HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/22/1989Tuesday, August 22, 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,
August 22, 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, and Commissioner
Bowman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Wheeler requested the addition to today's Agenda of
a proposed resolution on supporting the mandated use of Turtle
Excluder Devices (TEDs).
Attorney Vitunac requested the addition of an update on the
negotiations on the First Baptist Church properties.
Administrator Chandler requested that the Board table Item
5-C -- Historic Building Survey for Incorporated IRC -- and pull
Item 9-G-3 -- Work Order No. 5 of Professional Engineering
Services Agreement with Lloyd & Associates for Design of 20th
Avenue Bridge at South Relief Canal.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously added,
tabled and deleted the above items from today's
Agenda.
1989r -
AUG
2 2Roos �'' Fa;.F fAe
Fr-
AUG 22 1989
BOOK , %. � P',Gr. 66
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 25, 1989.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 7/25/89, as written.
B. Approval of Minutes
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of August 8,
1989. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Special Meeting of 8/8/89, as written.
C. Historic Building Survey for Incorporated IRC
Tabled until meeting of September 5, 1989
D. Budget Amendment 090
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/14/89:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: August 14, 1989
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT 090
C0NSEN!1' AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird.
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Below is an explanation of the attached budget amendment.
2
� r �
1. At the meeting of June 20, 1989 the Board of County
Commissioners authorized the Work Release Program to
be initiated at the Jail. The entry appropriates
funding in the amount of $66,950.00 from the 1988/89
FY.
2. At the meeting of May 9, 1989, the Board Fsf County
Commissioners authorized appraisals be done- on the
McKee Jungle Garden not to exceed $10,000. The entry
appropriates funding.
3. At the meeting of June 27, 1989 the Board of County
Commissioners authorized title search work be done on
Jungle Trail not to exceed $5,000. The entry
appropriates funding.
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve budget
amendment 090.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment 090, as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
13oa� ! M�'c:66,
v
AUG 221989 3
Fr,_ 1
AUG 2 2 1999 7
BOOK 17 ma 66
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 090
DATE: Auggst 14, 1989
Entry
Number
Funds De artment Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
REVENUE
GENERAL FUND
Sheriff Corrections
001-600-586-099.14
S66.950.00
S 0
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND
Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
S 0
$66.950.00
2.
REVENUE -
GENERAL FUND
BCC Other Professional Services
001-101-511-033.19
$10,000.00
0
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND
Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
S 0
$10,000.00
3.
REVENUE
`
GENERAL FUND
BCC Other Professional Services
001-101-511-033.19.$
5,000.00
0
EXPENSE
`
Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
0
5.000.00
""Explanation:
See attached memo.
4
Budget Amendment: 090
Page 1 of 1
E_�Residential- _Lease on House_ on 27th_ Avenue 8 8th Street
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/14/89:
TO: Sonny Dean - General Services Director
FROM: Sharon P. Brennan - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: August 14, 1989
SUBJECT: Residential Lease
Enclosed please find a revised residential lease which
Includes the Radon clause required by Florida law.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Lease of county -owned house on the corner of 27th
Avenue and 8th Street by Jo -Anne Petrulak-Wingate.
LEASE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
SEA OAKS_ DEVELOPMENT'S APPEAL _OF_A CONDITION OF MINOR SITE PLAN
APPROVAL
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/19/89:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Ro
et . Ke ting AICP
Community Development 'rector
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Chief, Current Development
FROM: John W. McCoyKStaff Planner, urrent Development
DATE: July 19, 1989
SUBJECT: SEA OAKS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. APPEAL OF A CONDITION
OF MINOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of August 22, 1989.
ROG� � �-e�� F1�;r. 6 I��
AUG 22% 1989 5
L_
AUG 2 21999 J 1
BOOK
pq 6 16E 91
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
In 1982, Sea Oaks was granted site plan approval by the County to
construct 7 "Dune Home" buildings along the Atlantic Ocean. Sea
Oaks has been proceeding with the construction of these "Dune
Homes" since 1982, and the site plan is still valid so far as
County jurisdiction applies. The existing "Dune Homes" are
constructed seaward of the new coastal construction control line
(CCCL), and the site plan approved homes are proposed to be
constructed seaward of the CCCL. Apparently, the State Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) will not issue at this time a building
permit for Dune Homes V and VI, despite valid County approval,
because the proposed location of the buildings is well seaward of
the CCCL.
Sea Oaks has sought to gain DNR approval by proposing to relocate
the buildings further west, where only a small portion of the
building would be seaward of the new CCCL. The revised design,
however, requires minor site plan approval through the County.
During the review of the new site plan, staff applied all applica-
ble review criteria. Since the original plan was approved in
1982, the definition of building height has been changed.
FROM: BUILDING, HEIGHT OF: The vertical distance measured
from the average elevation of the proposed finished
grade at the front of the building to the highest point
of the roof for flat roof; to the deck line of mansard
roofs, and to the mean height between the eaves and
ridge for gable, hip or gambrel roofs.
TO: BUILDING, HEIGHT OF: The vertical distance to the
highest point of the roof for flat roofs; to the deck
line of mansard roofs, to the mean height between the
eaves and ridge for sloped roofs measured from the
average natural grade or the minimum flood elevation,
whichever is higher.
Under the new definition which applies to all new plans and
construction, the old Dune Home design exceeds the County's height
limit and cannot be approved as part of any new plans. Conse-
quently, staff has reviewed and the Technical Review Committee has
approved a minor site plan application for a newly located Dune
House with, among other conditions, a condition that the new
design meet the (current) building height limitation and de-
finition. The applicant appealed this condition to the Planning
and Zoning Commission which considered this item at its July 13,
1989 meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission, on a 3 to 3
vote, failed to approve a motion to uphold the Sea Oaks position
on the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was denied, the Technical
Review Committee position was upheld, and the applicant subse-
quently appealed to the Board of County Commissioners.
ANALYSIS:
In the applicant's letter of appeal to the Board of County Commis-
sioners, concerns regarding dune preservation, public health and
safety and aesthetics were given as justification for not applying
the current code height requirement. These three objectives can
all be achieved within the present code, given a proper design.
3
M
Dune preservation, public health and safety, and aesthetics are
all worthy goals, but they are not the issue of the appeal. The
issue is this: does a new site plan application have to meet the
existing code? The answer is yes. All aspects of either a
redesign or new site plan application must meet the County's code
at the time of application submittal for all improvements shown
within the area of development. The proposed building is obvious-
ly within the area of development.
The old building height definition allowed an appligant to berm -up
the building pad and achieve a higher building by starting from a
higher finished (man made) grade, while the new definition sets a
firm. starting point at natural grade or the .minimum flood ele-
vation (whichever is higher). The new definition was specifically
established to prevent the berming-up of the finished floor
elevation in situations such as was done on the 1982 Sea Oaks
plans. The staff acknowledges that without being able to berm -up
the finished grade, the first floor of a three floor building
might not have an Ocean view; instead it would have a dune view.
Sea Oaks essentially wants a new site plan approved by the County,
but does not want to meet all the existing regulations. It is
staff's position that if Sea Oaks proceeds under the 1982 site
plan approval, they can also proceed under the regulations which
were in place at that time. Thus, from the staff's standpoint,
the existing 1982 plan is valid; however, if Sea Oaks wants a new
site plan approval they must meet all applicable criteria in the
present code as any other developer in the County must do.
Therefore, the Technical Review Committee granted minor site plan
approval to Dune Homes V and VI with the following condition:
"1. Verify that the building meets the 35' height limit as
defined in section 2 and applied in section 10 (A) of the
zoning code, by showing on the plans the mean roof line and
the location of the average natural gradeline on the building
elevations; or redesign the building to meet the 35' height
limit as defi ed and applied in the zoning code."
In staff's opinion, building relocation and re -design must meet
the new code height requirements. It is the developer's option
whether to try and get DNR approval to construct the building as
it was approved by the County in 1982 (seaward of the present
CCCL); or to revise the site plan by moving the building landward
in order to get DNR approval, a modification requiring conformance
with the present County code. Removal of the condition would
violate the County Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners uphold the decision of the Technical Review
Committee to apply the existing code requirements to the newly
proposed Sea Oaks site plan.
Stan Boling, Chief of Current Development, reviewed staff's
recommendation to uphold the decision of the Technical Review
Committee to apply the existing code requirements to the newly
proposed Sea Oaks site plan. He explained that this is an appeal
.of the building height restriction that was put on the site plan.
AUG 2 2 19
AUG) 2 1999 1�
BOOK 1 FAllL ��
Robert Keating, Director of Community Development, advised
that staff has talked to the people at Sea Oaks about our rec-
ommendation, which is to take another to k to accomplish the same
objective because there are conflicting objectives here. The
County wants to push them back, but the County also has
determined that it wants to keep the height at a minimum. If
that is the case, what we have suggested is that it would be a
policy decision made by a change in the ordinance.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we have the ability under
Florida Statutes to make this modification without changing the
entire ordinance.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the Board could wait and see
if the DNR allows them to do it. If the DNR denies it, then they
can't do it. If the DNR lets them do it, then we could amend our
ordinance and allow them to build their revised plan.
Commissioner Eggert asked if she understood it correctly
that if we turn it down, Sea Oaks would have to go to the DNR
with the knowledge that we have turned it down.
Attorney Vitunac answered "no". We would be saying to go
ahead and build it, and that we are waiting for the DNR to turn
down their request for the modification to their original site
plan.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the net effect of that is that
the DNR could possibly turn them down and then they would file
for an administrative hearing, which takes another 90 days, after
which they would get a final decision and then begin the process
back here. He didn't believe it was the purpose of county
government to drag people through a long process.
Chairman Wheeler didn't want to amend the ordinance because
that would open it up to other people in the same situation.
Commissioner Bird felt that if he had to choose between
moving the building back further off the dune and not excavating
into the dune system or allowing more height, he would choose to
allow more height.
8
M M M
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we could find some vehicle to
address this as an existing situation with a major change
precipitated by some significant happenings, i.e., the
construction setback change and the different position of DNR.
Attorney Vitunac felt the significant happening would be the
DNR granting Sea Oaks a permit to build on the dune. If the DNR
does not permit it to be built, the County can achieve both
objectives without any change. Sea Oaks would be forced to move
back from the dune by the DNR and forced by the County under our
present code to come down in height.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the new ordinance
would allow them to excavate, and he felt that was a negative.
Attorney Vitunac felt the significant happening would be
that the DNR not allow it to happen and then we could achieve our
objectives through our existing ordinances.
Chairman Wheeler asked how the present ordinance came about,
and Director Keating felt it was precipitated by the way Sea Oaks
had gotten around the heights a number of years ago. Referring
to a graphic, he noted that the last ordinance defined building
height as the bottom measure being at the existing grade at the
front of the building, which allowed the construction of a 40 -ft.
building, and then by putting a 5 -ft berm out front, you meet the
35 -ft. height restriction.
Chairman Wheeler understood then that they found a loophole
several years ago to go up a little higher, and now that loophole
has come back to haunt them, but Director Keating pointed out
that was under a different ordinance.
After lengthy debate, Commissioner Bird asked if we have any
latitude to permit this under our minor site plan modification
procedures, since the plan calls for a completely different
footprint for the building, i.e. different shape, design and
configuration of the parking lot, landscaping, etc. Basically,
it is almost a
totally different product on the same
piece of
AUG 2 21989
9 b - AK
77
AUG 2 21989 Boge
ground which was approved as a part of a site plan approval for
the overall project.
Director Keating felt there may be a way it could be done
through a provision in the ordinance for allowing certain modi-
fications that reduce a non -conformity, and he believed that what
you have here is an existing non -conformity.
Attorney Bruce Barkett, representing Sea Oaks, advised that
the DNR has not said they can't do it. In fact, their attorney
in Tallahassee has spoken with the DNR, and the DNR has said that
they probably will permit this building, which is the problem
with Attorney Vitunac's scenario. If the County tells them to go
to the DNR and the DNR says, "Okay, all you have to do is this,
this, and this, and you can build on your original site plan",
the County will have lost out on both its objectives. Attorney
Barkett understood, according to Attorney Vitunac, that the Board
of County Commissioners always has the ability to do something if
they think it is in the public interest and the public good.
What this application is doing is pulling this building back 120
feet from its original site which was basically right at the base
of the dune, and at that time it was landward of the coastal
construction control line. That being the case, and since Sea
Oaks' request would serve the Board's objective for protecting
the dune, his client is requesting the lifting of the condition
on the height restriction.
Commissioner Bird liked the revised plan better than the
first one, and if we have the ability to grant it, he would be
willing to do that without putting them through that hurdle,
unless Attorney Vitunac feels that it is absolutely necessary in
order to preserve our standing or something.
Attorney Vitunac advised that if the Board is willing to
protect the dune and not force Sea Oaks to go through a long and
expensive procedure, we can do what Director Keating suggested
about reducing a non -conformity.
10
Commissioner Scurlock wanted to have it on the record that
there is some grandfathering to a greater or lesser extent,
depending on who you are talking to, and Commissioner Eggert felt
that it is also important to state for the record what ways we
are trying to reduce the non -conformity.
Commissioner Scurlock stated for the record that the reasons
are to try and mitigate the damage to the dune and modify this in
a way that we move back from the construction setback.
Commissioner Bowman asked if they have explored the
possibility of moving this building back so that it does not
encroach at all, maybe at the loss of one or two parking spaces
or something like that, and Commissioner Scurlock advised that
Sea Oaks tried to do that, but they do not have enough room.
Commissioner Bird repeated that he is willing to give up the
height rather than give them the dune, but Commissioners Bowman
and Wheeler didn't want to set a precedent.
Commissioner Eggert also was concerned about setting a
precedent, but felt that there are a lot of things happening, and
if, as they say, there are very few approved site plans out there
that are phasing in this way, we are not going to see very much
of this.
Chairman Wheeler asked if anyone else wished to be heard in
this matter. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the request by Sea Oak Development Company, and
stated for the record that the ordinance does allow the
Board to mitigate any non -conformity, which is the
reason we are moving ahead with this trade-off between
the environmental versus the height and we recognize
it.
POOK `'AI;F 676
11
AUG 222 1989
BOOK �� 677
PUBLIC DISCUSSION - REQUEST FOR MEMBERSHIP AT SANDRIDGE GOLF CLUB
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 8/7/89:
11
aap M�Ss�or1902 c th Avenue
coM �ti� Vero Beach, Fl. 320&RIBUTION LIST
4N August 7, 1989
Gary Wheeler, Chairman Admin strator
Board of County Commissioners Attorney
Indian River County Pers:,nnel
Vero Beach, Florida Pubiic Works
Com,:ivaay :.�w.
Dear ". Wheeler;, Utilit-es
I as writing to request a place on the agenda of Other
the_Commissigners. meeting --of-August 22nd or 29th for me
and a few friends. Y
The reason for my request. Briefly, I Ras deeply
involved in 1985 and 1986 withs-.'.the opening of the county
,:-golf course (Sandridge) and served on Commissioner Bird's
Feasibility Committee. Since the course opened for play
in 1987 many, many golfers who play there and golfers
from other golf courses have asked why is there no member-
ship and when will they have a uembership2 In speaking
to .club personnel as,,' -I play at Sandridge I have.4earned
that the same questions are asked of thew by many players
both men and women. The also ask that
They question of the club
Pro -manager, Bob Komarinetz.
So, it is to discuss this question of club uembership
with the Board of Commissioners that I request to be placed
on your agenda.
Thank you for your consideration to this request.
Yours truly,
V
Harold E. Djorup, Ph.D.
P.S. Sorry for suchmessy typin6 job - this machine
is nearly as olda as I am.
12
Bob Komarinetz, Golf Director, reviewed the following staff
recommendation to continue the daily fee programs:
TO: Members of the Board of DATE: August 18, 1989 FILE:
County Commissioners
TEIIitJ: Mr. James E. ChandSUBJECT: Yearly Memberships "Sandridge Golf Club"
County Administrato
e��/--
FROM: Bob Komarinetz REFERENCES: .
Director of . Go
During the planning stages of the golf course there was a feasibility study
done by the National Golf Foundation. Their recommendation was that there
would be no annual memberships. Their reasoning was that it would dilute
revenue potential and tend to create a "club" atmosphere that does not
allow for servicing all residents and area visitors on an equal basis.
They also added that the facility is to truly serve as an amenity, for
the recreational purposes of all county residents and to attract visitors
to the county, and maximize revenues while maintaining reasonable and
competitive rates, it can best be accomplished by the elimination of
"membership" or annual fees.
It was also recommended that a fee structure be adopted so that residents
of Indian River County could benefit at a reduced rate, which Sandridge
Golf Club does have at the present time.
These particular type of programs was strongly recommended and supported
at a fee structure presentation on Sandridge Golf Club at the Florida
Municipal Golf Course Association meeting in Daytona Beach in the fall
of 1986.
Staff recommends that we continue the same daily fee programs that
Sandridge Golf Club has used in the past. In addition staff will
encourage the promotion and development of a mens league and continue
supporting a ladies league that already exists. Through these weekly
programs it will help to develope "club" type atmosphere and hope that
residents and visitors will continue to enjoy_ this beautiful recreation
amenity.
DISTRIBUJ.'ION
Joseph Baird, Budget Director
AUG 2 2 1999 13
L-
HOK
/ f'��GE 6 d
I
-I
sir
BOOK T PAGE G-1/9
Commissioner Bird reviewed the following memo containing his
recommendation that we not institute a membership system at this
time.
TO: board of Commissioners County DATE: AugustFILE:
SUBJECT: Request for Membership
at Sandridge Golf Club
Richard N. Bird
FROM: Commissioner REFERENCES:
I have been receiving many inquiries regarding membership at
Sandridge Golf Club, and Hal Djorup has written a letter
requesting that he and some other golfers be added to the County
Commission agenda to discuss this subject.
Although I understand the feelings of the people requesting
memberships, I feel the system that is the most fair to all the
golfers in Indian River County is by charging fees on a daily
basis. This allows those who "play the most to pay the most."
We have tried to maintain our fees at a level that is as
affordable as possible, and still allow us to. generate the
revenue that is.needed.to maintain the golf course in its present
excellent condition. '
I have discussed this matter with Bob Komarinetz, and we feel
that an alternative to membership might be the formation of a
men's golf association that would allow for handicaps,
tournaments and various other club functions. An organization
such as this presently exists for the ladies, and I understand
that it is working very well.
RECOMMENDATION
It would be my recommendation that we explore the possibility of
forming a men's golf association, but that we not institute a
membership system at this time.
14
M M
Commissioner Scurlock advised that recently the Finance
Advisory was asked to consider the financial feasibility of
expanding the course by another 9 or 18 holes, and perhaps making
some improvements to the clubhouse. Through that analysis, we
have looked at the revenue stream of the existing situation and
we find it marginal. It is marginal because the golf course is
carrying its weight, but it is not carrying its weight in a big
way. If we lost a couple of greens or something major happened,
it would be a problem for us. The recommendation, which is in
letter form, indicated that things looked potentially good to
move ahead and start considering another 9 or 18 holes. From a
financial aspect, it is a bottom line of revenues coming in and
expenses going out. It is not a question of whether or not you
have memberships. The real question is do you displace $23.80
golf during the winter time with $10.00 golf because you have a
membership, and have the net revenues drop and not be able to
cover your debt service, which is $238,000 a year, or cover your
operating expenses. From a financial standpoint, the fact is
that memberships a,t Sandridge would have to be significantly
higher than the $600 or $650 annual fee mentioned in the
newspaper article. To offset the revenues from the peak winter
months, you are talking about memberships in the $1200-$1500
range, minimum.
Commissioner Bird felt somewhat bad that we don't all agree
on this particular subject, because many of the people here today
are great supporters of Sandridge and have been right from the
very beginning, especially Hal Djorup, who fought long and hard
to bring to the Board's attention the fact that we need a public
golf course and who also served on our initial golf course
feasibility study committee. The subject of memberships came up
almost from day one, and we had some disagreement even amongst
our own committee members. We hired the National Golf Foundation
to do a feasibility study, and their recommendion stated:
."Specifically, memberships, as such, should be avoided, as should
AUG1989 1 5 �00� F! FgUE.1,�
t UG 2 2 1989 BOOK .77 Ff',GE 681
other such special privilege arrangements with the exception of a
discount rate for registered County residents. This
recommendation is made both in the interest of revenue
production, the basis of which should always be a daily green
fee, and also to ensure that the facility will be equally
available to all residents of Indian River County, present and
future, and to the legions of seasonal visitors, upon which much
of the economy of the County depends."
Commissioner Bird just didn't think that you could argue
with the fact that those who play the most, pay the most. He
believed that through a men's golf association and a ladies' golf
association, we could accomplish some of the things that people
desire through memberships, such as organized activities,
handicaps, events, comradery, etc.
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that our bond convenants
require that revenue source to be there, so you would have to set
appropriate rates to cover your debt service.
Chairman Wheeler asked those people who wished to be heard
in this matter to come to the podium and give their name and
address.
The following people spoke in support of establishing a
membership system at Sandridge Golf Club and presented data and
financial estimates while expressing their opinion that the
County would be well served by having a membership system at the
public golf course.
Harold Djorup
Lou Maglione
John Kotch
Bill Moriarity
Sam Alia
Ruth Mead
and an unidentified gentlemen
Dick Schuler and Ken Cougar presented arguments against
having a membership system at Sandridge, and urged the Board to
continue with the daily fee basis.
16
S
After almost a full of hour of discussion and debate,
Commissioner Bird emphasized that it is not as if we have the
only game in town or are controlling the only course people have
to play on and have a membership. If people want to be a member
of a club, he would encourage them to be a member of the
Sebastian Golf Course, or Indian River Pines, Vista Royale,
Dodger Pines, Grand Harbor, etc. There are a lot of membership
opportunities available in this area, and he didn't think it was
wrong to have one public course in the county that is operated on
a daily fee basis. He believed our golf course is in the best
condition of any of the golf courses he just named. It was
professionally designed and is maintained and manicured every
day, and he is not in favor of doing anything that might
jeopardize the success of our golf course up to this time.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, that the Board not institute
a membership at Sandridge Golf Club at this time.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird advised that he would
continue to work with the Commission and Bob Komarinetz to give
the maximum break that we possibly can to county residents. We
will continue to analyze that on a yearly basis, as we did this
year, and continue to give as much of a discount and as big a
break as possible to the people in this county that support us
year around.
Commissioner Eggert asked if Commissioner Bird's Motion
includes the fact that they will, indeed, look at the membership
situation to see if that is feasible, and Commissioner Bird
stated that at this point he would not make that a part of his
Motion.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
17 E(70K
AUG 24 2 1989
AUG 2 2 1989
B00K 77 PAGE 6��'
Commissioner Bowman wished to make another Motion that the
matter be referred to the Finance Advisory Committee to run the
numbers and report to a committee, perhaps one to which Mr.
Djorup belongs.
Under discussion, Commissioner Scurlock stated that he did
not want to report to another committee. He felt that if
Commissioner Bird wants the FAC to run some numbers, the report
should go to the County Administrator, Commissioner Bird and the
appropriate people.
Commissioner Bowman still wanted to have it reviewed by the
FAC, but Commissioner Bird pointed out the FAC would have to rely
heavily on Mr. Komarinetz, who would be the one to actually
develop the numbers, and also rely heavily on the County
Administrator and staff before bringing back any kind of a
recommendation to the Board.
Commissioner Bowman stated that her Motion is to come up
with the numbers of what an annual membership would cost if we
were to offer it. She felt we need to show these people our
capital expenses and why we cannot do it.
Commissioner Bird emphasized that the thing that makes it so
difficult is that you just don't know how much everyone is going
to play. We know there were 57,000 rounds played at Sandridge
the first year, and 63,000 rounds played the second year, and
it's easy to figure a budget because you know everybody paid a
certain amount. However, when you start a membership, it
becomes very difficult to figure out how much of that capacity is
going to be used by the membership through that membership system
and how much is going to be left for the daily greens' fee play.
Mr. Komarinetz is going to be the one who is going to have to
crunch the numbers.
Mr. Komarinetz felt it would take a few years to shake out
the wrinkles to find out how the percentages would work out, but
he would try to put something together.
18
Commissioner Bowman stated that her Motion is not proposing
that the Board consider membership. She is saying that we should
let these people know what our expenses are and what the income
is and where it goes.
Mr. Komarinetz stated that he could furnish anybody that
information.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that anyone can pick up our
operating budget and see our annual debt service, our operating
expenses and our revenue stream.
Commissioner Bowman said, "Okay, that is probably all they
need to know."
PRESENTATION OF MAIN LIBRARY FINAL PLANS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/15/89:
TO: Jim Chandler DATE: August 15, 1989 FILE:
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Presentation of Dow, Howell,
Gilmore Main Library final plans
OM: Williams l ams REFERENCES:
Main Library
t
Please set aside approximately 30 minutes to allow Dow, Howell,
Gilmore and Associates time for a presentation of the final plans
for the Main Library.
We will be requesting permission to submit the plans to the State
Library for review and upon State approval, release the plans for
bid.
Lynn Williams, Project Manager on the Main Library, reviewed
the process for obtaining approval from the State Library.
Administrator Chandler advised that we have emphasized to
the architect the need to bring this in at budget, and we do feel
19 BOOK
AUG 2 2 1989
AUG 2 2
BOOK
.77
65
comfortable with
the estimates that have been provided
at
this
point in time as it is very close to the amount we have budgeted.
By the same token, the architect is looking at bidding several
alternate portions in the contract in the event the bids were to
come in in excess of what we have budgeted so that we would have
some deducts.
Commissioner Bird felt it was very good that they did come
in that way, but unfortunately, in our other situation we had an
architect who also estimated that the cost was going to come in
at budget, but the actual bids came in at considerably more,
except for the one from the firm that miscalculated.
Commissioner Eggert advised that they have run the entire
project through an independent estimator.
Commissioner Bird suggested that on larger construction
projects like this that somehow the plans and specs be made
available to local contractors who do this everyday, because he
believed they really could give some good advice on cost cutting.
John Howell of Dow, Howell, Gilmore & Associates, Inc.
advised that as late as last week, they took the completed
drawings to one of their consultants, and he agreed with the cost
and said that the cost is tight, but doable. So, they knew that
going in, and they still feel that they are there. He noted that
at the very beginning when they were told that the cost per
square foot was going to be $70, they were very concerned about
that unit price. They were able to get it up to $75 per sq. ft.,
but the average square foot cost for libraries is currently
running somewhere in the high $80s.
Referring to the final plans and a scaled model of the
facility, Mr. Howell noted that the glass is single pane and they
budgeted $15 per square foot just for the glass. The window
sections have been designed to take gusts of hurricane winds of
up to 120 mph. It is not designed to take a flying palm tree,
however. The glass is protected by the eave of the roof, and
they have specified a solar reflective glass.
20
Commissioner Eggert noted that you have to meet a certain
energy code in order to keep the air-conditioning operating
expenses down.
Mr. Howell advised that they took the entire building and
broke it down into line item figures, and each of those figures
was given to the various consultants to make sure that their
design hit that number. As far as materials are concerned, it is
steel, glass, stucco, etc. There is nothing exotic called for
that a local contractor couldn't handle.
Mr. Williams reported that by the time we complete the City
site plan and the State Library review, we expect to be out for
bids somewhere around the first of October, allowing 30 days for
bids, and then come back to the Board for approval.
Commissioner Eggert asked for permission to go out to bid on
two other items. We will be receiving a bequest, and Mrs.
Lowenstein has been willing to let us put some of that bequest,
if it works out, toward making an outdoor reading room on top of
a section of the roof with planters, railings along the edge, and
a controlled access. The other item that is desired is to have a
topiary animal, probably a giraffe, right outside the children's
room, along with some funds for the genealogy and the Florida
history room. The bequest would cover that, and they would like
to bid those as add-ons.
way.
Mr. Howell advised that the documents have been set up that
Mr. Williams noted that Item 9-C on today's Agenda for
Professional Services Supplemental Authorization is the
additional cost to design the roof structure alternate that would
be required for the outdoor reading room. All of those costs
will be bid as a unit, and it will be easy to identify all of
those costs separately from the base bid.
AUG 2 1989 21 BOOK `11, F ', V�
Fr- I
AUG 22 1989
Boa 77 P:c6 7
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized
submittal of the plans to the State Library conditioned
on site plan approval, and then to release the plans
for bid as stated in the staff's memo along with
bidding the two add-ons of the porch roof and the
topiary giraffe that will come with the bequest.
PUBLIC HEARING - SHOPCO'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE OFF STREET PARKING
ORDINANCE TO REVISE WHEEL -STOP REQUIREMENTS
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:
VERO BEACH PRESS-JOUIMAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River Codnty, Florida o
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Beforie the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspape d`Z�Z
at Vero
oo1Beeaach In Indian River County, Florida; that.the attached copy of advertiseme
a
In the matter of
In the _ Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the Issues oi�go
•
OTICE CP PUBLIC HEARING
TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of
j ty Commissioners of Indian River County, 'i
de, shall hold a public hearing at which par -
in Interest and citizens shall have an oppor-
nity to be heard, In the County Commission
S hambers of the County Administration Build -
Ing at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach.
Florida on Tuesday, August 22.1989 81 9:05 a.m.
to consider the adoption of an Ordinance anti -
led:
AN OF IIAN
COUNTY,INANCE FLORIDA AMEND NGRIVER SEC -
t TION 24(b) (4): GENERAL PARKING
STANDAfMiDS, OF APPENDIX A OF THE i;
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF
e
KNOWN RIVER
RTHE ZONING CODE
PROVIDING FOR THE MODIFICATIONOF CERTAIN ,
CURB-
INGREQUIREMENTSgAND PROVIDING
d FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROS
AND EFFECTIVE DATE*
pof the proposed Ordinance Is available
at the Planning Department office on the second
floor of the County Administration Building.
Anyone who may wish to appeal airy decision
which may be made at this meeting 2111 need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
I ads which Includes testimony and evidence
Afflant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
upon which the appeal IS based.'
`
Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
BOARD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
entered as second class mail matter at the post office In Vero Beach, In said Indian River Coun-
P
BY:-s•GAY'C. WHEELER, CHAIRMAN
R
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
August 2,1989 _
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper..
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day01.. 19
r�
(Businesp Manager)
(C u o , 111diatety F;eri�a}_,
(SEAL)
ma-ftj/ Pubo ,
61 CAfM1131110n EXPIM JUINN 00. 10+41
fN
� r �
L—J
Stan Boling, Chief of Current Development, presented staff's
recommendation for the adoption of the proposed ordinance which
would waive the requirements for wheelstops or the equivalent in
interior spaces.
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Ro ert M. Keatilig, AAW
Community Developme Director
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP�`)
:
Chief, Current Development
DATE: August 10, 1989
SUBJECT: SHOPCO'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE OFF-STREET PARKING
ORDINANCE TO REVISE WHEEL -STOP REQUIREMENTS: CODE
SECTION 24 (b) (4)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of August 22, 1989.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
In October of 1983, the County adopted an updated.and comprehen-
sive off-street parking ordinance (Ordinance 83-30). One of the
standards this ordinance established requires that all parking
spaces be equipped with a wheelstop, six, -inch curbing or the
equivalent [Code Section 24(b)(4)]. This requirement has not been
modified since Ordinance 83-30 was adopted.
The applicant, SHOPCO (developer of the proposed Harbortown Mall),
has filed an application to amend zoning code section 24(b)(4) to
allow staff to waive the wheelstop (or equivalent) requirement for
certain parking spaces upon satisfaction of certain criteria.
Staff has reviewed the applicant's requested amendment and has
proposed an ordinance amendment, which the applicant supports,
which is attached at the end of this report (see attachment #6).
At its regular meeting of July 27, 1989, the Planning .and Zoning
Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt the ordinance as proposed and attached at the
end of this report (see attachment #6)
ANALYSIS:
-Wheelstop "Pros and Cons"
The wheelstop requirement has positive and some negative effects.
Positively, the wheelstop requirement ensures:
1. pedestrian protection
adjacent parking spaces;
2. protection of landscape
from encroachment of cars from
areas from car encroachment;
23 wK 77
F'd .K
No
_I
AUG 2 2 JG89
BOOK 7 d FA"I 6S
3. protection of cars parked "head in" toward each other;
4. more efficient use of spaces; prohibits cars from
pulling too far into a -stall and "double parking" or not
pulling in far enough and encroaching into driving
aisles;
5. more safety by channelling traffic along driveways;
prohibits "cut -through" traffic.
Negatively, wheelstops can:
6. function as impediments to good drainage system mainte-
nance (such as sweeping) and as sediment traps which can
adversely affect drainage system maintenance;
7. cause foot injuries to pedestrians crossing over spaces;
8. diminish the aesthetics of a parking area, especially in
larger parking lots.
In staff's opinion, protection of pedestrians and landscape areas
are positive factors that should not be "traded -off" or "bal-
anced -out" against any negative effects of wheelstops. Pedestri-
ans and landscape areas need to be protected by a physical barrier
such as a wheelstop, curbing or other equivalent. Thus, in
staff's opinion, the County should not consider deleting or
waiving the wheelstop requirement for parking spaces that "head
into" either pedestrian or landscape areas.
In staff's opinion, the positive factors listed as #3-5 could, in
some cases, be offset by the negative factors listed as #6-8. In
such cases the benefits of wheelstops might not exceed the costs,
and waivers may be warranted. Factors #3-5 relate to traffic
control ("channelling" flow) and aesthetics which could be ad-
dressed with various design solutions that do not require wheel
stops.
-Comparison of Requirements
Other jurisdictions were contacted to provide a comparison of
wheel stop requirements. All jurisdictions contacted, with the
exception of St. Lucie County, require wheel stops (or equivalent)
where spaces abut landscape or pedestrian areas. Some of the
jurisdictions require wheelstops (or equivalent) for all spaces,
as does Indian River County currently. However., some juris-
dictions allow certain types of "waivers" for certain interior
parking spaces. There seemed to be agreement on factors, pro and
con, relating to wheelstop requirements (see attachment #4).
These factors were previously outlined by staff.
In general, where wheelstop requirements are allowed to be waived
in other jurisdictions, interior landscaping with increased width
dimensions (to accommodate tree plantings rather than ground cover
only) is encouraged as a design solution to provide aesthetic
quality. Such larger landscape areas also provide "visual cues"
that break-up parking areas and help keep drivers from cutting
through parking spaces where wheelstops are not provided. Based
upon responses from planners in other jurisdictions and informa-
tion provided by the applicant's traffic and parking experts, it
appears that driver behavior can be influenced by "visual cues,
and that there may be design solutions other than the use of
wheelstops to address positive factors #3-5.
24
M M M
-Proposed Ordinance
Based upon the above analysis and discussion with the applicant's
traffic/parking expert, staff proposes a change to the wheelstop
(or equivalent) requirement for all parking spaces --- allowing
for waivers upon approval by both the community development and
public works directors and satisfaction of five criteria (see
attachment #6). All waiver requests would be reviewed in conjunc-
tion with site plan requests (new development, modifications,
additions, etc.). The five criteria,"a" through "e", are proposed
to ensure that:
a. pedestrian and landscape areas are protected by
wheelstops or equivalent;
b. spaces without wheelstops are arranged so that cars, in
case of a conflict, would touch bumper to bumper;
C. spaces with wheelstops head into other spaces with
wheelstops, providing consistent "stop points" which are
important in establishing consistency and visual cues
for drivers;
d. spaces off of circulation driveways are equipped with
wheelstops to guarantee the proper channelling of -
traffic along these critical travel lanes; and
e. conditions can be placed- upon a waiver request to
provide adequate visual cues to drivers and to provide
for appropriate interior landscaping areas with in-
creased widths to accommodate tree plantings.
-Summary
In staff's opinion, adoption of the proposed ordinance would allow
a greater variety of parking lot designs for the interior spaces
in larger projects. The overall effect of the waiver criteria
should provide incentives to increased interior parking lot land-
scaping areas that can accommodate trees and to design safer
circulation drives that do not directly access parking spaces
while adequately channelling traffic through the parking lot area.
RRrnMMRWnATTnV
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Bowman asked if the parking spaces could be
graded so that they would drain toward the landscaping, and Mr.
Boling explained that you would still have curbing around the
landscaped areas, but there could be small holes made in the
curbing which would allow stormwater. However, it would have to
be vegetation that could take that type of run-off. Staff, of
course, would like to see trees planted in those areas.
Commissioner Bowman also preferred trees, not shrubbery,
because people like to park in the shade.
Chairman Wheeler opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none.
25
AUG 2, ,I9 REGI 6 F.+�E 690
ao()K 1 m,E6�
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 89-24, providing for the modification of
certain wheelstop and curbing requirements; and
providing for repeal of conflicting provisions.
26
ORDINANCE NO. 89--24
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION
24(b)(4); GENERAL PARKING STANDARDS, OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF
LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, KNOWN AS THE
ZONING CODE: PROVIDING FOR THE MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN WHEELSTOP
AND CURBING REQUIREMENTS; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida that:
SECTION 1
Section 24(b)(4) be hereby amended as follows:
"(4) All parking spaces shall be equipped with tire stops
permanently affixed to the surface except when six-inch
curbing or the equivalent is installed, with the follow-
ing exceptions:
Upon request by a site plan
and communit develo ment d
stop/ --curbing requirement
upon a determination that:
a. the waiver would not
upon landscape or pe
valent
applicant, the public works
rectors may waive the wheel
Eor'certain parking spaces
allow vehicles to encroach
lestrian areas (such areas
wheelstops, curbing, or the
b. the waiver would not allow vehicles to abut or
head into" one another in an fashion other than
umper to bumper [any bumper to fender or side
parkingconfi urations shall require wheelsto s,
curbing, or the equivalent;_
C. the waiver would not apply to any space "heading
into another space that requires a wheel stop,
nurbina. or other equivalent; and
d the waiver would not apply to spaces_ accessed from
driveways that serve as circulation driveways which
channel traffic around or through the site or
narking lot area.
e. the site lan arkin area and traffic circulation
design provide circulation driveways, as needed, to
adequately channelize traffic flow.
itions including but not limited to driveway curbing, signage
or pavement markings, or periodic placement of barriers or
eased protected landscaped areas that are designed to promote_
traffic circulation may be attached to any waiver granted
SECTION 2
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legisla-
ture applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River
County and which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance
are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 3
CODIFICATION
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
Coding: Words in WidWUhA type are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions.
-1-
�:,2'2�8. 2 7
A0 2 1999
BOOK
ORDINANCE NO. 89-24 .-..
696)
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish
such intentions.
SECTION 4
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word
of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional,
inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining
portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legis-
lative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitution-
al, invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 5
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon
receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowl-
edgement that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of
State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian river County, Florida on this 22nd day of August ,
1989.
This ordinance was advertised was advertised in the vero Beach
Press -Journal on the 2nd day of August , 1989, for a public
hearing to be held on the ZZnd day of August, 1989, at
which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert ,
seconded by Commissioner Scurlock , and adopted by the
following vote;
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler 'Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By I.& 6, GC/
Gary C. Peeler, Chairman
ATTEST BY: ddkVAj •A�
Jeffre arton,, Cele
Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 28th day of August , 1989.
Effective Date: Acknowledgement from the Department of State
received on this 31st day of August ,1989 at
11:00 .A.M./P.M, and filed in the office of the Clerk of
the Board of County commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
Coding: Words in OftA094 MJ0 type are deletions from existing
law. Words underlined are additions.
t.:
28
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED PURCHASE OF McKEE JUNGLE GARDENS
PROPERTY FROM VISTA PROPERTIES
The hour of 9:05 o'clock having passed, the Deputy Clerk
read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to
wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS40111MAL
Published Dofly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF'FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newpaper rt semen published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that,the attached copy of advebeing
a
In the matter
In theCourt, was pub-
_ i
i
Iished In said newspaper in the Issues of
Afflant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published In said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Swom to and subscribed befo:(Clerk
is day, A-yL." A.D. 19
(Business Ma 99
r
of the Circuit Court, Indian River u y, Flori I
(SEAL) to .. 1, , -Win, to t!
PUBLIC NOTICE
On Tuesday, August 22, 1989, at 9:05 A.M., the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, will meet in the County Adminis-
tration Building at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
FL, to consider ratifying a contract for the pur-
chase
McKee Junle
GOrde sf p opewhatirty from Vistaknown asthe properties of Vero
Bdach. Inc. for a purchase price of 52.5 million.
For 30 days before this public hearing, apprais-
als of the properly will be available for public In-
spection at the office of the Aide to the Board of
County Commissioners. The public is Invited to
attend and comment on the proposed purchase.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed -
Ings is made, which Includes testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal is based.
July 19, 1989 D
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/14/89:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: August 14, 1989 FILE:
SUBJECT:
f _ .
FROM*James E. C andler REFERENCES:
. County Administrator
Attached is an executed contract for sale with Vista Properties of Vero
Beach, Inc. for the purchase of the property commonly known as McKee
Jungle Gardens. The purchase is contingent upon approval by referendum no
later than December 31, 1989. The proposed referendum date is November 7,
1989. If approved at referendum the closing date would be on or before
April 1, 1990.
AUGX99
29 BOOK. f F�a�. 6
�.
L_
I
AUG 22 1999
HOK 71 Fa,) 695
Purchase price for the approximately 99 acres is $2.5 million. Total estimated
acquisition expense is $2.9 million, including interest and issuance cost,
depending on the method of financing the short term note. As proposed, a
one year millage levy would be applied.
The ordinance with the ballot wording is being prepared by the County
Attorney's office.
Administrator Chandler explained that the agreement has been
executed by Ron Ewing and himself and is being presented to the
Board today for consideration. A corollary item on today's
Agenda addresses the proposed wording for the ballot provided for
in the agreement which states that the purchase price would be
$2.5 million. The overall cost associated with this is
potentially $2.9 million, which includes the financing for that
$2.5 million. He emphasized that we are trying to keep all our
options open on the financing and that is why we are quoting a
cost of not to exceed $2.9 million. There are a number of
options we may want to exercise in the financing of the $2.5
million, but those costs could be less than the $400,000
estimated. In essence, that is the meat of the contract being
presented today.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we tried to negotiate with
Mr. Ewing that he would carry the note for a while without any
interest, and Administrator Chandler explained that when the
negotiations first started, there was absolutely no flexibility.
It was to be within such and such a timeframe and within such and
such parameters. However, during the last few weeks, there has
been some indication that Mr. Ewing might be amenable to
considering that, but Mr. Ewing indicated that his cost for
carrying the note probably would be less to us than what we could
gain by placing it with a bank or banks. However, at this point
we do not know what tha,t amount would be. Mr. Ewing has left the
door cracked, but we are trying to maintain as much flexibility
as we can in terms of getting the best terms on the financing.
30
L� J
Commissioner Scurlock understood that there is nothing in
the proposed actions that we would take today that would limit
our ability to seek alternate courses of financing, and
Administrator Chandler answered no, other than the fact that we
are looking at funding this through a one-time levy. The
one-time levy would be 7.352, based on the current year tax roll,
but if the referendum passes, the levy wouldn't occur until the
subsequent year.
Commissioner Bird noted that he had voted to place this item
on the ballot with the understanding that between the County, the
McKee Jungle Gardens Preservation Society, and Grover Fletcher,
every effort would be made to properly educate the voters prior
to the referendum about not only the cost of the acquisition of
the property but the estimated costs on the restoration of the
Gardens and the annual maintenance. He asked if we have a handle
on those numbers yet and is there going to be an attempt made to
somehow disseminate that information to the public.
Administrator Chandler reported that staff has developed the
figures, but there is a little difference of philosophy in terms
of how the Gardens would be operated. If the County were to
operate it, we see it basically as a passive type area with
paths, benches, etc., and therefore, we are looking at an annual
operating expense of about $70,000 for upkeep and maintenance.
Likewise, we would be looking at some expense on the front end,
some within the first year and some within the second or third
year, for basic improvements to the property such as a parking
lot, restrooms, etc. In the first year there would be some
expenses for some select clearing and cleaning just to make it a
manageable, usable park. We are estimating a one-time startup
shot of $99,000 in the first year, in addition to annual
expenses. The Society has a startup expense in the first year
of about $45,000, and $47,000 in the second year. The difference
is that the Society is relying heavily on donations of materials
.and/or personnel
to help in the clearing.
If the Society
were to
A U G >- 989
3
y t
,,AUG 2 2 6989 "7 F,H,t
697
operate it, they would be looking to go a little bit further than
what the County had envisioned in terms of restoring and
utilizing the existing structures. He believed their basic
operating expenses, as they see the project, would run about
$40,000 to $50,000 in the first year and about $70,000 in the
second year. He felt it is very important to discuss our intent
prior to the referendum as to whether the County or the Society
will operate the Gardens.
Commissioner Bird believed that most people envision the
Gardens as they were some years ago, and if we are talking about
just going in there and clearing paths, some people would be
disappointed in just taking a walk through there after voting to
spend $2.5 million. He felt that some of the color would have to
be put back in there to help make it what it used to be.
Administrator Chandler emphasized that if the County was to
restore those buildings and bring back the color to the gardens,
the cost would be considerably higher than what we have proposed
here.
Commissioner Eggert understood that the Society is saying
that with restoration, not just cleanup, and with the volunteer
labor and with donations, they still feel that $45,000 one year
and $47,000 the second year will go a long way toward returning
it to what the Commissioners and the public knew as McKee Jungle
Gardens.
Grover Fletcher, President of the McKee Jungle Gardens
Preservation Society, stated that the $45,000 and $47,000 figures
are correct. Basically, their plan is to open it up so that
people can see it, and they can put the color back by using
donations of flowers and plants from the garden clubs and asso-
ciations. They will turn on the water and open up the streams,
and put the water lilies back. He agreed that if you go through
there now, it looks like 20 acres of woods, but there remains the
underlying architectural site plan that was done by a
professional landscape architect. The Society has been told by
32
s � �
their legal people that they really need to cover their tax
exempt status and be very careful about how they present the
question to the public in terms of what their intent is for the
Gardens. Otherwise, they would have to register as a political
lobbyist group.
Commissioner Bird felt that somehow between now and November
7th, we need to paint in the minds of the voters an approximate
picture of what we hope these gardens will be restored to and
what that cost will be, and what the maintenance costs will be.
He believed that if we do that, it has every chance of
succeeding.
Mr. Fletcher invited the Commissioners to come down and see
the full-scale model of the Gardens at their headquarters in
Luria's Plaza. Two hundred people attended their grand opening
last week and donated $600.
Administrator Chandler agreed that we should develop some
sense of direction well in advance of the referendum in terms of
whether the Gardens would be operated by the County or the
Society.
Commissioner Eggert asked if we can enter into a 2 or 3 year
operating agreement with the Society with an option to renew and
see how it goes.
Administrator Chandler felt that could be done, but he
didn't know if it needed to be done prior to the referendum.
Quite frankly, if we are looking at it in terms of what the
Commission has expressed, he felt the Society has a better
ability to do it than the County has. His whole question has
been from day one as he has gotten into it with them, is their
ability to generate and to sustain those funds. That is why he
did the simple calculation that if they can achieve 200 of what
they initially presented to him, he would feel comfortable that
they can do it.
Commissioner Bird stated that it certainly would.be his
preference at this point that the County somehow lease this
33
"7 E�
AUG 22 1989 BOOK /f'A �'"
�
U G 2 2 1989 Boos �/ F,�r,�6,5-1
facility back to the Society after its acquisition and have them
be forever responsible for its restoration, maintenance and
operation, and hopefully it will never fall back on the County's
shoulders.
Mr. Fletcher reported that since their inception, the
Society has collected approximately $45,000and currently has
$14,000 remaining to expend. That is where they are
economically.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if the appraisals reflected the
value in utility capacities reserved for those properties, and
Administrator Chandler explained that both appraisals included
figures based on what the determination was on whether there had
been a commitment on that capacity. The appraisers indicated
that their final figures would be lower, if, in fact, the utility
capacity commitment had not been made.
Commissioner Scurlock recalled that when we negotiated the
purchase of those facilities, we made a commitment that we would
serve that property, and, in fact, had that capacity available.
You can go back on the record and find out the square footage and
densities that were proposed in those presentations to the
Commission, and see that those capacities were available. You
can associate that back to the equivalent residential
requirements and come up with a value, which he understood is
somewhere around $400,000. Since there is'a difference between
the general fund and the utilities enterprise fund, and if there
is a value there, and if it is released back to Utilities, he
would hope that an appropriate compensation takes place.
Commissioner Bird was concerned about access to the 15 acres
via U.S. #1, and hoped that is our intention because he didn't
want to get into that battle again about sharing the entrance
road of Vista Gardens and crossing their entrance road from
Indian River Boulevard. He hoped that we have got the legal
ability to create an entranceway and the proper turning lanes or
whatever we need to do on U.S. #1 to get into this project. The
other part of the purchase that concerned him is public access to
34
the wetlands. He asked if the purchase agreement assures us of
public access to these wetlands.
Administrator Chandler agreed we need to double check on
that, but when he got into this earlier, he was advised that we
have acquisition to those wetlands through the easement of
right-of-way that runs adjacent to the McKee property onto the
east.
Commissioner Bird wanted our legal staff to look at that and
make sure that access is for public access.
Attorney Vitunac suggested that we write an amendment to
this contract now that requires Mr. Ewing to give us public
access to all the parcels we are buying. If the Board will allow
him to add some language to the contract to that effect, we will
send the contract back to Mr. Ewing to initial that wording. He
didn't feel that should be a problem.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if a Motion is needed to approve
that addition to the contract, and Attorney Vitunac explained
that this is a public hearing; we have proof of publication; the
appraisals have been on file for 30 days to give the public the
right to see if we are paying too much or too little for this
property; and they have a right now to come to the podium and
talk about it.
Chairman Wheeler opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Jim Haeger of Garden Grove on south U.S. #1 felt that there
is going to be a lot more work than just opening up the trails.
The Society plans to have some greenhouses, and one person has
offered to grow orchids there and put the orchids back in the
trees. They will have the pools open and put back the water
lilies, and have all kinds of colorful flowers and they will be
adding more native plants to the area. They also plan to teach
the school children and have classes on native plants and other
horticultural subjects. There will be some other buildings
35 NOOK 77�',� E tV
AUG 22 19on
AUG 2 2 1999 �ooK F,oE0.
eventually besides the two existing buildings which are the Hall
of Giants and the Spanish Kitchen. They will have an entrance
building and facilities in that for exhibits and things like
that.
Mr. Haeger advised that there are at least two or 3 artesian
wells which will be used to keep the water in the little ponds
along the entrance to the gardens and the little streams that run
along the trails. There are also places for waterfalls, and all
that rock work is still there. Mr. Haeger felt they probably
would need some sort of irrigating system to water the plants
when they are first planted, but the moisture is very good in
there and it probably won't take much.
There being no others who wished to be heard, Chairman
Wheeler closed the Public Hearing.
Attorney Vitunac read aloud from the Standard for Real
Estate Transactions which is part of the purchase agreement:
Item #E - "Ingress & Egress Seller warrants and represents that
there is ingress and egress to the Real Property sufficient for
the intended use as described in Paragraph VII hereof title to
which is in accordance with Standard A."
Commissioner Bird wanted more assurance than that, and
Attorney Vitunac recommended the wording in the following Motion.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board ratify the contract
as already signed by Administrator James Chandler with
the addition of amendment regarding the right to public
access to all the parcels the County is buying.
Under discussion, Commissioner Scurlock stated for the
record that he felt we are paying too much for these properties,
but emphasized that this was no reflection on the negotiations by
Administrator Chandler who had to work within very tight
parameters.
W
He felt this price is far in excess of what the properties are
worth, and had a problem with that as he believed we could have
taken a better approach.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
CONTRACT FOR SALE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
McKEE JUNGLE GARDENS BOND REFERENDUM
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/16/89:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: C�-rles P. Vi u a ounty Attorney
DATE: August 16, 1989
SUBJECT: McKee Jungle Gardens Bond Referendum
If the Board ratifies the contract entered into between
Vista Properties of Vero Beach, Inc. and the County
Administrator for the purchase of McKee Jungle Gardens, I
would request that the Board review the proposed bond
referendum language of this memo and, if acceptable, I will
present a formal bond resolution at the next Board meeting.
SHALL INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED TO
ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OR NOTES OF
THE COUNTY IN AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING
$ , FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE McKEE
JUNGLE DANS, OF APPROXIMATELY ACRES,
AND NEARBY OR ASSOCIATEU-TWETLAND
=
PARCELS,—UF APPROXIMATELY ACRES, WITH
ANY SUCH BONDS OR NOTES TOBE-. REPA I D FROM AD
VALOREM TAXES WITHIN YEARS AT AN
INTEREST RATE NOT EXCEEDTRC-TAE LEGAL RATE?
Attorney Vitunac went over the suggested wording for the
bond referendum, explaining that blanks were left for the dollar,
amount, number of acres, and number of years for the interest to
be paid. The final wording will come back to the Board at the
next meeting. For the $
[Ih
AUG 2 2 b8b
OMB Director Joe Baird has
AUG
22 1989
RooK ! ,-� FgcE lIj
come up with $2.9 million.
The acreage is left blank
to make
sure that the surveyors get it exactly, and the number of nearby
wetland acres will be inserted at that time also. The number of
years has been left blank also. If the Board is interested in
just a one-year millage rate, there won't be any bonds at all.
The only financing would be an internal borrowing which the OMB
Director would do from some funds or even a bank note for less
than one year. The County wouldn't have a bond issue; we might
have a simple note. However, for the purpose of the bond
referendum, we could insert within 3 to 40 years or whatever the
Board prefers, and keep our options wide open. Or, if the Board
desires, we can limit our options right now by this type of
language.
Grover Fletcher, President of the McKee Jungle Gardens
Preservation Society, believed that it is the public's perception
at this point that this will be a one-time levy, and didn't feel
we should shift from that position now.
Commissioner Scurlock explained that we would not be
shifting; it still would be a borrowing at a local bank instead
of a bond issue for one year.
out for a bond issue.
It would cost us more if we went
Administrator Chandler felt the point needs to be clarified
that it would be a one-time levy to cover that expense regardless
of the manner in which we finance it, whether it be through a
bank, private placement, or whatever.
Commissioner Bird understood then that whatever millage is
required will fall in one tax year and is not to exceed $2.9
million.
Commissioner Eggert understood that we would go out and
borrow next year in 1989-90 to pay for this purchase, if it is
approved, and then the tax bill for 1990-91 would show all the
millage required.
38
_I
OMB Director Joe Baird emphasized that although the one-time
levy will be only for one year, we may have to have a bond issue
in excess of one year because of the timing difference.
Supervisor of Elections Ann Robinson advised that in order
to make an exception of the 90 -day notice for the election for
the County Commission, she went ahead after talking to the
Chairman and the County Administrator, who indicated that they
wanted to have the county election on November 7, 1989, and sent
out notices to get sealed bids for the purchase of 30,000 ballot
cards. She sent the letter out in July, asking that the bids be
returned today. She and Chairman Scurlock opened them this
morning, and she needs the Board's approval to make that purchase
since the ballots must be in 60 days before the election. Three
bids were received for 30,000 official ballot cards: Pace
Williams bid $54 a thousand; Business Records bid $79.55 a
thousand; and Sequoia Pacific bid $99.61. She recommended that
the Board approve the purchase of the ballots from Pace Williams
at $54 a thousand at a total cost of $1,620.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board authorize the
purchase of 30,000 ballot cards from Pace Williams at
$54 per thousand cards for a total cost of $1,620.
Under discussion, Supervisor Robinson advised that we would
be using our regular punch card voting equipment, and
Commissioner Eggert noted that we also have to approve the cost
of the election.
Supervisor Robinson advised that there are several things
that need to be approved, but she wanted to go ahead and get this
out of the way. Ordinarily, she doesn't go through the Board for
the purchase of the ballots, but to be excessively cautious this
year since we had a tremendous amount of discussion over the
proposed Voter Protection Act Bill, she felt she would go ahead
39
AUG 2 21989 BOOK �(j
7 i -AGE 70 t
I
_I
Q U G 2 2 1989
BOOK 77
705
and ask
the Board to approve the purchase of the ballots.
She
further explained that the minimum that requires bids, as of
January 1, 1990, will go up to $3,000, but right now it is
$1,000.
Chairman Wheeler asked if the proposed $27,000 for the cost
of the election included the $1,620 for the purchase of the
ballots, and Supervisor Robinson stated that the $27,000 would
cover all the costs for the election. She explained that she
came to the Board today to get specific approval to purchase the
ballot cards just to be safe, because there is some confusion
about whether only a governing body can purchase ballot cards or
whether Supervisors of Elections can make the purchase.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
In discussing the wording of the language on the ballot,
Supervisor Robinson advised that it is important to her for the
Board to specify whether this is a millage election or a bond
referendum. For a bond referendum, they are only required to
have a minimum of 4 poll workers at a polling place, but in any
other type of election, they must have a minimum of 5 workers.
Attorney Vitunac confirmed that this is a bond referendum.
The Board indicated that they would not have any objections
if a municipality wanted to join in the November election since
it would reduce the County's costs somewhat.
Supervisor Robinson advised that she needed two other things
from the Board today: 1) The official date of the election, and
2) The budgeting of $27,000 so we can get underway for the
election.
Attorney Vitunac advised that he would bring back the exact
wording for the ballot for the Board's approval.
40
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the date of November 7, 1989 for the bond referendum,
and approved Budget Amendment #093 in an amount not to
exceed $27,000 for the election costs.
T'0: RIeuObers of the Board
of County Commivsioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
0144 Director
dx-
SUE-JECT: BUDGET A14EN NT
NUMBER: 093
DATE: August 21., 1989
Jn ry
dumber
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
� Increase
Decrease
i.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Supervisor of
Elections S ecial Elections
001-700-51.9-036.74
927 000.00
S 0
GENERAL FUND
Reserve for Contingency
001-700-581.-0 9.91.j1
0
527,000.00
1
-
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT RADIOLOGICAL AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/1/89:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: James Chandler DATE: August 1, 1989
County Adminis` trator
THRU: Doug WrighC DDirjector
Emergency Management Services
SUBJECT: Approval of FY 89-90 Radiological
Emergency Preparedness Agreement
(FP&L Contract)
FROM: John W. King, Deputy Director T14 -
Emergency Management Services
--------------------------
----------------- -----------------------
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its
next regular scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Each year representatives from Indian River County Emergency
Management Services, Florida Power and Light, and the Florida
Department of Community Affairs negotiate the Radiological Emergency
Preparedness Agreement. The agreement is predicated on
responsibilities defined by the US Nuclear Regulitory Commission in
Rule 10 CFR Parts 50 and 70, and NUREG 0654, FEMA -+REP -1, Revision 2.
During the referenced negotiations on June•.30, 1989, an agreement
was reached wherein Indian River County" -will receive $36,755 in
funds to enable the County to carry out its responsibilities as
provided in the above referenced authorities.
AUG 72, 2 1989 41 BOOK�E
AUG 2 2 1989 �,�
PA
Bou .7 7 .. E.70 7
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The agreement binds the County to participation in the following
radiological emergency planning and preparedness activities:
1. Maintenance of local radiological emergency plans
and implementing procedures;
2. The requisite personnel will complete required radio-
logical emergency training;
3. Participate as required in exercises and evaluation
of exercises;
4. Continued and further radiological emergency planning
as required by the above regulations and "Florida's
Radiological Emergency Management Plan for Nuclear
Power Plants".
The activities required have been on-going for several years. Also
included in this budget year is fifteen percent (15%) of the total
salary and benefits of the Emergency Management Services Director,
Deputy Director, and the Administrative Secretary II position. The
sum negotiated this year represents an increase of $1,826 over the
previous year.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the FY 89-90 Radiological Emergency
Preparedness Agreement and requests the Board of County
Commissioners authorize the Chairman to execute the appropriate
documents to secure the funding of $36,755 as proposed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the FY 89-90 Radiological Emergency Preparedness
Agreement as set out in the above staff recommendation.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
L'l4
ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/10/89:
DATE: AUGUST 10, 1989
TO: JAMES CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVI PS
FROM: LYNN WILLIAMS
PROJECT _
MAIN LI Y
SUBJECT: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached Supplemental Authorization, represents a minor
change to Architects Master Contract' for design of the Indian
River County Main Library executed December 22, 1988. The fee of
$700 is requested for the additional structural design and
documents required to bid as an alternate, a change to the multi-
purpose meeting room roof structure. This alternate will allow
development of the roof area as an outdoor reading/study area.
It is projected that funding for this alternate will be provided
by the Lowenstein Memorial fund.
All design plans and specifications will be prepared :%ii such a
way so as to allow identification of all costs associated with
the alternate.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Basic compensation for all Architectural services under the
Master Agreement is fixed at $189,260.00. The Supplemental
services ($700.00), will increase the total amount of the
contract to $189,960.00.
RECOMMENDATION AND FINDING;
Staff recommends approval of the Supplemental Authorization
increasing the Compensation to Dow, Howell, Gilmore & Associates
by $700, for the design required by the alternate roof
structure on the multi-purpose meeting room.
Sufficient funding is available with the Main Library
Construction Budget for this expenditure.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
the Supplemental Authorization as set out in the above
staff recommendation.
AUTHORIZATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
43J s�'
AUG 22 1989 BOOK I '! E" � 70
AUG
2 2
BOOK
7 1 PAf,r 711
CONCEPTUAL AGREEMENT TO
ELIMINATE TRACKING STATION PARK
FROM
PROPOSED BEACH_ RESTORATION PROJECT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/14/89:
City of Vero Beach
1053 -20th PLACE - P.O. BOX 1389
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA - 32961 - 1389
OFFICE OF THE Telephone: (407) 567-5151
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING
August 14, 1989 ��0,111213��j�
c0
10
Jim Davis U'):::. �. 98,0
Director of Public Works ..�'F...
Indian River County N
1840 - 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
L ,, 915;
RE: Conceptual Agreement To Eliminate Tracking Station Park om
Proposed Beach Restoration Project.
Dear Mr. avis:
The purpose of this memo is to present the rational' for reducing the size
of a proposed beach restoration project.
The Vero Beach Ad Hoc Beach Advisory Committee has been investigating
various methods that may be used in a project to control the erosion of
beaches and dunes. In addition to restoring the dune, the committee is
concerned in protecting and enhancing the marine habitat. A specific
decision has not been made, but an idea that has been informally mentioned
Is to reduce the width and length of the proposed nourishment project.
The committee has been investigating methods to reduce the width by using
breakwaters or submerged reefs in conjunction with a nourishment project.
In addition to eliminating 2,000 feet at the south end to protect the Riomar
Reef, a suggestion has been made to eliminate approximately 2,400 feet on
the north end.
44
By reducing the project from 14,000 feet to 9,600 feet, the "footprint" of
'
the proposed. project would be reduced approximately 30 percent. The
9,600 feet would protect the historically, badly eroded beach from Ocean
Gate Condominium to the Gables Condominium.
Request an item be placed on the County Commission Agenda for August 22,
1989, for the purpose of obtaining conceptual approval of the County
Commission to ask the Jacksonville district Corps of Engineers to investigate
the advisability of this concept. In addition to requesting an evaluation on
the affect on the marine habitat, The Corps of Engineers will be asked to
Investigate costs and benefits of this pian. Specifically the engineers will
be asked to comment on whether a shortened project will be beneficial or
detrimental to the Tracking Station Park. Will the park accrete as a result
of the end losses of a nearby nourished beach, or will the nourished beach
cause excessive erosion of the park, particularly during Northeastern
storms. ?
44
Within the next six weeks, the Corps of Engineers is expected to have
completed an analysis of the Vero Beach project and would have presented
its recommendation to the Ad Hoc Beach Advisory Committee. The
committee will then decide on a specific method, and make its
recommendation to the City Council. At that time the E'ounty Commission
would be officially notified of the revised erosion control project and
requested to concur in the revised project.
Sincerely,
4aG rge .Gross, P.E.
stal Resources Mgr.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the elimination of the Tracking Station Park from
the proposed beach restoration project, as recommended
by George Gross, Coastal Resources Manager of the City
of Vero Beach.
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT OSLO ROAD/OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY FOR
SOUTH VERO SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/11/89:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W'. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: David B. Cox, P. E. lac -
Acting Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Intersection Improvements at Oslo Road/Old Dixic
Highway for South Vero Square Shopping Center
DATE: August 11, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On May 23, 1989, the Board of County Commissioners approved
funding a joint project between the County and Deckinger
Properties, the developer of South Vero Square Shopping Center,
to design five lane widening improvements along Oslo Road from
500 feet west of Old Dixie Highway to US 1.
AUG 22 1989 r<'l
45 EOOK l� � Fll�"'J_iu"
L
AUG 2 2
BOOK I PAGE 71
At this time, the developer anticipates requestinty a Certificate
of Occupancy for the center's Publix grocery store by September
1,1989. The design for the Oslo widening..has been started with
completion pending right-of-way acquisition. Staff is currently
working with the Helseth family to resolve right-of-way and
design issues.
The capacity of the Oslo/Old Dixie intersection needs improvement
in order to provide adequate traffic control prior to completion
of the widening project.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Implement a temporary four-way stop at the intersection.
The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices makes this
interim measure available where a signal is warranted, and
urgently needed, until a signal can be installed. A
four-way stop was installed in a similar situation at the
Old Dixie/4th Street intersection when the Wal-Mart store
opened in 1987.
The stopping sight distance for vehicles eastbound on Oslo
Road will warrant two preliminary advance notification
signs.
Alternative No. 2
The developer would provide and install a traffic signal
prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy. This
signal would have to be modified when intersection widening
improvements are conducted.
RECOMMENDATION
Alternative No. 1 is recommended. Adequate stopping sight
distance is available on Oslo Road(see attached letter). A
flashing beacon is already in use which can easily be changed to
red lenses for traffic on Oslo Road.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissi-oner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation of Alternative No. 1 as set out
the above memo.
CONTRACT TO PURCHASE LOTS 9 & 10 IN BOOKER TO WASHINGTON ADDITION
FOR IRC ADMINISTRATION BUILDING/HEALTH DEPARTMENT AREA
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/16/89:
46
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,.
Public Works Director v
SUBJECT: Contract to Purchase Lots 9 and 10, Block 7, Booker T.
Washington Addition - Indian River County
Administration Building/Health Department Area
DATE: August 16, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Staff has been negotiating with the property owner, Brenda Sue
McWilliams, for the County to purchase lots 9 and 10, Booker T.
Washington Addition Subdivision. This property is located at the
southeast corner of 27th Street and 18th Avenue which is
contiguous to current county owned property located north of the
County Administration Building (see attached sketch).
Initially, the property was offered to the County for $50,000.
The lots are 501 x 125' each, for a total of 12,500 SF. Recent
appraisals in the area (Armfield and Wagner Appraisers and Osteen
Appraisers) indicate that the property in this area is valued at
$3.68/SF. The original offer to the County was $4/SF. Staff has
negotiated the contract price down to $46,000 which equates to
$3.68/SF.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative 1
Purchase the two lots for $46,000. Funding to be from
Optional One Cent Sales Tax Revenue. Closing to be after
Oct. 1, 1989.
Alternative 2
Indicate to the seller that the County does not wish to
purchase the land.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the County purchase the two lots for
$46,000. Funding to be from One Cent Optional Sales Tax.
AUG 2 2 1989
47 6QGK �� (� f'.VE�l�
L
AUG 22 1989- OOK
B 77
7
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the contract for sale and purchase of Lots 9 and 10,
Block 7, Booker T. Washington Addition for the total
amount of $46,000, and authorized the Chairman's
signature. Funding to be from the One Cent Optional
Sales Tax.ul) LJ
!-5 &
6,4,114 CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE D ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
PURCHASE OF SEWER LATERAL MARKER LOCATOR FOR GIFFORD SEWER
PROJECT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/11/89:
DATE: AUGUST 11, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SE� I
SUBJECT: SEWER LATERAL MARKER LOCATOR FOR THE
GIFFORD SEWER PROJECT
IRC PROJECT NO. US -85 -07 -CCS
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: JOHN FREDERICK LANG
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIA IST
DEPARTMENT OF UTILIT SERVICES
BACKGROUND
The Gifford Sewer Project employed ScotchMark Markers, a 3M product,
to delineate the end of each sewer lateral. The markers require a
special locator for detection purposes. Two brands of locators were
obtained for testing.
ANALYSIS
The 3M locator is the less expensive of the two and performed best
in our tests.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the purchase of a 3M locator for a
price of $650.00. The funding for this acquisition is to come from
the Contingency Fund for the Gifford Sewer Project.
48
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
the purchase of a 3M locator for a price of $650, as
recommended by staff.
GIFFORD AREA SEWER PROJECT - CONTRACT #2 - EFFLUENT DISPOSAL -
CHANGE ORDER #3 AND FINAL PAYMENT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/14/89:
DATE: AUGUST 14, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTILI E VICES
SUBJECT: GIFFORD AREA SEWER PROJECT
IRC PROJECT #US -85 -08 -ED .
CONTRACT #2 - EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
CHANGE ORDER #3 AND FINAL PA TENT
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: ERNESTINE W. WILLIAMS
MANAGER OF PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
On October 1, 1987, Indian River County contracted for the
construction of approximately 4,550 linear feet of 16" diameter iron
pipe reclaimed water force main, approximately 1,700 linear feet of
8" diameter PVC reclaimed water force main, four (4) water quality
monitor wells, two (2) subaqueous canal crossings, valves,
appurtenances, complete restoration, and general site work, complete
r�. and ready for operation.
The work covered under Contract #2 has now been completed. However,
upon completion, the contract came in less than estimated.
'Therefore, we are requesting a decrease in contract price of
$17,756.00, as indicated in attached Change Order #3. The revised
%contract price becomes $452,689.00. Final payment due to contractor
is $23,762.95.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the figures and find them to be in order and the
work performed has been satisfactorily accepted.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that
Change Order #3 for a reduction in contract price of $17,756.00 be
"= approved and that final payment of $23,762.95 be paid to the
contractor per the engineer's certification.
AUG 2 1989 49 BOOK r .� F,Au 1 '
AUG 2 (`3 1989 pooK 77 f',cE 715
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order #3, as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
CHANGE ORDER #3 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA
FOR OVERSIZING OF WATER LINE
The Board reviewed -the following memo dated 8/8/89:
DATE: AUGUST 81 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRA OR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTILT%)r SERVICES
SUBJECT: DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA
IRC PROJECT NO. CDS-318
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: SCOTT C. DOSCHER
-PRIVATE PROJECTS ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
First Union National Bank of Florida is oversizing a water line on
the south side of State Road 60, across the frontage of the subject
property.
ANALYSIS
'.The project requires 163' of 8" water line.1,"*The County requires a
12" water line aser our Master Plan. The Count wishes to
P Y
compensate First Union National Bank of Florida for oversizing of
the line from 8" to 1211, in the standard amount of $2.00 per inch of
oversizing per foot of line, which is calculated as follows:
($2.00 per inch of oversizing) (4" of oversizing) (163' of line)
_ $1,304.00
First Union National Bank of Florida shall be reimbursed with 50
percent of all impact fees paid for the subject property, not to
exceed the total allowed reimbursement of $1,304.00.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached Developer's Agreement with
First Union National Bank of Florida.
50
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved the Developer's Agreement with First
National Bank of Florida, as recommended by
staff.
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH WINDSOR POLO 8 BEACH CLUB AND ORCHID
ISLAND GOLF AND BEACH CLUB
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/3/89:
DATE: AUGUST 3, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM: TERRANCE G. PIN O
DIRECTOR OF UTI ERVICES
SUBJECT: DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, WINDSOR POLO AND BEACH CLUB AND
ORCHID ISLAND GOLF*AND BEACH CLUB
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: WILLIAM F. MICA
PROJECTS ENGINE
DEPARTMENT OF UT ITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
The Polo Club has extended off-site utilities on State Road A -1-A
from the Polo Club site to our existing water line just South of the
intersection of A -1-A and Rt. 510. They also constructed and
oversized a looping line from A -1-A to Jungle Trail on Rt. 510.
The utilities have been oversized to serve the regional area.
Indian River County Utilities wishes to reimburse;..:Polo and Orchid
thru impact fees credit for the cost of oversizing.
ANALYSIS
A detailed analysis is listed on the attached Agreement. The totals
are as follows:
Total line cost: $419,599.04
Total credit for line oversizing $111,559.20
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the aforementioned Developers
Agreement.
AUG 2 `669 51 BOOK � � Fa,t �. u
Fr- I
AUG 2 2 1989 BooK .7..7
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Developers Agreement with the Windsor Polo and
Beach Club and the Town of Orchid.
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
FINAL CHANGE ORDER AND PAY REQUEST - KINGS HIGHWAY AND LINDSEY
ROAD CONTRACT #1
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/10/89:
DATE: AUGUST 10, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
T1iRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
STAFFED
AND
PREPARED BY: WILLIAM F. McCAIN
CAPITAL PROJECTS EN EER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: FINAL CHANGE ORDER AND PAY REQUEST
KING'S HIGHWAY AND LINDSEY ROAD CONTRACT #1
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. WW -87 -22 -DS
i
BACKGROUND
We have received all releases of liens from KeXtova Construction
Company's subcontractors, certification from the engineer, clearance
from the Department of Environmental Regulation, and as -built
drawings. We now wish to make final payment on this contract.
ANALYSIS
Due to adjustments in the quantities of materials used (see attached
change order), the contract price has been lowered. The original
contract price of $1,226,210.90 has been revised to a new contract
Price of $1,184,925.42; a difference of $41,285.48. The final pay
request is in the amount of $118,492.54.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve change order No. 1 and Kenova
Construction Company's final pay request.
52
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved Change Order No. #1 and Kenova Construction
Company's final pay request, as recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER #1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST FOR SOUTH COUNTY R.O. PLANT EXPANSION
PROJECT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/9/89:
DATE: AUGUST 9, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO1��
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERV CJES
SUBJECT: FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY
R.O. PYsaNT EXPANSION PROJECT
IRC PROJECT NO. L714 -88 -01 -WC
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: WILLIAM F. McCAIN
CAPITAL PROJECTS ENER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
On Tuesday, July 25, 1989, the Board of County Commissioners
approved the final Change Order for this project. We have secured
Release of Liens and the required Maintenance Bonds from the general
contractor (Butler Construction), and we.now wish to make final
payment on this work.
ANALYSIS
yr
The original contract price is $1,154,115.00. There were two
subsequent Change Orders that were approved by the Board of County
Commissioners totaling $151,584.50, making the total contract
$1,305,699.50. The Maintenance Bond for this contract has been set
at $918,799.50, which is the final contract price minus the cost of
the Crom storage tank, on which we have a (5) five year warranty
from Crom. The final payment due the contractor is $107,106•.50.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve Butler Construction's final
payment request.
53
,AUG 2 COOK % I F';,iUL �.
r+ry
BOOK FACE
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the final payment request from Butler Construction,
as recommended by staff.
FINAL PAYMENT STATEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FROM FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 8/8/89:
ROBERT JJACHSON, P. A. r I1
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2165 15TH AVENUE
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960Le:[;
(407) 567-4355 C ;• `
BOARD CERTIFIED `c:
ESTATE PLANNING AND R-7Fn$•(Air (7� ORNEY
PROBATE ATTORNEY
August 81 1989
Charles Vitunac, Esq.
County Attorney
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street'.
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Re: First Baptist Church/Harry Hurst properties
Dear Charlie:
At a Building Committee meeting of the First Baptist Church last
week, we were told that Harry Hurst, who owns the property across
from the Sunday- School building, has raised his price to
$175,000. He originally wanted $110,000, then $125,000 for his
property. Because of this increase, it does not look as though
it will be a viable option for the church for the County to"
condemn his property.
Please confirm that no action has been taken by the County as of
this time, and that if the County desires to purchase the old
church property, it will get back in touch.
Very truly yours,
J
Robert Jackson
RJ:bbs
cc: Mr. Ron Selph
Chairman, Bldg. Committee
54
Attorney Vitunac explained that he would like to offer a
plain contract to First Baptist Church in the amount of $175,000
for the County to purchase Lots 12, 13, and 14 in Block 36 where
the old sanctuary was located.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, that the Board authorize
the County Attorney to make an offer of $175,000 to
First Baptist Church to purchase Lots 12, 13, and 14 in
Block 36.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird asked what these 3 lots
would be used for, and Commissioner Eggert advised that the
property would be used for the downtown complex.
Administrator Chandler believed we would need that property,
but he could not be sure until we see what the master plan calls
for.
Attorney Vitunac felt we should purchase that property
while we can.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried by a vote of 4-1, Commissioner
Bird dissenting.
SCHEDULING OF HEARINGS FOR PAAB APPEALS
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously scheduled
the hearings for the PAAB appeals at 9:00 o'clock A.M.
on September 11, 1989 and September 13, 1989.
55
AUG 2 2
�� � 600K i 7 P,�UL
— 7� �
'' 4
BOOK i F'�i11 721
MARINE CONSERVATION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/11/89:
t;
Center for Marine Conservation olFT^I9UT;o.v LIST
Formerly Center for Environmental Education, Est. 1972
AU -4;n: watur
1213 11, 1989
Honorable Gary C. Wheeler i� Per=•��j;,el
Board of County Commissioners ^� �.,;� >; Pu' :- Works
Administration Building co vU 1389 � Ceill:numty Lxv. � +
1840 25th St.R CF ut iitlos -
Vero Beach FL 32960 cr: BagRD �V�D �`
�.cOh4,�sSt
ON r� f Qer�@ +pjyje55 -
Dear Commissioner Wheeler,
I am writing to request your �sugZ or important state legislation
to protect the sea turtles nesting and foraging in Florida. For more than
a decade all species of sea turtles have been protected under the
Endangered Species Act and Florida state law. Despite this protection, our
sea turtle populations continue to decline.
The gravest threat to sea turtles in U.S. waters is the incidental
capture and drowning of thousands of animals each year. The National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) estimates that 48,000 sea turtles are
caught annually in shrimp trawls; of the animals captured, more than 11,000
drown. Fortunately, there is a technological solution to this problem.
Special net inserts, known as Turtle Excluder Devices or TEDs, allow
entrapped animals to escape without causing a loss in shrimp catch. TEDs
also eliminate up to 70 percent of the finfish byeatch (in the Gulf of
Mexico shrimpers discard 9-20 pounds of finfish for every pound of shrimp
landed).
The use of TEDs in federal waters has been reviewed by the executive,
legislative and judical branches of government for the last several years,
and the regulations were scheduled to go into effect on May 1, 1989.
However, recent actions by the Department of Commerce have delayed their
mandatory use.
On Tuesday August 8 Governor Martinez and the Cabinet adopted
emergency regulations requiring TEDs in all state waters at all times of
the year. The vote to make the regulations permanent is scheduled for
early September. I am writing to you now to request that your County
Commission pass a resolution in support of these regulations before that
time. Your endorsement is needed and would be very appreciated by
concerned citizens and sea turtle conservationists alike. A copy of the
draft regulations and a suggested resolution format are enclosed.
Please call Dr. Ed Proffitt at our office in St. Petersburg (813-895-
2188, 895-3248) or me if you have any questions or if you would like to
discuss this matter further. On behalf of the turtles, Thank you!
S cere y,,
Maryd le Donnelly, Director
Sea Turtle Rescue Fund
172 5 DeSales Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)429-5609 Telefax (202)872-0619 ,
r
t.I printed on recvcied paper
Chairman Wheeler proposed that the Board adopt a resolution
in support of the use of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs).
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 89-81, a resolution to the Governor
and the Legislature of the State of Florida in support
of the use of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs).
RESOLUTION NO. 89-81
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO THE GOVERNOR
AND THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN
SUPPORT OF THE USE OF TURTLE EXCLUDER DEVICES
(TEDs).
WHEREAS, the State of Florida has been very involved in
efforts to conserve the sea turtles that nest on our shores
and forage in our waters; and
WHEREAS, citizens of Florida volunteer thousands of
hours throughout the state to patrol and protect nesting sea
turtles and their eggs and hatchlings; and
WHEREAS,* sea turtles are listed as endangered and
threatened species and are protected under the Endangered
Species Act and Florida State law; and
WHEREAS. the five species of sea turtles, found in
Florida waters are captured and drowned in shrimp trawls
each year; and
WHEREAS, expert government and non-government
biologists have concluded that restrictions on the time that
shrimp fishermen can keep their nets in the water (90 and
105 minute tow times)- are not enforceable and cannot prevent
the drowning of sea turtles; and
WHEREAS, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have identified the use of
Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) in shrimp nets as the only
way to prevent the drowning of sea turtles and promote the
recovery of the aforementioned species; and
WHEREAS, unprecedented numbers of the Kemp's ridley,
the world',s most endangered sea turtle, have stranded on
Florida beaches this year as a result of shrimping; and
Al 2 1989 57 B00� 1 ,E 1 '
AUG 2 2 1989 BOOK 77
f,9GE
WHEREAS, the State of Florida Marine Fisheries
Commission and the Governor and Cabinet declared an
emergency in Augqst 1989 and passed an emergency rule
requiring use of TEDs in all Florida waters; and
WHEREAS, the State of Florida Marine Fisheries
Commission has approved a permanent rule that would require
the use of TEDs and this rule is now pending approval by the
Governor and Cabinet; and
WHEREAS, it is a benefit to.. the citizens to protect
sea turtles as part of Florida's unique heritage;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS that the emergency and permanent state rules
that mandate the use of Turtle Excluder Devices are fully
supported,_and the Governor and Cabinet are urged to approve
and implement the permanent regulation with all due haste.
The foregoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner
Bowman and seconded by Commissioner Scurlock and upon being
put to a vote the vote was as follows:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the Resolution duly
passed and adopted at public meeting held 22nd day of
August, 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By–Ay—
Gary
y Gary Wheeler, Chairman
ATTEST; e—�
By
f y t Barton, Clerk
� � r
ALCOHOL, DRUG ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH BIENNIAL PLAN
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/16/89:
TO: Board of County
Commissioners
DATE: August 16, 1989 FILE:
SUBJECT: Alcohol, Drug Abuse and
Mental Health Biennial
Plan
FROM: - Carolyn R. Eggert REFERENCES:
Chairman, 9-B Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health
Using the service deficiencies found throughout Martin, St.
Lucie, Okeechobee, Indian River and Palm Beach Counties, the
Boards of the 9-A and 9-B Councils have prepared their State
mandated biennial plan. Using the State's 5 -year plan as a
guide, this plan reflects what District 9 needs to do to bring
its services up to State requirements.
The State plan is almost utopian, and money will not be available
in the next 5 years to fully implement it. Our District 9 plan
is much more realistic. However, we also.reali.ze that funds will
not be available even at this more practical level to do it all.
RECOMMENDATION: / -i r�F-/
I request that you approve this biennial Iplan.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that the date in the,rec-
ommend,ation is wrong, It should be 1989-91. She emphasized that
the approval of this plan does not commit us to any funding.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Biennial Plan for
1989-91 with the understanding that this does not
commit us to any funds.
AUG 2 2 1989 59 ROOK
L
AUG 2 2 1989
BooKl F,:�t '725
err
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:20 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
60
_ � d
Chairman