HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/5/1989Tuesday, September 5, 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,
September 5, 1989, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Gary C.
Wheeler, Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman; Richard N.
Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present
were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac,
Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB
Director; and Virginia Hargreaves,•Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Wheeler asked that a discussion on Health Insurance
be added under the County Administrator's matters as Item 8A.
Also, he asked that Item 5E. regarding the Historic Building
Survey be removed from this agenda and deferred until the October
3rd meeting.
Administrator Chandler requested that an emergency item be
added regarding Hazardous Material Cleanup Activities as Item 9
B(2) under Emergency Management.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously added and
deleted matters on today's Agenda as described above.
` % " r ; ',
SEP 5 195 BOOK
I
BOOK 17 F', '10 ED
CONSENT AGENDA
It was noted that Item E has been deferred until another
meeting.
A. Minutes of Regular Meeting of 8/1/89
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 1, 1989.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 1, 1989,
as written.
B. Minutes of Regular Meeting of 8/8/89
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 8, 1989.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 8, 1989,
as written.
C. Minutes of Special City/County Meeting of 8/8/89
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Special City/County Meeting of
August 8, 1989. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of Special City/County Meeting of August 8,
1989, as written.
2
D. Reports
The following reports were received and placed on file in
the Office of Clerk to the Board:
Florida Inland Navigational District
(1) Audit Report for FY ending 9/30/88
(2) Annual Financial Report of Units of Local
Government for 1988
(3) Annual Statement of Condition as of 9/30/88
E. Historic Building Survey for Incorporation I.R.C.
This item was deferred to a later agenda.
F. Out -of -State Travel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
out-of-state travel for Commissioners to attend
the 62nd Annual Conference, Water Pollution
Control Federation, October 15-19, San Francisco.
G. Out -of -County Travel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
out -of -county travel for Commissioners to attend
Florida Association of Counties Conference,
Sept. 27-29, Marco Island.
f
S E P 5 1959 3 ROOK
� J
I
S E P 5 1989, w.
BOOK
H. Proclamation - Industry Appreciation Week
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, industry in Indian River County is vital to
the community's economic health; and
.WHEREAS, Indian River County's existing industries are
the key to a prosperous future; and
WHEREAS, the expansion of those industries accounts for
the majority of new jobs created; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County's industries help sustain
our quality of life; and
WHEREAS, public knowledge of the contributions made by
industry is essential to maintenance of good community -industry
relationships;
NOW, -THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS of Indian River County, Florida that the week of
September 18-22, 1989 be designated as
INDUSTRY APPRECIATION WEEK
in Indian River County, and the Board urges all residents of
Indian River County to salute our industries and their employees
for their contributions to our community.
Dated this 5th day of September, 1989
4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Gary C r
heeler, Chairman
I. Proclamation - Constitution Week
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, Our Founding Fathers, in order to secure the
blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity, did
ordain and establish a Constitution for the United States of
America, and
WHEREAS, It is of the greatest import that all citizens
fully understand the provisions and principles contained in the
Constitution in order to support it, preserve it and defend it
against encroachment, and
WHEREAS, The two hundred second anniversary of the
signing of the Constitution provides a historic opportunity for
all Americans to learn about and recall achievements of our
Founders, and to reflect on the rights and privileges of
citizenship, as well as its attendant responsibilities, and
WHEREAS, The independence guaranteed to the American
people by the Constitution should be celebrated by appropriate
ceremonies and activities during Constitution Week, September 17
through 23, as designated by proclamation of the President of the
United States of America in accordance with Public Law 915;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the week of
September 17 through September 23, 1989 be designated as
CONSTITUTION WEEK
and urge all our citizens to pay ,special attention during that
week to our Federal Constitution and the advantages of American
Citizenship.
Dated this 5th day of September, 1989
5 1989
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Gary Wheeler, Chairman
BOOK FA;c 8e�.
F
ulle
.I,
BOOK
J. Proposal 89-P8 - Hand Held Meter Reading System
The Board reviewed memo from CPO Manager Mascola:
s DATE: July 27, 1989
M: BOARD OF COUNTY CLMMaSSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. -Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of G
eneral
'A
Dominick L. MaCPO Manager
Division of Purchasing
SUBJ: IRC PROPOSAL 89-P8 HAND HELD METER READING SYS!
1. BACKGROUND:
The Subject Bid for Hand Held Meter Reading System was properly
advertised and Four (4) Invitations to bid were sent out.
On Aug. 16, 1989, bids were received. Two (2) vendors submitted
proposals for the cram odity.
2. ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to
specifications. Syscon Corporation was the low bidder that
net all requirements.
3. FUNDING:
Monies for this project will came from Utilities Budget Account.
Staff recommends the Award of a Fixed Contract for $21,500.00
to the low bidder, Syscon Corp, for the subject ccamndity.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
award of Fixed Contract for a Hand Held Meter
Reading System to the low bidder, Syscon Corpora-
tion, in the amount of $21,500, as recommended by
staff and per the following Bid Tabulation:
6
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Date 18/16/89
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach. Florida 32960
PURCHASING DEPT.
BID TABULATION
��' .•a.
Submitted By Dominick L Mascots
TNwhOn.: 17051 5e7.e000
Z .•,.,,� a
PURCHASING MANAGER
.. +
Bid No.89—P8 Date Of Opening 8/16/89
Recommended Award SYSCON CORP
�LORIDP► $ 21, 500.00 Bid TitleHAND HELD METER READING SYSTEM
1. SYSCON CORPORATION
$21,500.00
3990 SHERMAN ST
=
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110
2. RADIX CORPORATION
4855 WILEY POST WAY
SALT LAKE CIMUT 84116
$22,500.00
K. Working Agreement between U.S.Soil Conservation Service
The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Dean:
DATE: AUGUST 23, 1989
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: WORKING AGREEMENT BETWEEN UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE AND
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BACKGROUND:
The United States Department
Service has informed the Indian
District that their annual grant
year. They will agree to extend
September 30, 1989. In return,
funding, as in the past.
ANALYSIS:
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
River Soil and Water Conservation
is available for the 1989-90 fiscal
the present contract, which expires
Indian River County must agree to
Part III, D of the original agreement allows for renewal each fiscal
year by the parties through an exchange of correspondence, until the
purposes of the agreement are complete.
RECOMMENDATIONS•
Staff recommends Board approval and authorization for the Chairman to
execute the letter of request.
7
SEP 5 1989
BOOK I F"3C J
SEP 5 1999 BOOK �i l PAcr 80
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Amendment to Working Agreement with the Dept. of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, and author-
ized the Chairman to execute the letter of request.
Indian River Soil and Water Conservation District
Suite 205-A - 2001 91h Avenue - Vero Beach, Florida 32960
August 21, 1989
Niles Glasgow, State Conservationist
USDA, Soil Conservation Service
Room 248
401 Southeast First Avenue
Gainesville, Florida 32601
Mr. Glasgow:
The Indian River County Board of Commissioners (the County) has
approved funds for the current conservation technician position in our
office until September 30,'1990. The Indian River Soil and Water
Conservation District Board of Supervisors (the District) wishes to renew
the current Working Agreement between the County and the United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (the Service), which
was approved by the District, following the procedure mentioned in Part
III, D of the agreement.
Sincerely,
David E. Gunter, Chairman
Indian River Soil and Water
Conservation District
The parties mentioned below agree to continue the Working Agreement between
the County and the Service until September 30, 1990.
Board of Commissioners
Indian River County
United States Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
By: By:
Title: Title:
9
This agreement was approved at an official meeting of the Indian River
Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors held the
day of , 1989.
8
AMENDMENT
to the
WORKING AGREEMENT .
Between the
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
and the
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
This amends the Working Agreement between the above parties entered into on
the 28th day of November, 1988.
IIB. The Service will -pay a maximum of $6,490 in Fiscal Year 1988-89
because the employee did not start at the beginning of the first quarter.
The maximum payment will go back to the original agree& upon amount of
$79500 in the Fiscal Year 1989-90 (October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1990).
IIIB. The County will bill the Service for $865 for the first quarter of
Fiscal Year 1988-89 and then it will increase to the original agreed upon
amount of $1,875 per quarter thereafter. '
All other provisions of the agreement will remain unchanged.
This amendment was approved at an official meeting of the Indian River Soil
and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors held the 9th day of
January, 1989.
Indian Iver Soil and Water
Cc ery tion District
r --T
avvAaGun ker, Chairman
Board oV Commission'ers
Indian River County
United States Department
of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
BY ,•rte - _ld/��r.�._�---- By: -------------------------
Chair n le;
( Approved Dale
L. Budget Amendment #095 - FEMA Grant
The Board reviewed memo from the OMB Director:
1999 9
SEP 6 1985
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: August 29, 1989
s SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT - 095
F.E.M.A. GRANT
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
BOOK % I PAGE 806
Earlier this fiscal year Joyce Johnston, Director of Welfare, obtained
a F.E.M.A. grant in the amount of $51,233.00. On July 26, 1989 the
F.E.M.A. Board of Directors notified the welfare department that the
1989 grant was increased to $57,687.00. The additional grant monies
of $6,454.00 are to be allocated as follows:
Shelter
$4,389.00
68%
Food
646.00
10%
Utilities
1,290.00
20%
Administration
139.00
2-0.-
%$6,454.00
001-000-331-066.00
$6,454.00
100%
The attached budget amendment appropriates funds in the amount of
$6,454.00.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the
attached budget amendment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment #095 as recommended by the OMB
Director:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 095
DATE: August 29. 1989
Entry
Number
Funds De artment Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
REVENUE
GENERAL FUND/Welfare
F.E.M.A. Grant
001-000-331-066.00
S 6.454.00
0
GENERAL FUND/Welfare
Office Su lies
001-211-564-035.11
S 12,19.00IS
0
.E.M.A. Disbursement 1001-211-564-037.041$6.32
.00
0
10
M. Single Streetlight at Bent_ Pine _Subdv._& 58th Avenue
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Baird:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: August 25, 1989
SUBJECT: SINGLE STREETLIGHT AT BENT PINE
SUBDIVISION AND 58TH AVENUE
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird)�
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Bent Pine Homeowner's Association is requesting the installation of
one (1) streetlight. The Florida Power and Light Engineering
Department has determined that one (1) 9,500 lumen H.P.S.V. light
should be installed. A charge of $7.00 per light per month is
recommended.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the request for a streetlight, contingent upon completion of
the following:
1. Staff will bill Bent Pine Homeowner's Association
$90.00 in advance for the cost of one streetlight
for a full year.
2. Staff will authorize the attorneys to draft a
standard single streetlight agreement between Bent
Pine Homeowner's Association and Indian River
County.
3. Authorize the County Administrator or Public Works
Director to sign the agreement between Bent Pine
Homeowner's Association and Indian River County.
4. Staff will add one (1) 9,500 lumen H.P.S.V. lights
to the Master Streetlight Agreement between Indian
River County and Florida Power and Light.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Bent Pine Homeowner's Association request
for one streetlight contingent upon the completion
of the conditions set out in staff's recommendations.
SEP 5195 PQQ fA� J
EP 5 1999 BOOK 77 P,,GE 808
N. Final Plat Approval - Waldo's Way Subdivision
The Board reviewed memo from Staff Planner Wiegers:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
.424.t 0. a
Robert M. Keats g,,
Community DevelopmeM Director
THROUGH: Stan Bolin 'AICP
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Robert E. Wiegef x-' /
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: August 4, 1989
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE WALDO'S WAY SUBDIVISION
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of September 5, 1989.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION:
Waldo's Way Subdivision is a proposed 20 lot subdivision of a ±8.8
acre parcel of land located on the north side of 5th Street S.W.;
immediately west of the Courtside Subdivision. The subject
property is zoned RS -3, Single -Family Residential (up to 3
units/acre) , and has an LD -1, Low Density Residential -1 (up to 3
units/acre) land use designation. The proposed building density
is ±2.27 units/acre.
Waldo's Way Subdivision:
Project Area: ±8.8 acres
Number of Lots: 20
Lot Sizes: .34 to .45 acres
Proposed Density: ±2.27 units/acre
At its regular meeting of January 26, 1989, the Planning and
Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval to the
subdivision. The owner, B & H Properties, is now requesting final
plat approval and has submitted the following:
1. a final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary
plat;
2. a warranty maintenance agreement covering publically dedicat-
ed improvements (roads, drainage easements, utilities, etc.);
and
3. a maintenance bond guaranteeing the warranty maintenance
agreement.
ANALYSIS:
1. Utilities: The subdivision will receive water service from
Indian River County, and the Environmental Health Department
has approved the use of individual septic systems for the
12
proposed lots. The County's Utilities Department has in-
spected and approved the utilities construction.
2. Public Works: The County's Public Works Department has
verified that all required improvements have been constructed
in accordance with the approved County Land Development
Permit and that the warranty maintenance agreement is ade-
quate.
3. County Attorney: The County Attorney's office has reviewed
and approved the submitted warranty maintenance agreement and
the maintenance bond which guarantees the agreement.
All applicable requirements regarding final plat approval have
been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval to the Waldo's Way Subdivision, and accept the
submitted warranty maintenance agreement and
maintenance bond. _
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously granted Final
Plat Approval for Waldo's Way Subdivision and accepted
the submitted warranty maintenance agreement and main-
tenance bond as recommended by staff.
COPY OF SAID AGREEMENT AND MAINTENANCE BOND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
0. Resignation from Economic Development Council
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted the
verbal resignation of Ronald Aberle from the
Economic Development Council with regret.
P. Resignation_ from Economic Development Council
The
Board reviewed the following
letter of resignation:
S E P
�9 q
1 3
r ,� C3 cp��
u1�W'�e C'At 5 ,
BOOK P4:-E8j0
FLORM �fA ;? S
C. William c
President
August 28, 1989
Mrs. Carolyn Eggert
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Carolyn:
Due to the acquisition of Florida National Bank by
First Union National Bank, I have been offered an
attractive position in the Sarasota area. Because of
this relocation, I will no longer be able to serve on
the Economic Development Council.
Please consider this my letter of resignation,
effective immediately. It has been a pleasure serving
on this Committee.
Thank you for the acceptance and support given to me
and my family. I hope that every new family moving to
this beautiful community is accorded such a warm
reception. I will always have fond memories of all
the people with whom I met and worked during the four
years I have been in Vero Beach.
Kind regards,
i
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted the
resignation of C. William Curtis, Jr., from the
Economic Development Council with regret.
Q. Release of County—Liens
The Board reviewed memo from Lea Keller of the County
Attorney's office:
14
I
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: �Cte R. Keller, County Attorney's Office
DATE: August 23, 1989
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 9/5/89
RELEASE COUNTY LIENS
I have prepared the following routine lien -related documents
and request the Board authorize the Chairman to execute
them:
State Road 60 Water Project, Tax I.D.
#09-33-39-00020-0000-00020.0,
Lot 20, Old Sugar Mill Estates, Unit Four,
In the name of JOHN PATRICK COLLINS
and TERESiTA V. COLLINS
State Road 60 Water Project, Tax I.D.
#09-33-39-00017-0000-00011.0,
Lot 11, Old Sugar Mill Estates, Unit Two
Assessment in the name of DRITENBAS
State Road 60 Water Project, Tax I.D.
#09-33-39-00021-0000-00007.0,
Lot 7, Kingswood Estates Subdivision,
In the name of MICHAEL P. SCHLITT
Lot 20 of Sunnydale Acres Subdivision,
In the name of JULIA G. SPANGLER
North County Sewer, Tax I.D.
#30-30-38-00007-0000-00012.0
In the name of DOUBLE M PROPERTIES
North County Sewer Project, Tax I.D.
#20-31-39-00001-0000-00066.0, In the name of
ROBERT L. WILSON and LULA MAE WILSON
Information on the above is on file in the County Attorney's
Office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the above listed Release of
Liens.
COPY OF SAID RELEASES ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
SEP 5 1989 15
_I
SEP 5 1989 my 77 Pr812
R. Hale Groves (Phase ii Improvements) Contracts & Security
The Board reviewed memo from Asst. County Attorney Collins:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: 0 -(—William G. Collins If - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: August 28, 1989
SUBJECT: Hale Groves - Agreement to Post Surety to
Guarantee Phase II Improvements
A site plan was approved for a new distribution complex for
Hale Groves on North U. S. 1. Hale Groves now desires a
Certificate of Occupancy so they can move out of their o I d
structure and have it demolished so that Phase 11 drainage
Improvements can be constructed. They wish to move their
computers from the old to the new building with a minimum
amount of down time for their shipping operations.
The Public Works Director has approved a temporary drainage
program which would be in place until November 1, 1989 by
which time Hale Groves will have completed the Phase II
Improvements including demolition of the old building and
construction of new stormwater management tracts,
landscaping, curb closings, new driveways and loading areas.
I have reviewed the contracts and the security posted in the
form of* a cash escrow deposit, and they are legally
sufficient.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Contract for
Construction of Required improvements and Cash Deposit and
Escrow Agreement in order to accomplish the above.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the Contract for Construc-
tion of Required Improvements, and Cash Deposit and
Escrow Agreement, as recommended by staff.
COPIES OF SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO
THE BOARD.
S. Out -of -County Travel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved out -of -
County Travel for Chairman Wheeler to attend a Meeting
16
s
of the Steering Committee for the feasibility study of
establishing a Florida Tourism Association on Thursday,
September 7, 1989, at the Tampa Airport in the offices
of the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority.
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION OF FIRE PROTECTION IN THE COUNTY
Hal Richman came before the Board to discuss the following
items:
COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER ,, 1989
Request for discussion:
1., General fire protection throughout the county/present
proposals.
2. South County Fire Chief position/north county volunteer
chiefs.
3. The assignment of paid firefighters in the north county.
I
Mr. Richman advised that he lives in Sebastian and some are
concerned over the fire protection setup due to past actions of
the Commission and one of the major proposals on hand now. He
felt that over the last few years several decisions of the
Commission have been detrimental to the fire protection system
and consequently to the citizens, and a case in point is the
South District Fire Chief's position. The Commission recently
put that position (a full time, professional, career position in
charge of a full time, professional, career, multi -staff fire
station with about 100 employees) in the same category as a part
time volunteer department in one of the North County companies.
This was done by putting it under the Emergency Management
Director's position, which was never intended to be one that
would have daily operational functions. Mr. Richman stated that
the Commission got that position into the fire service through
the back door,
so to speak, when the
Commission
decided,
and
SES
� ����
17
I��kOF
r_
i iF'4G;.
lo
SEP 5 1989 `7
BOOK l FtiGE
rightly so, that the North County fire companies needed some more
supervision. He felt that it might have been better and more
prudent for getting a single county fire department to have
allied it somehow with the South. District Chief, his staff and
fire department.
Mr. Richman continued that his group felt the Board further
compounded the problem by creating the position of North County
Training Inspector and North County Fire Inspector where again
another line was drawn between the two areas in regard to the
fire service. They believe what could have been done was a
simple contractual arrangement with the South District to provide
those two positions and the money used to pay them directly could
have been into the South District, which they feel would have
helped start tying these things together.
Chairman Wheeler asked who it is that Mr. Richman is
representing, and Mr. Richman advised that it is just a small
group of citizens.
Chairman Wheeler asked if Mr. Richman had discussed these
concerns with the County Administrator or anyone in our staff
because he felt some of the comments he is making should be
referred to staff to look into and then bring back to the Board.
Mr. Richman felt that staff is too involved in some of this.
Chairman Wheeler pointed out that currently the Board
doesn't have any information other than Mr. Richman's very brief
request to discuss these matters on general, and he would like to
have Mr. Richman's comments and complaints staffed before the
Board discusses this. If we need to reevaluate some of our
positions, then we can address that when we have more
information.
Mr. Richman commented that he would just like to ask a
question then and wished to know if it is true that the Board is
going to assign 6 paid firefighters to the North County, and is
it also true that they intend to saddle them with 6 recruits.
18
� � r
Chairman Wheeler believed that has not been determined at
this point.
Mr. Richman stated that being from the Sebastian area, that
is one of their major points. Another question is does anyone
know how they intend to assign them - are they going to have one
group of 6 or two groups of 3?
Chairman Wheeler felt these are questions that should be
asked of the Administrator and not the Board at this point.
Administrator Chandler advised that we are in the position
of recruiting for those 6 positions which are included in the
proposed budget for the upcoming year. He further advised that
it was his recommendation to the Commission with respect to the
Chief of the South County District to try to improve overall
communication and coordination in our fire service delivery
countywide. He noted that he has been involved in a number of
these issues, and he would be glad to give Mr. Richman his
rationale about this.
Mr. Richman stressed that they feel there shouldn't be one
paid firefighter hired for the North County until the Commission
either gets this into one county fire department first or enters
into some kind of contractual arrangement with the South District
to fund them the 6 positions. If they are going to work in one
group of 6, Mr. Richman stressed that "they" (the north area) are
entitled to an officer, an engineer, and 4 experienced fire-
fighters, and the 6 positions should go to what is now the South
District and be absorbed among the other 90 positions where they
can do the least amount of harm.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if Mr. Richman is suggesting
that in the South County District there be funding for 6 addi-
tional positions, and the North County contract for those
services, and Mr. Richman stated yes because, as he understands
it, the money is coming from the General Fund.
It was explained that the funding is from the North County
District.
SEP 5 1989 19 k_,"
pacer i r'"81� t
SEP 5 1989
BUOK 77 F;�r816
Mr. Richman continued to complain about having 6 recruits
assigned to them.
Chairman Wheeler felt Mr. Richman had legitimate questions,
but felt they should be addressed by staff and not necessarily by
the Board at this point.
Commissioner Bird commented that Mr. Richman keeps referring
to recruits, and he guessed by that Mr. Richman is talking about
inexperienced or minimal experienced firefighters. He explained
that when our bulletin refers to recruitments, it just means we
have a position open and does not necessarily mean you will get
someone with a lack of experience in that position.
It was agreed that Mr. Richman should meet with the County
Administrator.
DISCUSSION ON HEALTH INSURANCE
Administrator Chandler informed the Board that the health
insurance contract will be coming to them next week, but he is
bringing it up at this time because this does have some effect on
our budget. At the time staff submitted the proposed budget, the
increase for health insurance looked as if it would be in the
magnitude of 22%, but we continued to negotiate and the increase
now would be 15% as opposed to 22%, or an overall reduction in
the budget submitted in July of $138,000. He wanted Board to
have this information before the Budget Hearing tonight.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if the Administrator at this
point was making any recommendations in terms of whether or not
the employees should participate a.t a higher level in paying the
health insurance premiums.
Administrator Chandler noted that when we were anticipating
the 22% increase, he was looking very seriously at perhaps
increasing the $12.50 employee participation bi-weekly, but now
he feels that we do have it to a manageable level this year and
20
I
M -
his recommendation would be no change in the employee contribu-
tion. He continued that he would like to look at our total
health insurance package this upcoming year and look at a number
of things that are available on the market today that we may not
have taken advantage of so far, and he may be making a different
recommendation next year.
Commissioner Scurlock related back to the wage package for
firemen, for example, as he believed that contract has been
agreed to, and wanted to know what that total package percentage
equates to when you figure in the equivalent percentage for the
amount allowed for the increase in the cost of health insurance.
Administrator Chandler believed the percentage equivalent
for the insurance increase would equate to somewhere between
2-3%.
Commissioner Scurlock believed that then would bring their
total wage package in the range of 7/80, and Administrator
Chandler agreed that would be about right, but felt the insurance
equivalent is closer to 3% than 20.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that by putting the burden on
the county to accept the increased insurance responsibility, it
means there are more dollars in the wage package that are not
taxable dollars, and Administrator Chandler concurred.
ADDENDUM TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT W/DIVISION OF FORESTRY
The Board reviewed letter from District Forester Paul
PaImiotto:
F <w„ y
SEP 5 198 ��o1.
R o o K 7 7 F,�UE81 S
boy •
STATE OF FLORIDA o� 3 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE E CONSUMER SERVICES
ENS �
DOYLE CONNER. COMMISSIONER 3125 CONNER BLVD. TALLAHASSEE 32399.1650
Division of Forestry
5200 Highway 441 North
Okeechobee, Florida 34972
August 23, 1989
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County Courthouse
P.O. Box 1028
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Sir:
Attached you will find an Addendum to Cooperative Agreement
between Indian River County and the Division of Forestry. On June
5, 1989 you were sent a Fire Cooperative Agreement. We are
informed that we are only in need of the attached Addendum to the
1988-1989 agreement.
Please have the forms -signed and returned to this office no later
than September 6, 1989. Your prompt response will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
(7
Paul V. Palmiotto
District Forester
Florida Division of Forestry
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the Addendum to the 1988/89
Cooperative Agreement w/Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, Division of Forestry, for fire
protection to the total forest and wildland acreage
of the county.
22
a
_I
ADDENDUM
TO
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES
DIVISION OF FORESTRY
AND
Indian River COUNTY
Whereas, the parties entered into an agreement as required by
Section 125.127, Florida Statutes, dated 7_1_89 •, to provide fire
protection to the total forest and wildland acreage of
Indian River county.
Whereas, the parties now desire and intend to amend said agreement.
THERCFORT., this amendment witnesseth:
Paragraphs numbered 1 and 2 of the aforesaid agreement are amended as
.follows:
FROM
I. The Department shall provide fire protection for
102,657 acres of forest and wild lands within Indian River
County.
2. The County shall, under the terms of this agreement,
pay to the Department annually as its share of the
cost of providing such fire protection $3,079.71,
said receipts to be deposited in the General Revenue
Fund of the State.
TO
I. The Department shall provide fire protection for.
102.657 acres of forest and wild lands within Indian River
County.
2. The County shall, under the terms of this agreement,
pay to the Department annually as its share of the
cost of providing such fire protection $3,079.71,
said receipts to be deposited in the General Revenue
Fund of the State.
In all its other terms and conditions the agreement remains
unchanged and is hereby reaffirmed.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER COMMISSIONERS
SERVICES, DIVISION OF FORESTRY
Indian River COUNTY
BY: BY:
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE CHA MAN OF BOARD
DATE: DATE
At t C s t:
Cler uitour-t
����
X
2 3
SEP 5 198
SEP 5 `989
KOK 7
RETROACTIVE APPROVAL RE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL CLEANUP ACTIVITIES
The Board reviewed the following memo from Emergency Manage-
ment Director Doug Wright:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THRU: James Chandler �J
County Administrator}( f_
FROM: Doug Wright,.Director
Emergency Management Services
DATE: September 1, 1989
SUBJECT: Retroactive Approval of Staff Actions
Taken and Funding for Hazardous Material
Cleanup Activities
On August 20, 1989, the Indian River County Department of Emergency
Management Services was notified that a substance that appeared to
be hazardous material had been discovered in a canal in the area of
66th Avenue along 4th Street in the general location of the old
Stump Dump.
Staff from Emergency Management Services determined immediate action
was required and a temporary dirt dike was placed in the canal to
contain the unknown substance to prevent further contamination. The
State Warning Point was notified along with the 'Department of
Environmental Regulation and the local Environmental Health Office.
After DER failed to contact the County Emergency Management Services
on Monday, the State was again contacted for support. On August 22,
1989, Ed Sainten from DER telephoned seeking information on the
spill and arrived on site on August 23, 1989. He advised Emergency
Management staff that the -spill was minimal and only 200-300 gallons
of hazardous material would need to be removed. Local staff did not
accept this analysis inasmuch as the contaminated canal was three
tenths of a mile long with an additional low lying area of
approximately one-half acre also contaminated immediately south of
the canal. DER indicated that since it was a county canal, the
County should not.expect any financial assistance from DER.
On August 25, 1989, after receiving information from DER relative to
dependable and reputable companies available for hazardous material
cleanup activities, Resource Recovery of America from Mulberry,
Florida, was contacted. After a lengthy discussion with management
of the firm, it was agreed that a representative would be on site on
August 28, 1989, to begin cleanup activities. The information from
the DER representative was provided to the company in terms of
significance of the spill. It was anticipated at this time that the
costs of the cleanup activities would be in the range of $3,000 to
$5,000 dollars.
As expected, when Resource Recovery of America arrived on site, it
was immediately conveyed to the County that the site was
contaminated to a much greater extent than DER had estimated. Staff
was advised that an estimate for the cleanup including disposal of
debris and soil at a permitted site would be in the range of $17,500
and could potentially increase if the low lying contaminated area
south of the canal was substantial.
The Director contacted the Budget Director regarding the estimated
costs regarding funding. Since the spill appeared to.be a hazard
to other canals and waterways -if additional rain was experienced as
well as a potential threat to marine and human life, it was
determined that an emergency existed and the Emergency Management
Services Director agreed for the cleanup to commence as soon as
possible.
24
It is the consensus at this point that the substance is some type of
hydraulic fluid. Further tests are being conducted on the samples
taken from the site. The cleanup is under way and some county
equipment is being utilized in this endeavor. Resource Recovery of
America was chosen for this effort largely due to the ownership of a
permitted disposal site so that the County would not have to
contract with an additional company to dispose of the debris, soil,
and other contaminants. Certain documentation is required by DER in
the form of certificates as to the method of disposal of the spill
materials subsequent to cleanup activities and this company will
provide reports and documentation for this purpose.
Staff would respectfully request that the Board of County
Commissioners retroactively approve the funding and actions taken to
mitigate further environmental damage in this incident up to this
point in time. Staff further requests that the Board authorize
staff to expend the required and necessary funds and take the
necessary actions to render the site environmentally safe. In FY
88-89 the Commission appropriated $40,000 in a chemical spill
account and staff will not utilize any portion of the funds unless
it is deemed necessary and appropriate with frequent status reports
to the County Administrator. County equipment and staff will be
utilized when possible to preclude additional costs.
Commissioner Eggert believed that we should approve staff's
recommendation, and Commissioner Bird did not see that there is
any choice.
Director Wright handed out a Professional Services Agreement
from Resource Recovery of America, Inc. He advised that Attorney
Collins is working on this agreement to straighten out a few
things, but staff needs the Board to approve this agreement to
facilitate their cleanup efforts. He further informed the Board
that they just this morning received results of some tests, and
it seems the actual pollutant is still unidentified. It also
appears from 12 different holes staff dug around a low lying area
there that the old Stump Dump is not the source of the materials
found in the canal area. In staff's opinion, speaking as laymen,
it seems to be some type of hydraulic fluid, but that has not
been confirmed.
Commissioner Scurlock asked whether, in regard to the
contract with Resource Recovery of America, Inc., we did an RFP,
and Administrator Chandler advised that once this was discovered
and the magnitude of it became apparent, we had to move very
quickly.
25 �OGK 1 F'' a s?
SEP 1989
� J
SES 199
BOOK 77 PAGE O?Z
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously recognized the
discovery of said hazardous material as an emergency;
gave retroactive approval of the funding and actions
taken by staff up to this time; authorized staff to
expend the necessary funds and take the necessary
actions to render the site environmentally safe; and
approved Agreement with Resource Recovery of America,
Inc., all as recommended by staff.
=-AGIVERMW
_ \
This agreement, by and between INDIAN RIVER County
(hereinafter called the "CLIENT") and RESOURCE RECOVERY OF
AWMICA, INC., (hereinafter called "RROA") is effective
August 30, 1989.
The CLIENT needs EM R =€NG.L'--Rr=sWN€€ €€RIII€€€ and RROA represents
that it possesses the knowledge, ability, professional skills and
qualifications to perform this work in an expeditious and
economical manner consistent with the interests of the CLIENT.
RROA recognizes the trust and confidence placed in it and
covenants with the CLIENT to furnish its skills and judgement and
to cooperate with the CLII•;NT in forwarding the interest of the
CLIENT;
Therefore, the CLIENT and RROA agree as follow:
ARTICLE, T - TERM Or AGREE11130T
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first written
above through completion of project. Thereafter, the contract
will be automatically renewed on an annual basis unless thirty
days prior to the expiration of the term of any renewal term,
either party gives written notice of such termination.
ARTICLE -11—=-S COPE -Or -WORK I c,C,W
RROA shall perform, professional services as agreed with
Indian River County.
ARTICLE III - COMPENSATION
The fee shall be equal to the number of hours actually expended
directly on the 'project, times the hourly rate for the
individuals and equipment, plus reimbursable expenses. See nates
on Attachment B.
Reimbursable expenses shall mean the actual expense of
transportation and subsistence of principals and employees,
consultant's fees, subcontractors' fees, toll telephone calls and
telegrams, reproduction of reports and other project related
SAID AGREEMENT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
26
Director Wright informed the Board that this company has its
own disposal sites, which is one reason we want to contract with
them.
Questions ensued as to how this material came to be at this
site, how it was transported there, and by whom, and all Director
Wright could say is that it has been determined that it was not
coming from an on-site source (i.e., the old Stump Dump) and it
apparently was done by "persons unknown."
County Attorney Vitunac noted that it is legal for the
County to offer a reward for information.
Commissioner Scurlock was dubious regarding offering a
reward, but Chairman Wheeler stated that he would be in favor of
a reward if there were any chance of finding out who did this and
we can recoup the expenses involved.
Commissioner Eggert expressed her support of offering a
reward.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
offering a $1,000 reward for information leading
to the arrest and conviction of the guilty parties.
COUNTY COURTHOUSE O UDICIAL COMPLEX MASTER PLAN CONSULTANT
CONTRACT
The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Dean:
27
DATE: AUGUST 29, 1989
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY".DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SER AES
Bou % 9 fry -L 824
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE/JUDICIAL COMPLEX
MASTER PLAN CONSULTANT CONTRACT - IRC 88-09
BACKGROUND:
At the regular meeting on July 11, 1989, the Indian River Board of
County Commissioners authorized staff to negotiate a contract for the
subject project with the number one "short listed" consultant,
Herbert/Halback, Inc.
Staff has reviewed the proposed contract to ascertain adherence to
the original scope of work, various tasks, man hours, and cost. The
proposal was negotiated to a point were we feel comfortable with the
submittal, at a price not to exceed $49,500, based on the outlined
Scope of Work.
ANALYSIS:
It was previously estimated that total cost of this master plan
would run in the forty to fifty thousand dollar range. As you can
see, we are in this "ball park" at forty-nine thousand five hundred
dollars.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends Board approval of the contract as submitted and
authorization for the Chairman to execute the required documents.
Commissioner Eggert commented that as she understood this,
we are supposed to get our Master Plan back in 8 weeks from
today, but Administrator Chandler stated that 18 weeks is the
total. He explained that you have different phases, and the
last page gives a summary of the total scope of each element and
the time element.
Commissioner Eggert noted that we then are not talking about
seeing this before this year is over. She had thought we were
supposed to have it this fall.
Administrator Chandler advised that we are off by about 3
weeks from the schedule presented last spring, and part of the
delay was that the contract came in after the agenda deadline; he
28
didn't want to add it as an emergency item; and so it was delayed
another week.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know, in terms of other
space needs, if staff anticipates expanding the scope of services
in one of these existing contracts and going out for another RFP.
Administrator Chandler commented that mainly we do not want
to slow this down. He agreed that we do need an overall review
of the space needs of our departments because we are getting
extremely tight, but he did not think it would be beneficial to
piggyback that onto this at this point; although, it may dovetail
in towards the end of this project.
Commissioner Scurlock explained that the reason he brought
this up is that he was appointed on a committee as liaison
between our site plan process and the school system. There have
been discussions in the past in terms of our growth as opposed to
School Board growth and who wants more of this very building. He
felt that needs to be coordinated with all of these topics that
we have.
Commissioner Bird believed we found out the School Board had
a longer term lease than we realized, and Administrator Chandler
confirmed that it is a 30 year agreement which was executed in
1979 with a further option for renewal.
Chairman Wheeler asked if the City has taken any action on
expanding the Master Plan.
Administrator Chandler advised that the CRA was looking at
using this consultant in conjunction, but he did not know if they
have received a proposal yet either at the CRA or City Council
level.
Commissioner Bird stated that one concern he has about the
agreement and the description of the project is that he felt we
are pretty well painting ourselves in a corner on limiting
ourselves to the area of the existing courthouse. He could not
name an alternative right now, but had a concern about limiting
.them to looking at this specific area which he felt almost says
29
SEP 5 1989 Pore 77F'.�,
I
SEP 51989 BOOK 77 Fr{.,,C 82.0
we know we will have to tear down the existing courthouse and
also will be putting pressure on the Baptist Church to relocate
their facility.
s Administrator Chandler did not think we can assume there
will be a recommendation coming back to tear down the existing
courthouse. We have asked the consultant to consider at least
three options, and one of the things they will be looking at is
retaining some portion of the courthouse.
Discussion ensued regarding the area they are to look at,
and Administrator Chandler advised that it is a 6 block area from
21st Street to 23rd Street and from 14th Avenue to 17th Avenue.
It doesn't go to SR 60.
Commissioner Scurlock asked why it doesn't go as far south
as Route 60 and further west. He noted that there are various
vacant buildings in the vicinity of SR 60, and he wanted us to
remain flexible.
Commissioner Bird agreed that we do not want to be totally
locked in.
Administrator Chandler noted that parking will be a critical
issue in the proposed 6 block area, and there has been some
discussion that the area just to the south might be a possibility
for additional parking.
Commissioner Eggert asked if there would be any problem with
changing 21st Street to Route 60, and the Administrator stated
that he would have no problem with it.
Commissioner Eggert suggested that we change the second
paragraph under the description of the project to read Route 60
to the south.
Commissioner Bowman believed the City has now included money
in their coming budget for a master plan, and possibly the County
and City should go together to hire a professional.
Chairman Wheeler confirmed that is the direction we are
moving in.
30
_ M
Administrator Chandler believed the CRA has $50/60,000 in
their budget for professional studies, and that is why they asked
this firm to make a conceptual presentation and come back with a
proposal. He wanted to make it clear that the contract before
the Board is anticipating the project will be in that 6 block
area. He did not think there is any problem with expanding the
study from 21st Street to Route 60, but if we ask them to address
sites other than that area, he believed we will have to renegoti-
ate. He believed our discussions have been that the courthouse
would be within that area, unless parking makes it impossible.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to accept staff's recommendation
to approve the contract with Herbert/Halback, Inc.,
but expand the scope to include the additional area
indicated by our discussion.
Commissioner Bird advised that he will vote for the Motion,
but he is constantly torn between trying to do what we can for
revitalization of the downtown area, and the other side of the
coin, which is that we ultimately are going to be paying a
premium for the land required in that area. However, he was
afraid if we move away from the downtown area, it may have a
negative effect.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that if we should move com-
pletely away, he believed the old Courthouse would just continue
to degradate, and Chairman Wheeler pointed out that we already
have made a rather large commitment with the library going in
that immediate area.
Commissioner Scurlock believed everyone in that area is just
sitting and waiting to see how it goes.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
31
SEP �9
S E P - 1939
DESIGN AGREEMENT
POOK 17
Farr-s2p
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this_day of-A[��9 989, by
and between Indian River County, 1840 25th Sifreet, Vero Beach,
Florida 32960, hereinafter called the- "Owner", and
Herbert/Halback, Inc., Landscape Architects, Planners and Graphic
Designer, 315 East Robinson Street, Suite 505, Orlando, Florida
32801, hereinafter called the "Consultant." This Agreement shall
incorporate the Request for Proposals for the Courthouse/Judicial
Complex Master Plan Consulting Services by reference and all
specifications in the Request for Proposal including those for
Scope of Services,' General Terms and Conditions, Insurance
Requirements, Hold Harmless Clause, Special Contracts Terms and
Conditions are hereby accepted and agreed to by Consultant and
Incorporated herein. -
ARTICLE I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The Consultant shall -develop a facility master plan conceptually
documenting square •footages, setback and critical dimensions,
based on input from County personnel, for a new
Courthouse/Judicial Complex Facility. This will be done in
conjunction with a Conceptual Master Plan for the entire property
chosen, and possible future development of additional facilities.
The area to be studied shall be nine blocks, bounded by 23rd
Street to the north, 17th Avenue to the west, 20th Street to the
south and 14th Avenue to the east. The Consultant shall address
relevant factors that effect the nine -block area, as well as how
the Master Plan -may impact the City of Vero Beach Downtown
Redevelopment Plan (i.e., vehicular traffic flow, intersections
and signalization; parking; pedestrian traffic;. utilities;
streetscape improvements; building massing; etc.). The traffic
and utility study area shall be large enough to reasonably assure
the conceptual feasibility of the project.
Furthermore, the traffic element of the preferred alternative
Master Plan shall address conceptually, issues raised in the
County's Site Plan Review Standards, or applicable City standards.
Traffic information used for this review shall be supplied by the
County and the Consultant shall not be responsible for its
accuracy. The. Consultant shall notify the County what additional
information is' -required for the future Final Site Plan Review and
Approval Procedure and Traffic Impact Analysis.
The Consultant shall advise the Owner if a Development of Regional
Impact threshold analysis is required.
The Consultant shall provide all necessary coordination and
meetings with County and City staff, as well as assist in a
maximum of one.public workshop and two public presentations.
ARTICLE II. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Scope of Services for this project shall include those
normally performed by an Urban Planner, but more specifically they
will include:.
SAID CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD IN
ITS ENTIRETY.
32
INSTALLATION OF 2 STREETLIGHTS - 632 SW DIXIE HIGHWAY
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Baird:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: August 25, 1989
SUBJECT: INSTALLATION OF TWO STREETLIGHTS
AT 632 SW DIXIE HIGHWAY
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Mr. Dominic Pugliese at 632 SW Dixie Highway is requesting the
installation of two (2) streetlights. The City of Vero Beach
Engineering Department has determined that two (2) 9,500 lumen
H.P.S.V. light should be installed. A charge of $11.50 per light per
month is recommended or two lights at a cost of $23.00 per month.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the request for a streetlight, contingent upon completion of
the following:
1. Staff will bill Mr. Dominic Pugliese $276.00 in
advance for the cost of two streetlights for a full
year.
2. Staff will draft a standard single streetlight
agreement between Dominic Pugliese and Indian River
County.
3. Authorize the County Administrator or Public Works
Director to sign the agreement between Mr. Dominic
Pugliese and Indian River County.
4. Staff will add two (2) 9,500 lumen H.P.S.V. lights
to the Master Streetlight Agreement between Indian
River County and the City of Vero Beach.
Commissioner Eggert inquired as to who pays for the Install-
ation, and OMB Director Baird explained that there isn't any
installation charge; it is a rental situation.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if this is consistent with the
policy we have been following, and this was confirmed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the
request for streetlights as recommended by staff and
contingent upon the conditions listed above.
33 a00� F�i;r R10
porn
S E P 5 1989 BOOK F'°,GE 833
WAIVER OF FLOODPLAIN CUT & FILL BALANCE - SAVANNAH OAKS SUBDV.
The Board reviewed memo from the Engineering Department:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
and
James D. White, P.E.C2��
County Engineer
FROM: David B. Cox, P. E Arm.
Acting Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Waiver of Floodplain Cut and Fill
Balance for Savannah Oaks Subdivision
REFERENCE LETTER: Randy L. Mosby, P.E. to James W. Davis, P.E.
Dated June 12, 1989
DATE: August 28, 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Mosby & Associates on behalf of the developers of Savannah Oaks
Subdivision is requesting a waiver of the cut and fill balance
requirement of Section 7B(1) of Stormwater and Flood Protection
Ordinance 87-12. Savannah Oaks Subdivision received Preliminary
Plat Approval on August 11, 1989. The 4.76 acre property is
located on a northerly extension of the existing Bucki ghammock
Trail adjacent to the northwest corner of the Vero Beach Country
Club Golf Course.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The site is located in the Indian River Floodplain and drains
into Valkenberg Creek. The project engineer has stated the
proposed amount of fill required to develop the subdivision (421
cubic yards) will not alter the 100 year floodplain. All other
requirements of the Stormwater Management and Flood Protection
Ordinance have been met.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that a waiver of the cut and fill balance be
granted to Savannah Oaks Subdivision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted a waiver
of the cut and fill balance requirement to Savannah
Oaks Subdivision as recommended by staff.
34
� � r
TRAFFIC SIGNAL FOR HIGHLANDS MS 1 INTERSECTION
The Board reviewed memo from Acting Traffic Engineer Cox:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
-THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: David B. Cox, P.E.,
Acting Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Traffic Signal for Highlands/US 1 Intersection
REF. LETTER: William A. Lewis, P.E. to James W. Davis, P.E.
dated May 15, 1989
DATE: August 29, 1989
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
A traffic study conducted by FDOT indicates that a traffic signal
is now warranted at Highlands Drive and US 1. It has been
requested by FDOT that the County provide the funding for the
design and construction of this project through local traffic
impact fees. On August 2, 1989, the Transportation Planning
Committee approved the addition of this project to the County's
20 -Year Capital Improvements Plan. The proposed FY 1989-1990
funding of County road projects is attached, however the funding
for this project is not included. The estimated cost of the
project is $60,000.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative No. 1
Project be approved, using funding from District VI Traffic
Impact Fees.
Alternatives No. 2
Do not approve use of Traffic Impact Fees and postpone the
signalization until FDOT funding becomes available.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 be approved, using funding
from District VI Traffic Impact Fees.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Alternative
No. 1 using funding from District VI impact fees as
recommended by staff.
35
,SEP 5 198
SEP 5 1039-
�t
BOOK 7 ma 83Z
DISCUSSION OF REPLACEMENT OF MERRILL BARBER BRIDGE
The Board reviewed letter from the Florida DOT to Public
Works Director Davis, as follows:
,FLORIDA _ - DEPAKTIEIIT OF TRANSPORTATION
UM XAKr=z
QOVERIWR
780 S.W. 24 Street
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Telephone - 524-8621
33315-2696
August 22, 1989
Mr. James Davis
Director of Public Works
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Mr. Davis:
Subject: SR 60 - Replacement of Merrill Barber Bridge
State Project No. 88030-1514
W.P.I. No. 4115392
Federal Aid Project No. BRF-200-4(16)
Indian River County
RAVE IL REPmER sm
SZCKZTMW
Information that the County has provided regarding the possibility
of joint acquisition of land for mitigation of Merrill Barber Bridge
has enabled us to estimate the cost of that mitigation. We wish to
pursue a specific agreement with you for Joint Participation, with the
expectation that FDOT will shortly be able to adopt Alternate III as
the preferred alternative.
In his letter of July 18 concerning the availability of
right-of-way and mitigation areas for this project,
Chairman Wheeler suggested that remainder areas of the parcels which
the County is acquiring could be purchased by the County for FDOT
project mitigatioh. Mr. Donald Finney of your office has supplied us
with maps and information concerning the County's acquisition parcels
in the vicinity of our Alternate Route III.
Government Lot 5 (owner West Indian River, Inc.) is being acquired
in its entirety under your Parcel No. 103. The Alternate III
alignment for State Road 60 crosses this parcel, and we understand
that the County will have no problem in conveying the necessary
right-of-way to the Department.
Government Lot 4 (owner Martin Gregory) is being partially
acquired by the County under your Parcel No. 110. The total ownership
is 43.77 acres. The County intends to acquire 18.91 acres, consisting
of mosquito impoundment, for the mitigation of Indian River Boulevard.
The remainder area of Parcel 110 consists of 11.7 acres of pond, and
13.16 acres of upland (old spoil deposit).
36
From recent appraisals in the area, Parcel 110 is approximately valued as
follows:
Wetland (impoundment) 17.98 acre at $ 2,500 =
$ 45,500
Upland in county take 0.93 acre at $5�— _
$ 24,000
Approximate Total appraised value of County Take =
$ 6991000 -
Remainder - upland 13.15 acre at $ 25,000 =
$ 330,000
- pond 11.70 acre at $ 7_160-u—_
Approximate Total appraised value of State are =
$ 30,00-6-
$
Total 43.77 acre, appraised value =
$ 2b�
The Florida Department of Transportation requests, therefore, that Indian
River County negotiate with Mr. Gregory for the purchase
of all the land he
owns in Government Lot 4. The Department will reimburse
Indian River County
for the proportional amount of the entire purchase price
as derived from the
actual appraisal values used for the acquisition.
The Department has funds (D.S. 100% state funds) in its budget for Fiscal
Year 88/90, and will be able to reimburse Indian River County for this outlay
by February 1990.
The Department intends to leave this land in County ownership, retaining
the right to use any or all of the upland area for mitigation operations. We
anticipate that this will entail removal of upland species trees, lowering
the land elevation to create new wetlands, and planting suitable wetland
vegetation.
Please let us know if the above is acceptable to the County. If it is,
we will immediately begin to draft a Joint Project Agreement for the
right-of-way acquisition transaction.
Sincerely,
Rick Chesser, P.E.
District Secretary
District Four
Rss le•o RS3 Pile-Pef►w•ov
.`,.e
FA
L—"_` —
J �
1100
counst
1
.412T
.... Oe6�
e • GOV. LOT 4 c
,koR• �� -'.bt, � ♦A1eL FbPornAu :. R Mlo ��•-� �
cv—
N. iYNgAi, redo � °� IHe• � � '
e n H H w ro w n u H tea :. ie3
4.n61Vi..�l -t1
• • e t • • • •_ EE ARCED N �' 311 a�A[ Ia e•.' \
0 NT CL P 1 TE.11
ro I \ SECTION– id% i►� ' i \
11.11A1. F•If.. 7 X19.. At.
I e H e n a'rrMe. ' 'i « NeT T1
s
• n fI • Is . 18 •►103 l f �
a I • » 1. 14 �I Il�f GOV. LOT 5
t $t H eel• •',•
•1 I I• 1 r 1• 1 I• • is �•'.' .:
' I MAIN CAA A/ ,Q + MAIM CAMAI f� sit
'TTs.T?r.w•.^•r ^Stl,,..a..•, a..•sIN n. lag
27 nl :'. •. Toa ' GOV. LOT 6 J �`' • /
703 '.
•0tr d
:eoll•e l 1r[eer .Rale :60111111 let
• 1 /� leeTei. • ' L��J n /j •
ad V' T•T •.'.. �•e H I• T�
1• / H •
o / [ •fin - H Oe• NAI
L PAR 1 ' •ev�t a H/ p •/
C•T•ll•• + •T. Te
as 1• H •
tl �A�BMW",A Tq.. tt 1.Ie: 1
SEP 37 ��,
Boor 'r'.'�,`A. ���
BOOK l 1 P,. �E 3'
Commissioner Bowman commented that she had some problems
with this, and Commissioner Scurlock felt we all have some
concern and believed we have not been heavily involved in this
project but have more or less followed the City's lead. He noted
that he now has gotten some staff input and some from the commun-
ity, and they seem to be favoring Alternate #2. What has been
expressed is that #2 is the more sound alternative
environmentally; that it appears to be more cost effective; and
from a transportation standpoint, there seems to be more
capacity.
Public Works Director Davis advised that not all the traffic
operations design has been considered. What the DOT commissioned
their consultant to do was perform a feasibility study and
recommend alternative alignments, and those alignments have been
investigated in terms of environmental impacts and impact on
surrounding properties. Traffic operations has been very
generally addressed; it has not been specifically addressed in
terms of intersection design, number of lanes, etc. One concern
with the bridge keying in north of the present bridge alignment
38
M
is how you would get the westbound left turns onto the Boulevard
South extension.
Commissioner Bird did not see how you can have something
coming in at a 900 angle on a major thoroughfare without an
underpass or overpass to keep the traffic moving, but Director
Davis noted that no matter where you terminate the bridge, you
still will have dual left turn lanes.
Commissioner Bird asked who is recommending Alternate #3,
and Director Davis advised that the DOT commissioned their
consultant to do the feasibility study, and that document was
discussed at advertised public meetings held at the City Council
Chambers and at Vero Beach High School auditorium. There has
been a lot of comment on the alternatives. The City has
preferred the third alternative and they have done some work
looking at the impact on the commercial area along the present
bridge causeway.
Commissioner Scurlock inquired about our participation with
our Transportation Planning Committee and technical staff, and
Director Davis noted that this was taken to the TPC months ago,
and staff has kept the committee informed of public hearing
dates; it has been mainly staff advising the Committee of what
has been happening. The Committee has not been vocal or specific
on this issue.
Commissioner Bird asked what some of the negatives are for
Alternative #2, which he felt looks shorter and doesn't appear
that it would be so disruptive to traffic while they were
building it. Is there a concern about how high it has to be and
the curve in it?
Director Davis explained that the horizontal curve in the
alignment is necessary to reach the 65' vertical clearance at the
channel. The concern has been that the touch -down point on the
west side is so far west that they feel it will have a negative
effect on the businesses along the causeway. Many business
39
,� �..
EP 199 eoo� F ;��:�
_I
SEP 5 1999 Boos �!� F,u 836
people have supported #3 mainly due to the new plan to make that
causeway more of an upgrade commercial area.
Commissioner Bird inquired about the difference in the
financial impact of these two alternatives on anything that the
Board of County Commissioners has anything to say about.
Director Davis noted that the county is not being asked to
participate in funding the bridge itself and the county is not
being asked to fund the mitigation. The DOT wrote the County a
letter a month and a half ago saying that we are looking hard at
#3, and we understand you are progressing quickly on the
Boulevard; so, let's marry the two projects for mitigation. We
wrote them that we are not in the posture to delay our project,
and we don't want to wait a year or so for you to consolidate
your plans for mitigation of the bridge, but we do feel that
beyond the impoundment we are looking at using for mitigation,
there are some remainder parcels that are high and dry and could
be opportune areas for additional mitigation of the bridge. We
told them we were having our appraisals done to present offers to
the property owners of the impoundment, and they then wrote the
letter the Board has before them today in regard to cost sharing
on the remainders we don't need for the Boulevard project. We
have received our appraisals for what we need for the Boulevard,
and we know what the values of those remainders are; we are
basically in a position now in assisting the DOT in acquiring the
remainders once we begin to negotiate with the property owners,
and the DOT can perhaps purchase the remainders from the parent
tracts we are purchasing the impoundment from.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if every environmental agency
has been opposed to Alternate #3.
Director Davis commented that at the meeting of the
Governor's Sub -Committee on Managed Marshes, he heard verbally
that many of those various agencies - the National Fish & Game
Commission, National Marine Fisheries, Mosquito Control, etc., do
not prefer Alternate #3.
40
Commissioner Bowman advised that she has letters from
everyone of those agencies saying that Alternate #3 is by far the
most detrimental to the environment.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know why are we looking at
Alternative #3 if it is the most damaging environmentally and the
most expensive.
Director Davis informed the Board that most of the public's
comments at the meetings conducted by the DOT favored #3. He
believed that their policies have softened over the years towards
the public side of the project to where public comments have
become paramount in their decision making process, much more than
even the cost of the project, and if there were to be a major
change in the community's position regarding the alignments, it
probably will totally baffle the DOT after they have gone through
all the public hearing process.
Commissioner Scurlock inquired who spoke at those meetings.
Director Davis reported that there were 40/50 who spoke at
the meeting held at the High School auditorium with probably a
couple hundred in attendance. The City Council Chambers were
full at the meeting held there, and probably 15/20 people spoke
at that time.
Chairman Wheeler noted that he attended the public hearing
at the City Council chambers, and practically everyone was in
favor of #3. However, that meeting was the first time he had
seen anything about this, and he believed possibly not everybody
who would have been an adversary of #3 was aware of the preplans.
He asked Director Davis if that was correct.
Director Davis advised that he attended two meetings at City
Hall, and at the first hearing there was a very detailed
presentation by the consultant which went into weighing all the
factors, environmental, commercial, etc. He got the impression
that everyone then knew the issues, and it was evident there
would be a major impact on businesses because of the widening of
the causeway which would eliminate parking.
,SEP 5 'R989 41 °� � ,._
Poor l IIA16E 0 t
_I
'SEP 519897
BOOK (
Chairman Wheeler believed that diverting the traffic could
have an adverse effect also. He also felt possibly the environ-
mental people were not present to ask questions at that meeting.
Commissioner Bird believed there are two schools of thought
on the environmental side also. Some say some of the mitiga-
tion with Alternate #3 might be an improvement over certain
environmental aspects of the area.
Director Davis reported the DOT's consultant indicated that,
in their opinion, the environmental impacts were not paramount;
that there would be some shading effect beneath the bridge
itself, but that would be minor, and there would be minimal
mitigation due to about two acres of fill.
Administrator Chandler wished to point out that we have not
been directly involved in this other than monitoring it. We were
contacted by both the City and the DOT to see if Alternate #3
went through, how that would fit in with our plans for the
Boulevard.
Board members agreed that the county has not been heavily
involved, and Commissioner Bird commented that he would hate for
us to start sending mixed signals to the DOT at this point unless
we had really strong feelings about this. We really need that
bridge and he did not want to jeopardize that project in any way.
Commissioner Bowman wished to know if we allowed enough
capacity for Alternate #3 in our specs for Indian River Boulevard
North extension.
Director Davis advised the RIW we are seeking is planned so
everything will be expandable to 6 lanes. If the bridge did "T"
into the Boulevard, there would be some intersection improvements
needed, probably some turn lanes, etc. We are not designing the
Boulevard assuming that the bridge will "T" in, but if it does,
it could be expanded to mitigate the intersection impacts.
Commissioner Bowman believed that would be at considerable
cost to the County, but Director Davis stated that it would not
cost the County; that would be within the DOT project.
42
_ ' '
Commissioner Bowman then inquired about the possibility of
having half a cloverleaf at the bridge intersection, and she also
believed there would be a need for two traffic lights - one where
the bridge intersects with the Boulevard and another complicated
one at Royal Palm Boulevard.
Director Davis felt you could have a grade separated inter-
change and have a cloverleaf. He doubted the DOT has looked into
this, but he could write them and request they look into this if
the Board wishes.
Chairman Wheeler asked about the cost and mitigation for
such improvements, and Director Davis confirmed that it would
take more R/W acquisition.
Commissioner Bowman believed Alternate #3 would cost about 2
million more than Alternate #2, and Director Davis estimated a
cloverleaf would cost over 1 million.
Discussion continued in regard to possible impacts on the
Boulevard, and Commissioner Bird wished to know just what we are
being asked to do today.
Director Davis asked if the Board wishes staff to make an
offer to the owner of Parcel #110, the Gregory parcel, to pur-
chase the remainder of his property that the county does not need
for mitigation of the Boulevard Phase Ill. That remainder is
valued at about $360,000 and that would be the state's share that
they would contribute out of state funds for that part of the
Gregory property.
Chairman Wheeler asked if we would own that property, and
the state would reserve the right to use it as mitigation for the
bridge.
Director Davis explained that the state would pay for it and
we would own it, but they would have the right to mitigate the
impact of the bridge with that property.
Commissioner Bowman believed we got "suckered" into buying
some R/W at Sebastian that we now wish we had not bought, and she
hoped we do not make a similar mistake again.
SEP 5 1939 43 ,c
4
SEP 5 198 7
Chairman Wheeler commented that he feels about the same as
Commissioner Bird about sending mixed signals, but he would hate
to purchase all that property and lock the DOT into that location
if all the questions have not been answered at this point.
Discussion continued, and Director Davis commented that at
this point in time we do not intend to buy it.
Commissioner Scurlock wished some clarification. As he
understood it, we have almost every environmental agency opposed
to Alternate #3, and he asked if it isn't the normal process as
this moves forward that they have the option not to issue permits
and then this couldn't move forward.
Director Davis explained that most of the agencies that have
written letters of concern do not have permit status - they have
comment status on the Corps permit. The Corps will consider
these comments, but sometimes they decide that the public benefit
from a project supersedes the environmental impact.
C. C. "Bud" Kleckner came before the Board speaking as
acting chairman for the Indian River County Conservation
Committee. He noted their initial involvement in this project
was receiving inquiries from the Game & Fresh Water Fish
Commission, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Mosquito Control
Commission, and other environmental agencies. They made three
different trips through the impoundment and everyone was saying
that the County's conceptual plan for mitigating impoundment #22
was excellent and let's not disturb it. Alternate #3 goes right
across all the work that would be done here and would not
"destroy" it, but would certainly impact it in an adverse manner.
Mr. Kleckner believed people have taken their eye off the
real reason for replacing the bridge, which is improving the
traffic level of service and evacuation time between the island
and the mainland, and referred to his letter, which is as
follows:
44
Mr. & Mrs. C.
786 Holly
C. Kleckner
Road
Vero Beach, FL. 32963
September 5, 1989
The:f Honorable Gary Wheeler
Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, F1.32960
RE: Agenda Item 9.G.(3) in the Sept.5th meeting of the Indian
River County Board of County Commissioners, concerning the
replacement of the Merrill Barber Bridge,
State Project No. 88030-1514
Dear Gary:
This supplements my letter dated August 14, 1989 regarding the
same subject. It is requested that both the August 14th letter
and this letter be included in the report of your Board of County
Commissioners Meeting of September 5th. The purpose for this
letter is to provide some additional information regarding the
DOT's study of the alternative proposals and to comment on the
August 22, 1989 letter from Mr. Rick Chesser to Mr. Jim Davis.
The only reason for replacing the Merrill Barber Bridge is to
improve the level of service(LOS) between the barrier island and
the mainland, and especially to reduce the evacuation time, from
the island, in case of a natural emergency. Common sense dictates
that we select the alternative that provides the best level of
service with the shortest evacuation time, in the most cost
effective manner, with the least adverse impact on the
environment for the existing highway oriented businesses, the
residents living near'the project and the natural flora and
fauna of impoundment #22. Alternative II is the only one that
meets all of the above criteria.
The DOT Document entitled "ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT" states the following regarding the LOS for the design
year 2010:
Alternative (a: 31,080 ADT for LOS TMC"
If Ib: " " If " •' (will be lower because
of bridge openings)
"
11 : If At It to If
" I I I : 29,940 tt tt If If
Thus, Alternative III provides the poorest LOS.
The DOT Document entitled "VALUE ENGINEERING WORKBOOK"(VEW)
contains an "ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX" that is summarized
as follows:
Alternative la: 320.4 points
If Ib: 263.3 If
if II: 361.7 If
If III: 299.5 If
Thus, Alternative II is by far the best.
In the "ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT" the DOT
estimates the total cost of Alternative III to be $21,791,000 and
Alternative II to be $18,174,000. The estimates include $163,000
for the cost of right-of-way for Alternative III and $814,000 for
Alternative II: During the May 18th Public Hearing the DOT
representatives admitted that their estimates for Alternative III
were low. However, these estimates do not include the cost of
mitigation, which the "VALUE ENGINEERING WORKBOOK" estimates to
be $870,000 fore Alternative III and $70,000 for Alternative I1.
Thus, based upon Mr. Chesser's letter to Mr. Davis, it is
apparent that that State is asking the County to subsidize the
45
SEP 5 1980 mor 77 841
SEP 5 1989
Bou� 7 PAGE
provision of Alternative III by "sharing" in the cost of right-
of-way and the required mitigation. This appears to be a "no-win"
situation for the County, because:
I. It will raise the County's cost of Phase III of the northern
extension of Indian River Boulevard. And,
2. It will delay the project while the existing mitigation plan
for impoundment #22 is revised and the additional permitting
is obtained for the remainder of Parcel No.110.
It appears that certain elements in the city have become so
distracted by the idea of a river front shopping area that they
have lost sight of the real reason for replacing the bridge.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to state the views of a
large segment of the community that believes that it is
imperative that the replacement bridge provide the best LOS
(shortest evacuation time), at the least cost, with the least
adverse impact on both the people and wildlife living in the
area.
Sincerely,
U�
C. C. Kleckner
Mr. Kleckner continued to stress that the majority of the
traffic coming across the bridge from the east will be heading
towards the center of the city. He estimated that 2/3 of the
traffic on Alternate #3 will be going south on that little
stretch of the Boulevard which is actually about 2,000' long, and
we will be adding a traffic light with about 10,000 people in a
queue trying to make a left turn. Mr. Kleckner believed a lot of
disinformation has been given to the people living at Vista
Harbor. He did not believe those people have considered that
only about a block north of them, they would be driving 160
pilings or that there would be an illuminated high level bridge
on their horizon with 10,000 more trips a day past their front
door. He contended that the cost for an extra lane there is not
included in the DOT project. The DOT estimate for Alternate #3
is about 21.7 million and for Alternate #2 about 18 million, or a
difference of 3.6 million, but he personally feels it is a great
deal more than that. No mitigation cost is included, and the R/W
needed would be much more expensive. Also, in regard to R/W for
parking, Mr. Kleckner disputed the fact that with Alternative #2
there would be less parking for any business other than Bahama
Joe's. He contended that Alternate #3 would offer a poorer
level of service, costing more, and with more environmental
46
impact, and he believed Alternate #2 is all we should have
considered.
Nancy Offutt came before the Board. She realized this is
not a public hearing on this subject, and basically that is the
gist of her comments. She noted that the newspapers treated this
much like the Comprehensive Plan in their attempt to get the
message across to the public. They have had the routes published
in the newspaper repeatedly; they have had public meetings and
public hearings; and she knew there has been at least 10 days'
grace period time where the public can forward their comments to
the DOT. Mrs. Offutt also knew that the Board of Realtors has
written to the DOT recommending Alternative #3, and she would
suggest that if the Board is going to change their thinking and
take a position on an alternate, that they provide more opportu-
nity for public discussion on this, especially from those who
have a vested interest. She did feel the time the public has
been given to express their feelings on this matter is
considerable.
Carol Johnson, representing Citizens for Progressive Action,
informed the Board that their study committee has not come back
with any recommendation regarding either alternative yet;
however, it is encouraging to see that Mr. Davis has been
following this closely with the City as a representative of the
county. She believed in the past we have lost projects because
of lack of interagency cooperation. Mrs. Johnson felt there is
nothing more detrimental to a community than to see governmental
agencies interacting negatively and have the community itself in
an upheaval, and if the Board has any problem with the City's
recommendation, their group would encourage the Board to direct
staff to pursue any questions they might have.
Commissioner Eggert believed we are being asked now to
participate with the state in a purchase for something that
really hasn't been finalized.
47
SEP 5 1989
6 F.�.,J� 84
Commissioner Bird believed what they are saying is that if
we are going to buy part of it, go ahead and buy all of it, and
they will reimburse us. He asked Director Davis if the request
before us would be for the Board to authorize him to do some
further negotiating or is he looking for some kind of firm
position by the County.
Director Davis explained that we are going to request that
Mr. Gregory consider selling the county the impoundment area that
we need for mitigation, and while we are communicating with him,
we could also indicate that the state is interested in purchasing
the remainder.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to authorize Public Works Director
Davis to proceed as explained above.
David Williams, representative from Country Club Property
Owners Association, just wanted the Board to know that there are
60 families in Country Club Pointe who are opposed to Alternate
#3 and want Alternative #2 for all the reasons that have been
stated, and he did not think we should be intimidated about
changing our mind and telling the DOT we have other ideas because
we have a lot more information and there are a lot of people who
have a lot to say about Alternate #2.
Jim Granse informed the Board that in the Indian River
Taxpayers Association, they have a Mr. Tom Johnson who was a
state highway commissioner and who made a vast investigation on
the bridge, including aerials, etc. He has a very large traffic
file on this matter, and he spoke at the High School in favor of
Alternate #3.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
48
s f �
r
PROPOSED WATER SERVICE - 17TH AVE. NORTH OF 2ND STREET
The Board reviewed memo from Utilities Engineer McCain:
DATE: AUGUST 10, 1989
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTILIE VICES
STAFFED
BY: WILLIAM F. MCCAIN
CAPITAL PROJECTS E'
DEPARTMENT OF UTIL RVICES
SUBJECT: PROPOSED WATER SERVICE
ON 17TH AVENUE NORTH OF 2ND STREET
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -89 -09 -DS
BACKGROUND
The Department of Utility Services wishes to set up an assessment
district to supply water to Indian River Heights in the near future.
However, there is a potential customer on 17th Avenue north of 2nd
Street, which will be in the proposed assessment district, who
requires water service immediately. We want to enter into a
Developer's Agreement with this individual to provide him with water
service now.
ANALYSIS
The property is located a distance of approximately 150 feet north
of the right-of-way line on 2nd Street. We are proposing to
construct a 6 -inch water line from the water line in 2nd Street
south to the northern limits of the property. The property owner
will reimburse the County for the cost of the line from 2nd Street
to the right-of-way and for the full 75 feet of line in front of his
property, making a total of 85 feet. The cost of the 75 feet of
6 -inch line south of the property will be added into the cost of the
future assessment district (see attached agreement and map for
details).
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approve the
• attached Developer's Agreement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Developer's Agreement with David and Marge Trumble
for extension of a water line.
SAID
AGREEMENT IS ONE FILE
IN THE OFFICE
OF CLERK TO
THE
BOARD.
SEP 5
1989
49
HOOK
d I
`,, 84*
SEP 5 1989: 1
84
LICENSE AGREEMENT W/PEBBLE BEACH VILLAS RE 3' STRIP OF PARK LAND
The Board reviewed memo from Asst. County Attorney Collins:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: o&, William G. Collins II - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: August 23, 1989
SUBJECT: License Agreement with Pebble Beach Villas, Inc.
On May 29, 1989 the County Commission authorized the
preparation of a License Agreement which would allow the
Pebble Beach Villas Property Owners Association the use of a
3 -foot strip of land between S.R. AIA and the Tracking
Station Park. The strip of land adjoins the Pebble Beach
Villas Condominium parking lot and will be utilized for
landscape planting. The License Agreement has been executed
by the President of Pebble Beach Villas, Inc. The Risk
Manager has waived the $50,000 property damage insurance
shown in paragraph 7A on page 3 of the License Agreement.
This is because the only property in the 3 -foot strip will
be landscaping installed by Pebble Beach Villas, Inc. In
other words, the County is not at risk for property damage.
We have received a Certificate of Insurance in the amount of
$1,000,000 for public liability insurance against bodily
Injury. We have requested that the insurance company modify
their Certificate of Insurance to provide 30 days' written
notice of cancellation to the County.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the Chairman to execute the License Agreement
which was approved in concept on May 29, 1989, subject to
receiving the amended Certificate of insurance providing for
30 days' written notice.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the License Agreement with
Pebble Beach Villas, Inc. subject to receiving the
amending Certificate of Insurance providing for
30 days' written notice.
SAID AGREEMENT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD WHEN FULLY
EXECUTED AND RECEIVED.
50
INDIAN RIVER TRAILS' PROPOSAL FOR DEED EXCHANGE RE JUNGLE TRAIL
The Board reviewed memo from Asst. County Attorney Collins:
TO:
The Board
of County
Commissioners
FROM:
William G.
Collins
If - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: August 30, 1989
SUBJECT: Indian Trails' Proposal for Deed Exchange
Regarding Jungle Trail
The Indian Trails development in the Town of Indian River
Shores Is about to file a replat of a portion of their
development. Through their attorneys, Collins, Brown 8
Caldwell, they have forwarded proposed deeds which would
facilitate moving the Jungle Trail Maintenance Map easterly
away from the shore of the Indian River. The developer's
concern is that as the shoreline erodes, the trail itself
will move or encroach further and further to the east onto
the property which they are developing. Thus, they are
proposing that prior to platting the next phase of their
development, they will deed an additional ten feet to the
County in an exchange for the County quit -claiming the west
ten feet of Jungle Trail Maintenance Map area to the
developer. This may also have the effect of establishing
some additional riparian rights for the Indian Trails
development.
If the exchange is accepted, Indian Trails proposes to issue
a deed to the County for a full 40 feet, lying 10 feet to
the east of the current maintenance map alignment.
The portion of the Jungle Trail Management Plan dealing with
alignment contemplated making minor alignment modifications
to enhance the safety of the trail on its northern portion.
It also states:
"There may be proposals to slightly
realign the trail in some spots to
accommodate a proposed development
project for which realignment has been
proposed.
There appears to be no need to address
realignment of the southern portion of
the trail. Because of existing adjacent
development and the existence of a
legally constituted maintenance
right-of-way, the roadways alignment Is
set. For the northern portion of the
trail, however, it may be possible to
allow realignment of the roadway in
certain areas ..."
Thus, the Management Plan took the southern portion of the
trail as a given. However, the Management Plan also
contemplates the County providing "a mechanism by which a
land owner may request realignment of Jungle Trail. Any
such realignment must be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners, after the Board holds a public hearing on the
51
SEP 199
d F'Au .
BOOK 0� 1
L_
SEP 5 1999 BOOK 1I FAUt 84S
realignment and receives a recommendation from the Planning
and Zoning Commission".
Normally such a request would be received by the County and
processed according to the Management Plan. In this case,
however, the developer is requesting an immediate response,
and his proposed project requires no approvals from the
County. Thus, the normal time for the different interested
parties to provide input and make recommendations as to
whether or not the criteria for realignment are met cannot
be met. The authority to approve the replat of Indian
Trails lies exclusively with the Town of Indian River
Shores. The developer is simply offering an opportunity to
shift the maintenance map ten feet to the east without
affecting the actual traveled way of Jungle Trail. Should
the County not be able to respond immediately, a plat wi I I
be filed running immediately adjacent to the easterly line
of the maintenance map as currently filed.
The options available to the County are as follows:
1. Accept the proposal for exchange of deeds to move the
maintenance map alignment ten feet to the east. (The
traveled way would not be realigned.)
2. Obtain necessary permits to stabilize the existing
shoreline in order to prevent future encroachment of
the trail onto the Indian Trails' property, and the
developer will proceed to plat Indian Trails to the
existing east boundary of Jungle Trail.
A last minor issue to be considered is the alignment of such
a shifted portion of the trail with any portions of the
trail to the north and south, I .e., ensure that no jogs in
the road which would constitute a safety hazard are created.
The consensus of the Public Works Director, Community
Development Director and -Assistant County Attorney is the
deeded 40 -foot right-of-way would be superior title to a
40 -foot maintenance map claim which is valid only to the
extent the travelled way is maintained (20-251).
RECOMMENDATION
1. Inform the developer which of the platting options Is
preferred by the County. That is, immediately adjacent
to the present maintenance map alignment or ten feet to
the east of the existing maintenance map alignment.
2. If the option to move the maintenance map alignment
east is selected, authorize staff to work with the
developers in drafting the necessary deeds to effect
the transfer of property, and authorize the Chairman to
execute the necessary instruments ' and bilateral
exchange agreements.
52
77
�indian silver Ca
Aofroved
Date
Admin.
�&. 3v- Vj
Legal It
L06 -C
Budget
Dept
&U„
RISK Mgr.
t -Vi- ? A 9 - 5,l>)(�9
1
1
C) r\ W
—
m4Q0
Ie, /
000 0 - ►'" ��/'
CID
INDIAN TRAITS SUBDIVISION
AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 12 PAGE 3
PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA
SOUTH LINE OF LOT 5, LOWS SUBDIVISION -
PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 27, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
o ao ' uNE
O -
oZOy oo �' MEPC H�GN WP
wwo
�
?CL
0-10
O SPO y
�0-10
S�
�P
gZ�g
I
0 W a'
E- A E --
W
E- E'"�
Z oz
0z
[_.
pro
E-+
Z ww
I'n o
Q dE_
F-4 CS
a
M
Ln
won
BOOK
Commissioner Bowman did not see how this benefits the
county.
Attorney Collins noted that about 3 years ago when Indian
River Trails was developing, they were in the county, but they
subsequently annexed into the Town of Indian River Shores. In
that process, they executed a deed exchange. Attorney Collins
then referred to the above map and explained that it shows the
baseline of the Jungle Trail Maintenance Map, and as that map now
lies, it is the 40' closest to the river. Indian River Trails,
on the southern portion that has already been platted, exchanged -
deeds to move the maintenance map 10' inland away from the river.
Now they are coming in to plat Phase II in Indian River Shores
and because they are going to the Shores Planning Commission in
the next few weeks, they are asking if we want them to move the
plat 10' inland so if the river erodes the shore, we would not be
moving the Trail onto their property but there would be 10' more
to work with.
Commissioner Eggert asked if the solid black line is the new
baseline of Jungle Trail, and Attorney Collins explained that the
Maintenance Map as recorded now is the 40' that is closest to the
river - the 10 + 20 + 10. The baseline is the shot the surveyor
takes down the road and measures from point to point. Right now
we have 10' to the east of the baseline and 30' to the west.
They are saying if you will deed us the 10' closest to the river,
we will deed you 10' inland and then you will have 20' on either
side of your baseline.
Chairman Wheeler asked if that will allow them to put in
docks, and Attorney Collins advised that it depends on the
permitting requirements of the DER. It may give them a few
hundred feet of additional frontage on the river; however, the
Trail is not being realigned; it is staying where it is.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know if they are saying take
10' over here and give us 10' there, and they then have ability
to use the westerly portion.
54
� � r
s � �
Commissioner Bird believed there is not much shoreline left
there, and there is an erosion problem. If they have it, they
will have to stabilize it, and if we keep it, we will have that
responsibility. He expressed concern about the public's ability
to use that property if this 10' is exchanged and no longer
belongs to the county.
Attorney Collins noted that you are on county property if
your boat lands on the Trail itself; if there are any areas that
are vegetated and not maintained as a road between the road and
the river, that may not be county property even with the Mainte-
nance Map.
Commissioner Scurlock asked Commissioner Bowman if there is
any ability to go through a permitting process and fill in eroded
property and have additional land by the river, and she did not
know.
Further question arose as to what the county actually owns
and Attorney Collins explained that we have a 40' Maintenance Map
filed, but your claim is only valid to the extent that you
maintain the traveled way. If we only maintained 251, then our
claim to the full 40' might not be good. He noted that the real
advantage in this proposal is that they are proposing to deed us
40' throughout that segment. Whether there is an ability to get
additional docks based on riparian rights, he did not know.
Commissioner Bowman stressed that no matter who owns it, it
is going to have to be stabilized at some time, but she certainly
did not want to give them the right to build docks.
Attorney Bruce Barkett came before the Board representing
the developer of Indian River Trails, and advised that it was Mr.
Cain who made this proposal. He will make this proposal to
Indian River Shores next week on Phase II, and he was instructed
by Mr. Cain to make the same proposal to the County. If the
County wants it or if they don't want it, that is fine because
the developer doesn't gain anything from it. In regard to the
question about filling in eroded land, Attorney Barkett informed
SEP 5 N89 55 ;
.,�
Eo.
r•ar �
BOOK
the Board that a riparian owner owns up to the mean high water
line. Any accretion to that belongs to the riparian owner
because the mean high water line will move, and any loss of
property is his loss; so, he doesn't have a right to go back and
fill in.
Attorney Barkett felt the Board has a misconception. The
County doesn't own 401, it only owns the traveled way, and that
traveled way only touches the river for about 20/30' there. The
developer may gain 20/30' river frontage, but the formula the DER
is using is 1 boat slip every 1001; so, this is insignificant to
the applicant. Attorney Barkett stressed that the developer
doesn't particularly care if the County does this or not, but
just wanted to make the offer. What this does is give the County
a deed to 401, and it shifts it 10' landward.
Chairman Wheeler wondered why the developer wants to make
the offer, and Attorney Barkett noted that this came up in 1985
and.apparently it was something the County wanted, and he thought
the County might still want it.
Attorney Vitunac advised that his office can't see any bad
motive behind this. The benefit to the County is that it gives
us actual title to 401. He will get his riverfront, and we will
get 401, which is to our interest. What he does with the dock
permitting is another issue.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, to approve Option 2 of staff's
recommendation.
Chairman Wheeler wanted to be assured the developer won't
put docks there, and Attorney Barkett did not believe he could be
assured of that.
Chairman Wheeler noted that if we keep it, nobody can build
docks there unless the County agrees, but Attorney Barkett stated
that is wrong. The County only owns 20/30' on the river anyway,
56
and the developer owns everything west of that. He can build
docks there now, and he can build docks there if the County
agrees to this. There is only about 20/30' where the road
actually touches the river.
Commissioner Bird clarified that we do not own the land west
of Jungle Trail.
Attorney Vitunac further pointed out that the issue is that
we actually don't own everything within the 40' Maintenance Map.
We only actually own the compacted area where the graders went.
Commissioner Eggert asked how the Jungle Trail Management
Plan affects them in Indian River Shores - can they still do what
they want outside the 40' because they are in Indian River
Shores?
Attorney Collins confirmed that they can do as they want
outside the 401, and they are saying we will plat the eastern
edge of the Maintenance Map unless you want to swap.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that this might have the
advantage of shifting their future development 10' further away
from the Trail.
Attorney Vitunac agreed and further noted that if we do swap
and the shore does erode, they would lose the property not us.
-COMMISSIONER BOWMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION
on the Motion to approve Option 2 of staff's
recommendation which is "to move the Mainte-
nancy Map alignment east, authorize staff to
work with the developers in drafting the neces-
sary deeds to effect the transfer of property,
and authorize the Chairman to execute the
necessary instruments and bilateral exchange
agreements."
(THE NECESSARY DEEDS AS STATED ABOVE ARE NOW ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD)
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK SECONDED the call for the
question.
57
Jk
p / y � l r�
Cl Lr�' t 85
3f
SEP9 BOOK
The Chairman asked for a vote on the call for the question.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Chairman Wheeler voting
in opposition.
THE CHAIRMAN THEN CALLED THE QUESTION on the
Motion.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with
Chairman Wheeler voting in opposition.
Chairman Wheeler explained that he was not necessarily
against the Motion; he had just wanted more information before
voting.
REQUEST TO INCREASE MINIMUM TAX BILL FROM $1.00 TO $5.00
The Board reviewed memo from Asst. County Attorney Brennan:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Sharon P. Brennan - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: August 30, 1989
SUBJECT: Tax Collector's Request to Increase Minimum Tax
Bill from $1.00 to $5.00
The Tax Collector has requested that the Board consider
adopting a resolution which would increase the minimum tax
bill amount from $1.00 to $5.00. The Florida Statutes
authorize adoption of such a resolution to raise the minimum
tax amount and to Instruct the Property Appraiser that he
shall not make an extension on the tax roll for any parcel
for which the tax would amount to less than $5.00.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-84 approving setting the minimum tax
bill at $5.00.
58
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 84
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
'COMMI SS 1ONERS -OF INDIAN RI VER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SETTING THE MINIMUM TAX BILL AT
FIVE DOLLARS ($5.00) AND INSTRUCTING THE
PROPERTY APPRAISER THAT HE SHALL NOT
MAKE ANY EXTENS ION ON THE TAX ROLL FOR
ANY PARCEL FOR WHICH THE TAX WOULD BE
LESS THAN FIVE DOLLARS.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provision in Chapter 197,
Section 197.212, Florida Statutes, the County Tax Collector
has recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that
it should adopt a resolution instructing the Tax Collector
not to mail tax notices to a taxpayer when the amount of tax
shown on the tax notice is less than Five Dollars, and
WHEREAS, Section 197.212 provides that any
resolution so adopted shall also instruct the Property
Appraiser not to make an extension on the tax ro I I for any
parcel for which the tax would amount to less than- Five
Dollars, and
WHEREAS, the County Tax Collector has
recommended the adoption of such a resolution on the grounds
that the current minimum tax bill amount of One Dollar
creates a burden 1n that the mai 11ng of such not Ice 1s not
cost-effective to the County,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
1. The above recitals are affirmed in their entirety.
2. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County hereby adopts the recommendation of the County Tax
Collector and sets the minimum tax bill amount at Five
Dollars ($5.00) and further instructs the Property Appraiser
that he shall not make an extension on the tax roll for any
parcel for which the tax would amount to less than Five
Dollars. All previous resolutions on the subject of minimum
tax bill amounts are hereby superseded.
SEP 5 W9
59
SEP 5
BOOK T1
856
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 Ayre
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 hearing held this 5th day
of September, 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
By
nary Wheeler, Chairman
RESOLUTION OPPOSING VOTER RESOLUTION MANDATES
The Board reviewed the following "Alert" from NACO:
1 .
Alert.
i1 — --
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION -OF COUNTIES
440 FIRST STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20001
TeL 202/393-6226
TOS.
FROM:
DATE:
SUW:
f� Staff contact: Robert J.. Fogel
Chief Elected Officials
John P. Thomas
Executive Director
August 10, 1989
Voter':: Registration,: Mandates;
60
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Commissioners
Administrator
Attorney
Perscnnel
Public Works
Community Dev.
Utilities
Finance
Other 12CCS6 -
HACKGROIIND
Legislation is pending in the House and Senate which would
enlarge significantly the role of the federal government in voter
registration. Both H.R. 2190 and S. 874 would preempt authority
of state and local government in the area of voter registration
and create a series of new and costly federal mandates.
There are four major provisions of both,the House and Senate
bills. _
* DRIVER'S LICENSE APPLICATION REGISTRATION - All states
would have to establish a system to register individuals
to vote in connection with driver's license renewal and
application. Each registration completed would then have
to be processed by a local election agency, usually a
county election office.
* MAIL REGISTRATION - Counties in all states would be
required to accept voter registration by mail.
t AGENCY REGISTRATION - Locations would have to be
designated throughout every county in a variety of county
and private sector sites for the purpose of distributing
and processing voter registration applications.
* PURGE REQUIREMENTS - Federal standards would be set for '
the conditions under which individuals can be removed or
"Purged" from county registration lists.
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear Senator/Representative:
I am writing to you in opposition to voter registration
legislation pending before the Senate/House.
H.R. 2190/S. 874 would impose a series of costly federal
mandates on my county in the area of voter registration. No one
is being denied the right to register and vote in xxxxx County.
We think we are doing.a good job in our county in registering -our
citizens to vote and we hope to do more.
As you know, the administration of voter registration has
traditionally been an area reserved for state and local
government. We believe it should remain so. We do not want
Congress to tell us exactly how to register more voters and at
the same time tell us that we will have to pay for this new
federal mandate. My county does not have the funds to continue
paying for policies that the Congress wants to implement.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
61 BOOK. r F` ' �
5 1989F
BOOK. � �
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-85 opposing H.R. 2190 and S. 874.
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 85
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, THROUGH ITS BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, IN OPPOSITION TO H.R.
2190 AND S. 874 AND THEIR VOTER
REGISTRATION MANDATES_AND.PREEMPTION
OF LOCAL AUTHORITY.
. L
WHEREAS, H.R. 2190 and S. 874 have been introduced in
Congress; and
WHEREAS, this legislation would preempt state and local
government authority in the area of voter registration and
create a series of new a costly federal mandates including:
1. requiring a system to register to vote in
connection with driver's license renewal and application,
2. voter registration by mail,
3. establishment of a variety of county and
private -sector sites for the purpose of distributing and
processing voter registration applications, and
4. imposing federal standards for the conditions under
which individuals can be removed and purged from county
registration lists; and
WHEREAS, such voter registration mandates involve the
federal government In an area that has been traditionally
reserved for state and local governments; and
WHEREAS, these voter registration mandates would be
very costly for individual counties to implement; and
WHEREAS, these voter registration procedures could
Increase the likelihood of voter fraud; and
WHEREAS, additional personnel, equipment, postage,
and computerization are costs which would have to be
absorbed by the county,
62
I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the
Board opposes H.R. 2190 and S.,874 on the basis of the above
voter registration mandates being -an unjustified and costly
Intrusion into the affairs of county government.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Eggert and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Bowman and, upon being put to a vote, the vote
was as follows:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this5th day of September A- 1989,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By j�--
Gary/. Wheeler
Chai man
PROPOSED RESOLUTION RE SALES TAXON MAIL ORDER PURCHASES
The Board reviewed letter from the General Manager of Hale
Indian River Groves:
HALE INDIAN RIVER GROVES
INDIAN RIVER PLAZA • WABASSO. FLORIDA 32870
305-5894334
August 10, 1989
I R Citrus Adv Committee
.v
1840 -25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3394 _
We Would Appreciate Your Assistance: _
Your help is needed to stop Congressional action that would make mail order
shopping a nightmare for millions of Americans and cause great concern for
the well-being of mail order companies such as ours.
Briefly, the Use Tax Legislation currently before Congress will enable
individual state and local governments to collect a sales tax on purchases
made out-of-state thru mail order companies. The amount of tax to be
collected would be determined by state and local tax laws.
63 F- „�_
SEP 198 �t)aK d � lar.
Fr— -7
S E P 5 1989
BOOK FA;
Under this legislation, it would be the responsibility of the mail order
company to collect the taxes from customers. Sorting through the maze of
nurrp-rous state and local taxes would require companies to hire additional
personnel and would ultimately raise the cost of products. Again, customers
would be burdened with an increase in product cost as well as additional
charges for taxes. The bottom line ... lost sales and revenue due to
increased costs. It is even suggested in the attached text that some
companies could be forced out of business due to the unmanageable nature of
the Federal Use Tax.
Attached is "Common questions and Straight Answers About Federal Use Tax
Legislation" provided by the Florida Gift Fruit Shippers Association. Also
attached is a copy of a resolution (S. Res. 80) introduced by Robert W.
Kasten, Jr. which condemns the proposals to require mail order companies to
collect out-of-state sales taxes. Please take a few minutes to read these
items. If you •agree with the resolution, let your Congressman or Senator
know by signing the suggested letter attached (or personalize your own
letter) which urges your representative to support the Kasten Resolution, and
mail it today.
Thank you for .your consideration and cooperation.
SincerJ_
el.
Qom/
Jack Mcoonald
General Manager
Chairman Wheeler commented that he could see a tremendous
nightmare in this proposal. To have someone collect tax from 50
states and do the bookkeeping is a tremendous cost of doing
business, and he felt it is the federal government trying to
dictate to state government.
ence.
Commissioner Bowman also felt it is a tremendous inconveni-
Commissioner Bird felt that he did not know enough about it
to make an intelligent decision. In this day of computers, he
did not believe it actually is that big a deal.
Commissioner Eggert asked about local taxes on top of state
taxes. She felt that could be really complicated.
Chairman Wheeler noted that, for example, we would be
collecting New York State sales tax and Pennsylvania, etc., and
sending it back to them each month. He felt if the states want
that revenue, they should pass the legislation for it.
After further discussion, it was suggested this be tabled.
Interested citizen, William Koolage, noted that when
Congressman Lewis was here recently, two of our citrus shippers
64
- M M
raised the point of the terrible burden this would be for them in
shipping to the other states. He pointed out that there is -no
one here to speak in their behalf, and he just wanted the Board
to be aware there was some objection expressed. He agreed the
states should do this themselves.
Chairman Wheeler felt just from the view of the amount of
shipping of fruit we do in this county, we should send this
proposed resolution.
Commissioner Scurlock felt either that or send a Resolution
that states specifically how we think it should be handled
because a tremendous revenue is being lost to our state. Actu-
ally, he stated that he really wanted to have more information
before taking any action on this.
MOTION MADE by Commissioner Eggert to table the
above matter for a week, was voted on and carried
unanimously.
RESOLUTION OPPOSING 10:00 P.M. POLL CLOSING TIME
Attorney Collins informed the Board that he had discussed
the proposed Resolution opposing a 10:00 P.M. poll closing time
with Elections Supervisor Ann Robinson, and she asked that the
Resolution be amended to oppose either a 9:00 or 10:00 P.M.
closing time.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 89-86, amending the wording to oppose a
poll closing time of either 9:00 P.M. or 10:00 P.M.
SEP 5 1989 65
�ooK 77 F,�\;c. 861
BOOK 7 mu ��1v
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 86
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA OPPOSING THE 10:00 P.M. POLL
CLOSING TIME IN PROPOSED SENATE BILL
136.
WHEREAS, the House of Representatives has passed a
9:00 P.M. poll closing time; and
WHEREAS, the Senate is considering proposed Senate
Bill 136 which would set a 10:00 p.m. closing time; and
WHEREAS, 85% of the poll workers in Indian River
County are 60 years of age or older and 38% are 70 years of
age or older; and
WHEREAS, poll workers currently work 131 hours
under current law in Florida; and
WHEREAS, there are not enough competent poll
workers available to have two shifts; and
WHEREAS, the polls in Florida are now open from
7:00 a.m. to 7:00•p.m.,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that
they are opposed to the passage of S. 136 setting a 9:00
p.m. or 10:00 p.m. poll closing time.
The foregoing resolution was offered by
Commissioner Eggert and seconded by Commissioner
Scurlock , and, being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Ave
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman' -Aye--
Commissioner
Ay�Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. -Air—
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this 5th day of September, 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By ,& c CjLa,
Gary eFieeeler,Chiairman
ATTEST:
Me_e7arton, er APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
BY
WILLIAM G. COLLINS II
ASST. COUNTY ATTORNEY
66
_I
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD
The following have been received and put on file in the
Office of the Clerk:
COPY OF City of Vero Beach Ordinance #89-49, abandoning
a 10' Alley in Block 37, Original Town of Vero, for use
by the Library.
COPY OF Indemnity Agreement between the County and City of
Vero Beach regarding vacation of the portion of 22nd Street
between 16th and 17th Avenues and the 10' alley in Block
37, Original Town of Vero, approved at the Regular Meeting
of July 18, 1989.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board unanimously adjourned at 11:15
o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Chairman
67 1 �
11% 675 19 BOOK