would be made between 17th Street SW and 14th Street SW if it was
decided to open up 20th Avenue, and Director Davis advised that
the design calls for a paved 22 -ft. wide standard roadway with
the stop sign remaining at 14th Street SW. There would be a stop
control at the intersection of 20th Avenue and 17th Street SW.
Commissioner Bird asked if the paving and the necessary
swales that would be created through there would have significant
impact on the yards of the residences along there, and Director
Davis explained that our improvements would not encroach on their
property because of the 70 -ft. platted right-of-way through
there. The edge of the pavement would be 24 feet from any
property line.
Commissioner Bird asked about a bike bath along 20th Avenue,
and Director Davis advised that the bike path can be added into
24
r
the project, but noted that it had not been included in the cost
estimate.
Commissioner Eggert asked about the alternative of 7th Place
SW which runs along Lateral J Canal, and Director Davis advised
that they had looked at that in 1986, but we do not have the road
right-of-way through the corridor between Oslo Road and 6th
Avenue, which is approximately one mile. That would require one
mile of right-of-way acquisition, and since the roadway is within
the Drainage District's roadway, we would have to secure a
right-of-way outside the Drainage District.
Stephen Lau, 1695 20th Ave., SW, felt that the opening of
20th Avenue would have a devastating effect on Oslo Park because
it would split the community right in half. He wanted to know
why it has taken so long to open up 17th Street SW to 27th
Avenue.
Director Davis explained that three issues complicated the
project:
1) A delay in securing a DOT permit. Staff was requested to
design the road without a connection to the Oslo Park area, and
that meant there would have to be two intersections at 17th
Street onto 27th Avenue within 60 feet of one another. That
intersection spacing is substandard, and the DOT indicated to us
that we probably would have to close the road north of the canal
in order to open the road south of the canal.
2) We could not apply for the stormwater permit from the St.
Johns River Water Management District until the design of that
intersection was 100% complete.
3) The difficulty in working out a safe, geometric design
without connecting the two subdivisions.
Director Davis noted that since August, 1987, they have
implemented the improvements at 20th Avenue and Oslo Road; paved
20th Avenue down to 14th Street SW; and moved the fence back
along 17th Street SW. We have done construction; but it is just
that the road is not open yet.
JUN 6 1989
25
BOOK 76 F'u 9 7I
1989
EOOK 76 F' L 972
Mr. Lau suggested that more traffic analyses be done on the
destinations from the Highlands, because he believed another
access to Oslo Road would solve many of their problems.
Ruby Pierce, 614 21st Street, SW. in Vero Highlands, wanted
to see 20th Avenue opened up. She and her friends walk at 6 a.m.
and find that Highland Drive is very busy even at that early
hour. She felt that Oslo Park could pay to have a sidewalk put
in and hire a crossing guard the same as they have done in the
Highlands.
Bill Collins, 4445 61st Court, SW, explained that although
he owns some property in Vero Highlands and plans on living there
shortly, he believes we would be creating a monster by opening up
20th Avenue. He felt the Highlands problem would be solved by
the opening of 17th Street SW to 27th Avenue, and believed that
if both roads were opened, most people would use 20th Avenue and
the 27th Avenue access would become sort of an orphan.
Kenneth Henry, 1075 SW 24th Place, president of Vero
Highlands Property Owners Association, asked the difference
between a public discussion and a public hearing.
Chairman Wheeler explained that they differ only in legal
requirements. For a public hearing, it is necessary to advertise
through legal notices, etc., that action is going to be taken on
an ordinance or something of that nature. A public discussion is
for the purpose of receiving input from the community and to try
to weigh both sides of an issue and come up with a decision on
something where it is not necessary to pass an ordinance or
resolution.
Attorney Vitunac confirmed that to be correct.
Mr. Henry stated that their property owners association
represents 720 homeowners in the Highlands and has been working
with staff on the extension since 1986 when they first met with
the county emergency management people in case of a hurricane
evacuation. They are in support of the 20th Avenue extension
26
mainly because of the response time in an emergency, such as the
recent fires. They feel that they need a third access in the
event of a hurricane because two accesses would not be enough.
Chairman Wheeler felt that if 20th Avenue was opened up, it
wouldn't provide a true third access since both routes would feed
from the same intersection at 17th Street SW and 20th Avenue. He
asked about the possibility of having 17th Street SW and 20th
Avenue access meet and run on the other side of the canal.
Director Davis explained that only half of a right-of-way
was platted along 20th Avenue south of 17th Street. To the west
is pasture land, and as that property is developed in the future,
we would secure the other half of the right-of-way and complete
20th Avenue further south. At not much expense we could improve
a section approximately 3/8's of a mile down to 19th Place.
However, there are some internal problems in the Highlands in the
road system on the west perimeter.
Commissioner Eggert also was concerned about the two
accesses merging at one intersection during an evacuation. It
would seem like there were three accesses but there really isn't
because it all depends on how you get through that stop sign.
The cars still would be feeding out through one access instead of
two. She wanted to see us find another way out of there, whether
it be through 7th Street or whatever.
Chairman Wheeler agreed that technically we would have two
accesses rather than three.
Director Davis admitted that was true, but pointed out that
once you get through that intersection, that traffic would be
dispersed. He felt the problem could be overcome with some minor
intersection improvements, and that it wasn't an insurmountable
problem.
Carlos Vota, 2106 15th Street SW, stated that he chose to
live in Oslo Park because of the quiet remoteness in the wooded
area, and didn't buy in the Highlands because he felt it would
JW9 1989
27
BOg " 1,E: 97
JIM 6 198
BOOK .16 PAGE g74
have been inconvenient to get in and out of there on a daily
basis. He agreed that the Highlands needs another access, but
felt that opening up 20th Avenue would only transfer the problems
from the Highlands to Oslo Park. Mr. Vota couldn't understand
why it has taken 1-1/2 years to design one intersection, but
Commissioner Eggert explained that in all fairness to the
County's engineering staff, it is the DOT that takes so long.
Caroline Colby, 865 23rd Place SW in the Highlands,
understood from the meeting of two weeks ago that the needs of
the greatest amount of people would be considered. She
apologized for prejudging the Commissioners in thinking that they
had made their minds up to vote against opening up 20th Avenue.
She asked when 17th Street SW would be opened up to 27th Avenue,
and Director Davis explained that just as soon as we receive the
stormwater permit, we can begin work immediately and, weather
permitting, have the road built by the end of July.
Mrs. Colby didn't feel that the people along 20th Avenue are
going to see the amount of traffic they anticipate because a lot
of the people in the Highlands work at Piper which is at the end
of 27th Avenue. She urged the Commissioners to open up 20th
Avenue as a third access into the Highlands.
Vinnie Pallazino, 1715 20th Street SW in Vero Highlands,
wanted to see 20th Avenue opened up..in order to have faster
response from emergency vehicles. In addition, he felt that
since 20th Avenue will be put through there at some point in the
future, it should be done now when it will cost less.
Tana Rap Oropeza, 726 19th Place SW in Vero Highlands,
presented a petition signed by teachers and staff members at
Highlands Elementary School who support the extension of 20th
Avenue. She expressed concern for the safety of the children in
both communities, but wondered why the Highlands should be the
only community held accountable for buying in a neighborhood with
only one access. She felt the people living on 20th Avenue
28
should have looked into that more carefully before they bought
there. Mrs. Rap Oropeza emphasized that the residents of the
Highlands worked hard to raise money to put in sidewalks to
protect their children, and she felt that the residents of Oslo
Park could do that as well. She noted that the Highlands was
mentioned in the newspaper as being a community of renters, not
homeowners, and asked when it is a crime to be too poor to buy a
home. Just because they are renters doesn't mean they don't love
their kids just as much as homeowners do.
Marcel Foyer, 145 20th Avenue, was opposed to opening up
20th Avenue. He felt he did .his homework when he bought his home
on 20th Avenue just last year. When he asked the County about
the future of 20th Avenue, he was told that it wasn't going to be
opened up and that the issue was settled. Now, however, that is
just what is being considered even though the map shows 20th
Avenue to be a collector road, not an arterial. It seemed to him
that there have been a lot of mistakes in the past and we should.
be careful in planning the roadways for the future.
Commissioner Scurlock said he was ready to make a Motion
because we have had more than two hours of discussion and there
doesn't seem to be any new information.
Chairman Wheeler noted that these people have been sitting
here for a long period of time waiting to be heard and he is
willing to sit here and listen until all have been heard who wish
to be heard, and Commissioner Eggert agreed.
Frank Amato, 875 19th Street SW in Vero Highlands, felt it
is a foregone conclusion that both the second and third accesses
are needed and should be done now when it costs less. He wished
to make the following points: 1) Why put the Fire Dept. to the
expense of putting up another station in the Highlands when 20th
Avenue can be opened up. 2) Provide signalization and stop
signs. 3) Do the right thing for the greatest amount of people.
4) Possible litigation. In the event of an emergency and the
6 1989
29 BOOK 76 Mt. 975,
,SUN 6 '1989
75 E976
entrance is blocked because of a railroad disaster, etc., someone
could bring suit against the County because the County did not
act in the best interests of the greatest number of people.
Virgil Vannatta, 306 20th Avenue, opposed the opening up of
20th Avenue. He stressed that there is heavy traffic along 20th
Avenue even now during the off season, and asked the Board to
consider all of this in their decision today.
Sandra MacDougall, 2036 20th Avenue SW in Vero Highlands,
explained that they bought their home there because it was a
single lane road with hardly any traffic, but, unfortunately, it
didn't stay like that. People who drive up and down that single
lane road have a tendency to go very fast. She asked if the
County plans on expanding that single lane if or when they open
20th Avenue. Mrs. MacDougall wished to see that single -lane road
made a one-way street if it is not expanded to two lanes.
Director Davis felt that is probably what should be done
because it is not a standard width road. There are many half
roads in the county at the fringes of development because the
other half should be completed by the abutting property owner. It
could be made a one-way street very easily.
Mrs. MacDougall felt her street would be much safer if it
were a 2 -lane road, however, and Director Davis agreed.
Barbara Buhr, resident of Oslo.. Park, noted that they are a
small area but the issue has gone outside of their neighborhood.
She presented petitions signed by 470 residents of Oslo Park and
people outside their neighborhood who oppose the opening up of
20th Avenue. (PETITIONS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD).Mrs. Buhr felt that you cannot put a price tag on life
and that we must protect it. She agreed that the Highlands needs
another exit, but suggested that they find another access where
it will service the entire neighborhood with regard to response
time for emergency vehicles. She suggested a third access be
through 7th Street along the Lateral J Canal, and emphasized that
30
you cannot solve the problems of the Highlands by putting them on
Oslo Park.
Jeanne Kraft, 845 20th Avenue, stated that she has lived on
20th Avenue for 25 years and was worried about increased traffic
in the area between 8th and 12th Street. She asked if St. Lucie
County had expressed any interest in coming into this county via
20th Avenue, and Director Davis advised that there has been some
communication about a connection between Lakewood Park and Vero
Highlands, but it was not about 20th Avenue.
Mrs. Kraft asked if the Planning Department was considering
any plans for commercial development for the substantial amount
of vacant land along 20th Avenue south to Oslo Road.
Director Davis advised that public hearings have been
scheduled to discuss the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and he
felt that would be the time to address any planning, densities,
or zonings.
Mrs. Kraft then asked if there were any plans to put in
sidewalks or a bike path along there, and Director Davis advised
that $250,000 has been programmed for bike paths for the next
fiscal year, subject to approval during the budget sessions in
July. Some of that will be used on 8th Street and on 27th
Avenue, but not on 20th.
Mrs. Kraft wondered if there was even any room for a bike
path along 20th, but Director Davis explained that we are not
planning to remove the bike path there. The widening will be
only 3 feet, and there may have to be some drainage
modifications.
Mrs. Kraft urged that all needed improvements be made to
20th Avenue before it is opened up to the Highlands, if that is
what the Board decides.
David Dowdell, 691 Highland Drive, stressed that the
County's Engineering Dept. has done a lot of analyses on both
accesses, and he felt the Board should follow their
recommendation.
31
JUN 6 1989
BOOK 7 FA L 977
AA 1989
EkOOK
FA.GE978
Darren Jezick, 1575 20th Avenue SW, one block away from the
canal, was opposed to the opening of 20th Avenue. He pointed out
that there are at least 6 intersections between the canal and
Oslo Road right now, but if the traffic goes right to 27th
Avenue, there would be fewer intersections.
Chairman Wheeler noted that a letter was received from
Virginia 1. Bridwell requesting that her letter opposing the
opening of 20th Avenue be read aloud at this meeting. He
explained that if he were to read one letter aloud, all the
letters received would have to be read aloud also, and time does
not permit that. He emphasized that all letters received have
been duly noted and will be placed on file in the Office of the
Clerk to the Board along with the numerous petitions that have
been received.
Commissioner Scurlock wanted to try a Motion that we move
ahead to open up 20th Avenue, but do so only after the other
necessary improvements are made to that road. He had some
specific concerns that were addressed by individuals here this
morning in terms of the lady with the one-way road; the section
between the intersection of 8th Street and on up to 12th Street;
the signalization; and the realignment. He felt it is evident
that some improvements are needed to see that the opening of 20th
Avenue is done in a safe manner. There should be some ability to
let the children cross, whether by signalization or some other
safe mechanism. Commissioner Scurlock believed that now is the
time to move ahead, but make it a safe situation, and added that
it will give us an opportunity to see how the second access
functions.
Commissioner Bowman asked Commissioner Scurlock to please
condense his Motion.
32
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board authorize staff to
go ahead with the opening of 20th Avenue but only after
the necessary safety improvements are made to 20th
Avenue, i.e. the one -lane road, the signalization
between 8th Street and 12th Street, and the bike
path/sidewalk that is in the budget.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bowman suggested that the
Motion include direction to staff to proceed with the
construction of 27th Street SW as fast as possible, but
Commissioner Scurlock felt that was handled in last week's
meeting.
Commissioner Bird suggested that if the stormwater permit is
not received shortly, we should proceed without it and let the
Water District rattle their swords all they want to, but just
tell them we have an emergency situation here and we are going to
build the road and take the permit when it gets here. He felt,
however, that we have a good relationship with the Water District
and will be receiving the permit shortly.
Commissioner Eggert asked about 12th Avenue, and Director
Davis explained that 12th Avenue is a local road within the
Highlands, and the right-of-way does not go through to Oslo Road.
Commissioner Eggert felt strongly that even with these three
accesses, we need more access to the Highlands. She stated that
she will forever consider the accesses of 20th Avenue and 17th
Street SW as one access rather than two because of the bottleneck
at that intersection.
Director Davis believed 6th Avenue SW is on our Thoroughfare
Plan to connect to Oslo Road, which would certainly funnel much
of the traffic to the new commercial node at Oslo Road and U.S.
#1. However, we have no right-of-way for a section of that road.
Chairman Wheeler asked how many months and years we were
talking about in making the improvements to 20th Avenue as stated
33
JUN 1989
BOOK � � F 9 /
JUN 1989
BOOK .76 F,..GE:980
in Commissioner Scurlock's Motion, and Director Davis expected it
probably would take about two year's time to do all of those
improvements. The most difficult items would be the permitting
and the utility relocation. It takes quite awhile to motivate
the power companies to move the Targe poles out of the way.
Chairman Wheeler asked if during the same period of time we
could also explore 6th Avenue or right-of-way through 12th Avenue
as another access point into the Highlands which would give 3
separate accesses.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that wasn't his Motion.
Commissioner Bowman felt that 12th Avenue SW would be
wonderful, and perhaps there is a little bit of leverage there to
obtain the right-of-way along there inasmuch as General
Development Corporation has sort of defaulted in their original
plans.
Director Davis advised that GDC doesn't own that
right-of-way.
Commissioner Scurlock felt it is very hard to make a
decision to run a road through somebody's neighborhood. However,
the bottom line is that the Engineering staff and the
Transportation Planning Committee have been working on all of
these options all along and are recommending to the Board to go
with both the 27th and 20th Avenue accesses.
Chairman Wheeler felt that two years' time is rather
optimistic. to get those improvements done on 20th Avenue, but
Director Davis emphasized that is based on our current abilities.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that his Motion anticipated
that they would go ahead and do it in a timely fashion. However,
if traffic counts do not warrant a signal and the DOT doesn't
approve a signal, he is not suggesting that we don't proceed with
the opening of 20th Avenue. What he is saying is to make it a
safe situation.
34
Chairman Wheeler still wondered if a true third access could
be developed in the same amount of time, either through 6th or
12th Avenues.
Director Davis believed it could, but only if the
right-of-way acquisition went smoothly. He emphasized that we
have all the right-of-way for the 20th Avenue access.
Commissioner Bird didn't know when he ever had sat in a
meeting and changed his mind so many times on an issue as today,
but because both the pros and cons of this issue seem to be
fairly equal, he was leaning towards the recommendation of staff
andithe TPC that the extension of this road is necessary in order
to separate out and distribute the traffic flows being generated
from the Highlands and that general area. He liked the inclusion
of the safety factors in Commissioner Scurlock's Motion and
stated that he would support staff's recommendation and vote for
the Motion with the condition that we expedite the construction
of 17th Street SW into 27th Avenue just as fast as we can.
Commissioner Eggert stated that she also has been back and
forth on this several times. She very much didn't like to impact
neighborhoods, but felt that we would be impacting the Highlands
if we don't do something. Aside from this, she would be very
much supportive for there to be another access even if it only
goes to Oslo Road. She supported the recommendation of staff and
the TPC, but emphasized that it was a hard decision to come down
to because she did not come into Chambers this morning feeling
this way.
Commissioner Bird hoped that as part of the safety
improvements listed in the Motion that we are considering a bike
path system to be installed in conjunction with this project so
that the people who live in Oslo Park and the Highlands have a
safe bike path for their children to use.
Chairman Wheeler apologized to the residents of Vero
Highlands for maybe being a little shortsighted a year and a half
JUN 1989
L
35
BOOK 7
981
r
►JUN 61999
BOOK 76 F ".JE 982
ago when he voted to extend 17th Street SW to 27th Avenue. At
that time he felt that access would satisfy both the Highlands
residents and protect the Oslo Park neighborhood. If it was
possible to go back in time, he would choose to open up 20th
Avenue instead. He felt it would be almost wasteful to continue
to build 17th Street SW if we are going to open up 20th Avenue,
but because it is going to take time to open 20th Avenue
effectively and safely, he would prefer to open up 17th Street
and continue to look for a true third access. For those reasons
he could not support the Motion.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
passed by a 4-1 vote, Chairman Wheeler dissenting.
The Chairman thereupon recessed the Meeting for lunch at
12:30 o'clock A.M.
Chairman Wheeler called the Meeting back to order at 1:30
o'clock P.M. with the same members being present.
LAND CLEARING/TREE REMOVAL VIOLATION - JAMES COSGROVE (OWNER), D
& L BACKHOE SERVICES (LANDCLEARER) ..
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/25/89:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keats g,
Community Devel pmeif Director
Roland DeBlois 4
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM:
DATE: May 25, 1989
SUBJECT: LANDCLEARING/TREE REMOVAL
VIOLATION:
JAMES COSGROVE (Owner)
D & L BACKHOE SERVICES (Landclearer)
It is requested that the data presented be given formal consid-
eration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting on June 6, 1989.
36
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
On March 3, 1989, County staff observed that parcel numbers
24-33-39-00011-0003-00001.0 and 00003.0 had been cleared, prior to
the issuance of County landclearing or tree removal permits. The
area cleared is approximately 0.25 acres in size. The property,
lots 1 and 3 of Oslo Park, Block C, is located at the northeast
corner of Oslo Road and llth Court S.W. The property 'is zoned IL,
Light Industrial District.
Inspection of debris on-site indicated that approximately 7 to 10
protec'ked pines over 8" diameter had been removed. After review-
ing aerials of the property, it is estimated that at least 4 of
the pines werelocated in required yard setbacks and not within
the net buildable area of_the site.
On April 6, 1989, staff met with Mr. Cosgrove, the owner, and Mr.
Duncan Thomas of D & L Backhoe Services to discuss the violation.
Mr. Cosgrove explained that he was not aware of the need for
permits, and would not knowingly violate county ordinances. Mr.
Thomas also indicated he was unware of the need for County per-
mits.
ALTERNATIVE & ANALYSIS:
Section 231-6(a) & (b) , Tree Protection, of the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Indian River County prohibits the performance of any
tree removal, landclearing or grubbing unless tree removal and
landclearing permits have first been issued by the County, unless
expressly exempted within the ordinance. The ordinance further
specifies that a violation shall be punishable upon conviction by
a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500)• per tree and
landclearing activity or by imprisonment in the County jail for up
to sixty (60) days, or both.
Section 231-16 of the Tree Protection Ordinance provides that
permits may be obtained after -the -fact upon determination by the
environmental planner that activities were performed in accordance
with permit issuance criteria.
Based on the illegal landclearing and number of protected trees
that could have been saved (ie - 4+ pines), staff requested on May
5, 1989, that Mr. Cosgrove and D & L Backhoe submit a .voluntary
payment of $2,500.00. Voluntary payment as requested by staff has
not been submitted; attorneys for the respondents have requested a
hearing before the County Commission to consider the matter.
.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider
obtaining a voluntary payment of $2,500 dollars, and require an
after -the -fact permit. In the event that any said agreement is
not forth -coming, staff recommends the Board of County Commission-
ers grant staff the authorization to pursue available remedies in
County Court.
Roland DeBlois, Chief of Environmental Planning, advised
that staff's recommendation is to assess the $2,500 as a
voluntary payment and require an after -the -fact permit, and if
that is not forthcoming, that the Board authorize staff to pursue
this matter in County Court. Both the landclearer and the
property owner were unwilling to pay the $2,500 fine and
requested that this matter come before the Board today.
Commissioner Eggert inquired about our past experience with
this landclearer, and Mr. DeBlois reported that the County has no
record of previous violations with this licensed landclearer.
However, our records show that he did not attend the 1985
workshop on the tree protection ordinance.
JUN 61989
37
floor 76 ,,,,9s3
JUN 198
BOOK 76 Fe,.JE 984
Mr. DeBlois stated that it is quite obvious that at least 4
trees were located in the required setback requirements that
would be used if this property is ever developed.
Attorney Robert Clark, representing James Cosgrove, owner of
the subject property, pointed out that with respect to the
required setback requirements, there is no sewer service
available in that area and septic tanks would be installed if
that property was developed. He advised that his client feels
that if anyone should be fined, it should be the landclearer.
Attorney Clark emphasized that this wasn't an intentional
violation. The trees were cut and left in plain sight on the
corner of Oslo Road, so they weren't trying to sneak something by
the County. Their position is that because Mr. Thomas is a
licensed and insured contractor, he should be put on notice about
any permits that are required in this type of work.
Commissioner Scurlock asked what directions the landclearer
had been given by the property owner, and Attorney Clark
explained that the landclearer was just told to clear the lot,
and their position is that if you take on a licensed and insured
landclearer, it is his responsibility to tell you what licenses
or permits are required.
Duncan Thomas of D & L Backhoe Services, speaking from his
seat in the audience, stated that h.e did not clear the property
totally. A couple of trees were left on the backside next to
the property owner there.
Attorney Clark noted that in other cases of this kind the
fines were reduced when it was determined that both parties
seemed to be sincere in being unaware of the restrictions of the
landclearing ordinance. Since Mr. Cosgrove has stated he is
willing to replant those trees, Attorney Clark felt that perhaps
a reasonable fine in this case would be $100 a tree divided
equally between the owner of the property and the landclearer.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if the landclearer had already
been paid, and Attorney Clark advised that the landclearer has
38
said that it was his fault and that as the landclearer he should
have known. Apparently it was an oversight as he had been doing
a lot of work recently in citrus groves where you don't run into
any kind of permitting or tree protection. He urged the Board to
mitigate the fine considering this was unintentional and Mr.
Cosgrove has offered to replant the trees.
Commissioner Bowman stressed that it took many years for
those pines to get that big, and she didn't feel that was
mitigation.
Mr. DeBlois pointed out that before the tree protection
ordinance was revised to allow for an after -the -fact permit,
staff would have cited the 7-10 trees that actually were cleared,
and the fine would have been more in the realm of $5,000.
However, based on the amendment to the ordinance in 1986, staff
looked closely to see if any of the trees could have been removed
with an after -the -fact permit, and that is where their estimate
was whittled down to 4 trees.
Attorney Rene VanDeVoorde, representing Duncan Thomas of D &
L Backhoe Services, emphasized that his client did not state that
he was responsible for what happened or that he was at fault.
Mr. Thomas is basically a small contractor who did this job in
the off season, as 95% of his work is done in the agricultural
arena where he doesn't pull permits. The permits are pulled by
the general contractor or the owner of the property. What we
have here is a situation where it sort of fell through the
cracks. Mr. Thomas assumed that the owner pulled the permit, and
the owner assumed that the landclearer had pulled the permit.
Mr. Thomas was paid $600 for this job, and has never had any
problem with the County in the past. Attorney VanDeVoorde
stressed that he was not arguing that ignorance is an excuse, but
was convinced that Mr. Thomas was not aware of the landclearing
restrictions, and that is why they are asking for a nominal fine
only. He advised that they have agreed to split the fine.
JUN 6 '1989
39
rd
BOO' 0
JUN 6 1989
BOOK 76 mil 986
Commissioner Scurlock asked if the Board has the ability to
split the fine between the property owner and the landclearer,
and County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised that the Board has
that prerogative.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that whatever the fine is, they
are both equally responsible because they both had a part to play
in it.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board assess a fine of
$2500 to be split between the two parties.
Under discussion, Chairman Wheeler said he could not support
a $2500 fine in this case since there wasn't. any intent, but
could support a $500 fine.
Commissioner Bowman didn't feel that $500 was enough, and
pointed out that slash pines are almost extinct in Dade County.
Commissioner Bird felt that a fine of $1,000 split between
the two parties would be a good compromise, along with the
replanting of 4 slash pines.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
failed by a vote of 2-3, Commissioners Wheeler, Eggert
and Bird voting in opposition.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, by a 4-1 vote,
Commissioner Scurlock dissenting, the Board set a
fine of $1,000 to be split equally between the owner
and the landclearer, and required the replanting of 4
slash pines of 12 feet in height in the area where they
were removed with the stipulation that the trees must
survive for one year or be replanted again.
40
1'
APPROVAL OF SEPARATE TAX ROLL FOR NON -AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS, AS
REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 5/16/89:
305-567-8188
SUN -COM 224-1480
May 16, 1989
David C. Nolte
"CERTIFIED FLORIDA APPRAISER"
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER
1840 25TH STREET
"WE ARE HERE TO SERVE YOU" VeRO BEACH. FLORIDA 32960
TO: honorable Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
F.S. 197.3632 provides for a separate tax roll for non -ad valorem
assessments. It calls for a cumbersome methodology which would
require all non -ad valorem districts to have sophisticated computer
capabilities and highly trained personnel to duplicate capabilities
the Property Appraisers office already possesses. It is also clear,
based upon the SWD experience, that the data the Property Appraiser
uses for assessments is not necessarily the same data needed by the
various districts and once again, the districts would have to hire,
train and equip personnel to duplicate capabilites which already
exist.
Therefore, I recommend setting up a county department under the
direction of the Property Appraiser (for data collection and tax
roll preparation), and Tax Collector (for bill preparation and
collection problems) funded by the non -ad valorem districts.
I request a three person department - two hired by the Appraiser and
one by the Collector - all three would be cross trained to collect
data, prepare the roll and bills, and answer technical questions
about the assessments. The task of defending the level of assess-
ment and the need for the tax funds would, of course, remain with
the various districts.
If you agree, I would like to start the department A.S.A.P., so that
the personnel could be in place for this years TRIM.
David C. Nolte
Property Appraiser
MEMBER
/AAO
DCN/mn INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS
PROFESSIONAL APPRAISERS ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA
FLORIDA CHAPTER I.A.A.O.
ASSOCIATE MEMBER TENNESSEE CHAPTER I.A.A.O.
JUN 6 19 I`.9
41
BOO
Fgu987
JUN 6159
305-567-8188
SUN -COM 224-1480
David C. Nolte
"CERTIFIED FLORIDA APPRAISER"
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER
r
"WE ARE HERE TO SERVE YOU"
Boor 76 F1GE 988
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32960
DATA COLLECTOR DATA COLLECTOR DATA COLLECTOR TOTAL
SUPERVISOR II I
Salary $18,500 $16,016 $16,016 $50,532
Retirement 2,766 2,395 2,395 7,556
FICA 1,390 1,203 1,203 3,796
Health Ins. 3,000 3,000 3,000 9,000
$25,656 $22,614
$22,614 $70,884
Expenses $ 9,116
TOTAL
Q�aaa
80,000
Drainage Districts:
Property Appraiser Contribution 6 Districts $ 6,900
Street Lighting:
Property Appraiser 8 Districts $ 2,823
Other Non—Ad Valorem:
Solid Waste Distribution and New Districts
Total: Property Appraiser
Total: Tax Collector
$43,610
$53,333
$26,667
$80000
MEMBER
IAAO
V INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS
PROFESSIONAL APPRAISERS ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA
FLORIDA CHAPTER 1.A.A.O.
ASSOCIATE MEMBER TENNESSEE CHAPTER 1.A.A.O.
42
Commissioner Eggert asked if we are still studying what the
Utilities Department and the Clerk's Office is going to do with
regard to computer systems, because she was not sure that she was
ready to make a decision on this matter.
Administrator Collins felt this is more of a personnel
matter than a computer systems matter.
Commissioner Eggert wondered, if we are getting computers
that talk to each other, why we are discussing hiring more people
in the Property Appraiser's office when the Utilities Dept. has
the people to do this.
Commissioner Scurlock was confused on that same matter about
the role of CH2M Hill and the authorization that was given to
Director Pinto to hire that firm at a sum not to exceed $14,000-
$15,000 to specifically consult and assist in questions and other
preparation of that assessment roll.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that when the Solid
Waste Disposal District was formed, we established the different
categories that we assess on residences or structures based on
square footage, the type of business, and whether or not they are
occupied. It is a on-going verification requirement of the SWDD,
and it is very similar to what the Property Appraiser has in his
on-going assessment of homes and buildings whenever they are
enlarged. After the system is set up and all the kinks are out
of it, the Solid Waste Disposal District will need a coordinator
and staff to go out and make these inspections continuously, but
since the Property Appraiser has his people out there all the
time, we think it is a good idea to let him do the staffing and
then verify the tax roll to us.
Commissioner Scurlock asked why we are considering this now
instead of at budget time, and Mr. Nolte explained that the need
is there now because the SWDD disposal fees are being determined
at this time. The problems that Mr. Pinto has outlined are there
now. If the Board gives him the responsibility to do this, he
JUN 6 1989
43 BOOK 76 ,A0,9s9
1989
BOOK 76 Ph c 990
would be sure that it gets done using all the resources at his
disposal. In addition, he would like these people brought on and
trained right now so that they can start now and have the full
cycle to get it done.
Mr. Nolte further explained that the Property Appraiser's
office is set up to handle the ad valorem taxing process, and the
Tax Collector's office is set up to collect the ad valorem taxes,
but there are 17 bodies in this county that do not tax or charge
fees according to value. Since this is becoming more and more
the case statewide, the Legislature is giving counties an
alternative method of collection.
Commissioner Scurlock assumed that this funding comes from
the various districts, and Mr. Nolte advised that approximately
$7,000 is coming from the drainage districts and approximately
$3,000 from the street lighting districts. The Tax Collector's
Office, which collects the fees from all these people, is going
to fund almost $27,000, so they are looking for the SWDD to pick
up the remainder which is $43,000.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Property Appraiser's request to set up a separate
tax roll for non -ad valorem assessments as provided in
Florida Statutes 197.3632, and authorized the hiring of
three persons, as set out in the above letter.
44
PROPOSED PURCHASE OF COUNTY PROPERTY BY ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING
CENTER
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/15/89:
IMMILINV
Michael L Rose
Chairman
Sandra R. Kahle
Vice Chairman
John A. Kirchner
Secretary
Men A Edwards
Treasurer
Trustees
Samuel A. Block
Margaret C. Bowman
George P. Bunnell
S. Hallock du Pont, Jr.
Fritz E. Cierhart
Thomas W. Lockwood
Richard G. Schaub, Sr.
Gregory W. Smith
Honorary Trustees
Richard E. Becker
Jorge Gonzalez
Alma Lee Loy
R. Dale Patchett
Danforth K. Richardson
TFie Environmental Learning Center
"A Commitment to Conserve"
May 15, 1989
Chairman Gary Wheeler
Indian River County Board of Commissioners
Indian River County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Gary:
I am writing to make an initial inquiry into the possibility of
The Environmental Learning Center acquiring a lease on a piece
of county land contiguous to the parcel on which the Center is
planned. Along the east side of the island, and immediately
under the bridge span, is a piece of bulkheaded right of way
which could be ideal for a needed docking facility.
This parcel is part of a county right of way, and currently,
there is no use to which the parcel is actively put. The Center
plans boating activity along the Intercoastal side of the
island to include Coast Guard Auxiliary vessels, our own boats
and a larger boat for lectured river tours to be done in
conjunction with the Marine Resources Council.
Since this parcel is complete with a concrete bulkhead,
additional construction will be limited to a few pilings. There
is adequate off street parking at the site. The important
advantages to the Environmental Learning Center operation when
weighted against any disadvantages to the county would seem to
make this arrangement simple enough. I hope your research
proves it to be.
Thanks.
Best recrarc's,
orge P. 'unnell
Campaign Chairman
GPD/cs
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Commissioners
Administrator• ?-
AttnrnA.,
---
In Government Lot 2 Section 21S
Range 39E as recorded in Plat
Book 4 Page 3 of the public
records of Indian River County
3003 Cardinal Drive, Suite E • Vero Beach, Florida 32963 • (407) 234-5675
JUN 6 1989
45
Boor 76 F„,,,L 991
SUN 6 1989.
BOOK 76 FCE 992
Administrator Chandler advised that at this point staff is
not prepared to make a recommendation as there is a question of
actual ownership right up to the sea wall that needs to be
resolved. Likewise, we need to take a look at exactly what is
being proposed by the Environmental Learning Center.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to meet with the appropriate people and come back
with a recommendation in two weeks.
Commissioner Bird was all in favor of cooperating with the
Environmental Learning Center, but wanted the fisherman to be
allowed to continue to fish from the bulkhead because they can
get their lines out into the deep water from there.
Commissioner Bowman, speaking for the Audubon Society!
Environmental Learning Center, felt they would have no objection
to having fisherman use the bulkhead.
Commissioner Eggert asked if there would be any commercial
aspect to the Learning Center, and Commissioner Bowman stated
that there would not.
PUBLIC HEARING - CAIN REQUEST TO REZONE 7.60 ACRES FROM
RESIDENTIAL TO AGRICULTURAL
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:
46
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River Coolnty. Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA •
• Betor) 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
et Vero Beach In Indian River County, Florida; that,the attached copy of adverllsement, being
In the matter of
In the ' c. / Court, was pub -
fished In said newspaper in the Issues of /'�f/ 1(O //90.
1
Al !lent 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 al the post of lice 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 o1
advertisement; and enfant 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 pubtleatlon In the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this yry,�� AD.19 b `�y•tr,9/ftde
rfi4 �Z
•1� siness Manager)
• (BEAU
wenrartm--counatasurrinnion River Cou�lpy, Florida) --
qd 4ry PrM1.•,'SPA. Of Fkvik.
• pv..c•"_-,11-.11 • tn..•, .,.... .. tw>
ti,,,t.1wa 4. 1.40.r~ww►afay
T •
NOTICE— PUBLIC NEARING •-
-
Notice of hearing to consider recommending
..the adoption of a County ordinance rezonbrg
• Iend from: RS -3. Single -Family Residential Me-
tric' to A-1, Agricultural District. The subject
properly Is presently owned by John H. and
Joan C. Cain. The subject property Is bleated
approximately 110 east of 681h Avenue, the
semi boundary One a oxlmeleiy 998.12 fee'
norm d 77th Street, sued PropertY lying In ere
• SW A of Section 32,Township 31 South, Range
39E and containing .60 acres.
A public hearing at which partles In tnteresI
and citizens shag have en opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Fioride, In the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, Coated at 1840 25th
Street. Vero Beach, Florid.• on June 8, 1989. 11
9:05 e.m.
Anyone who may wish 10 appeal any decision
which may be made et this meeting will need to
ensure that e verbatim record of the proceed-
ings Is made, which Includes testImony and evi-
dence upon which the applied 1. based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commisslonera
B : s -Gary Wheeler, Chairman
May 18; 1999
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/16/89:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
o ert M. Keatin , A
Community Develo me Director
FROM: Robert M. Loeper, Staff Planner
DATE: May 16, 1989
SUBJECT: Cain request to rezone 7.6 acres from RS -3 to A-1
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of June 6, 1989.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
This is a request by John and Joan Cain to rezone property from
RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (3 units per acre) to
A-1, Agricultural District (1 unit per 5 acres). The property is
located approximately 110 feet east of 66th Avenue and 1000 feet
north of 77th Street (Hobart Road). The subject property contains
approximately 7.60 acres. The proposed use of the property is a
horse stable.
On April 13, 1989 the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to
recommend approval of this rezoning request.
47
Bog 76 f E 9
juN. 1989
BOOK 76 fNE 9941
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli-
cation will be presented. The analysis will include a description
of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding
areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility sys-
tems, and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quali-
ty.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject parcel is currently used for Citrus and is zoned RS -3,
Single -Family Residential District. Surrounding property, east of
66th Avenue is also zoned RS -3, except property on the south which
is zoned A-1, agriculture. Uses of these surrounding properties
include two residences immediately west on 66th Avenue, citrus
groves on the north, vacant land on the east, and a horse farm on
the south. Property on the west side of 66th Avenue is zoned RFD,
Rural Fringe Development District (1 unit per 2.5 acres) to a
depth of 350' feet, west of this is agriculturally zoned land.
Land uses in this area include citrus groves, vacant land and
several residences.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and all
surrounding property east of 66th Avenue LD -1, Low -Density
Residential, (up to 3 units per acre). Property west of 66th
Avenue is designated RR -1, Rural Residential, (one unit per 2.5
acres).
Transportation System
The subject parcel has no direct road access. Access to -66th
Avenue is through an access easement on adjoining property.
Sixty-sixth Avenue is a designated minor arterial on the County
Thoroughfare Plan.
Environment
The subject property is not designated environmentally sensitive
on the Comprehensive Plan, nor is it located within a flood prone
area.
Utilities
Public water and sewer are not available or programmed for the
subject property.
Analysis
In reviewing this request, staff has examined the existing land
use pattern and the land use pattern set forth in the Comprehen-
sive Plan.
The requested zoning is of a lower density than that which cur-
rently exists but is not inconsistent with the existing land use
pattern or designation.
The existing land use pattern of this area is primarily
agriculture, consisting of citrus and open land with some
residential uses. A horse farm is located on the adjacent
property. Several small pockets of residential development are
located with a mile radius. The County Fairgrounds and Hobart
Park are approximately a quarter of a mile to the east. The area
can therefore be classified as rural despite the higher land use
designation. While it is unlikely that development will reach
this area for some time into the future, its location along 66th
Avenue places it in an area with direct access to the City of
Sebastian to the north and the State Road 60 corridor to the
south. Future commercial and residential growth and development
in these areas is expected and will result in higher traffic usage
on this secondary link between the north and south county. This
access is likely to increase the desirability of the area for
rural and very low density type housing.
48
The Agricultural district permits those uses which are normally
found in rural and agricultural areas. Some agricultural uses
while not incompatible with rural residential development are
permitted only as accessory uses in low density residential
districts. As a result many agricultural uses in areas such as
this are non -conforming and may continue under the non -conforming
use provisions of the zoning code. The establishment of new or
changed agricultural uses however, requires the rezoning of
property.
Conclusion
The subject property is located in a rural area of the county
dominated by *agricultural and rural residential uses. While
designated for low density residential development, it is not
likely that this type of use will occur for some time in the
future. The presence of agriculturally zoned property to the
south and west does not result in the creation of spot zoning or
permit a highly noticeable change in uses.
It is therefore the opinion of staff that the proposed zoning
change would be reasonable and not limit the prospects for future
residential development. _
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff requests that the Board of
County Commissioners approve this request.
Chairman Wheeler opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he
closed the Public Hearing.
JUN 6 1989
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 89-15, rezoning 7.60 acres from RS -3,
Single -Family Residential District, to A-1,
Agricultural District.
49
BOOK. I D [AL;E.
IP" JUN 6 1989
76
ORDINANCE NO. 89- 15
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP
FROM RS -3, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO A-1,
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 110 FEET EAST OF 66TH AVENUE AND
998.12 FEET NORTH OF 77th STREET, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN,
AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined
that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, The Board_of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
The North one half of the North one half of the Southwest
quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 32, Township 31
South, Range 39 East, EXCEPT the West 135 feet thereof.
Said 135 feet to be measured from the centerline of Lateral
A according to State Road Department survey filed November
16, 1950, in Plat Book 3, page 8, Public Records of Indian
River County, Florida. Said property situated, lying and
being in Indian River County, Florida.
Be changed from RS -3, Single Family Residential District To A-1,
Agricultural District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board o
Indian River County, Florida, on this
1989.
This ordinance was advertised
Press -Journal on the 16th day of May
hearing to be held on the 6th day of
time it was moved for adoption by
seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and
vote:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Vice Chairman Carolyn C. Eggert
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock
f County Commissioners of
6th day of June
in the Vero Beach
, 1989, for a public
June , 1989, at which
Commissioner Bowman
adopted•by•the following
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ByGt
,..4•
Gary CWheeler, Chairman
50
ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY NORTH OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/30/89:
TO: Board • of County Commissioners DATE: May 30, 1989 FILE:
SUBJECT:
James E. Chandler
FROM: County Administrator REFERENCES:
Over a period of time, various pieces of property immediately north of the
County Building have been acquired for future use.
Attached are two separate offers of sale involving three lots. Currently
there are no funds budgeted for acquisition of these lots or any others in
that area. As a result, an allocation from General Fund Contingency would
be required.
At this point, I have been unable to determine if specific direction has been
established for future acquisitions in this area. Therefore, in order for staff
to properly evaluate these two offers and any other future proposals, I
believe it would be beneficial to discuss and establish such direction.
Commissioner Eggert very much wanted to acquire as much of
this land as possible.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, that the Board authorize staff
to pursue acquiring as much of this property as
possible, depending on the cost, and assuming the value
is there.
Under discussion, Donald Finney, County right-of-way agent,
explained that the appraisals we got were on the properties we
purchased a year ago and they were done by two different
appraisers.
Armfield did several of the parcels that had some
old frame houses on them which weren't included in the value. It
was just the land value. The other appraisals were done by
JUN 6 1989
51
OV. ! i) F�:GE i
JUN 6 1989
BOOK 76 F,WE 998
Thomas Oldsteen of Ft. Pierce, and the two appraisals were pretty
much in line with each other.
Commissioner Bird asked if Mr. Finney felt pretty
comfortable with the $3.68 per sq. ft. figure, and Mr. Finney
explained that while he felt the $3.68 figure was in line, he
really didn't feel comfortable with $23,000 for one lot.
However, it is known that the government building is here and
that the government will be acquiring property all around the
downtown area.
COMMISSIONER BIRD rephrased his Motion that staff be
authorized to pursue the acquisition of these 3 parcels
at a price not to exceed the appraised value of $3.68
per square foot, and also consider the acquisition of
the rest of the property, and bring it back to the
Board for final disposition.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that the bottom line is that if
we ever decide to relocate our facilities, we still would have a
very marketable piece of contiguous property.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
52
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL - PHASE II ELECTRONICS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/22/89:
DATE: MAY 22, 1989
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CHARLES fI NAC
COUNTY ATTORNEY
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVI
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL -_PHASE II ELECTRONICS
Q
BACKGROUND:
A few months ago the Board of County Commissioners authorized staff to
take whatever action was necessary to get the subject project completed.
Specifically to put the bonding company on notice and proceed with
correcting the problem as recommended by W.R. Frizzell Architects.
The detention electronics as they exist today are intolerable and present
somewhat of a safety hazard for jail staff. The Architect, County Staff
and Jail Personnel have exhausted every means available to have the
contractor live up to the contract. It is quiet evident that he has no
intention of correcting the problems. He represented the subcontractors
for detention electronics on this project to give the County a first
class job. This has never become a reality on Phase II of the jail.
ANALYSIS:
The Bonding Company has been put on notice and the general contractor on
the original project is no longer allowed to perform work on the
equipment, as recommended by Frizzell. The architect has also contacted
Buford Goff and Associates, a consultant for jail electronics and
secured a quote as to what is going to be required to complete the
project. Attached is a copy of the Goff quotation along with a letter
from Indian River County Jail personnel outlining the problems with the
electronic equipment as they exist today.
County maintenance personnel are presently calling -in qualified
detention electronics technicians to perform the necessary repair on the
present equipment. We are documenting all cost associated with this
action including monies expended for County staff time.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended by staff to proceed with action against the Bonding
Company and authorize Buford Goff and Associates to perform the
engineering to correct the deficiencies in the present detention
electronics as the exist in Phase II of the Indian River County Jail as
presented in the attached proposal at a cost not to exceed $46,000.
Funding will come from Phase III monies.
JUN 61989
53
BOOK 76 F E.9991
JUN 61989
BOOK7FAGF1&E
Commissioner Bird felt that as far as the cost is concerned,
we might be looking only at the tip of the iceberg here in
getting this problem resolved.
Administrator Chandler suggested that perhaps the Board
would like to defer this for one week because he was not aware of
the original $35,000 payment to Buford Goff and how that fits
into the $46,000.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously tabled
this item for one week.
ESTABLISHING POLICY ON USED TIRES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/25/89:
DATE: MAY 25, 1989
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVI
SUBJECT: USED TIRES
»ACKGROUND:
It is the present policy to replace truck tires on County owned vehicles
at a point when they can no longer be repaired or become unsafe on the
vehicle. These tires are then stock piled until transfer to the County
Landfill, for disposition.
Due to a change in the State Law these tires can no longer be disposed
of, in the landfill. They must first be shredded and then can be
applied as cover material, road beds, etc. The cost to shred tires
ranges anywhere from $40 - $60 per ton.
ANALYSIS:
Recently, a tire recapping- vendor contacted the County and made a
request to purchase all our used tires that could be recapped for a
price of $15 each. This writer is not aware of any prior offer, such as
this, from a tire dealer. The revenues received from the sale of these
tires can go to off -set the price of disposal. The vendor that has made this
request is:Bandag Retreads, Inc.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that the Board authorize staff to offer all our tires
that have no useable value to the County, for sale to the recapping
vendor. Monies received from the sale of these tires will be credited
to the applicable account.
54
General Services Director Sonny Dean explained that the
vendor won't take all of the tires, justthe ones he thinks can be
recapped.
Commissioner Bird felt there might be an opportunity here
for us to have these recapped and put back into service in lieu
of buying brand new tires.
Administrator Chandler understood that it would be a
considerable expense to dispose of these tires, and felt that if
this man wants to pay us $15 a tire for these, we would make out
in the long run. He concurred that we should be looking at the
feasibility of using recaps on certain vehicles, and suggested
that we consider that when we start looking at purchasing
replacement tires.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
approved staff's recommendation, as set out in the
above memo.
Commissioner Bird was all in favor of using recaps on
certain vehicles, and was surprised that we have not been doing
this all along.
JUN 6 1989
55
BOOK 78 L'.I,EIDOl
AN 6 1989
BOOK 76 Fr1GLIO02.
ARCHERY CLUB LICENSE AGREEMENT - COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/31/89:
To: James Chandler,
County Administra r
From: Jack Price, P son en 1
Date: May 31, 1989
Sub: Archery Club
Agreement
As you know, the Board of County Commissioners approved a License
Agreement with Indian River Archers, Inc., and authorized the
Chairman to sign it subject to receipt of appropriate insurance
certificates and an approved safety plan.
The safety plan has been completed but several of the insurance
requirements have not been met. Some areas in which we may
soften the requirements have been discussed with the club
president and sent to our Legal Department for review (attached
May 24, 1989 memo).
If any of the requirements are changed, then the License
Agreement previously approved by the Board of County
Commissioners must be changed since they are a part of the
Agreement.
Administrator Chandler advised that the Archery Club has
obtained insurance through their national organization, and that
insurer provides insurance coverage to each of the local archery
clubs that qualify. However, the form in which that insurance is
provided is different than what we had specified in our
agreement. In our review of their insurance, we feel we are
protected and don't see a real problem with it. In addition,
they have passed a safety inspection. In the meantime we also
have talked to Gallagher -Bassett, who handles the County's claims
in excess of $100,000, and they have indicated that they have no
real problem with modifying this. There are several changes that
need to be made within our agreement, but we feel comfortable
with it.
Commissioner Bird understood then that the Administrator is
recommending that we go ahead with the modifications outlined by
Personnel Director Jack Price rather than the version outlined in
the memo from Assistant County Attorney Sharon Brennan.
Administrator Chandler felt the only differences between the
two versions were in the language concerning notification of
56
cancellation and the acceptance of a certificate of insurance
rather than receiving an actual policy. The language in our
original agreement stated that "the company will notify us if the
insurance is cancelled". The national insurer for the Archery
Club uses the language "will endeavor to notify". That means it
may be possible that they may not notify us, which is why we are
looking at additional language in the contract that should the
national insurer not notify us, the onus is then back on the
local Archery Club to notify us if, in fact, their insurance is
cancelled. The Administrator advised that Gallagher -Bassett has
indicated that "will endeavor" is not an uncommon language. The
other question Attorney Brennan had was on "certificate" versus
"policy". The national insurer for the Archery Club provides a
certificate rather than the policy itself, and Gallagher -Bassett
didn't have a problem with that either. The new language that
will be added in the agreement is that if the policy were
cancelled, the Archery Club will notify us. We still will have
the language that the insurance company "will endeavor" to notify
us, and if they don't, it is incumbent on the Archery Club to do
so. We have discussed that with them and they have concurred.
Commissioner Bowman didn't like that. She understood then
that we are going to accept a certificate instead of a policy.
Assistant County Attorney Bill Collins advised that our
policy has been to return contractors' insurance certificates and
have them x out "shall endeavor to notify" and make it "shall
notify", but Administrator Chandler explained that the national
insurer has a standardized policy form and does not want to make
that change.
Commissioner Bowman asked the status of the Risk Manager/
Safety Manager, and Administrator Chandler reported that we are
in the process of interviewing applicants.
Commissioner Bowman wished to see this item deferred until
we have a risk manager on board, but Administrator Chandler
IJUW 1999
57
BOOK
1JUN 61989
BOOK 76 rr,.v
emphasized that Gallagher -Bassett, who handles the county's
claims over $100,000, and who has great expertise in these
matters, have indicated that they had no problem with that
language. This wasn't just staff and laymen looking at this.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board by a vote of 4-1,
(Commissioner Bowman dissenting) authorized staff to
modify the License Agreement with the Archery Club per
Director Price's memo dated 5/21789; and authorized the
Chairman to initial those changes in the agreement.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT FOR 58TH AVENUE STUDY AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP AND DESIGN OF INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO
CR -510 AT SR -AIA
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/1/89:
TO: James. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: James D. White, P.E.
Acting County Engineer
f'
SUBJECT: Engineering Services ntract -
58th Avenue Study and Right -of -Way Map,
Design of Intersection Improvements to CR 510 at SR A1A
DATE: May 1, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Staff has successfully negotiated terms of an agreement with Gee
and Jenson for the following projects:
Part 1 - 58th Avenue from Oslo Road to SR 60
a) Traffic Study and Right -of -Way reservation map
b) Right -of Way Maps, sketches and descriptions for
Right -of -Way acquisition
Part 2 - Design intersection improvements including
signalization for CR 510 at SR A1A
58
The cost for this contract is as follows:
Part 1 a)
b)
Soils Investigation
Aerial Photography
Printing & Reproduction
for Part la
Printing & Reproduction
for Part ib
Part 1 Sub Total
Part 2
Soils Investigation
Aerial Photography
Printing & Reproduction
for Part 2
Part 2 Sub Total
$40,745.00
$34,820.00
$ 3,948.00 Direct bill by subcontractor
$ 3,040.00 Direct bill by subcontractor
$ 2,381.00 Direct billed
$ 2.089.00 Direct billed
$87,023.00
$44,750.00
$ 1,455.00 Direct bill by subcontractor
$ 700.00 Direct bill by subcontractor
$ 2.816.00
$49,721.00
Direct billed
Grand Total Contract $136,744.00
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative No. 1
Authorize the chairman to execute the contract as written.
Alternative No. 2
Re -negotiate contract terms.
Alternate No. 3
Reject contract and negotiate with another firm.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Alternate No. 1 as a good
combination of services and reasonable fees.
FUNDING
Funding is proposed as follows:
Part 1 (Kings Highway) - District 8 Fund 158 $50,000.00
- District 9 Impact Fees $37,023.00
Part 2 (CR510 @ SRA1A) - District 1 Fund 151 $49,721.00
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Alternate #1, as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
JUN 6 1989
59
BOOK 76 w,E1M5
JUN 6 1989
BOOK 76 FA, U 6
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD, PHASE III - JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR
DOT-LGCAP GRANT FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
The Board reviewed the following memo. dated 5/30/89:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT:
Indian River Boulevard Phase III
1) Joint Project Agreement for Florida DOT-LGCAP
Grant Funds
2) Authorizing Resolution
REFERENCED LETTER: C.C. Barrett, Jr., Florida DOT to Chairman
Gary Wheeler dated May 23, 1989
DATE: May 30,. 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In early 1988, staff applied for Florida DOT funding under the
Local Government Cooperative Assistance Program for 20% of the
construction cost of Indian River Boulevard from SR60 to Barber
Avenue (37th Street). Due to funding problems experienced on a
statewide level, staff has just received a Joint Project
Agreement from the DOT. The attached agreement provides for the
following:
1) Funding of $550,000 for the project. This amount is less
than the $726,000, that the DOT approved in August, 1988.
It is possible that future appropriations by the legislature
would restore the funding to the $726,000 level.
2) The DOT must approve the plans, specifications, and
estimates prior to contract letting.
3) The County must administer the Project in compliance with
all laws governing the DOT.
4) The County is responsible for all cost overruns associated
with the project, unless the DOT agrees to participate.
5) The County must keep proper records and make them available
to the DOT.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Chairman be
attached Joint Participation Agreement.
In addition, the attached resolution
Board.
authorized to execute the
must be approved by the
Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that the DOT called
and said not to worry about executing the Memorandum of Agreement
referred to in the resolution. It is not needed because
total project is not on the DOT system, and the DOT said
worry about it.
60
the
not
to
Administrator Chandler noted that another important
provision is that we don't have to have a contract awarded by
July 1st. We are continuing to pursue that aggressively, but we
don't have that timeframe hanging over our head at this point in
time.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board adopted Resolution
89-56, authorizing the County Administrator and the
Budget Director to enter into a Local Government
Cooperative Assistance Program Memorandum of Agreement
and Joint Participation Agreement with the Department
of Transportation.
JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
61
JUN 1989
BOOK 76 f,v1007
JUN 61999
EooK 76.F,q
EXHIBIT F
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COOPERATIVE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
APPLICATION AGENCY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 56
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR AND THE BUDGET DIRECTOR TO
ENTER INTO A LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COOPERATIVE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AND JOINT
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
WHEREAS, the Legislature has created a Local
Government Cooperative Assistance Program, Chapter 335.20,
Florida Statutes; and,
WHEREAS, it is a policy of the State of Florida to
construct and make Improvements to the state transportation
system in a cooperative partnership; and,
WHEREAS, such partnership shall be promoted and
encouraged through the joint funding of projects that
improve traffic flow and reduce congestion of the State
Highway System; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida wishes to authorize the County
Administrator and 'the Budget Director to make an
applications) for such projects, enter into a Memorandum of
Agreement(s) and, if the proposed projects are selected for
funding, enter Into a Joint Participation Agreement with the
State of Florida Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida':
Section 1. The Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida hereby authorizes the County
Administrator and the Budget Director to apply for matching
funds under the Local Government Cooperative Assistance
Program.
Section 2. The Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida hereby authorizes the County
Administrator and the Budget Director to enter into a
Memorandum of Agreement with the State of Florida Department
of Transportation.
Section 3. The Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida hereby authorizes the County
Administrator and the Budget Director to enter into a Joint
Participation Agreement with the State of Florida Department
of Transportation, if such project(s) are selected for
funding.
Section 4. The Clerk to the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County is hereby directed to
send copies of this RESOLUTION to the Department of
Transportation and all other persons as directed by the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida.
The foregoing resolution was offered by
Commissioner Scurlock and seconded by Commissioner
Eggert , and, being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman __Le
Commissioner Richard N. Bird A e
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. je
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this 6th day of June , 1989.
62
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By
Cary
WFieeler, Chairman
KINGS HIGHWAY WATER MAIN PHASE 11 - WORK AUTHORIZATION W-2 - BENT
PINE CONNECTION TO WATER LINE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/30/89:
DATE: MAY 12, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL Y SVICES
PREPARED &
STAFFED BY:
SUBJECT:
PROJECTS ENGINES
WILLIAM F. McCAI
DEPARTMENT OF UTI ITY'SERVICES
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -87 -23 -DS
KINGS HIGHWAY WATER MAIN - PHASE II
WORK AUTHORIZATION W-2
BENT PINE CONNECTION TO WATER LINE
BACKGROUND:
The Department of Utility Services would like to connect the Bent
Pine community to the County waterline installed on Kings Highway
under Contract II of the Kings Highway Water Main (Project
UW -87 -23 -DS) and to decommission the Bent Pine Water Plant. To do
this, a change order must be added to the ongoing Kings Highway
Phase II Water Line Project.
ANALYSIS:
Work Authorization W-2 to Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc., the
engineers on the Kings Highway Project, is attached. They propose
to complete the design and inspection of this connection at a
fee of $3,500.00. The estimated construction cost is $29,000.00.
The funds for this project will come from Account No.
472-000-169-063.00.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve and execute the attached Work
Authorization W-2 with Masteller & Moler Associates, Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Work Authorization W-2 with Masteller & Moler
Associates, Inc., as recommended by staff.
ENGINEERING WORK AUTHORIZATION W-2 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CLERK TO' THE BOARD
JUN 6 1989
63
BOOK 76 FAE.1009
JUN 6 1989
BOOK 76 F':�E161
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 - PHASE II - KINGS HIGHWAY WATERLINE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/15/89:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED &
MAY 15, 1989
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY S RVICES
STAFFED BY: WILLIAM F. McCAIN
PROJECT ENGINEER\
DEPARTMENT OF umizt SERVICES
SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR KINGS HIGHWAY PHASE II
IRC PROJECT NO: UW -87 -23 -DS
BACKGROUND:
The Kings Highway 20" waterline from Lindsey Road to South Winter
Beach Road is nearing completion. To this end, we now have some
adjustments to make to the scope of work for Contract II, Kings
Highway. Three items are involved in this change order, the first
is a cost reduction due to the elimination of an aerial canal
crossing; the second and third involve the connection of the Bent
Pine community to our water system.
ANALYSIS:
The line item changes to be made to the contract are as follows:
1. The modification of the North
Relief Canal crossing.
2. Approximately 1,900+/- feet
of 8" PVC to connect Bent Pine.
3. Restoration for water main
construction along
Bent Pine Drive.
-($19,750.00)
+$24,130.00
+$2,500.00
These changes make a net change in the project cost of $6,880.00,
which is a reasonable cost increase considering the magnitude of the
work. This changes the total construction cost from $507,135.00 to
$514,015.00. The funds for this project will come from Account No.
472-000-169-063-00'.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve and execute the attached
Change Order No. 1 to Contract II of the Kings Highway Potable Water
Main.
64
. CHANGE ORDER NO.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 1 to Contract 11 of the Kings Highway
Potable Water Main, and authorized the Chairman's
signature, as recommended by staff.
Page 1 of
2
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
1 ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE $ 507, 5. 0
REVISED CONTRACT PRICE $ 5 14,015.00
JOB NAME Bent Pine Connertinn to Pntahle Water Main
King Hi:thwav_ from kindstPy Ad tft S Minter _Resteh Rd.
Indian Rivgr County
DATE: 4/21/89
. OWNER:
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
PRICE
.
ORIGINAL
UNITS
ORIGINAL
TOTAL '
1PRICE
UNIT
CHANGE
3
PRICE
; CHANGE
REVISED
TOTAL
PRICE
1.
Mobilizatim
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 88 8 8 g
§ g§§.§I?�" In .§ N 2
N N rri
LS .
2,000.00
-
-
2,000.00
2.
20" dia. D.I.P. WM
11000 LF
367,400.00
-
-
367,400.00
3.
8" dia. D.I.P. WN
100 17
1,700.00
-
-
1,700.00
4.
6" dia. D.I.P. WM
25 17 .
400.00
-
-
400.00
5.
20" dia. Butterfly Valves
5
12,150.00
--
-
12,150.00
6.
12" dia. Gate Valves
2
1,500.00
-
-
1,500.00
7.
8" dia. Gate Valves
4
1,800.00
-
-
1,800.00
8.
6" dia. Cate Valves
13
4,225.00
--
-
4,225.00
9.
Fire alts
11
9,900.00
-
-
9,900.00
10.
53rd St. Canal Crossing ;
LS10,400.00
-
-- ..
10,1100.00
11.
57th St. Canal. Crossing
IS
10,400.00
- -
-
-. .
10,400.00 ...i4.
12.
6Lat St. Canal Crossing '
1.8
10,400.00
-
--
10,400.00 =�-. .
13.
North Relief Conal Crossi
. _P{19.750.00)/-.
IS .'
53.935.00 ,
(-�.S)
Y 1
34.185.00
14.
Paved Road Restoration
300 IF .
4,500.00
--
--
4,500.00 ':
15.
Nan -Paved Road Restoration
300 17
1,500.00
-
-
1,500.00
16.
Non -paved Driveway Rest.
1001F
500.00
-
-
500.00
17.
Seed 1 Mich
10,425 LF
10,425.00
-
-
10,425.00
18.
1" dia. Short She vi
2 •
800.00
-
-
800.00
19.
1" dia. Lang ter!
2
1,000.00
-
-
1,000.00
20.
2" dia. Short Seice
2
1,000.00
-
-
1,000.00 .
21.
2" dia. Long Service .
2
1,200.00
-
-
1,200.00
22.
8" dia. PVC WH
-
-
+1900
\+24,130.0C
24,130.00
23.
Restoration forum
-
-
+LS
+ 2,500.00
2,500.00
Constructed Along Bent
Pine Drive
:
.
$507,135.00
$ •6,880.00
$514,015.00
JUN 61989
65
tooF 76 Elan
JUN 61999
,1.9.3. 'Change Order (Con't)
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
BOOP 7�.r�,�
Page 2 of 2
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE $507,135.00
DATE: 4/21/89 REVISED CONTRACT PRICE: $514,015.00
JOB NAME: Indian River County Project #UW87-23-DS Potable Water Main
Kings Highway, From Lindsey Road.•to S. Winter•Beach Road, Contract #2
OWNER: Indian River County
The amount of the Contract will be (> S . X(INCREASED) by the sum of:
Six Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty and 00/100 Dollars
(s 6,880.00
(written amount)
)•
The Contract total including this Change Order will be:
Five Hundred Fourteen Thousand Fifteen and 00/100 Dollars
(written amount)
(s 514,015.00
0.
The -Contract Time provided for Project Completion will be QCGiQ k )(IN
CREASED)O: _sixty_ Days. .
( "6O ).
This document will become a supplement to the Contract and all provisions
will apply hereto.
Contractor: A.O.B. Underground, O'Neal Bates - President Date: 40k/ Z7 /tiff
&i
Engineer: 1
Date : ��. 187
Mast: ler & Moler Assoc. Inc.- Earl H. Masteller P.E. - President
Date: 6— 6 -J77.
Owner:
Indian River County
66
Indhn Riva Cn
Approved
Dale
Admin.
9
S 3 ca
Legal
Budget 519—g`
Dept.
,3'
►'^
, Risk Mgr.
RESOLUTIONS FOR SEWER COLLECTION AND LIFT STATION FOR 6TH AVENUE
FROM U.S. #1 NORTH TO 8TH STREET
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5!11189:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED &
STAFFED BY:
MAY 11, 1989
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT
TERRANCE G. PIN
DIRECTOR OF UTILISERVICES
WILLIAM F. McCAIN
PROJECTS ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTIL Y SERVICES
SUBJECT: 'SEWER COLLECTION AND LIFT STATION FOR 6TH AVENUE
FROM U.S. #1 NORTH TO 8TH STREET
BACKGROUND:
Several months ago, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a Work Authorization with Masteller & Moler
Associates, Inc., to design a sewer collection at the aforementioned
location. The design of this project has been completed and is
ready to go out to bid.
ANALYSIS:
We have set this project up as an Assessment District, and will
assess the property owners along the route of the project
accordingly. To this end, we have prepared the first two of four
resolutions necessary for an assessment project and are now bringing
them to the.Board for approval.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Resolutions so
that we may set a hearing date for the Preliminary Assessment (see
attached project schedule).
JUN 61989
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-57, providing for special
assessments for installation of a sewer collection
system along the west side of 6th Avenue from 8th
Street to U.S. #1.
67
�.
BOOK U FAr, 1,6
1989
BOOK 76 FAGE101.4.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-58, setting a' hearing date for the
Preliminary Assessment for the project.
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 57
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROVIDING FOR:
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR INSTALLATION OF
SWR O LLECT T ON SYSTEM A LONC—TAE—WEST
SIDE OF SY AVENU FROM —STREET
TO—U.S. #1
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County has determined that the improvements herein
described and, to defray the cost thereof and in connection
therewith, the special assessments against the properties
hereinafter described, all of which relate to Project No.
US 88 -08 -CCS, are necessary to promote the public welfare of
the county,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County does hereby determine that a sewer
collection system shall be installed along the west side of
Sixth Avenue from Eighth Street to U.S. #1, designated on
the assessment plat with respec-t to the special assessments,
and the cost thereof and in connection therewith shall be
specially assessed in accordance with the provisions of
§11-42 through §11-47 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of
Indian River County.
2. The total estimated cost of the above-described
improvements is shown to be $124,830 (or $0.095289676 per
square foot) to be paid by the property specially benefited.
3. A special assessment in the amount of $0.095289676
per square foot shall be assessed against each of the
properties designated on the assessment plat.
4. The special assessments shall be due and payable
and may be paid in full within 90 days after the date of the
68
RESOLUTION NO.
89-57
resolution of the Board with respect to credits against the
special assessments after completion of the improvements
(the "Credit Date") without interest. If not paid in full
the special assessments may be paid in five equal yearly
installments of principal plus interest. If not paid when
due, there shall be added a penalty of 11% of the principal
not paid when due. The unpaid balance of the special
assessments shall bear interest at a rate of 12% from the
Credit Date until paid.
5. There is presently on file with the Department of
Utility Services a plat showing the area to be assessed,
plans and specifications, and an estimate of the cost of the
proposed improvements. All of these are open to inspection
by the public at the Department of Utility Services.
6. An assessment roll with respect to the special
assessments shall promptly be prepared in connection with
the special assessments.
7. Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Indian
River County Utilities Services Department shall cause this
resolution to be published at least one time in the Vero
Beach Press Journal before the public hearing required by
§11-46.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Bowman and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 6th day of June , 1989,
'JUN 6 1989
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY ±/c COIL
Cary . Wheeler
Chaff an
69
Boot( 76 A015 Ol5
R b
JUST 6 1989
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 58
BOOK 1 6 FAGj O h
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SETTING A TIMEM
AA6—PTTI�A'IWI MIT—TRE —aaflNa
AREA OF S I XTAMENOE-FROM- ETCAT TREET-T0_ 07S7 -ITT.
jEk-THERE I N MAY APPEAR
BEFORE -THE BOARD OF C I SS I ONERS ANIS BE
HEARb AS TO THE PROFRI 'ID *DY ,: L •-
CONSTRUCTTNO-ST �i SYSTEM , AS TO THE COST TAEREOP ;
AS T0-`fTE -MANNER 5F PA?MENT THEREFOR, AVD -X5-70
YHE AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED
AGAINST EACH -PROPERTY BENEFITED THEREBY.
y
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County has, by Resolution No. 89-57 , determined that
it is necessary for the public welfare of the citizens of
the county, and particularly as to those living, working,
and owning property within the area described hereafter,
that a sewer collection system be installed in the
properties hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the cost to be
specially assessed with respect thereto shall be
$0.095289676 per square foot; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has caused
an assessment roll to be completed and filed in the Utility
Services Department; and
WHEREAS, §11-46, Indian River County Code, requires
that the Board of County Commissioners shall fix a time and
place at which the owners of the properties to be assessed
or any other persons interested therein may appear before
the Board of County Commissioners and be heard as to the
propriety and advisability of constructing such system, as
to the cost thereof, as to the manner of payment therefor,
and as to the amount thereof to be assessed against each
property benefited thereby,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The County Commission shall meet at the County
Commission chambers in the County Administration Building at
the hour of 9:05 A.M. on June 27, 1989, at which time the
owners of the properties to be assessed and any other
persons interested therein may appear before said Commission
and be heard in regard thereto, the area to be improved and
70
RESOLUTION NO. _89-58
the properties to be specially benefited by the construction
of such system are more particularly described upon the
assessment plat and the assessment roll, with regard to the
special assessments.
2. That all persons interested in the construction of
said system and the special assessments against the
properties to be specially benefited may review the
assessment plat showing the area to be assessed, the
assessment roll, the plans and specifications for said
system, and an estimate of the cost thereof at the
Department of Utility Services any week day from 8:30 A.M.
until 5:00 P.M.
3. Notice of the time and place of this public hearing
shall be given by the Department of Utility Services by two
publications in the Press Journal Newspaper a week apart.
The last publication shall be at least one week prior to the
date of the hearing. The Indian River County Utilities
Services Department shall give the owner of each property to
be specially assessed at least ten days notice in writing of
such time and place, which shall be served by mailing a copy
of such notice to each of such property owners at his last
known address.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Bowman and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 6th day of June , 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
JUN 6 1989
By
71
C 6t)L
Gary g. Wheeler
Cha f an
BOOK. 0 r,q.
JUN 1989,.
BOOK 76 FAGi!iPSI
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH MEISER CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR REVISION
OF PLANS ON 11th AVENUE WATER MAIN EXTENSION
The Board reviewed the following. memo. dated 5(19/89:
DATE: MAY 19, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI 'ERVICES
SUBJECT: REVISE PLANS - 11TH AVENUE WATER MAIN
EXTENSION
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: SCOTT C. DOSCHER 5c.v
PROJECTS ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
Meiser Construction, Inc., has extended the waterline on 11th Avenue
to serve the regional area.
ANALYSIS
Meiser Construction, Inc., has installed 250 lineal feet of 8" water
main with fittings, valves, and a hydrant, as requested by Indian
River County. Indian River County wishes to compensate Meiser
Construction, Inc., a total of $5,600.00 for the installation.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached Developer's Agreement with
Meiser Construction, Inc.
Funding for this project will be from Account No. 471 — Capital/Other Improvements.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Developer's Agreement with Meiser Construction,
Inc., as recommended by staff.
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD
72
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH WOODBRIDGE ESTATES FOR OVERSIZING OF
WATERLINE ON 8TH STREET
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/19/89:
DATE:
MAY 19, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL SERVICES
SUBJECT: WOODBRIDGE ESTATES
IRC PROJECT #CDS/300
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: 0. FRED MERKEL / SCOTT C. DOSCHER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
Woodbridge Development Company, developer of
Subdivision, has agreed to oversize a waterline
of 43rd Avenue, to serve the subject project,
water main in the intersection of 8th Street
accordance with County prepared plans.
ANALYSIS
Woodbridge Estates
on 8th Street, east
and to construct a
and 43rd Avenue in
Construction of 12" water main in the intersection of 8th Street and
43rd Avenue is to be done by the developer for a total cost of
$33,000. This Master Plan improvement is to be reimbursed upon the
County's acceptance of the line and receipt of the Bill of Sale from
Woodbridge Development Company.
An 8" water main is required to serve the subject project, and is to
extend from the termination of the above water main extension to the
east property line of the project. The County Master Plan calls for
a 12" line on 8th Street.
The County wishes to reimburse the Woodbridge Development Company to
oversize the line in the standard amount of $2.00 per inch of
oversizing, per foot of line, which is calculated as follows:
4" of oversizing x $2.00/inch per foot of oversizing x
1317' = $10,536.
Compensation shall be by collection of future impact fees paid for
by connection to the line.
.RECOMMENDATION •
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached Developer's Agreement with
Woodbridge Development Company.
73
JUN e 1989
BOOK 76 Fm,E1(&)
JUN. 6 1888
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
Developer's Agreement with Woodbridge Development
Company, as recommended by staff.
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD
BUDGET AMENDMENT 079 - TEMPORARY SLUDGE & SEPTAGE FACILITY
(REWORK GIFFORD 100,000 GALLON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/22/89:
DATE: MAY 22, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO #11/t4/14°"
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVIC S
PREPARED &
STAFFED BY:
JOHN FREDERICK LANG
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: TEMPORARY SLUDGE & SEPTAGE FACILITY
IRC PROJECT NO: US -88 -20 -CCS
BACKGROUND:
The Department of Utility Services received Board approval on
February 7, 1989, to rework the Gifford 100,000 gallon Wastewater
Treatment Plant into a sludge/septage treatment facility. The
project has been completed and has been open for business since May
18, 1989. The pavement for the sludge handling tanker line was not
completed due to planned construction for a full fledged septage
facility.
ANALYSIS:
The tractor trailers hauling sludge were bogging down and the
converted septage facility's receiving tank needed an entrance ramp.
The labor was provided by the Road and Bridge section of the Public
Works Department and Blackhawk Quarry Company of Florida, Inc.,
supplied 285.9 tons of lime rock at a cost of $1,920.63.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners authorize the spending of funds from
the Landfill Account No. 411-217-534-066.39.
74
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment #079, authorizing the spending of
funds from the Landfill Account #411-217-534-066.39, as
set out in the above staff recommendation.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER:
DATE:
079
Mav 26, 1989
Entry
Number_
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
UTILITIES - SEWER
Cash Forward - September 30
411-217-534-099.92
S 1.921.00
$ 0
Improvements Except B1dg
411-217-534-066.39
$ - 0
S 1,921.00
,Other
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - PUBLIC DEFENDER
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/24/89:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Sharon P. Brennan - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: May 24, 1989
SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement - Public Defender
Presented for your conceptual approval today is the proposed
Interlocal Agreement concerning the proration of certain
circuit -wide expenses of the Public Defender. The agreement
has been worked out by the four county attorneys of the
circuit and is similar to the interlocal agreements for the
State Attorney and the Medical Examiner. The proposed pro
rata share for Indian River County for the period of July 1,
1989 to June 30, 1990 is 26%. The agreement also provides
that in future years, the Public Defender shall provide each
county with an estimate of the total itemized budget for
circuit -wide expenses for the coming fiscal year by May 1 of
each year. The agreement also provides a formula for
determining the percentage of circuit -wide expenses. Any
other expenses of the Public Defender are not the subject of
this agreement.
When this agreement has been approved by all four counties
in the circuit, the originals will be routed for the
Chairman's signature and for recording.
JUN 61999
75
Bog 76 ,J.02'1
Pr -
JUS. 61999
BOOK 76 F't41E1O 2.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Interlocal Agreement concerning the proration of
certain circuit -wide expenses of the Public Defender,
and authorized the Chairman's signature.
(FULLY EXECUTED COPY OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD)
GAIN -TIME RESOLUTION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/24/89:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Sharon P. Brennan - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: May 24, 1989
SUBJECT: Gain -Time Resolution
This resolution is being presented today for the Board's
approval and adoption. If adopted, it will repeal the
previous resolution on this subject and will establish a
policy whereby certain factors, including jail capacity,
will be considered in determining whether discretionary
gain -time will be granted. The resolution has been reviewed
by the County Correctional Planning Committee which
recommends its approval to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Attorney Vitunac advised that he was asked by Commissioner
Eggert to explain the difference between this gain -time policy
and the old one. Besides cleaning up the grammar, simplifying
the organization, and the renumbering of the resolution, the only
change is some language included in several paragraphs which
allows the prison keeper to use as one factor the capacity of the
jail at the time he is ready to release prisoners. If the jail
has plenty of room, the Sheriff may not release the prisoners if
he so desires. If the prison is at capacity or over capacity,
then he uses the gain time list and uses it more frequently. The
idea is that if there is room at the jail, the Sheriff doesn't
have to let people out earlier than he has to.
76
Attorney Vitunac explained that the incentive for the
prisoner to be good is still there because both the mandatory and
voluntary gain -time are still accrued. It is just that the
voluntary gain -time will not come into effect unless there is
overcrowding. It still will go on the prisoner's record that he
gets that much gain time, and as soon as there is overcrowding,
he will be the next one out.
NI 61989
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-59, providing for a statutory good
conduct gain -time, work gain -time, constructive
gain -time, extra gain -time, and special gain -time, and
repealing Resolution 83-48 as amended by Resolution
85-41(a).
77 BOOK 76 FAJE102V u`
1989
4/19/89(SPBO2)LEGAL(WGC/nhm)
BOOK
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 59
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR A STATUTORY GOOD
CONDUCT GAIN -TIME, WORK GAIN -TIME,
CONSTRUCTIVE GAIN -TIME, EXTRA GAIN -TIME,
AND SPECIAL GAIN -TIME, AND REPEALING
RESOLUTION NO. 83-48 AS AMENDED BY
RESOLUTION NO. 85-41(a).
WHEREAS, Florida Statutes Section 951.21 provides
that the Board of County Commissioners shall grant County
prisoners who commit no infraction of jail rules and who are
not charged with misconduct gain -time deductions from their
sentences; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is also
authorized, upon recommendation of the Sheriff to adopt a
policy to allow County prisoners, in addition to time
credits, an extra good time allowance; and
WHEREAS, the Court Facilities Committee of Indian
River County has reviewed the County's previous policy and
recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
new policy allowing prisoners to use the maximum benefits
allowable, while weighing certain factors, including jail
capacity, in determining whether to grant discretionary
gain -time;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
1. Repeal of prior policy. Resolution No. 83-48
as amended by Resolution No. 85-41(a) and any other
inconsistent resolutions are hereby repealed.
2. Adoption of gain -time policy.. The Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, pursuant to
Florida Statutes Section 951.21 hereby commutes the time to
be served by County prisoners for good conduct with the
following deductions being made from the term of sentence
when no charge of misconduct has been sustained against the
County prisoner:
1
RESOLUTION NO
A. Five days per month for the first and
second years of the sentence;
B. Ten days per month off the third and
fourth years of the sentence; and
C. Fifteen days per month off the fifth and
all succeeding years of the sentence.
3. Application of deduction credit. Where no
charge of misconduct is sustained against the County
prisoner, the deduction provided by section 2 shall be
deemed earned and the prisoner shall be entitled to a credit
for a month as soon as the prisoner has served such time as,
when added to the deductions allowable, will equal a month.
4. Application of deduction credit for sentence
of less than one month. If a County prisoner is sentenced to
Tess than one month, the prisoner shall be entitled to
gain -time on a pro -rata basis, and the time shall be deemed
earned and the prisoner will be entitled to the credit as
soon as the prisoner has served such time as, when added to
the deduction available, will equal the term of his
sentence.
5. Gain -time prior to sentencing. County
prisoners shall receive gain -time for time served in the
County Detention Center prior to the date sentence is
imposed, providing that the prisoner is otherwise entitled
to gain -time under the provisions of this resolution. Such
gain -time shall be credited retroactively at the time of
sentencing.
6. Gain -time for partial month. Any calculation
of basic gain -time for a partial month shall be pro -rated on
the basis of a thirty -day month.
7. Credit for job performance in work program. In
addition to the time credits otherwise earned, the County
hereby commutes the time to be served by County prisoners
who participate in an authorized work program established by
the Sheriff when no charge of misconduct has been sustained
2
JUN 6 1989
BOOK 76 F�,,4025
JIM 6199
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -
BOOK 76 ff,.c162b
against the prisoner according to the following schedule:
each inmate who particip6tes in an authorized work program
will be graded separately based upon the following
attributes; quality, quantity, diligence, and skill
required. Each attribute shall be rated either
unsatisfactory, satisfactory, above satisfactory, or
outstanding.
Based on the rating of the four attributes, an
overall performance rating shall be assigned to the inmate's
job performance. Gain -time for work shall be based upon
overall performance in the following proportions:
1. Unsatisfactory -- 0 days;
2. Satisfactory -- 3/4 day gain -time for
each day of work;
3. Above satisfactory -- 1 day gain -time for
each day of work; and
4. Outstanding -- 1 1/2 days of
gain -time for each
day of work.
8. Application of earned deductions. Where no
charge of misconduct is sustained against the County
prisoner, the deductions provided by section 7 shall be
deemed earned and the prisoner shall be entitled to credit
for a month as soon as the prisoner has served such time as,
when added to all the deductions allowable, will equal a
month, or, if sentenced to less than a month, when the
prisoner has served such time as, when added to all
deductions allowable, will equal the term of his sentence.
9. Constructive gain -time. For inmates who,
because of age, illness, infirmity, or confinement for
reasons other than discipline, do not participate in an
authorized work program, but who demonstrate a constructive
use of time, may be granted additional gain -time allowances
up to a maximum of six days constructive gain -time per
month. An inmate may not be credited with both constructive
gain -time and work ga-in-time for the same month.
RESOLUTION N(
10. Criteria for gain -time award.
Recommendations for the award of such gain -time shall be
made by the Director of Corrections based upon a
consideration of the inmate's conduct, adjustment, effort,
conscientiousness, sincerity, and similar attributes, and
the kinds and appropriateness of activities. Such
recommendations shall be forwarded to the Sheriff for his
review and approval or disapproval, after considering, among
other criteria, the current permitted capacity of the
correctional facilities.
11. Amount of Extra gain -time. Inmates who
faithfully perform assignments in a conscientious manner
over and above what is normally expected, who have not been
found guilty of a disciplinary violation for six consecutive
months, and whose conduct, personal adjustment, and
individual effort towards rehabilitation show a desire to be
better than the average inmate, may be granted a maximum of
six days extra gain -time per month or proportionate lesser
amounts for parts of a month. An inmate who earns work
gain -time may also be eligible for extra gain -time.
12. Criteria for extra gain -time.
Recommendations for the award of such extra gain -time shall
be made by the Director of Corrections based upon
consideration of the inmate's conduct, adjustment, effort,
and conscientiousness, the kinds and appropriateness of
activities, and sincerity and similar attributes. Such
recommendations shall be forwarded to the Sheriff for his
approval or disapproval, after considering, among other
criteria, the current permitted capacity of the correctional
facilities.
13. Special gain -time eligibility. An inmate who
does some outstanding deed, or who performs an outstanding
service meriting additional deductions from the term of his
sentence, may be granted special gain -time.
Ju( 31
4
KOOK 76 f'AA027
Pr"
JUN 6 1989
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -
BOOK 6 FiGt1,
14. Criteria and award for special gain -time.
The Director of Corrections may recommend a special
gain -time award for an individual who has:
A. performed an outstanding deed such as
saving a life, protecting an officer, or
aiding and capturing an escapee;
B. provided information that assisted the
Sheriff in preventing the introduction of
contraband or other violations of law or
rules of the correctional facility;
C. at one time or over a period of time
performed outstanding service to the jail
meriting special award.
The recommendation from the Director of Corrections,
a written explanation of the deed or service performed, and
the amount of special gain -time to be credited shall be
submitted to the Sheriff who may approve or disapprove of
the award in whole or part. Any decision awarding special
gain -time shall consider, among other criteria, the current
permitted capacity of the correctional facilities.
15. Withholding or forfeiture of gain -time.
A. Earned gain -time.
1. Without hearing -- an inmate who is
convicted of a crime which occurred
while in the custody of the Sheriff
shall have all gain -time earned prior
to the act constituting the crime
forfeited by the Sheriff without prior
notice of hearing.
2. After hearing -- an inmate may have
all or part of the gain -time earned
forfeited after prior notice and a
hearing if he:
(a) violates any penal law of this
State, or any rule of the
5
RESOLUTION N0 S9
Department of Detention,
(b) threatens or knowingly endangers
the life or physical well-being
of another,
(c) refuses in any way to carry out
or obey lawful instructions, or
(d) neglects to perform the work,
duties and tasks assigned in a
faithful, diligent, industrious,
orderly and peaceful manner.
B. Unearned gain -time. Unearned gain -time,
that is, the right to earn gain -time in the future, may be
forfeited, under the same procedure as set forth in 15A2
above.
16. Relationship between discretionary gain -time
and permitted capacity of correctional facilities. It shall
be the policy of the County that whenever the award of
gain -time by the Sheriff is discretionary, the Sheriff shall
consider the population of the correctional facilities and
use gain -time as one tool to keep the inmate population
within the permitted capacity of the facilities. Likewise,
if the population of the correctional facilities is within
its permitted capacity, it shall be the policy of the County
to restrict the use of discretionary gain -time awards when
this restriction would not be against the public interest.
The foregoing resolution was offered by
Commissioner Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion
and, upon being put
was seconded by Commissioner Eggert
to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
6
�J'UIV
61999
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 59
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this 6th day of June , 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
ATTEST:
arton, Clerk
Gary VJ hee er, }airman
RESOLUTION - NORTH COUNTY SEWER PROJECT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/31/89:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: May 31, 1989
RE: NORTH COUNTY SEWER PROJECT
The attached bond resolution is the first step for the
County to finance the construction of the North County Sewer
System. The resolution calls for issuance of not more than
$7,560,000 in bonds to be paid for by impact fees generated
from customers of the system which have reserved capacity in
the system. No tax money in involved.
Staff recommends approval. If approved, the bonds will be
presented to our Circuit Court for validation.
JUN 61989
84
DOOK
JUN 61989,
BOOK 76 ;", F. 31
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-54, authorizing the issuance of not
exceeding $7,560,000 aggregate principal amount of
Special Assessment Revenue Bonds, Series 1989, to
pay for the expansion of the sewage disposal system of
the County, including the acquisition and construction
of a physically independent sewer system to be known as
the "North County Wastewater System".
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 54
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING
$7,560,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1989, OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE NET PROCEEDS OF WHICH WILL BE USED
TO MAKE A DEPOSIT INTO THE IMPACT FEE TRUST FUND OF THE
COUNTY FOR APPLICATION TO PAY FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE
SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM OF THE COUNTY, INCLUDING WITHOUT
LIMITATION THE ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
PHYSICALLY INDEPENDENT SEWER SYSTEM TO BE KNOWN AS THE
"NORTH COUNTY WASTEWATER SYSTEM"; PROVIDING FOR THE
RIGHTS OF THE HOLDERS OF SUCH BONDS AND PLEDGING FOR THE
PAYMENT THEREOF THE PROCEEDS OF CERTAIN SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS IN LIEU OF IMPACT FEES LEVIED BY THE COUNTY,
OR LEVIED BY OTHER PUBLIC BODIES AND PAYABLE TO THE
COUNTY PURSUANT TO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, IN
EACH CASE IMPOSED AGAINST PROPERTY THE OWNERS OF WHICH
HAVE CONSENTED THERETO AND, AT THE OPTION OF THE COUNTY,
FROM OTHER LEGALLY AVAILABLE NON AD VALOREM TAX FUNDS;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION. This resolution is
adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 86-88 of the County, applicable provisions of
Article VIII, Section 1, Florida Constitution (1968), Chapter 125, Florida
Statutes (1988), and other applicable provisions of law.
SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. Unless otherwise defined herein, the terms
used herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in Ordinance 86-88 of the
County. The following terms shall have the following meanings in this
Resolution unless the context otherwise clearly requires:
A. "Act" shall mean, collectively, Ordinance No. 86-88 of the
County, applicable provisions of Article VIII, Section 1, Florida Constitution
(1968), Chapter 125, Florida Statutes (1988), and other applicable provisions
of law.
B. "Assessments" shall mean the special assessments in lieu of
impact fees levied upon property, with the -consent of the property owners,
pursuant to Ordinance No. 86-88, Resolution No. 87-142, Resolution No. 89-12 and
Resolution No. 89-20 of the County and Ordinance No. 0-87-01, Resolution No. R-
87-85, Resolution No. R-89-07 and Resolution No. R-89-12 of the City, pursuant
to and in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Intergovernmental
Agreement.
C. "Authorized Investments" shall mean those investments specified
in Section 125.31, Florida Statutes (1988), as amended.
D. "Board" shall mean the Board of County Commissioners of the
County.
E. "Bonds" shall mean the $7,560,000 aggregate principal amount of
Special Assessment Revenue Bonds, Series 1989, authorized and issued pursuant
to this Resolution and the Act.
F. "Bond Registrar" shall mean the bond registrar for the Bonds to
be determined by subsequent resolution of the County.
RESOLUTION 89-54 IS ON FILE IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD
86
JUN 6 1989
BOOK .76 FAGE103k
JUN 61989
BOOK 6 Ft FiO:J J
ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR MAIN LIBRARY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/31/89:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: May 31, 1989
RE: ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR MAIN LIBRARY
Some months ago the. Board of County Commissioners authorized
staff to propose the purchase of three lots immediately to
the east of the new main_library site and south of the main
Baptist Church. These lots are the site of the old
tabernacle, which is now surplus to the needs of the
church. The offering price was $175,000, and the appraised
value of the property was over $200,000.
As part of its master land use plan, the church is itself
trying to acquire three lots directly to the west of its
main church, and the owner would sell but for the capital
gains' implications of the sale to the church. I indicated
to the church that I believe the County would be willing to
use its eminent domain power to help acquire the three lots
to the west of the church and exchange these with attendant
boot for the three lots south of the church. This
"friendly" condemnation would allow the seller of the three
lots west of the church to rollover his capital gains
without declaring income tax.
If the Board approves of this method, 1 would respectfully
request authorization to proceed with the condemnation and
swap proposal.
Commissioner Eggert explained that the cost of acquiring the
3 lots may come in under $175,000. If not, she felt it would be
a wise move at this point to acquire Lot 8 also in order to
provide additional parking. She believed that would be a benefit
to all of us.
Commissioner Bird asked if there was a time factor here that
we have to move on this right now without waiting for our master
plan to be done to show us just what we do need in that area.
Administrator Chandler wasn't sure just what the church's
timing is on these properties. We are in the process of short
listing proposals on our master plan and will be bringing a
recommendation to the Board on July 11th. Among other things the
master plan is to look at our land needs in conjunction with the
87
courthouse. He felt it would be advisable to acquire Lot 8
irrespective of what we do here.
Commissioner Eggert could not imagine our not needing this
land since it is between the courthouse block and the library
block, but it is a question of can we hold this together forever.
Commissioner Bird hoped that we don't paint ourselves into a
corner to where the courthouse must go on that site and then see
the surrounding property values climb out of sight. When they
start doing the master plan, we may find out that the footprint
of the complex that we hope to create down there is so large and
will encompass such a big area of town, that we may have to make
the decision, even though we would like to see the courthouse
there, to move it to another piece of ground that is far less
expensive and where we have a much bigger area to develop in.
Administrator Chandler didn't know how critical the church's
timeframe was, but he had indicated to them a couple of weeks ago
that he thought, from our perspective, it would be better to wait
until we had a master plan completed if they had the time, but
that we did not want to shut the door on this arrangement.
Commissioner Eggert explained that this arrangement involves
the owner of the 3 parcels as well.
Administrator Chandler recalled that when we were putting
together the plan for the library and parking Tots, we indicated
to the church that we had a need to acquire Lot 8, and the church
said they were planning on acquiring it. We told them that if
they didn't, we would or should because we need that property to
clear up traffic flow.
Chairman Wheeler asked the status of the contract with the
church and whether we had the option to wait, and Attorney
Vitunac advised that we have had some staff negotiations and the
Committee has agreed on a price. However, there has been no
contract signed by either side. It has been put on hold because
of this library business. The Board has to give authority to
$ 8
tithl 6 1989 BOOK 76 F,ia1Q34
JUN 61989
BOOK 76 FAG 035
proceed any further on this, and that is why this is on the
Agenda today.
Commissioner Scurlock understood then that the Motion would
be to authorize permission to cooperate with the First Baptist
Church in condemning the land to be swapped, and then have it
come back to the Board for final approval.
Attorney Vitunac said that was correct. The first thing
would be a contract with the church with contingencies, and the
second would be the adoption of a resolution authorizing
condemnation of that property. In the meantime, we would be
talking with the land owner to assure that he was happy with that
procedure.
Commissioner Scurlock was just looking for a Motion that
lets us move ahead, but would satisfy Commissioner Bird's concern
in that it provides us with an ability to say that we are going
to move somewhere else.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to begin the process as long as that doesn't
inhibit our ability to withdraw.
Commissioner Bird stated that he still preferred to wait for
the master plan, but didn't mind our going through the process
and developing the facts. He probably would vote against it when
it comes back though.
Commissioner Eggert emphasized that the courthouse has to be
built somewhere in Vero Beach as it is the county seat.
89
MARINE ADVISORY NARROWS WATERSHED ACTION COMMITTEE REPORT
The Board reviewed the following Summary of Actions dated
5/24/89:
MARINE ADVISORY NARROWS WATERSHED ACTION COMMITTEE
Summary of Actions
May 24, 1989
The Marine Advisory Narrows Watershed Action Committee met on
May 24, 1989 and discussed the following subjects:
1) Goals and Objectives for the Committee
A list of goals were submitted as follows:
D*R*A*F*T
The goal of the Marine Advisory Narrows Watershed Action
Committee are to improve and protect the quality and quantity
of natural resources of the Indian River Lagoon within Indian
River County by:
1. Reducing the quantity and impacts of stormwater runoff,
sediment, and pollutants entering the Indian River Lagoon.
2. Prevent further losses of, and work to increase the area
of submerged seagrasses, wetlands, and other wildlife habitat
in or adjacent-. to the lagoon by land acquisition programs,
restoration of degraded habitat, and by encouraging the use of
best environmental management practices and mitigative
techniques..
3. Develop and implement an education and public awareness
program to acquaint the citizens of Indian River County with
the values of the lagoon and the impacts that individual
actions may have on the lagoon, and the responsibility of the
individual for care of the lagoon.
4. Support the designation of the Indian River Lagoon as an
Estuary of National Significance.
The Committee unanimously adopted the goals as submitted,
amending the first one to read, "Reducing the quantity, impacts
of, and improving the quality of stormwater runoff,..."
2. Overview of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Rob Loeper gave an overview presentation of the Land Use
Element, and explained how this element ties all the other
elements together.
3. Update on Conservation and Coastal Management Elements
Roland DeBlois said the Committee should be able to review
the goals, policies and objectives for two elements at next
months meeting.
GCW:aw
cc: Roland DeBlois
JUN 6 1989
90
BOOK F'rti.Gr�Vc�
'JUIN £ 1989
FIREARMS RANGE COMMITTEE REPORT
BOOK 1U F4;E.03e
The Board reviewed the following Summary of Actions dated
5/18/89:
Telephone: (407) 567-8000
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
FIREARMS RANGE COMMITTEE
MAY 18, 1989
Suncom Telephone: 424-1011
Several committee members, staff and interested parties toured
some property owned by St. Johns River Water Management District
located near the 20 -mile bend west on SR -60. They felt this
property would be acceptable for a public/law enforcement
firearms range.
The committee members unanimously voted to recommend this site to
the County Commission for a combined public and law enforcement
range.
A sub -committee consisting of a representative from the Sheriff's
office, Bill Stegkemper and Ned Potter was asked to get together
with a range designer to develop a design for the range.
Chairman Bird will ask someone on County staff to investigate
possible funding sources for the project. He will also
correspond with St. Johns River Water Management District to let
them know the site is acceptable and ask them for a commitment to
lease the property to the County, and also for a commitment for
assistance in the cost and improvement of the property.
91
Commissioner Bird explained that what he needs today is to
get the Board's authorization for the following items:
1) To make a formal request to St. Johns River Water Management
District governing board for the donation or long term lease of
the property back to Indian River County for the development of a
range facility on the site.
2) To ask the Public Works Department to pursue any grants or
funding that may be available for the development of a range
facility for law enforcement or civilians.
3) To have the preliminary design of the range that has been
done so far reviewed by the full Firearms Range Committee and, if
approved there, sent on to the Water District for their review.
Commissioner Bird reported that the District's staff has
indicated that if we do go with that site, they would not only
make the site available but would also assist us in the
construction of a range facility on the site, i.e. roads, berms,
etc. We don't know how far they will be able to go, but when we
get the design of the range approved by the Committee, we will go
to the Water District at that point and show them how the range
needs to be built, and ask what they can do to assist us. At
that point we would develop a total cost for developing the range
facility, probably in phases, and determine exactly what the
Water District will do and what is .left. We would then bring
that information back to the Board along with what the amount the
Sheriff has indicated he can come up and what we can do in kind
with maybe some County equipment and some cash. The final step
would be to enter into an agreement with the SJRWMD regarding the
construction of the site and the on-going maintenance and
supervision of the site. However, that would be only after it is
all designed and we decide who is going to build it and who is
going to pay for it.
JUN 6 1989
92
BOOK 76 Fd.r 8
JUN. 8 1989
BOOK 7o PA;O3
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
Commissioner Bird to make a formal request to the
St. Johns River Water Management District regarding a
commitment of a donation of property or a long term
lease of the property back to IRC, and authorized staff
to pursue with the Water District's staff and on to
their governing board to see what the Water District
would be willing to do in the construction of a range
facility and working with our staff.
Public Works Director Jim Davis understood then that his
staff is directed to look into the availability of any grants for
this purpose, and Commissioner Bird stated that was part of his
Motion.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 3:05 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
C (tJ
Clerk Chairman
93