HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/20/1990BOAMI7 ACT 1 ON >; 1 MPLEMENTAT 1 C>N
r` ..
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 20, 1990
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25th STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Gary C. Wheeler Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 AM 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
a)Report from Comm'r.Scurlock on FACo meeting in Jacksonville.
b)Discussion on Budget Schedules submitted earlier.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approved. A. Approval of Minutes of Regular
Meeting of 1/16/90
B. Approval of Minutes of Regular
Approved. Meeting of 1/23/90
6.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Accept verbal resignation of
.Approved.
Robert Pennington from MANWAC
as he has been transferred
B. Requested Change in Capital
Approved,
Equipment
(Memorandum dated 1/23/90)
C. Request site plan extension for
Approved.
Paul E. Koehler, Warehouse &
trades building
(Memorandum dated 1/30/90)
Approved.
D. Amendment capital funds for
purchase of communication
equipment
(Memorandum dated 2/1/90)
7.
CLERK TO THE BOARD
None
FEB 2 0 1r9Q
r
FEB 2 0 ` r
.. BODS
9:05 AM 8. A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Res. 90-22 1) Public Gas' request to
abandon a portion of
4th Place
(Memorandum dated 1/12/90)
2) ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FOLLOWING
SECTIONS OF APPENDIX A OF THE
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF
Ord. 90-4 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE IN
REGARDS TO MODIFYING AND
ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS RELATING
TO UNENCLOSED COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENTS:
SECTION 4(A), A-1, AGRICULTURAL
DISTRICT: SECTION 25.1(d)
UNENCLOSED COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENTS
SPECIFIC LAND USE REGULATIONS: AND
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE
(Memorandum dated 1/12/90)
3) ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-2, 3-51
3-10, and 3-16 OF THE INDIAN RIVER
Ord. 90-5 COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE OF
effective date THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS
April 1, 1990 AND ORDINANCES: PROVIDING FOR
DEFINITIONS: PROVIDING FOR OWNERSHIP
Res. 90-23 - RESPONSIBILITIES: PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC
RESPONSIBILITIES: PROVIDING FOR
VIOLATION FOR UNLAWFULLY HARBORING
WILD ANIMALS: PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION
OF RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA SETTING FINES FOR CITATIONS
FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE:
PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS:
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY: PROVIDING
FOR INCORPORATION IN CODE: AND
PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE
(Memorandum dated 2/14/90)
9. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
10. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COM�:UNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
1) Approval for ambulance chassis
Approved. purchase and remounting,of
Type III modular box
(Memorandum dated 2/13/90)
2) Approval of funding to purchase
Approved. approved telecommunication device
for the deaf (TDD)
(Memorandum dated 2/13/90)
10 .
Approved.
Approved.
Res. 90-24
Res. 90-25
Approved.
Approved.
Res. 90-26
11.
12.
L
DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS - CONTINUED
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
Bridge replacement at 74th Avenue/
Oslo Road
(Memorandum dated 2/6/90)
H. UTILITIES
1) So. County reverse osmosis water
treatment plant work authorization
No. 8 with Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc.
(Memorandum dated 2/12/90)
2) Rockridge area sanitary sewer system
Resolution No. 4, Final Assessment
(Memorandum dated 2/12/90)
3) Vista Royale wastewater system
improvements C.O. #1
(Memorandum dated 1/26/90)
4) EPA "No Discharge" National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permits
(Memorandum dated 2/7/90)
5) 6th Avenue sewer project final
assessment, and the fourth Resolution
confirming and recording the
assessment
(Memorandum dated 2/12/90)
COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
CONIPIISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K..EGGERT
1 yr. extension to Aug. Discussion regarding Children's Home
15; 1991 - at that time Society request for a 2 year extension
they should have a C.O. or on the operation of their facility
on their way to completion (Letter dated 2/2/90)
and obtaining a C.O.
B. VICE CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD
C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN
BOOK
0 1990
,FEB0 1990�
ol
BOOK. 79 �'.E�9u�
12. COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS — CONTINUED
D. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
Report on FACO meeting in Jacksonville.
E. COMMISSIONER GARY C. WHEELER:
Write letter to con-
stitutionals, state Disc. on budget schedule.
agencies, local 13. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
agencies stating
that we are trying
to bring the budget
in at roll-back.
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE'MADE AT THIS
MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS.
MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL
BE BASED.
Tuesday, February 20, 1990
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,
February 20, 1990, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Carolyn K.
Eggert, Chairman; Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman; Margaret C.
Bowman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr.; and Gary C. Wheeler. Also present
were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac,
Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Barbara
Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Scurlock requested the addition to today's
Agenda of a brief report on the recent FACo conference he
attended in Jacksonville.
Commissioner Wheeler requested an addition under his matters
of a discussion on next year's budget schedules.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added
the above items to today's Agenda.
1990
199
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chai.rman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 16,
1990. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
1/16/90, as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 23,
1990. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
1/23/90, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Wheeler requested that Item B be removed from
the Consent Agenda for discussion, and Commissioner Scurlock
requested that Item D be removed also.
A. Acceptance of Verbal Resignation of Robert Pennington from
MANWAC Committee
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted
the verbal resignation of Robert Pennington from
the MANWAC Committee for reasons of his being
transferred.
2
r
B. Requested Change in Capital Equipment
TO: Members of the Board of DATE: "" 23, 1990 FILE:
County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Reques ted Change in Capital
p Equipment
A
`
M: REFERENCES:
;FROBob xomarinet
` Director of Golf
I P1 D.400 r r • •*: a •: �.
This budget year there is $600.00 approved to purchase a steam table
for -the Snack Bar at Sandridge Golf Club. It has been.detennined that
this steam table will not be needed at the time, due to space
limitations. It is requested that $500.00 of the $600.00 designated
for the steam table be approved for purchase of ccmfort mats in the
Snack Bar area.
Staff recommends the purchase of the comfort mats-for.the Snack Bar
area.
Commissioner Wheeler noted that he purchased similar floor
mats for use in his business establishment, and it didn't seem
that they were this expensive. He asked if we had shopped
around to see what other prices are.
Administrator Chandler believed that they had looked at
other mats, and these mats are made of a heavy -grade, rubberized
material. -
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation for the purchase of comfort mats
for the floor behind the Snack Bar at Sandridge Golf
Club, with the understanding that staff has checked
other prices.
,z 9.
3 BOOK 6 F'�vc�
_I
FE B 1990 Bou 7 9 F',,,r q,, 6
C.* Request for Site Plan Extension by Paul E. Koehler for
Warehouse and Trades_ Building
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/30/90:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
49t&i /29-2
Robert M. Keati g, P
Community Developmerm Director
.06
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Chief, Current Development
FROM: Chris Rison cpp-
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: January 30, 1990
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN EXTENSION FOR PAUL E. KOEHLER
SP -MA -88-09-72
WAREHOUSE AND TRADES BUILDING
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of February 20, 1990.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On August 10, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a
major site plan application submitted by Paul E. Koehler. Ap-
•proval was given to construct a 13,200 sq. ft. warehouse and
trades building at 9110 16th Place.
Due to partnership commitments in other areas, Mr. Koehler has
been unable to commence construction prior to the expiration of
the approved site plan. Furthermore, Mr. Koehler is of the
opinion that' the current site plan approval expiration date will
pass before construction can commence. If no construction has
begun by August 10, 1990, the site plan approval will lapse unless
otherwise extended by the Board of County Commissioners.
No regulations have changed since the time of site plan approval
that would affect the project's design if it were reviewed as a
new application today.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 23.2(G)(2), Appendix A of
_the Zoning Code, Mr. Koehler is
requesting a full 1 year extension
- of the approved site plan. It has been the policy of the Board to
grant extensions to projects which conform to current codes.
"»�-- ; RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Mr. Koehler's request for a one year
A extension of the approved site plan; the new expiration.date' to be
:r August 10, 1991.
4
I
s
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation, granting a one-year extension
of the approved site plan; the new expiration date to
be August 10, 1991.
TO: JAMES CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: H.T.."SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICE
LYNN WILLIAMS, SUPT.
BUILDING AND GROUNDS
-� DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 1990
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT CAPITAL FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF COMMUNICATION
EQUIPMENT
CONSENT AGENDA
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Building and Grounds Division budget request for FY 89-90
included a $12,000.00 line item for the purchase of communication
equipment for Division vehicles. This request was not approved.
Building and Grounds remains the only Division not equipped with
radio communications.on the 800 mghz trunking system.
The lack of this equipment poses a continuing problem of contact
with personnel charged with the maintenance and repair of almost
20 locations. In emergency situations, it is sometimes difficult
to establish communications via telephone, leaving us with no way
to contact key personnel.
Building and Grounds presently has $15,000.00 in approved funding
for the purchase and installation of a folding partition in the
Sheriff's Department auditorium. This request was forwarded by the
Sheriff's Department and approved by the Board during budget
hearings.
Sonny Dean has contacted the Sheriff's Department and received
concurrence in postponing this project until FY 90-91.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Staff requests that the purchase of the following communications
---=: equipment be authorized (proposal attached) for use in the Building
_ and Grounds Division using funds presently allocated for the
- =Wilding partition at'the Sheriff's Administration Building.
`��g� 5 PuGK FADE
Quantity
1 -
1
1
1
Equipment_
TPX Portable
w/chargers, mic,
speaker
TPX Portable
w/chargers, mic,
speaker
8615 Mobile with
touchpad
8615 Mobile with
touchpad
8415 Mobile
8415 Mobile
8415 Mobile
8415 Mobile
8415 Mobile
8415 Mobile
8615 Control
with mi.c
SSC Remote
BOOK 1 f'>1•GC
Cost
$ 1, 679-.40
(installed)
1,679.40
(installed)
882.00
(installed)
882.00
(installed)
741.00
(installed)
741.00
(installed)
741.00
(installed)
741.00
(installed)
741.00
(installed)
741.00
(installed)
923.90
(installed)
249.00
(installed)
Vehicl9#_
357
244
370
314
200
46
180
C!
New -on order
New -on order
Of f ice
Shop Office
2 MPI Portables 380.52 Shop use
(each)
$119502.74 Total
Total above represents the total cost of equipment including
installation. In addition to the equipment costs, there will be
a $45.00 per month charge applicable to 4 units equipped with
telephone capability.
-This charge is applied to the county trunking system budget.
A $9.00 per month charge applies to the remaining 7 standard mobile
units and control base.
5a
W
_ M
Total recurring monthly charge for all radios will be 8243.00 or
819701.00 for the remainder of FY 89-90.
All equipment will operate on existing county frequencies in the
800 mghz UHF system.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
Staff recommends the amendment of requested capital funds presently
approved for the partition (acct. #001-220-519-041.25) to allow
purchase of the communication equipment as outlined above and
contained in the attached proposal from Communications
International of Vero. All prices are current G.S.A. contract.
Staff recommends reallocation of 81,701.00 for the monthly
_recurring system charges to the proper operating accounts.
Commissioner Scurlock was concerned because this item wasn't
approved in the budget, and wondered why we just don't save this
money since we have had to go into contingencies a number of
times already this year and this could be used to offset some of
those things.
Administrator Chandler advised that this is an item he had
cut during the preparation of this year's budget. After the
budget was adopted, they came in and indicated there was a
critical need for this, and he told them that in order to be
considered it would have to be a replacement for something else
that had been budgeted and it would have to be demonstrated that
it was a higher priority.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that staff's recommendation
is for reallocation of $1700 per month, and Administrator
Chandler explained that the funds that had been budgeted for the
partition in the auditorium would be used to purchase the radios
in the amount of $11,503, which is $243 a month. It would be
$1700 for the balance of the fiscal year, but that would be an
on-going expense.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if the folding partition for the
auditorium in the Sheriff's Administration Building would be put
back into next year's budget, and Administrator Chandler advised
that it will be considered at budget time when it is submitted.
FEB 2 0 1990 6 noK FAc
BOOK 79 ma.. i 1
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment 041 for the purchase of communications
equipment for Building & Grounds vehicles, as set out
in the above staff recommendation.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird, OMB Directo
SUBJECT:
NUMBER: 041
DATE: February 20, 1990
BUDGET AMENDMENT
Entry
Number
Funds De artment Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Buildincr & Grounds
Building Alterations
001-220-519-041.25
S 0
S13,204.00
Communication Ectuipment
001-220-519-066.45
$11,503.00
0
Communication E i went Maint.
001-220-519-044.71
1.701.00
0
PUBLIC HEARING - PUBLIC GAS' REQUEST TO ABANDON A PORTION OF 4TH
PLACE
The hour of 9:05 o'clock having passed, the Deputy Clerk
read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to
wit:
J
7
W
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL.
Published. Daily
Vero. Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority*personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach
/in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a�"�'�
In the matter of
in the A Court, was pub-
>�.�'J'"v�,�--:mss--
—:_Ilshed in said newspaper in the issues of
-...: - Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, fora period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for he purpose of securing -this
advertisement for publication in the paid newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this ,y day o D. 19 �Q
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River/County, Florida)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING :� b
Notice of hearing to consider a petition for the
closing, abandOnment, and vacation of a portion
of 4th Place ng between the west right f�
line of U.S. H o8y 1 and the east rig
line of the FE raUroad. fying being If1 Ir►-
dian RNer County. Florida. 'es in Interest
A public. hearing at which" pard
anddtl2ene l- shalhave ,an : Opportunity to be
heard. will be held by the Board of county Com-
missioners of Indian Rhrer County, Florida In.
the
County Commission Chambers of the
Administration Building. located at 1840
Street. Vero Beaah..Fiorida on,Tueetday. 6sbru•
-on tstga at 9:05 a. :. �•: �• TEl'.:'4 1
which may be'mads WhOm htappealat m wi11 heed two
ensure that a verbatimfrocord of�`proceed-
hip is made, which Includes testimony and evi-
dence upon which theappeal"w ll be based: •. A
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY . ' ." 11Pthll
'
BOARD OF COUNTY COWASSIQNERS�,
BY-s-CAROLYN EGGERT• ...a •.
Chairman kfis.'r IV vu, -U+'!
January 26. IM __': ``_':�''�':: `� '_i;i X880318
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/12/90:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert . Keat'ng, CP
Community Deve opm t Director
40
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Chief, Current De lopment
FROM: John W. McCoy
Staff Planne , urrent Development
DATE: February 12, 1990
SUBJECT: Public Gas' request to abandon a portion of 4th Place
It is requested- that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of February 20, 1990.
BOOK
8
ED 2 0 1990
I
BOOK 19 PATE 27,tj
LOCATION, DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:
Carter and Associates, on behalf of Public Gas Company, has
submitted a petition for abandonment of a portion of 4th Place
right-of-way located between U.S. #1 and the FEC railroad.
Recently the Board of County Commissioners abandoned a segment of
4th Place right-of-way on the west (other) side of the FEC rail-
road. Per guidelines established by the Board of County Commis-
sioners, the petition was reviewed by all County divisions and
utility providers having jurisdiction within the right-of-way.
All reviewing agencies have recommended approval of the abandon-
ment with two agencies recommending conditions. The City of Vero
Beach Utilities Company has recommended approval with the pro-
vision that the entire right-of-way be retained as an above ground
electrical easement. The County Public Works department has
recommended that a 20' wide drainage and utilities easement be
retained (which is to be centered in the existing right-of-way)
and that the east 50' of the subject right-of-way segment be
retained (not abandoned).
--- This item was originally scheduled for the October 3, 1989 Board
--- of County Commissioners meeting. At that meeting the applicant
requested postponing. consideration to allow time to work with
staff on a possible "right-of-way swap". In the proposed "swap",
-the applicant would have given the County the east 10' across
their entire U.S. #1 frontage, and the Count would have
g , y given
(via abandonment) the applicant all of the 4th Place right-of-way
y; except the east 10 feet ( adjacent to -U.S. #1). The applicant and
Y staff had agreed in concept that this would be a desirable "swap",
- but the County Attorneys Office subsequently determined that the
swap was not legal.
The applicant and staff could not work-out an alternate arrange-
ment relating to the U.S. #1 and 4th Place right-of-way. The
application is again ready for the Board's consideration. Staff's
=.-.- analysis and recommendation as originally proposed at the October
1989 meeting are still applicable.
ANALYSIS:
Presently, the 4th Place right-of-way is paved but in poor condi-
tion. The applicant wants to use the additional property, that
would be gained via an abandonment, to expand his existing
business, which is adjacent to the right-of-way. The abandoned
right-of-way segment would be used for additional parking. This
abandonment will also be beneficial to the other adjacent property
owner to the south of this 4th Place segment.
The City of Vero beach presently has power poles which are located
within the right-of-way. The City has requested that an above
ground easement be retained. This type of easement would allow
the abandoned right-of-way to serve its existing utilities func-
tion, while giving the petitioner the assurance that the abandoned
right-of-way would be able to be used as a parking area. Within
the 50' wide overhead utilities easement' a 20' wide drainage and
utilities would be established, centered over the abandoned
__right-of-way. Within this 20' easement, drainage and utilities
-facilities could be installed.
The east 50' of the subject
� portion of right-of-way is adjacent to
---- U.S. #1 and is within the "ultimate" future U.S. #1 right-of-way.
As such, it is part of the roadway system as noted on the County
Thoroughfare Plan, and is needed for the thoroughfare system. The
County needs to retain the east 50' of the subject right-of-way
--for U.S. Highway #1. This will give the County 100' of
7
right-of-way for U.S. #1 west of the centerline of U.S. #1 as
recommended by the Public Works Director.
With the stated U.S. #1 right-of-way and easement reservation
conditions, all right-of-way abandonment criteria and policies are
satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the County abandon its rights to the subject
portion of 4th Place and that the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners be authorized to execute the attached resolution
(Attachment #4), which contains the following conditions:
1. That the east 50' of the described subject right-of-way be
retained by the County for U.S. #1 right-of-way.
2. That an above ground utility easement be retained over the
entire area abandoned, and a 20' wide drainage and utilities
easement be retained, centered over the abandoned
right-of-way.
Commissioner Bowman asked if we would have a problem if the
property was sold, and Stan Boling, Chief of Current Development,
explained that this really affects two properties. The
right-of-way is between two properties, and everyone has access.
Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 90-22, providing for the closing,
abandonment, and vacation of a portion of 4th Place.
10
BOOK
FL 2 RESOLUTION NO. 90- 22 nu
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING, ABANDON-
MENT, AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF 4TH PLACE, SAID LANDS
LYING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, on March 28, 1989 the County received a duly execut-
ed and documented petition from Dean Luethje as agent for Public
Gas, requesting the County to close, vacate, abandon and disclaim
any right, title and interest of the County and the public in and
to a portion of 4th Place lying between U.S. #1 and the FEC
Railroad, said lands lying in Indian River County, Florida.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes §336.10, notice
of a public hearing to consider said petition has been duly
published; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the petition, supporting
documents, staff investigation and report, and testimony of all
those interested and present, the Board finds that said
right-of-way is not a state or federal highway, is not located
within any municipality, and a portion of the 4th Place
right-of-way is not necessary for continuity of the County's
street and thoroughfare network, or for access to any given
private property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS-
SIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
1. All right, title and interest of the County and the public in
and to that certain right-of-way being know more particularly
described as:
A 50 foot wide road right-of-way of 4th Place, lying West of
State Road 5, (U.S. Highway No. 1) West right-of-way line as
of February 20 _ , 1990, and East of the Florida East
Coast Railway East right-of-way line as of February 20 ,
1990. The centerline of which is more particularly described
as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Southeast
one-quarter of the Northeast one-quarter of Section 13,
Township 33 South, Range 39 East run Southerly along the West
line of said Southeast one-quarter of Northeast one-quarter a
distance of 668.88 feet to a point on the said East
right-of-way line of the Florida East Coast Railway; thence
run Southeasterly along said East right-of-way a distance of
351.24 feet to the centerline of aforesaid 4th Place and
Point of Beginning; thence run Easterly and parallel to the
South boundary line of the North one-half of the South
one-half of aforesaid Southeast one-quarter of the Northeast
one-quarter a distance of 126..73 feet to the aforesaid West
right-of-way line of State Road Number 5 (U.S. Highway No. 1)
and point of ending.
Said land lying in Indian River County, Florida.
is hereby forever closed, abandoned, vacated, surrendered,
discontinued, remissed and released, with the following reser-
vations:
a. an above ground utility easement be retained (over the
rights-of-way being abandoned as described above) and
this easement is reserved in perpetuity unto the County
,and the Public and shall not be deemed to have been
closed or abandoned in any way by this resolution;
b. the east 50' as described above and measured normal to
the west right-of-way of U.S. #1 Highway is reserved in
perpetuity unto the County and the Public for road
right-of-way and shall not be deemed to have been closed
or abandoned in any way by this resolution;
11
c. a 20' wide easement, centered in the center of the
existing right-of-way is reserved in perpetuity unto the
County and the Public for drainage and utilities and
shall not be deemed to have been closed or abandoned in
any way by this resolution.
2. Notice of the adoption of this resolution shall be forthwith
published once within thirty (30) days from the'.date of adoption
hereof; and
3 The Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution
together with the proofs of publication required by Florida
Statutes §336.10 in the Official Record Books of -Indian river
County without undue delay.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Wheeler who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Scurlock , and upon being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows;
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice -Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. .A ee
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman .A�ee
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Hye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this20th day of February , 1990.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDDIIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: L �� iC. P,"( 6 ;t7
Caroly K. Egge Id, Chairman
Board f Count Commissioners
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING CODES RE UNENCLOSED
COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENTS
The hour of 9:05 o'clock having passed, the Deputy Clerk
read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to
wit.
FE �'4106 V 12 ROOK f F'uE4,lu
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority'personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
iiG.zor•
in the matter
in the Court, was pub-
d in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further'says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach,in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been Continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund fo the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the *aid newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me tf>S _day o
_jA.D. 19
�•§'�` A��-�
- (Business Manager)
IsEAu
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian Rider County, -Florida)
`
NolOry "Ic, State of Florida
Wf Cbmabolia Blip' ww 2P. 119ft
BOOK
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that ttre Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which par,,
ties In Interest and citizens shall have an oppor-
tunity to be heard. in the County Commission
Chambers of the County Administration Build-
Ing, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach.
Florida on Tuesday, February 20, 1890 at 9:0
a.m. to consider adoption of an, ordinance enti-
god:
AN ORDINANCE OF 'INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING -THE.
.,
FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF APPENDIX
A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDI-:;,,
` NANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
FLORIDA KNOWN AS THE ZONING
CODE IN REGARDS TO_MODIFYING ,
MERCIAL AMUSEMENTS: SECTION
4(A), A-1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT; ..
SECTION 25.1(d) UNENCLOSED COM-
MERCIAL AMUSEMENTS SPECIFIC
LAND USE REGULATIONS; AND
TION, SEVERABILITY. AND EFFECTIVE,;
..DATE. -...,..::., ... :... ,-•�.,.
.Acc, of fl�epr aeps� Ordinance Is available I
8t the Planning Department office on the second
floor of the County Administration Building.
Anyone who may wish to appeal ar�y dd
which may be made at this mewing will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the praeeedings
Is made, which Includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal Is based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY-a-CAROLYN K. EGGERT.
January 26, ION ' 850053,
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/12/90:
TO: The Honorable Members of The Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
ILI— I
2&j -o 0,0
Robert Keating, ICP
Community Developme t Di Octor
FROM: Stan BolinAICP
Chief, Current Development
_. DATE: January 12, 1990
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 4(A) and
25.1(d) OF THE ZONING CODE: DRIVING RANGES IN
AGRICULTURALLY ZONED AREAS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
_meeting of February 20, 1950.
13
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
At its regular meeting of October 17, 1989, the Board of County
Commissioners reviewed and approved an ordinance (ORD. 89-30),
which comprehensively addressed unenclosed commercial amusements
(eg. drive-ins, miniature golf courses, race traces, driving
ranges). During consideration of Ord. 89-30, the Board expressed
an opinion that the ordinance was too restrictive in its regu-
lation of where driving ranges could be located within the ag-
ricultural zoning district (A-1) (See attachment M. While
adopting Ord. 89-30 as proposed, the Board also directed staff to
revisit the regulation of driving ranges in the agricultural
district. Staff has now addressed the Board's expressed concerns
and is proposing an amendment to the zoning code to allow, under
certain circumstances, driving ranges on agriculturally zoned
property that has a residential land use designation.
At its regular meeting of January 11, 1990, the Planning and.
zoning Commission unanimously recommended that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt the proposed ordinance (see attachment #2).
ANALYSIS:
�.„.Ordinance 89-30 allows driving ranges in the agricultural district
only as an administrative permit use and only on sites having a
__anon -residential land 'use designation. The Board was of the
g=== opinion that limiting driving ranges to either commercial nodes or
=.-.-=F.==far-removed agricultural areas was too restrictive. Board members
opined that with restrictions such as daytime use only, a driving
'-Y==-:T_ range could be a compatible "holding” use in developing, residen-
tially designated areas.
-Based upon the Board's directive, staff has drafted an ordinance
which:
1. continues what Ord. 89-30 established, allowing driving
ranges in the A-1 district areas which have a non-residential
land use designation, by administrative permit approval; and
2. "opens up" areas where driving ranges could be developed by
allowing driving ranges in A-1 district areas designated for
residential use, by special exception approval.
The proposed ordinance (see attachment $4) contains two sections
of substance..
SECTION l:modifies the A-1 district regulations to allow
driving ranges in residential designated land use
areas by special exception approval.
SECTION 2:applies the appropriate administrative permit
criteria to the special exception criteria stan-
dards. and establishes additional criteria to
special exception applications as follows.
a. A 150' building setback from project bound-
aries is applied.
b. Driving range hours of operation are limited
to daylight hours only; lighting of the range
area is prohibited.
C* Site access is required to be from a Thorough-
fare Plan road.
d. A Type "B" buffer is required between any
parking and building area, and any residen-
tially designated adjacent property.
SEB 0 `1990 ' 4 BOOK �9 FaUc � 1
AW
Boa 79
Sections 3-6 contain standard legal language that is inserted in
all County ordinances.
With the proposed criteria and special exception approval process,
it is staff's opinion that driving ranges could be compatible uses
within a residentially designated area on agriculturally zoned
property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Bird understood that site access must be off of
a Thoroughfare Plan designated road, and Stan Boling, Chief. of
Current Development, explained that access can be off any of the
collector roadways that are on the Thoroughfare Plan, such as 8th
Street, 12th Street, Oslo, etc.
Commissioner Bird also asked for an explanation of a Type
"B" buffer, and Mr. Boling explained that it involves at least a
3 -ft. continuous hedge or fence and one canopy tree per 40 feet.
It is not a solid wall or opaque. The setbacks that we have
applied here would keep the buildings or structures far away from
the property lines.
Commissioner Bowman wondered if "daylight only" is sensible,
and Commissioner Bird didn't feel that lighting is needed here in
Florida, his thinking being that if those type of activities are
to be lighted, they should be located in commercially -zoned areas
where lighting is appropriate. The purpose of this was to allow
driving ranges in other areas and to loosen it up a little. He
felt the lighting prohibition is workable.
Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she
closed the Public Hearing.
15
FEB 20 1990
L-
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 90-4, amending the Zoning Code in
regards to modifying and establishing regulations
relating to unenclosed commercial amusements, driving
ranges.
,6
i
BDOK I9>E?u
pr -
ORDINANCE NO. 90- 4 600K 1 9 F',Gr 28
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING THE
FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDI-
NANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA KNOWN AS THE ZONING CODE IN
REGARDS TO MODIFYING AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS RELATING TO
UNENCLOSED COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENTS, DRIVING RANGES: SECTION 4(A),
A-1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT; SECTION 25.1(d) UNENCLOSED COMMERCIAL
AMUSEMENTS SPECIFIC LAND USE REGULATIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL
OF CONFLICTING PROVISION, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
NOW THEREFORE, be it ordered by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida that:
SECTION 1
Section 4W(d) be hereby amended as follows:
"(d) Special exception uses. the following uses may be
permitted within the A-1 Agricultural District, subject
to the specific use criteria established in Section
25.1, regulations for specific land uses, and review
procedures established in Section 25.3, regulation of
special exception uses.
Coding:
1. Agricultural uses. (Section 25.1(a)).
Agricultural businesses, excluding wholesaling and
processing.
Agricultural industries.
2. Residential uses.
Guest cottages (Section 25.1(b)).
Planned residential development (Section 25.4)
3. Community service uses. (Section 25.1(d)).
Correctional institutions.
Cultural and civic facilities.
Educational facilities, excluding business,
secretarial and vocational.
Governmental administration buildings.
4. Recreational uses (Section 25.1(0)).
Major sports and recreation areas and facilities
including sports stadiums.
5. Commercial uses
a. Commercial amusement, unenclosed;
Driving ranges (residential land use
designated areas) (Section 25.1(d))
6.%J Transportation uses (Section 25.1(h)).
Airports and airstrips.
7.01 Utility uses (Section 25.1(i)).
Public and private utilities, heavy.
Transmission towers: Microwave, radio, T.V., etc."
Words in OthAOX4tM A type are deletions from existing law.
Words underlined are additions.
1
M
ORDINANCE NO. 90- 4
SECTION 2:
Section 25.1(d)3. of Appendix A of the Code of Laws and Ordinances
of Indian River County, is hereby amended as follows:
"3. Driving ranges.
a. Districts requiring administrative permit: A-1
(non-residential land use designated areas only), CG and
CH Districts upon approval for an administrative permit
as provided in Section 25.2 and after meeting the
requirements defined below.
b. District requiring special exception: A-1 district
(residential land use designated areas only) as provided
in Section 25.3 and after meeting the requirements
elow.
c.)fi! Additional information requirements: plans and docu-
mention shall be provided by the developer as needed to
demonstrate compliance with the following requirements.
d.¢/ Criteria for driving ranges:
1. Non -range areas. All areas except the range (ball
landing) area, such as the parking, building,
practice putting, and tee -off areas shall be
located at least 100' from any
dUttUtl property having a residential land use
designation criterion for administrative permit
and special exception applications
2. Tree protection. No protected trees, as defined
within the tree protection ordinance, shall be
removed from the range (ball landing) area unless
the applicant demonstrates that removal of the
tree(s) is necessary for reasons of safety or
functioning of the range (such as for ball re-
trieval.) (criterion for administrative permit and
special exception applications).
3. Exterior lighting. Lighting plans shall be provid-
ed (and implemented) which demonstrate that no
"spill over" from exterior light sources shall fall
onto either roadways or residential zoning dis-
tricts that are adjacent to the project site
(criterion for administrative permit applications
only). -
4. No driving range shall be allowed on a site zoned
A-1 unless that site has a non-residential land use
plan designation (criterion for administrative
permit applications only).
5. In addition to criterion #1, no building shall be
located within 150' of the project site property
boundary (criterion for special exception app -11 -
cations
li-cations only).
6. The driving range shall be open and operated only
during daylight hours. Lighting of the range area
is prohibited. Exterior lighting of buildings may
be allowed for security purposes (criterion for
special exception applications only).
7. Access to the site must be off a Thoroughfare Plan
designated road; driving range traffic should not
Coding: Words in WWft%" type are deletions from existing law.
Words underlined are additions.
2
FEB � �� �
���Q
ORDINANCE NO.
90- 4 �,
BOOK /
FAGre
28"
Aye
Ave
impact local roads or
residential areas (criterion
for special exception
applications only).
8.
At a minimum, a Type
B buffer shall be provided
between any non -range
area and adjacent property
having a residential
land use designation
(crite-
rion for special exception
application only)."
SECTION 3:
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legisla-
ture applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River
County and which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance
are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 4:
CODIFICATION
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "sec-
tion", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of
this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intentions.
SECTION 5:
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word
of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional,
inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining
portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legis-
lative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitution-
al, invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 6:
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon
receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowl-
edgement that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of
State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida on this 20thday of February ,
1990.
This ordinance was advertised was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press -Journal on the 26th day of January , 1990, for a public
hearing to be held on the 20th day of February , 1990, at
which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Bird ,
seconded by Commissioner Scurlock , and adopted by the.
following vote;
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler
Aye
Aye
Ave
Aye
Aye
Cod Words in t re deletions from exist' aw.
to Words underlined are a.. ns.
ORDINANCE NO. 90- 4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By ,�
Carolyn ' Eggert/rd
ggert, Chairman
ATTEST BY:
y K ar o , Clerk
-�-j
J.
Acknowledgement by the Department of Stateof the State of Florida
this 28th day of February , 1990.
Effective Date: Acknowledgement from the Department of State
received on this 5th day of March , 1990 at
9:00 A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the.Clerk of
the Board of County commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY.
William G. Collins II, Assistant
County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
Ro ert M. Reati g, unity
Development Direc r
Unenclosed
ORD 2
Coding: Words in Ot:NOXE W;l type are deletions from existing law.
Words underlined are additions.
4
F E 20 1990
as
BOOK PAGE e�1
PUBLIC HEARING - ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION SETTING
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication, to
wit.
VEIRO BEACH PRESS401.1 4AL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann. Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement. being
a
' in the matter of�'�-�`
in the ^^ ----Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of 3l, 1 -` [r C rj
i
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in sajd Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount; rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the paid newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this °�{'L'ZV% .day of
14. A.D. 19
r
+�✓i� M nagoF)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
(SEAL)
Nc.-,y ::•:raic. '.rs�+fr?��fq�St]
'chi C..fiiluritF4bASL'.da :'tF+=• to . a.�,r 4'+ .•,y��
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River Counttyy, Florida, win conduct a Public
Hearing on T1u- ay, February 20, 1990 at M
am. In the Commission Chambers at :840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, FL 32980, to consider the
adoption of an ordinance entitled.
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER a
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SEC-
TIONS 3-2, 3-5, 3-10, and 3-18 OF THE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ANIMAL CON-
TROL ORDINANCE OF THE INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR DEFI-
NITIONS:, PROVIDING FOR OWNER-
SHIP RESPONSIBILITIES: PROVIDING
FOR PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITIES;
PROVIDING FOR VIOLATION FOR UN-
LAWFULLY HARBORING WILD ANI_
MALS; PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION OF
RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA SETTING
FINES FOR CITATIONS FOR VIOLA-
TIONS OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE;
PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVI-
SIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL-
ITY: PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION
IN CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR EFFEC-
TIVE DATE.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the p. Inge
Is made, which Includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal Is based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
•
'BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CAROLYN K. EGGERT, CHAIRMAN
Jan. 30, 1990 850951
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/14/90:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Sharon P. Brennan - Assistant County Attorney 56
DATE: February 14, 1990
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE
BCC PUBLIC HEARING - 2/20/90
RESOLUTION SETTING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATON OF
AN I MIIAL CONTROL ORDINANCE
Presented today for public hearing is consideration of a
Ploposed amendment to the Animal Control Ordinance initiated
21
� � r
by the Animal Control Division and the County Attorney's
Office primarily to address the deficiencies of the current
ordinance used to handle dangerous and vicious dog problems.
This proposed amendment will streamline the process whereby
vicious dogs are identified by the Animal. Control Division
and owners of vicious dogs are required to take on
additional responsibilities for. these dogs. The amended
ordinance also provides for additional ownership
responsibilities for all pet owners and incorporates by
reference provisions of the Florida Statutes which pertain
to Animal Control. The amended ordinance further provides_
for civil - penalties for violations of the ordinance and
provides that penalties for violations of specific sections
of the ordinance shall be established by resolution of the
Board of County Commissioners.
A Resolution setting penalties for violation of animal
control ordinance is also presented for adoption by the
Board.
SPB/sb
Assistant County Attorney Sharon Brennan explained that our
current ordinance is unwieldly and has the effect of giving dogs
two free bites. The County Attorney's Office and the Animal
Control Dept. have looked at ordinances from all over the state
and country and are proposing an ordinance modeled after one
passed in 1987 in Broward County. Instead of concentrating on
dog breeds, that ordinance has proved effective by defining
vicious dogs by their behavior and actions.
Chairman Eggert noted that there has been some concern about
the ability of an owner of a vicious dog to obtain the required
$100,000 liability insurance coverage, and Nate McCollum of the
Animal Control Department advised that they had polled 6
insurance companies. Two said they would not carry such
insurance while four others said it would be on a case-by-case
basis.
Chairman Eggert was concerned about vicious dogs not having
to wear their vicious dog tags at dog shows in this county
because of the danger to children, but Commissioner Scurlock
understood they would have to be on a leash and under control of
the owner or the trainer.
Commissioner Wheeler questioned whether dogs that have been
labelled as vicious should even be allowed at local dog shows,
where children would be present, and Attorney Brennan explained
2 2
FEB
2 0 1990- soot` <<
FEB 2 0 '199U
BOOK .79
that the dog show provision was something we took from the
Broward County ordinance; however, they do have more dog shows
than we do in this county.
Commissioner Wheeler was concerned that the County would be
liable for an injury if it allowed vicious dogs at dog shows, and
Commissioner Bird felt the criteria for determining a vicious dog
must be very clear, because he was concerned about too broad an
interpretation or somebody's personal opinion.
Commissioner Scurlock was concerned that a dog would be
determined to be vicious based only on one neighbor's complaint.
One of his neighbors complained last year about his dog because
it was barking in his garage, and when the Animal Control officer
came out to investigate, the dog snapped at him. That doesn't
make him a vicious dog, however, because the dog was in his
garage, on a chain, and this individual tried to pet him even
after he was told that it wouldn't be a good idea under the
circumstances. The animal control officer then proceeded to tell
him he had a vicious dog and should have him under control.
Commissioner Scurlock could see that sort of thing happening all
over the county in response to calls from annoyed neighbors.
Attorney Brennan pointed out that it is very difficult to
have an animal control ordinance that defines vicious dogs
according to their breed and to say that a certain breed has a
propensity to be vicious, so we wanted to avoid that pitfall.
The proposed ordinance defines a vicious dog based on the
individual dog's behavior under the circumstances. There is an
exemption for a dog protecting its owner, even if it is not on
its own property and there is an exemption for the dog protecting
another person. There is the potential for finding probable
cause if the dog approaches someone in an apparent attitude of
attack on public streets, sidewalks or public grounds and places
in a vicious or terrorizing manner. That is to be likened to
assault where the attack is not actually carried through, but ff
23
® _ r
the dog were able to carry through the attack, there is every
indication that it would. If someone intervenes and prevents the
attack, there st i I I could be a determination that the dog was
vicious, but there would have to be thorough investigation by the
animal control officers. This will not be the type of case where
a neighbor could call up and complain and based on the complaint,
the dog would be determined to be vicious. There has to be a
thorough investigation. The animal control officers will have to
document their findings, which will be reviewed by the County
Attorney's Office, and of course, we will be looking at the
possibility of at least two and possibly 3 appeals of the deter-
mination before we go forward with labelling a dog as vicious.
Staff is going to make sure that we have basis for this deter-
mination.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we have anyone on our staff
who is a certified breeder or has professional training, and
Attorney Brennan advised that our animal control officers are
attending seminars and training courses on dog behavior.
Chairman Eggert understood then that a dog such as
Commissioner Scurlock's could not be declared a vicious dog, and
Attorney Brennan advised that particular incident would have an
exempt circumstance. She felt the proposed ordinance is very
workable because you really have to look at the totality of the
circumstances. It is not that different from our current
ordinance except that our current ordinance has a 2 -tiered review
system. At the first incident, the dog would be declared
dangerous, and then if there is another incident within 18
months, the dog would be declared vicious and there would be_
additional ownership responsibilities. What this does is
streamline the current procedure and requires the additional
ownership responsibility right away, at the first incident.
Commissioner Bird asked if there are circumstances where the
dog could do something pretty drastic that could cause it to be
24V
SEB 0 199 Roy ��
J
`I
FEB 2 0 1990 BOOK 7 9 F,1G,c r
declared vicious in a shorter time, and Attorney Brennan
explained that there isn't any provision for that under the
current ordinance, but if there was a real concern about a
dangerous dog, we might be able to take that particular case into
the court system and see if we could get some sort of an
injunction.
Commissioner Scurlock asked how many dogs were declared
vicious last year, and Attorney Brennan advised that we declared
two dogs as dangerous through the Code Enforcement Board.
Commissioner Bird felt that if a dog leaves its particular
yard or home and goes down the street and makes an unprovoked
attack on a person or another animal, there has to be a shorter
process for determining that dog to be vicious. He didn't feel
we have to wait a year and a half for it to do it again or kill
somebody before we can actually determine it vicious.
Emergency Management Director Doug Wright explained that
after such an occurrence as Commissioner Bird described, there
remains a clear and present danger to other people in the -neigh-
borhood, and the Animal Control Dept. would take prompt and
remedial action to at least secure the dog until the vicious dog
determination has been made. That is the process to be followed.
We have got to have some method to protect the public. We can't
wait until a child or adult is killed in this community.
Commissioner Bird hoped that the ordinance gives us that
power and latitude, and Director Wright believed there are some
other State statutes that also give us that power.
Commissioner Scurlock referred to item (9) on page 4 of the
ordinance which says that it shall be unlawful for any operator
of a motor vehicle to allow an animal to ride in any unenclosed
section of that vehicle without enclosing the animal in a cage
that is secured to the vehicle, which cage shall provide shade
and ventilation for the animal at all times. He would like this
item to be a little more liberal, and suggested that instead of
25
_ M M
requiring that a dog be caged in the back of an open vehicle,
that we require the dog to be cross -tied so that the dog will not
slip back and forth with the momentum of the vehicle.
Attorney Brennan recommended that if we include cross -tying
that it be to a harness, rather than a collar, which might result
in injury to the dog.
Chairman Eggert advised that the Board would consider the
inclusion of cross -tying after getting input on the subject
during the Public Hearing.
Attorney Brennan noted that the cage provides shade since
dogs generally are in the vehicles for a substantial amount of
time, but emphasized that the primary purpose of this provision
is to protect people who are walking by this vehicle from being
bitten. The secondary purpose is to protect the dog from the
sun.
Commissioner Scurlock was sure that it was well intentioned,
but didn't feel a cage was necessary when you are going out for a
short time. He would like to see item (9) on page 4 be a little
more liberal by requiring cross ties affixed to a harness.
Commissioner Bird didn't know where we would draw the line
between protecting children -and adults and allowing dogs to ride
in the back of a pickup truck. He wanted to protect the dogs,
but he didn't want to go too far, because the next thing you know
we will have them inside the cab in some kind of protective
seats. He didn't want to go overboard on this. He also had a
problem with the $100,000 insurance requirement, but Commissioner
Wheeler felt that if it has been determined that a dog is
vicious, there should be a special insurance on that dog to cover
injury and damages. Generally, homeowner's insurance provides
that coverage for your dog, but once it is established that a dog
is vicious, extra coverage should be required. Either that, or
get rid of the dog.
26
FEB2 0 1990
LI
PF -
1 0 'A
BOOK '19 [,,,Uu 291
Chairman Eggert asked if this would be just for vicious
dogs, and Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that it would not, as
this ordinance was more encompassing than just for vicious dogs.
Commissioner Wheeler didn't like to see any dogs loose in
the back of pickups, especially those that look like they are
going to take your leg off. He didn't feel that people should
have to submit to that intimidation just because someone wants to
carry their dog around in the back of a pickup truck.
Chairman Eggert pointed out that as far as complaints are
concerned, a clear distinction in the ordinance between a
nuisance animal and a vicious animal.
Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this manner.
Terry Aston of K-9 Services in Ft. Pierce commended the
County Attorney's Office and the Animal Control Department for
their efforts in the proposed ordinance, but was concerned about
the limitations the ordinance would place on personal protection
dogs, who are usually pets as well, and private sentry dogs, etc.
His firm supplies and/or trains personal protection dogs for
people and a substantial amount of their business comes from
Indian River County. When a dog owner wants his dog to be
trained, they first test the dog's temperment, and if they don't
like it, they decline to train it. Mr. Aston felt that the
proposed ordinance should include an exemption for personal
protection dogs, and requested that paragraph (e) on page 5 be
reinstated in this ordinance: "(e) This section shall not apply
to animals trained for security or guard purposes, provided the
incident involved occurred during the course and scope of such
duty. Nor shall any incident be deemed an offense if it occurs
within the real property limits of the owner, provided the
property is conspicuously marked as to the presence of the
dangerous or vicious animal." Mr. Aston noted that they just
want people to understand that if they wish to purchase a well
27
trained personal protection dog or a guard dog to protect their
business, they do not have to go out and purchase $100,000 of
special insurance or put a special collar on their dogs. With
regard to dog shows, it has been his experience that if a dog at
a show gets out of a vehicle or gets loose and shows any signs of
aggression, he will not be allowed in the show. It is his
opinion that vicious dogs do not have any place being in a show,
nor in society, for that matter. If a dog is truly a vicious dog
and cannot be rehabilitated or controlled, he has no business
moving about in society under the guardianship of the parties who
monitored and possibly aided him becoming vicious. Mr. Aston
noted that it is a myth that a dog is what his trainer makes
them, because there are times when dogs bite out of fear. In
closing, he wished to point out two more things. First, he never
saw a dog that couldn't get one of those wire muzzles off if he
wanted to, and secondly, there are some very adequate restraints
available that people can use for their dogs in the back of
pickup trucks.
Connie Ellis, a Vero Beach dog trainer, distributed copies
of the following letter and attached information:
This dog law, as it is written, is too loose and vague in its definitions of
A PUBLIC NUISANCE ANIMAL and A VICIOUS DOG; also in its use of such terms as
UNPROVOKED, ATTACK, ATTITUDE OF ATTACK and TERRORIZING.
It is too rigid in its application of the law as it relates to the dog and
represents an attempt to legislate owner responsibility through threat to the
dog. In the final analysis (Section 3,e), it is the dog who is ultimately held
responsible and pays the price for its owner(s) non-compliance with the law,
not the owner.
This law is too rigid in its application of human standards versus normal dog
behavior. The subject of this law is a DOG and it should be more sensitive to
the understanding of dog behaviors) and to the best interests of the dog.
As this law is written, it permits too great a latitude for personal and
individual interpretation of the dog's behavior and of the law by those involved
in the law's enforcement and by those who interact with or feel threatened by
the dog.
28 A
BOOK
FEB 0 199U
L_
r
FEB 220 1990
bou
It is my recommendation that the County Commission move slowly and cautiously in
acceptance of this law, as there are many sections which need further review and
consideration for revision, in a sincere effort to insure it is a law which will
not be unjustly implemented and will not require later revision due to unjust
implementation.
Connie Ellis
219 - 26th Avenue, S. W.
Vero Beach, FL 32962
Phone - 407-567-4034
PLF2
21
There are many DANGEROUS dogs, but very few VICIOUS dogs.
Ordinance has no provision for the dog to be exonerated/parolled from his VICIOUS label if
he has been rehabilitated.
This Ordinance, as it stands, would enact corporate law as it applies to disposition of
the dog with no defense for the dog.
Define phrases: WITHOUT PROVOCATION
WHEN PROVOKED
The definition/determination of provoke/provoked/provocation is
dependent on each parties perception of each other's action(s).
The fact that a dog bites or acts in an aggressive manner does not necessarily mean that
dog is vicious.
Aggressive/vicious behaviors for an anti -social dog would be considered NORMAL.
An asocial, a fearful and a social dog may also exhibit aggressive (defensive) behaviors,
while not necessarily being truly aggressive/vicious, if these dogs ceive another
animal's or person's behavior to be threatening to them.
Example: JReWWii approaching dogs
Example in newspaper article -- girl bitten when got between dog and bitch in he --
this does not constitute vicious behavior -- it is aggressive behavior, but it is n 1
behavigr when the dog feels he has a competitor for the fertile bitch.
,Who declares the dog vicious? Dog to animal - og
How will the determination.be made as to whether the attack/threat was "without
provocation"?
Now did the dog perceive the motion/action of the other animal or person?
How will the dog's side of the incident be evaluated?
Dog is a non-verbal species, is a scent and visual species and will react defensively
(aggressively) or submissively based on how he views the scent and motions of an animal or
person.
From the dog's point of view, the bite may not have been vicious.
29
M
M
ORDINANCE:
Section 1 - Vicious Dog --
Delete (a), Definition of a. unprovoked?
b. attitude of attack (ears back?) 0,,2 c c/,vr
° c. vicious/terrorizing (circling?)
Delete (b), Definition of a. attack (jumping at?)
b. unprovoked?
(c) - Without provocation? Who will determine? ?"-Po� wf1951-
(d) - Just because a dog is used for fighting other dogs, may or may not necessarily mean
he is vicious. There are already laws prohibiting dog fighting. If it can be
proven the dog is being used in dog fights, does not the State of Florida have
jurisdiction to prosecute the owners) or keeper(s) of the dog? If so, this section
would be negated by the State's right. Therefore, recommend to delete.
Section 2 (7) - Does the State of Florida have a range law which makes the owner(s) of
livestock responsible for damage to property if they are outside a
fenced enclosure?
Section 2 (8) - Not enough personnel to enforce - teasing or molesting needs to be
clearly defined - whats constitutes teasing and molesting?
Section 2 (9) - Crate/cage is not the only safety device available. There are
alternatives which are less expensive. Needs to be broadened. �o
Section 3 (a) What are the credentials, with reference to dog behav� 8 d s ch�6 SYU
of the officers and the Department of Emergency Services Director whogy�
will be empowered to make the determination of vicious?
Section 3 (b) Define teasing, tormenting, abusing and assalting as it will be applied
to inter- and intra -species activity.
Section 3, 6, d If the vicious ... and all previously mandated responsibilities of
ownership of said vicious dog, as set forth in this Ordinance, shall
automatically transfer to the new owner(s) or keeper(s).
Section 3 (d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to certified canine law
enforcement dogs during their performance of law enforcement work for
which they are certified, which are owned by any law enforcement
department * Said dogs shall be subject to the same regulations and
review as a law enforcement officer who fires his gun in the line of
duty. When said dogs are not on duty .or are not in performance of law
enforcement work for which they are certified, all provision as set
forth in this Ordinance shall apply.
* Delete: or any law enforcement officer (cite Sebastian)
Section 3 (e) Why kill the dog - Arrest or fine the owner(s) or keeper(s) - The dog
cannot be held responsible for non-compliance of its owner(s) or
keeper(s).
Section _3 (f) 1. Define "unprovoked"
2. Define "impound" - In-home confinement or county confinement?
If in-home, will routine inspections be
made to determine compliance?
Health Department incident.
2. 120 hours (5 days) should be changed to 240 hours (10 days). If
dog is euthanized before 10 days, county will be required to incur
expenses of testing dog for rabies viral infection.
Dr. Ian Dunbar - Biting is a behavior.
Why a dog bites has to do with the dog's temperament.
It is normal for a dog to bite. When a dog is uj(pset, he is not going
to send you a poison pen letter or give you -----, or anything like
that. He is just going to bite you. People must realize that biting is
a normal behavior for all dogs and the onus is on the owner to train the
dog to prevent it from biting.
All dogs are potential biters.
29a
I
BOOK 79 Pa GE 29b
Mrs. Ellis emphasized that all dogs bite. When they get
angry, they bite, and she felt that it would take a department of
200 animal control officers to enforce this ordinance. In
conclusion, she stressed that she never saw a dog that she could
classify as vicious.
Bill Koolage, 815 25th Avenue, noted that he has had 15 dogs
during his lifetime and none of them were vicious. They were
family dogs, but he believed there are some breeds of dogs that
are more aggressive than others, and he urged the Board to enact
a strong animal control ordinance since the present ordinance
doesn't seem to be working.
Bill Kelly, Fellsmere resident, stated that he has lived in
Indian River County
for
14 years
and
has owned
up
to 4
dogs at
one time. He always
has
let his
dogs
ride in
the
back
of his
truck and has never had a dog jump out. He felt the main reason
Broward County adopted their animal control ordinance is because
people down there were raising dogs for fighting purposes. In
addition, they have a lot more people and less space to keep dogs
down there. He has 5 acres in Fellsmere and it is fenced and
wired, -and he would hate to think that he would have to obtain
30
$100,000 liability insurance if someone provoked his dogs on his
property or from just outside his property line. He urged the
Board not to penalize every dog owner in the county just because
of a few incidents of dangerous or vicious dogs. He didn't feel
that the history of'attacks was enough to implement the proposed
ordinance.
Jerry Schick, resident of Heritage Estates Subdivision, knew
of three vicious dogs in his 21st Court neighborhood. He has
chased the dogs off with a shovel, and the dogs have dug holes
and defecated in his yard as well. His wife is petrified, and
the dogs also have attacked three ladies with heart conditions
who are under doctor's orders to walk as much as possible. He
has called the Animal Control Dept. 6 or 7 times, and the ladies
have called at least that many times, but on the weekends they
have to call the Sheriff's Dept., but they have to witness the
incident in order to do something. Mr. Schick felt very strongly
that we need to go back and put some,teeth in the leash law
because the Animal Control people do not have the power to
enforce this.
Chairman Eggert asked that the following letter be made part
of the record:
I am here to speak against both proposed ordinances.
The vicious dog ordinance is overly simple and very unscientific.
Excepting closes of obvious extreme viciousness that characterizes few
dogs, the vast majority of cases move into a gray area, where objectivity
takes a hike.
What is definitely vicious to one person can be absolutelu not vicious to
another. For exampie. following Hurricane David. a damage appraiser
showed up at my house unannounced. I wasn't at home. This person poked
around the house, peering through every window. and, .yes nig dol followed
hire around, barking and generally going crazy as this pperson pnkpd and
probed. The result? I had mg home owners dropped!! Based on the
characterization that I was harbourinq a vicious dog!! Because mg dog
barked "viciously" at some skulking Peeping Tom!!. And to make matters
worse, this appraiser made sure every other ins��rance company knew f
was harboring this "vicious' dog ... So you can imagine my problem ... and my
disgust....
r -r
31 BOOK f•4G :: Ell
699®
6 199
HOK
Thus, while I would support an ordinance, if indeed it is needed in addition
to present ordinances, if it would sharply characterize the behavior upon
which it will base a citation. Manly dogs are ,aggressive, that is they will
brace in front of a stranger'But this type of aggressiveness is not
viciousnous, that i::, they v,rould not bite. This is only the ideal watch dog
characteristic ... to challenge in defense of property, but never to attack.
If the basis of the citation is not sharply limited, this amounts to just
another anti -dog ordinance.
2. The anti -dogs in open pickup truck beds is both ludicrous.and absurd.
First, there is obsolutiely no evidence to suppport the contention that
dogs in such a state are in greater dang?r'or pose a danger to the driver. It
Is mg el;perience that when I drive with nny dopa in the truck: bed, I consider
the situation and take turns more slowig and ;top lass abruptly. Thus, i
would contend, If my behavior is characteristic -of the r-rialor-it.y of
dog -in -open -bed piuck up drivers, which I think it is, that as an actuarial
group, our doqs and ourselves are a lower risk group than when the dog is
In the cab. Most pickup trucks are small impports. Having tho squoosh
large dogs into the cab of such trucks presents a logical hazzard in itself.
And what are the risks compared with those in the adergae station wagon
bringing home the car- pool of kids after school? Kids who rarely bade
restraints! if I had arrest powers, it would be the some as parking outside
a bar and stopping every driver leaving for 01.1I, which they nearly all are.
Are we going to stop the poor- pickup owner for having a doq in the bed
because this situation presents some overriding danger? Compared with
all the other more overt dangers around schools and bars regarding
vehicles?
think this issue'clearly resolves it self as a matter of personal
responsibility. Like the mother with ten kids packed in the wagon after
school, like the folks leaving the local tappy after Happy hour, the pickup
truck with dog in open bed calls for something called INDIVIDUAL
RESPONSIBILITY. I say again INDIVIDUAL RESPOi SIBILITi . i'es, there will
be some careless pickuptruck drivers who jeopardize their dogs;
themselves and even others, because of their lack of consideration' But
that goes for all the others, the mothers, the drinkers, anyone, who are not
stopped unless they have failed to consider through their t•�f•���o yr, their
own individual responsibility.
Other than this, this is just another anti -dog, and anti -pickup truck
01-dinarrce. Useless eXcept to the government attorney trying to build a
reputation. We have enough ordinances )ri Fero Beach to float the Titanic.
Let's not add more unless they are purposelfui and professionally designed.
32
7 9 Fa,"'t 2:.97
bin '000L���C/
1Z Z
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Board
closed the Public Hearing.
Director Wright felt that common sense has to prevail in
determining a vicious dog. He emphasized that ample
documentation would be needed and a thorough investigation done
by the Animal Control Department before any dog is determined to
be vicious. Although the County has only 4 animal control
officers, the Sheriff's 110 sworn deputies would be able to
enforce the new law as well. He advised that there were 11
reported dog attacks last year, 2 involving children, 2 with
adults, and 6 with other dogs and 1 with a cat. The
documentation on a vicious dog will be factual and will be
defensible before the Code Enforcement Board and later on in
court. He emphasized that we cannot wait until someone is killed
in this community before enacting a strong animal control
ordinance.
Chairman Eggert asked about paragraph 3(e) which has been
deleted in the proposed ordinance, and Attorney Brennan explained
that we decided not to exempt privately -owned security dogs. The
circumstances that were listed in the previous exemption are
included where the dog is protecting its owner or its property,
but we did not want to give a blanket exemption for a privately -
owned, security -trained dog.
Commissioner Wheeler didn't feel there would be complaints
about dogs that have been trained, but Attorney Brennan pointed
out that really depends on who the trainer is, because anybody
can start a business to train dogs for private security.
Chairman Eggert agreed with Mrs. Ellis' comments about
exempting law enforcement dogs only during the performance of
their police work, and wanted to see the differentiation between
"department" and "officer".
Attorney Brennan advised that she would clarify that
language.
FEB 20 11990 33
BUCK o' F,1f L;�a
FEB
R-
2 1990
BOOK' �0 f .JL. 9
Chairman Eggert still didn't feel that a vicious dog should
be allowed at a dog show, and Commissioner Wheeler agreed that a
vicious dog should not be allowed at a dog show or any other
public place. He felt the proposed ordinance puts teeth into the
law to protect us from dogs that have been improperly trained.
Before making a Motion, Commissioner Scurlock pointed out
the following changes or modifications he would like to see in
the proposed ordinance:
Item (9) on page 4 of the ordinance -- he wanted to see
that be a little more liberal as to the type of restraint.
He wanted the restraint to be humane, and he felt something
other than just a cage should be allowed, such as a spring
device or cross -ties.
No. 2 on page 7 -- he just wanted to make sure that we have
adequate people who can tattoo the dogs when they have been
identified as vicious.
Item 5(a) on page 8 -- delete the exemption for a vicious
dog attending or participating in a dog show.
Commissioner Scurlock also questioned Item 6(d) on page 9,
because he didn't feel the the requirement for the owner to
notify the County about a transfer of ownership was workable, and
Director Wright explained that if the dog was still in the
community, we need to know where it's at. He felt his staff
could keep up with it.
Commissioner Scurlock next referred to item 7(f) on page 10,
and asked if the 120 -hour waiting period is the right length of
time to dispose of a dog after it has been determined to be a
vicious dog.
Attorney Brennan explained that notice is given for the Code
Enforcement Board, and we would have to get some kind of proof of
34
receipt, but the rabies provision would kick in and actually make
it a longer waiting period for the purposes of rabies
determination.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board adopt Ordinance
'90-5 with the modifications discussed.
Under discussion, Chairman Eggert asked if the Motion
included the clarification that a law enforcement dog is exempted
only during the course of duty, and not otherwise.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed to include that modification in
his Motion.
Commissioner Bird understood that the Sheriff's Dept. would
be enforcing this ordinance also, and Director Wright explained
that about 200 people would be involved in enforcing this
ordinance.
Chairman Eggert emphasized that with this ordinance,
"dangerous" is no longer going to be a category. Either a dog is
vicious or not vicious.
Commissioner Bird felt -we have to come up with a fairly
clear definition of what type of restraining device is required
in order that a dog may ride in the back of a pickup truck, but
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that there are two separate
issues with regard to restraining the dog, safety to the public
and safety to the dog when the vehicle is moving.
Commissioner Bird believed a stout leather collar with a
piece of chain or something like that should be adequate, and
Commissioner Wheeler suggested that instead of leather we say
"sufficient collar with a length of chain."
Commissioner Scurlock encouraged his fellow Commissioners at
budget time to give the Animal Control Dept. more resources next
year since the problem is growing, not getting smaller, and
3 5
FEB 0 ��� ; POOH � F{„r.���.
EB 2 0 1990
BOOK
because
the Police Department and the Sheriff's Dept.
have
their
priorities also and because 4 or 5 animal control officers for
the entire county is just way, way understaffed.
Commissioner Bird understood that the insurance requirement
only applies to someone who has a dog that has been declared
vicious, and Attorney Brennan confirmed that to be correct.
Commissioner Bowman asked Joan Carlsen, executive director
of the Humane Society, to come to the microphone and explain what
she feels would be the best type of restraining device for a dog
riding in the back of a pickup truck.
Mrs. Carlsen felt cages are appropriate, but with cages,
there is a concern about ventilation and heat build-up within a
carrier. She suggested that the ordinance read that whatever
type of restraining device is used, that it be something that is
appropriately manufactured for that purpose so that we wouldn't
get people tying their animals with just ropes. A choke collar
with a chain would be the worse type of restraint. In her
opinion, a collar would be more appropriate than a harness.
Commissioner Scurlock asked Attorney Brennan get with the
appropriate people about the restraining device because he wanted
that to be more liberal than it is.
Commissioner Wheeler didn't want us to forget that the main
purpose of the ordinance is to protect people, and secondly, the
dog.
Attorney Brennan understood from the discussion today that
the Board would prefer to see that the animal is not just tied on
one side and needs to be cross -tied in some way.
Commissioner Bird had a problem with that because he didn't
feel it is necessary to be cross -tied. He felt the animal could
be center -tied, and that would make it a lot easier for owners of
dogs who want to use the bed of their truck for other purposes
such as hauling construction materials, etc. He would like to
see us allow them to put in a center eye -bolt in the bed of the
36
truck with a center pivot point and a short leash of some type
that would allow the dog some flexibility, but would prevent him
from escaping.
Commissioner Scurlock wanted it to be that the dog is
secured in such a way that the animal is not a danger to the
passing public or to itself, and the Board indicated their
agreement to that language.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that this will be county -wide
unless any of the municipalities specifically address the matter.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 90-23, establishment of civil penalties for
specific sections of the Animal Control Ordinance.
Commissioner Bird felt that we should publicize this and
give reasonable notice of the requirements of this ordinance so
that owners have time to equip their trucks properly to comply
with the ordinance.
Commissioner Scurlock wanted to see a quarter page ad about
the adoption of this ordinance and the significant changes with
regard to restraining dogs in the back of an open vehicle.
Attorney Vitunac suggested making the effective date a
little later so that people can get insurance, and Attorney
Brennan advised that Director Wright had considered a grace
period where only warnings would be issued.
Director Wright explained that was his reference to an
educational period. They are not going to go out and start
citing the truck owners who have the animals in the back of the
truck.
37 RGG� �� t PK . ,
1990
FEB 2 0 1990
BOOK 79 PAGEe
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously established
an April 1, 1990 effective date for Animal Control
Ordinance 90-5.
Attorney Vitunac suggested bringing the ordinance back to
the Board next week for review of the exact language, but
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that he already gave specific
language in that "the animal should be secured in such a way as
not to be harmful to themselves or passersby."
Attorney Vitunac advised that we wouldn't have to come back
if that is the specific language, and Director Wright felt that
modification was acceptable. He assured Commissioner Bird that
staff would be publicizing the acceptable means of restraining
these animals.
38
- 1/17/90(SPB02)LEGAL(Smw)
ORDINANCE NO. 90- 5
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTIONS 3-2, 3-5,
3-10, and 3-16 OF THE INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE OF THE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS;
PROVIDING FOR OWNERSHIP RESPONSIBILI-
TIES; PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC
RESPONSIBILITIES; PROVIDING FOR
VIOLATION FOR UNLAWFULLY HARBORING WILD
ANIMALS; PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION OF
RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA SETTING FINES FOR CITATIONS FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
INCORPORATION IN CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR
EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County that Chapter 3 of the
Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances Is hereby
amended as follows:
SECTION 1.
Section 3-2 (Definitions), Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Indian River County, is hereby amended to add
the following definitions:
Enclosure: Enclosure shall mean a fence or
structure at least six feet in height forming or causing an
enclosure suitable to prevent the injury of young children,
and suitable to confine a vicious dog in conjunction with
other measures which may be taken by the owner or keeper,
such as tethering of the vicious dog. Such enclosure shall
be securely enclosed and locked and designed with secure
sides, top and bottom and shall be designed to prevent the
animal from escaping the enclosure.
Owner: Any person, partnership, or corporation
owning,_ keeping, or harboring one or more animals, including
CODING: Words in WOWtifi 60tH type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
FEB 0 1990 1
BOOK.
r- • ORDINANCE NO. 90-
FEB
0-
FEB
BOOK A F'AGE 3O
any custodian or other person in charge of an animal. An
animal shall be deemed to be _harbored if it is fed or
sheltered for five (5) consecutive days or more.
Public Nuisance Animal:
1. Any animal which_
a. attacks passersby or passing vehicles
without provocation;
restraint;
b. attacks other animal;
C. is repeatedly at large or not under
d. damages private or public property;
e. barks, whines, or howls in an excessive,
continuous fashion so as to disturb adjacent residents; or
f. causes an annoyance in the neighborhood by
acts such as overturning garbage cans, defecating, digging
holes on other than its owner's property, or such other acts
as are generally regarded to create an annoyance.
Cruelty: Any act of neglect, torture, or torment
that causes the unjustifiable pain or suffering of an
animal.
Tattoo: Tattoo shall mean any permanent numbering
of a vicious dog by means of permanent ink with the license
tag number issued to the vicious dog, or any other permanent
acceptable method of tattooing.
Vicious Dog: Vicious dog shall mean:
a. Any dog which, when unprovoked, approaches
any person in apparent attitude of attack upon the streets,
sidewalks, or any publ is grounds or places in a vicious or
terrorizing manner; or
b. Any dog with a known propensity, tendency
or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury or to
otherwise endanger the safety of human beings or domestic
animals; or
CODING:
Words in WUVIW600 type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
® - M2 M
M ORDINANCE NO. 90--=
c. Any dog which bites, inflicts injury_
assaults or otherwise attacks a _human_ beinq_or domestic
animal without provocation on public or private property; or
d, Any dog owned or harbored primarily or in
part for the purpose of dog fighting.
SECTION 2.
Section 3-5 (Additional ownership
responsibilities), Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian
River County, is hereby amended to add the following:
SECTION 3-5. Additional ownership
responsibilities. Responsibilities of the public.
(4) Keep any vicious animal, following a formal
determination of that status in accordance with Sections 3-9
and 3-10, confined within a building or other secure
enclosure, or securely leashed and muzzled or caged whenever
not so confined; or to forfeit any such animal or remove
same from county as required by the Indian River Animal
Control Division.
(5) It shall be a violation of this chapter for
any person to impound or confine any animal in any place
without sufficient food and water daily except under
veterinary supervision; to keep any animal in any enclosure
without providing sufficient exercise and adequate
ventilation; to fail to provide shelter from the weather,
clean quarters, and medical attention for sickly, diseased,
or injured animals; or to fail to inoculate the animal
against rabies as required by this chapter. However, this
chapter shall_ not require the provision of shelter from the
weather and clean quarters for livestock in open pasture.
(6) It shall be unlawful for any person to leave
or deposit any poison or any substance containing poison, in
any common street, alley, lane, or throuQhfare of any kind,
or in any ardor enclosure other than the yard or enclosure
occupied or owned by such person.
CODING: Words in $tt✓`UTAI M600 type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
1 Q 3 BOOK i PAGE U
f 61 0 ��9®
, L b) 16
ORDINANCE NO. 90- 1
BOOK 19 P,k,A d
(7) It shall be unlawful for any person injuring
any dog, cat, or livestock by any means, to fail to notify
the owner of said animal, the animal control officer, or to
report the incident to the County 911 System.
(8) It shall be unlawful for any person to tease
or molest an animal.
(9) It shall be unlawful for any operator of a
motor vehicle to allow an animal to occupy any unenclosed
section of that vehicle without restraining and securing the
animal in a manner which does not present a danger to the
animal or to others.
SECTION 3.
Section 3-9 (Dangerous and vicious animal
determinations), Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River
County, is hereby amended as follows:
(4111066/f 166 It4dltGiifIofIAVI /A00f16414611 WA66IItH
AJtIMAI l lddrAYdd V l /dtJV c/rIVVV / /slWa/I/I/ / Ahkklshrlt h/tk/ l NO l lot 1046f
Jdt)G6l)pJod//drAI1 driVr0 dV/My VcAyI/I/s//b/Illkgkkl//Ahl/Y61ik/,/NI. fVolbf
Ihr���b���fl�drl/�fffi�lEkdll�Jff�drl/��ddf�dik�/�fl�fdi�fv4l�k/�dtG���
ooti I ti I I OA trhw IIoItAt*1to/4dt*/06fwj16fMit Idorh6itIIIA61rhAI
of/IAAkkkkbkk/.////I/fl/IVMd//huAfhbfAk*//MiMS/I19dVVdviVdcjI /If A
1ofkif1d4f16oflIVfidV I /tHe/I kAAk6hkAbhklIdddlIs!tipf0drlt/eldI billIf 06
dfkdf�f/v4�ldUtf/�f/fVi�/�dil��di�k�/1 f/�Vi�ll /tfi�flf�i/fVi�/�v4dr�fJld�
%4f If 160/ /W l kkt kA Ifi bd/ l VOW I blI'I /fMd / b/f/f/eMk/ /400 ItlWaltl l f 00
ddtlrhAl/Ilidd/bkkh//ddYdM1rAd0l//t/tal/Ihk//dddddddt/sdJ//Khk//06f1t4
10411/ 1 Vtl d V hf d d / /s/t/a/tH /A Yob k / / JdA I /sl N!ge c0e/rYt(/ ISA wl A 13H 14f f 66 Ad
%41fOfo/fu/ f6116v4ldtdI61ofi�oI IsI1rh6ofnI1oioIVi166Ifu/i4rhi
A dt lrhA I/ IshhA A 116PYLI H /10/ la/ ldd V d drd VrYd V Vd rY l Ui A f / Ithkl /dr/ Vrndd V /I A
X61 t 160 A I Iak" l A 016 W/ /t/d 1400 1 f 16041 / I6aWt/r/a/iAit/ It 600 It 01M off A l
TIU / bk/tkkHi hhItfi bh/ Iqiid V V I U I "IlkI N I rAd Y Y di I U/ /rk/c/o/r d/ IN I M
( lb 1 / DPW kbfi¢A hA h/t/, / /iA-r/eWt/ikg/a/t/d)dW,/ /afn'd / f V dd V d d 116*
fbS IA611hAlItoolftbl/4thfootlff IfOtt IfVi4/461041/V1AAU6*hlffodl/d
iOt66d/ /dflflelrfder / i+AkhAh/ /d VOMYddrA / /(/1/8/)/ 1"hthb/ /d9 / /thk/ / f l M
CODING: Words in WtGWW6000 type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
M4
ORDINANCE NO. 90-_
-
b f f i d► i i t I Is/a/ikv / J oUrAd I,1 fshb/I n/ /U d I liktclak"i hkb/ !Yd I ihk/ /ai I Ali It 1601
dAifiAIllITlhb/blakWhk�lbhbAA/1Pkbbuj100IrfaMelId ldendddd ldf I$0to
d16f b frb1 dit f 160 / fvA kh/ MYe►1 dddtldal V If I 14 / bha/ IsAilall/I/ 1d4d Vd / 66f If �
f Ifid I I /b We/r/ I l 16 1 l Mrrliltlilhtj 1 1 16f / I /delr/t/i/f/i/ekV I l I i f f d t/ l ldfl I I f ftp 1 A
dbfitIMOAH661
(¢1/I 066/d/f1hItol/dfffotd lot fdi10/too/ fl0ffWfibdif1h
tb b f 1 o d3 l I It h b/ I bjvhkk // Ishla/I 11 l/ Aare/ / /dcjd i/rf 11 d d ff V Y Md d I l d rA d// t V16 I 1
f6ffV*jf0//ddVJdYdd UV�//fldrlicIVfll /tfile//bh/itnfa/I//kb//kV k1/ddilfi41
J66f fol / /aVOYdr/i/W / OtI Id Vsilidsf VYVVdd /b/s/ 1111 kcle/tlelrhlihels/ Irho Af
did1/Ibdd�dfIt/ jIIto/ too It6ftooIff I
(dl //IEMeIr/y///b hi-IIIdI //bh/l /ddilfidl ///sA&j/ek/t///fd
tb f � f � � � t did � / lahk►kA'/ /t!W it d / � d � f 1 � th / khb/I A / Maki el / f VS � / A•/i ghk/ /t/d / � di
��1dlbdif 1 �f�Gl hkbA•Ahj/ IarrY /Vild I AI 16dddl b1F1fkhbk/ 1delf/drlel ION / f6dd
d di f d f t bfibdi f / /blo/drfdJ / / Nb)tA kkl /d f / /tA-lel / f A blh k / IM / 011w /064 f l dl j
jdid 1 I l lbfc/ l 111aA A>LkA•kd/ I Yd I ltlWel / 6*66f / lard l AN -A/ /d 9 / /thw /vhf I f f fdi
d+dfItoI/df/Itv,61ldalrlg(elddtld l bl'l /Ji+dVddd/WiWI /416fff1hl6Af1661
TH16066t10 11/16444111*661(II"Aft Ift"Ito' /dl4ff/6f/f"illbf
df l AAW IddYddrAV ddYVdd / Ah/ lviilVdH I kbl lrfecNelsltl l btbf{h/ "elalrfilrlgl /Ib*
oil 1,Gjfldid/!/a11 /,+flYfdrAll kklalak/sft1IMI /khk///afrlilh/afl///f6diftoy
d Yi f 06 f l f* 1/ I A6*/ h0bbA I Ajbkkh/ /slWa/Ill/ /slt/afV MIJIJ V V c1d V V d d /d f/ f 01 A
f f 1661 k"t/i/I/ I f ldid I / )rklsbll AAAbh/ /d 9 / Ah/a/ /rid VVdd /bey/ ltMel / fddld
ddrfdfffrWf/Vib4fdl
(�I//7V�1�/I$bfft�d�ll���lllldi�f/Id��1�G/Ifd/l�d�lfidl�
f t 164d I I f 6 t I I bkklajhA A> / I b/rl / kjWrkV I /pltfr/r/ds1ddj 1 /0edd Vddd I I fthi
lofldbdif/rhwo/INkd//dddddddd / it! rabArhd/It/WelIddJdddl /3 NY/slddpfel16f
ilh011 116011 l NbA-1 ISAYatilil /aldv /lot Idldd+f / bb/ klkkbkkV /dry /d ffdddd l 1 f
1 f I ldddLfrfsl l *A k hA h/ I YWd l A'M / /0 HO d Yui / /I/IH!tt/s/ 14 f I lthlel 1600 4 f 1
of6q, ddd/ mel I pkbpk,hk�r/ I Vi / /da/n/s/P/i/c�I.i0"!3/I/y/ I ►b n -bill md, I /tb/ / fu
lbfd�ddi�f/�f/fdi�/dbd�dbf��b�/�f/�G1 fldJ��/dd�lfi�ll
f f1I AIt/ ls'WaIVV /Ibb//thk/IVaWfly/V /00f*/b/f//e+\/elr/\Jl0df1d0
0061 Hats/ 16 Ib i d f l f d l /aA-1 /a/t/t/akw W1 f/ kl it tl i /rlgl l l di f l d d o f
l O)PO 1,k I did / bhl /ah/i Mali / /slu'b j/eldti l Yd / f Ih I A l bkkkA bh/ It/o/ I d dlJd d Y / Wlh
16f6frhAt I66l ffol /d l fdtfdfl
CODING: Words in AffOflk/fVif600 type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
FES' 1990 5 8oon "9 FacE
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
BOOK 79 f'1.�C X09
(a) In the event that ani officer has probable
cause to believe a dog is vicious, he shall conduct an
investigation. If the officer is satisfied after such
investigation that the dog is vicious as defined in this
chapter, he shall declare the dog as a vicious dog and
properly notify the owner of the dog in writing of such
declaration. If a determination has been made that a dog is
vicious, the owner shall comply with the provision of this
section within thirty (30) days of such determination. If
the owner of the dog contests the determination made by the
officer, he or she may, within five (5) days of such
determination, appeal the declaration of viciousness to the
Director of Department of Emergency Services by way of
written notice. The Director shall decide the issue based
upon the preponderance of the evidence. If the Director
determines that the dog is vicious, the Director may
establish a time schedule to ensure compliance with this
chapter in no case more than fifteen (15) days subsequent to
the Director's determination. All the determinations of the
Director should be in writing, signed and dated by the
Director, and should contain the finding of facts supporting
the determination. The determination of the Director may be
appealed to the Code Enforcement Board of Indian River
County, Florida, by any owner receiving an adverse
determination from the Director within the time period
prescribed by general law. However, the Director shall have
the right to declare a dog to be vicious for any subsequent
actions of the dog_
(b)_ Not withstanding the definition of "vicious
dog", as provided in this chapter, no dog may be declared
vicious if an injury or damage is sustained by a person who,
at the time that such injury or damage was sustained, was
committing a willful trespass or other tort upon _premises
CODING: Words in WOWW6000 type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
M
- ORDINANCE NO. 90- M
occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or was teasing,
tormenting,_ abusing or assaulting the do q or was committin
or attempting to commit a crime. No dog may be declared
vicious if an injury or damage was sustained by a domestic
animal which at the time such injury or damage was sustained
was teasing, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the dog. No
dog may be declared vicious if the dog was protecting or
defending_a human being within the immediate vicinity of the
dog from a unjustified attack or assault.
(c) No vicious dog shall be licensed within
Indian River County unless the owner and keeper of such
vicious dog shall meet the following requirements:
1. The owner or keeper shall present to the
Indian River County Animal Control Division proof that the
owner has procured liability insurance in the amount of at
least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00), covering
any damage or injury which may be caused by such vicious dog
during the 12 -month period for which licensing is sought.
2. The owner or keeper shall at his own
expense have the registration number assigned to such
vicious dog by the Animal Control Division tattooed on such
vicious dog by a veterinarian or other person trained as a
tattooist. The tattoo shall be placed on the inside right
thigh of the vicious dog.
3. The owner or keeper shall also, at his
own expense, purchase a collar or harness from the Animal
Control Division which shall be worn by the dog at all
times. The purpose of the collar or harness shall be to
provide immediate identification to the Animal Control
Division and the public at large that the dog has been
declared vicious.
4. The owner or keeper shall display a sign
on his or her premises warning that there is a vicious dog
CODING: Words in WOU/W600 type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additioA �
BOOK PA.jL
FEB d"O"0 Mu" 7
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
X99®��^-gyp
. BOOK �
on the premises. Said sign shall be visible and capable of
being read from the public highway or street.
5. The owner or keeper of a vicious dog must
at all times ensure that the dog is securely confined
inrinnrs_ or confined in an enclosure as defined herein. At
any time that a vicious dog is not so confined, the dog
shall be muzzled with a wire basket -t p� a muzzle in such a
manner as to prevent it from bitin or injurin any person
or animal, and kept on a leash with the owner or custodian
in attendance`exceptjor the following exceptions:
a. An exception of this section is
hereby provided for any vicious dog while being transported
within the cab or passenger portion of any motor vehicle,
provided said vehicle has a roof, and the dog is incapable
of escape through an open window, however, the dog shall be
muzzled with a wire basket -type muzzle in such a manner as
to prevent it from biting or injuring any person or animal.
b. The owner or keeper shall sign a
statement attesting that:
a. The owner or keeper shall maintain
and not voluntarily cancel the Iiability insurance required
by this section during the 12 -month period for which
licensing is sought, unless the owner or keeper shall cease
to own or keep the vicious dog prior to the expiration of
such license.
b. The owner or keeper shall, on or
prior to the effective date of such license for which
application is beinci made, have an enclosure for the vicious
dog on the property where the vicious dog wi I I be kept or
maintained.
c. The owner or keeper shall notify the
Indian River County Animal Control Division of any.
CODING: Words in W►GWW600 type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
® - M 8 M
M ORDINANCE NO. 90- M
cancellation, modification, expiration or termination of the
liability insurance policy required by this section.
d. The owner or keeper shall notify the
Indian River County Animal Control Division immediately if a
vicious dog is on the loose, is unconfined, has attacked
another animal or has attacked a human being, or has died or
has been sold or given away. If the vicious dog has been
sold or given away, the owner or keeper shall also provide
to the Division the name, address and telephone number of
the new owner of the vicious dog.
7. The Division or any officer is hereby
empowered to make whatever inquiry is deemed necessary to
ensure compliance with the provisions of this section, and
the Division or any officer is hereby empowered to seize and
Impound any vicious dog whose owner or keeper fails to
comply with the provisions hereof. In the event that the
owner or keeper of the dog refuses to surrender the animal
to the Division or officer, a search warrant may be obtained
from the circuit court and the dog may be seized upon
execution of the warrant.
(d) The provisions of this section shall not
apply to canine dogs owned by a law enforcement department
while such dogs are engaged in the scope of law enforcement
duties.
(e) Any vicious do2which does not have a valid
license in accordance with the provisions of this section or
whose owner or keeper does not secure the liability
insurance coverage required in accordance with this section,
or which is not maintained on property with an enclosure, or
which shall be outside of the dwelling of the owner or
keeper, or outside of an enclosure except as provided in
subsection (d)4, or which is not tattooed, shall be
CODING: Words in $IttW/M60Ii type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
b .q
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
BOOK 79 F,1Gc 313
confiscated by an officer and disposed of in a humane manner
after written notice is provided to the owner that such dog
has been confiscated.
( f ) If any vicious dock shall, when unprovoked,
kill or wound or assist in killing or wounding any domestic
animal or attack, assault, wound, bite or otherwise injure
or ki I I a human beino, the officer is empowered to issue a
citation or to impound the dog and after written notice to
the owner and expiration of the 120 -hour waiting period to
dispose of such vicious dog in a humane manner.
(g) No person shall be charged under this section
unless the dog, prior to the offense alleged, shall have
been declared vicious pursuant to the provisions of this
section.
(h) If the owner or keeper of a dog which has
been impounded under this section shall believe that there
has not been a violation of such sections hereof, the owner
or keeper may file a petition for injunctive relief in the
Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for
Indian River County, Florida, that the impounded dog not be
destroyed. The petition must be filed within the five (5)
days of owner's receipt of notice of impoundment of the dog,
and notice of the petition must be timely served upon the
Animal Control Division. The officer or the Division shall
have the right to declare a dog to be vicious for any action
of the dog subsequent to the date of the violation in
question. If the circuit court shall find that there has
been no violation of this chapter, such dog shall be
released to the custody of the owner or keeper.
( 1 ) in the event that the owner or keeper of a
vicious dog is a minor, the parent or guardian of such minor
shall be responsible for complying with the provisions of
CODING: Words in if`tUbi/ilk 60011 type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
_ 10
M
M
M ORDINANCE NO. 90-_M
this section and shall be liable for all injuries and
property damage sustained by any person or domestic animal
caused by unprovoked attack by said vicious dog
SECTION 4.
Section 3-10 (Unlawful for livestock to run at
large), Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County,
is hereby amended as follows:
SECTION 3-10. Unlawful for livestock to run at
large; harboring wild animals.
It shall be unlawful for any Iivestock to run at
large within Indian River County, Florida. It shall be
unlawful to keep any wild animal in violation of the
provisions of Chapter 372, Florida Statutes, and regulations
promulgated by the Florida Game and Fresh_ Water Fish
Commission.
SECTION 5.
Section 3-16(a), Code of Laws and Ordinances of
Indian River County, is hereby amended as follows:
(a) Any violation of this chapter, constitutes a
civil infraction and may be punishable by a civil penalty
not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00). AlldVVVI
066AI f*/ h/r/ /I/e/s/s/ ihubdtkd/ M/I/I/ah-h/ lM010001 V)l Haff/ /164
10061641If/llid ItOM 441If0k/t14i1111ofthtfW
06kjIhbA1/c/oftyt/e/s/t//fftial/t114fI6jiI Penalties for violation of
specific sections of this ordinance shall be established by
resolution of the Board of County Commissioners. If the
person who has committed the violation does not contest the
citation, a civil penalty of less than the maximum allowed
wi I l be assessed, and may be punishable by a c iv i I penalty
not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00). Each day or
fraction thereof during which the violation continues shall
be considered as'a separate offense. Pursuant to Chapter
CODING:
Words in W01RI M6001► type are deletions from
existing law;.words underlined are additions.
11
-4�
r ORDINANCE NO. 90- 1
BooK 79
��.
828 27, Florida Statutes, the board of county commissioners
shall impose and collect a surcharge of two dollars ($2.00)
upon each civil penalty __imposed for violation of an
ordinance relating to animal control or cruelty. The
proceeds from such surcharges shall be used to e.2X costs of
the minimum standards trainingq ourse for animal control
officers. The board of county commissioners may enforce the
provisions of this chapter by seeking injunctive relief or
any other remedy available by law.
c1=rT1nti r,
Conflicting Provisions.
In case of a conflict between the provisions of
this ordinance and prior ordinances, the prior ordinance
shall be deemed repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 7.
Severability.
If any section, or if any sentence, paragraph,
phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to
be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding
shall. not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance,
and it shall be construed to have been the legislative
intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional,
invalid or inoperative part.
ccl-r i nni Q
Incorporation in Code.
This ordinance shall be incorporated into the Code
of Ordinances of Indian River County and the word
"ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other
appropriate word and the sections of this ordinance may be
renumbered or relettered to accomplish such purposes.
CODING: Words in WJaWW600 type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additions.
12
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
cl=rTtnM a
Effective Date.
This ordinance shall become effective upon receipt
from the Secretary of State of the State of Florida of
official acknowledgment that this ordinance has been filed
with the Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 20th
day of February 1990. The effective date is 1st day of April, 199(
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press -Journal on the 30th day of January-- a, 1990, for a
public hearing to be held on the 20thday of EP6ruary
1990, at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Scurlock , seconded by Commissioner
Wheeler , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Ave
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Ave
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Indian Rivsr Ca Aaproved Date
Admin. ti Z -)4—`(O By .� Lj• s
Legal Z-I'�-90 Carolyn ggert hairman
Budget
Dept.
Risk mgr. , :L ��l Attest By
e e y a�,t o
Clerk
G/
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of
Florida, this 28th day of February , 1990.
Effective date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 5th day of March , 1990, at 9:00
a.m./p.m. and filed in the Office o the Clerk of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
CODING: Words in WOU/W6000 type are deletions from
existing law; words underlined are additio/�ns.ry
;� 0 1990 13 BOOK rl F!'uE 316
r�
FED 20 1990
2/14/90(SPBO2)SPB/b
EOGK Ik1liL 1
RESOLUTION NO. 90-23
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROVIDING FOR:
ESTABLISHMENT OF CIVIL
PENALTIFS FOi SPECIFIC SFCTIONS
C3F-TFAF—ANTMA-L-cU] TRC3E-ORb 1 NTOZg .
WHEREAS,' the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County pursuant to Florida Statutes Chapter 828.27 has
adopted an animal control ordinance which provides for the
issuance of citations to persons who have committed civil
Infractions in violation of the duly enacted ordinance and
which provides that the Board may establish civil penalties
up to $500 for violation of provision of the ordinance,
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, as follows:
1. The County does hereby adopt the following
schedule of civil penalties to be imposed for
violations of specific sections of the animal
control ordinance;
CODE
SECTION
DESCRIPTI.ON OF VIOLATION
1ST
2ND
3RD
Sec.
3-3
Failure to vaccinate,
$25
$100
$200
license, collar or harness
Sec.
3-5(1)
Failure to keep animal under
$75
restraint
$25
$50
Sec.
3-5(2)
Animal creating nuisance
$10
$25
$75
Sec.
3-5(3)
Failure to confine female
$50
$100
dog or cat in heat
$25
Sec.
3-5(4)
Failure to confine or
restrain vicious animal
$100
$200
$300
Sec.
3-5(5)
Failure to provide
adequate care to animal`
$25
$50
$100`
Sec.
3-5(6)
Exposing poisonous substance
In common area or property
of another
$100
$200
$300
Sec.
3-5(7)
Failure to notify owner or
authority of injury to animal
$25
$50
$75
Sec.
3-5(8)
Teasing or molesting an animal
$25
$50
$75
Sec.
3-5(9)
Failure to properly
confine or restrain animal
.in pick-up truck
$25
$100
$200
Sec.
3-6(c)
Violation of provision
of Chapter 825, F.S.
$50
$100
$200
Sec. 3-9(c) Failure to comply with
vicious dog licensing and
Indian R" Ca
Approved
Daae
maintenance requirements
$100
$200
$300
Sec. 3-10 Livestock running at large
$20
$50
$75
Sec. 3-10 Keeping wild animal in
Budget
.�
violation of F.S. 372
$50
$100
$200
Sec. 3-1.4 Interference with animal
Risk Mgr,
control authority
$50
$100
$200
NOVI, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that
the establishment of civil penalties for specific sections
of the animal control ordinance be provided.
The foregoing resolution was offered by
Commissioner Scurlock and seconded by
Commissioner WIWTI-e and upon being put to
a vote the vote was as-FoTTows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. .. Aye
Comnissloner Gary C. Wheeler 8ye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted at public hearing held this 20th day
of February 1990.
ATTEST:
By
`_
Y.
/ e—
FEB2 0 J99U
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
By L�
Carolyn .ggert/ a i rman
53 aCmK 9 FAGE',1s'
Indian R" Ca
Approved
Daae
Admin.
Z - Iq 47
Legal
.-, i
Budget
.�
Dep 1.
Risk Mgr,
53 aCmK 9 FAGE',1s'
1
WO BOOK I
PURCHASE OF AMBULANCE CHASSIS AND REMOUNTING OF TYPE III MODULAR
d-014
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/13/90:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: James Chandler
County Admnistrator
FROM: Doug Wright, Director
Emergency Management Services
DATE: February 13, 1990
SUBJECT: Approval for Ambulance Chassis Purchase and Remounting
of Type III Modular Box
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given.formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
at the next regular scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On January 23, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved
the purchase of one.new ambulance.- Staff advised the Board at that
time a recommendation would be forthcoming regarding the purchase
of a chassis and remounting of a Type III modular box inasmuch as
funding would not accommodate purchasing two new ambulances in this
fiscal year.
After many calls, staff located a new 1989 Ford chassis at Don Reid
Ford in Maitland, Florida, which is sufficient upon which to mount -
the modular box for the price of $16,600. The chassis meets the
specifications necessary for an EMS transport vehicle. It is also
a diesel which is similar to other vehicles in the EMS fleet which
is beneficial in terms of interchangeability of parts.
Staff research has determined that National Ambulance Builders in
Orlando, Florida, was the most reasonable in price and provided
the quickest turnaround time for the remount. It was also learned
that remounting of the modular box will require removal of a
substantial amount of the flooring to get to the anchor bolts used
to secure the box to the chassis resulting in additional costs for
replacing the floor. The total price quoted by the above
referenced company was $10,000 which included reconditioning the
interior and exterior of the box. A turnaround time of less than
four (4) weeks was guaranteed by the vendor. Other companies
contacted had a minimum of 60 days for remounting and
reconditioning of a modular box.
The total costs of purchasing the chassis and remounting the
.......--,_._-.-modular box to like new condition is $26,600. This is an excellent
- price when compared to purchasing a totally new ambulance in excess
____ of X45,000. Funding in the amount of $35,324 is available in the
EMS automotive capital account for this purpose.
_ . ........... ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Time is of the essence in obtaining the chassis and remounting the
modular box. The EMS transport vehicle fleet currently in service
were largely received from IRCVAS in July, 1989. The majority of
these vehicles have high milage and maintenance costs are excessive
at this time. For example, more than $2,300 was spent during the
month of January to keep the fleet in operation.
54
The new ambulance approved for purchase by the Board on January
23, 1990, will not be delivered until late March. If approval is
given to purchase the chassis and remount the modular box on a sole
source/minimum turnaround time basis, it will provide some relief
to the service in that both vehicles will be received and placed
into service at approximately the same time. This will allow for
some intense preventative maintenance to be performed on other EMS
vehicles to ensure transport reliability for possible critical
patients. An assessment will be made at.that time to determine
which vehicles should be retired.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners waive bids for purchase on the basis of sole source
and approve the purchase of the ambulance chassis for $16,600 from
Don Reid Ford. Since time is of the essence to place this
emergency vehicle into service and National Ambulance Rebuilders
has provided the best price and .turnaround time, staff would
further recommend that the Board authorize staff to deliver the
chassis to the company for remounting of the Type III modular box
at a price of $10,000 for a total price of $26,600.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation for the purchase of the
ambulance chassis and the remounting of a Type III
modular box, as set out in the above memo.
APPROVAL OF FUNDING TO PURCHASE APPROVED_ TELECOMMUNICATION DEVICE
FOR THE DEAF (TDD) - BUDGET �AMENDMENT _035
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/13/90:
TO: Board of County.Commissioners
THROUGH: James Chandler
County Ad inistrator
FROM: Doug Wrigh Director
Emergency Management Services
DATE: February 13, 1990
SUBJECT: Approval of Funding to Purchase Approved
Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD)
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
at the next regular scheduled meeting.
556'
lii . 'i P,1GE 3 U
r
FEB 2 0.1990 BOOK
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
,1-,, 9 F,� 1,; 1. 3 2 1 7
The E911 Public Safety Answering Point (Central Communications)
located at the Sheriff's Administration Complex and the Vero Beach
Police Department currently utilize a Telecommunication Device for
the Deaf (TDD) which was purchased several years ago. In the past
session of the Legislature, Section 427.507, Florida Statutes, was
amended wherein certain public safety and health care providers
were mandated to purchase and operate TDD's.
The Department of Emergency Management Services is also charged by
statutes to maintain a list of handicapped individuals within the
County who would require assistance in the event of a manmade or
natural disaster. Some of these individuals are hearing impaired
and staff feels an additional TDD should be purchased and installed
at the Emergency Operations Center for use and access to
information by these citizens regarding need status and evacuation
preparation/planning.
The law provides that offices and organizations required to operate
TDD's pursuant to the above referenced section shall utilize only
equipment that meets the standards and specifications which have
been established by the Florida Council for the Hearing Impaired.
The older TDD's at the two Public Safety Answering Point locations
do not meet the standards and specifications adopted by the Council
and new equipment is required to be- purchased which was not
anticipated during budget preparations for the current fiscal year.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
----, The only alternative available to the County is to continue
utilizing the TDD's now. in service which does not meet the new
standards and specifications. This course of action could possibly
cause the Florida Division of Communications to decertify the
'=_Public Safety Answering Points and civil action could also occur.
-. _Ultratec, Incorporated of Madison, Wisconsin has been awarded Bid
----- #89-13 by the Florida Department of Education to:sell and provide
approved TDD's as a vendor. The approved TDD's are identified as
a Superprint 400 Emergency Service Unit and sells for $249.75 each.
The Public Safety Answering Point at the Vero Beach Police
Department as well as the Sheriff's Department Communications
Center needs to replace the TDD's currently being used and an
additional TDD should be purchased for the Emergency operation
Center for a total price of $749.25 plus shipping.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the expenditure of $749.25 plus shipping to purchase three TDD's
for the PSAP's and EOC to use in communicating with the hearing
impaired and authorize a budget amendment for this purpose.
Funding is available in the contingency fund of the Communication
Center budget identified as 120-133-581.091 which is derived from
the 911 surcharge.
Funding for the capital equipment is available from surtax revenue
in Account #133 used to fund the Public Safety Answering Points.
ATTACHMENTS
Section 427.507, Florida Statutes (Appendix A)
TDD Specifications
56
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation as set out in the above memo,
and approved Budget Amendment 035 in the amount of
$750.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird, OMB Directo2Q.-
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 035
DATE: 02-14-90
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
REVENUE
911 Surcharge/Communication Ctr
Communication E i meet -All
120-133-519-066.45
750.00
0
Reserve for Contingency
120-133-581-099.91
0
750.00
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AT 74TH AVENUE/OSLO ROAD
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/6/90:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director �f�,
SUBJECT: Bridge Replacement at-74th-Avenue/Oslo Road
REF. MEMO: Albert VanAuken to James Davis dated
Feb. 6, 1990
DATE: February 6, 1990
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Due to the existing bridge located on Oslo Road just east of
74th Avenue having substandard geometric conditions and the
need for piling maintenance, staff has contacted the Indian
River Farms Water Control District to determine if the
bridge could be replaced by a large culvert pipe. The
District has approved the installation of a large culvert.
This bridge serves many large trucks ingressing and
egressing the Landfill.
2 �3J
57
F,
5e SSU
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
BOOK ig,j
Alternative No. 1
Repair the existing bridge at a cost of $8,000 for
materials plus labor. The bridge would still not meet
geometric standards.
Alternative No. 2
Replace the bridge with a large culvert at a cost of
$31,512.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that Alternative No. 2 be approved.
funding to be from Road and Bridge Account
111-214-541-035.39(Balance $153,981.)
Commissioner Scurlock asked for an explanation of the
geometric standards and the significant difference in the costs
between Alternate #1 and Alternate #2.
Director Davis explained that basically the current bridge
is 24 feet wide and there is no adequate shoulder area. The
railings on the bridge are inadequate. The shape of the bridge
is not up to current geometric design standards. The road is
also 24 feet wide. The 60 -ft long culvert will be a permanent
solution, and it will provide adequate intersection clearance.
The intersection of the road to the Landfill is very close to the
bridge, and that is another geometric problem because vehicles
have a hard time making the radius on and off the bridge from the
Landfill road. This also includes paving.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Alternate No. 2, to replace the bridge with a large
culvert at a cost of $31,512, as set out in the above
staff recommendation.
58
(.
CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY'S REQUEST FOR 2-3 YEAR EXTENSION ON THE
OPERATION OF THEIR FACILITY
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 2/2/90:
STEVEN A. RISSMAN
RICHARD H. WEISBERG
ROBERTC.BARRETT
JENNINGS L. HURT. 111
ROBERTA.DONAHUE
JOHN E. MCLAIN. 111
ADMINISTRATOR
SCOTTPETERSON
RISSMAN, WEISBERG, BARRETT & HURT, P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SOUTHEAST BANK BUILDING
15TH FLOOR
201 EAST PINE STREET
ORLANDO. FLORIDA 32801
TELEPHONE (407) 839.0120
TELECOPIER (407) 841.9726
Cry
aSC;Epjf
0vRV
t%? -D
00ISs C
Cp�ERS
February 2, 1990
SUITE E
1443 20TH STREET
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32960
TELEPHONE (407) 569-7960
TELECOPIER (407) 569-4513
PLEASE REPLY To: VERO BEACH
Ir
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Commissioners:
DlthjI 'A �LTIUN LISA
Commissioners
Administrator
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
Com,runity Cev.
Utilities
Finance
Other
JUAN A. BELLO
WALTER G. BENJAMIN
RANDALL M. BOLINGER
JOHN P. DALY
VANCE R. DAWSON
THEODORE N. GOLDSTEIN
STACIE B. GREENE
MICHAEL N. HOTTER
EDWARD G. MATHESON
MARYBETH MCDONALD
THOMAS H.MCDONALD _
GEORGE M. MURPHY
THOMAS G. PORTUALLO
KRISTIN SWANSON PRINGLE
STEPHEN B. SAM BOL
RICHARD A. SIMON
VIRGINIA M. STALDER
PAUL T. TERLIZZESE
RICHARD S. WOMBLE
PETERJ. ZINAICH
On August 15, 1989, the Board of County Commissioners
approved the sale of a 3.52 acres of land located north of Oslo
Road west of the lateral J canal to the Children's Home Society
for the sum of $25,000.00.- The proposed use of the land will be
for a runaway shelter and office facilities for use by the
Children's Home Society. At the time the sale was approved, the
Board determined that a time limit should be established in which
the Children's Home Society would be required to have a facility
in operation on the property.
Pursuant to the Board's requirement, a one-year time
limitation was approved by the Board. One year may not be
sufficient time for the Children's Home Society to have a
facility operating upon the property since accomplishing this
large dream will entail raising sufficient capital to build it, a
legislative allocation to operate it, and the time involved in
its actual construction, The Children's Home Society would like
the Board to extend the time limitation to a minimum of two years
and requests a 3 -year period.
A detailed explanation of the funding guidelines under
which the Children's Home Society must operate will be supplied
if the Board so requires. Thank you for your attention.
59
Very Truly Yours,
��.flfsitll •%tel•
Virginia M. Stalder
On behalf of The Children's Home
Society
1=1
Ez00K
14+
/ • F4,; ��
r
F E E 2 0 199® F,aF D
Commissioner Scurlock preferred to give them one year and
then have them come back if they need another extension,
otherwise they are going to drag this out forever.
Commissioner Bird agreed that a one-year extension would be
best and then ask them for a status report on where they stand
with their funding and planning.
Chairman Eggert advised that Administrator Chandler had
suggested that we put on their restriction that they would have
to have their building permit by that time.
Administrator Chandler advised that his thinking was that by
August 1, 1991, they should have had their financing in order and
be to the point where they could pull their building permit. He
had gone back and read the Minutes of that meeting and the
Commission's intent was that this thing was going to materialize
and he believed it said that they would have occupancy and would
be operating this year. He felt that by 1991 they certainly
should be in a position to pull a building permit, and if they
aren't, the Board can reconsider at that time.
Commissioner Scurlock was even more concerned than that and
would like them to be where they have their Certificate of
Occupancy, because Gordon Nutt pulled a building permit 15 years
ago and is still building his Sea Oaks hotel.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
granted a one-year extension to the Children's Home
Society for the operation of their facility with the
condition that they must have a Certificate of
Occupancy by that date or demonstrate to the Board that
they are well under way to obtaining their C.O.
60
E
I
SOUTH COUNTY REVERSE OSMOSIS WATER TREATMENT PLANT - WORK
AUTHORIZATION NO. 8 WITH CAMP DRESSER AND MCKEE, INC.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/12/90:
DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PIN
.DIRECTOR OF UT- SERVICES %
I
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: WILLIAM F. MCCAI
CAPITAL PROJECTS ER
DEPARTMENT OF UTIL Y SERVICES
SUBJECT: SOUTH COUNTY REVERSE OSMOSIS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 8 WITH CAMP DRESSER AND
MCKEE, INC.
IRC PROJECT NO. WW -89 -08 -WC
BACKGROUND:
On August 15, 1989, the Board of County Commissioners approved Work
Authorization No. 8 with Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. (attached).
This work authorization is for engineering services related to the
expansion of the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant. We wish. to
modify this work authorization with an addendum.
ANALYSIS•
Due to recent structural failures in the fiberglass raw water piping
at the plant, we need to make some improvements in this part of the
system. The improvements include replacement of fiberglass raw water
piping, which has suffered failures due to poor piping material and
surges associated with power outages. The Scope of Services and the
Addendum to Work Authorization No. 8 are attached. The funds for this
project will come from cash forward as of October 1, 1989.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Addendum to Work
Authorization No. 8 with Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc.
FEB r 0 1990
L-
6,4
�caK /' �� FaI.t D
F_
FES 2 Rel �Jlj
BOOK 79 327
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the Addendum to Work Authorization No. 8 with Camp
Dresser and McKee, Inc., as recommended by staff.
SCOPE OF SERVICES IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
FINAL ASSESSMENT RESOLUTIONS FOR ROCKRIDGE AREA SANITARY SEWER
SYSTEM
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/12/90:
DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 1990
TO: JAMES.E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
-DIRECTOR OF UTIL SERVICES
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: ERNESTINE W. WILLIAMSXu)
MANAGER OF PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: ROCKRIDGE AREA SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
IRC PROJECT NO. US -87 -08 -CCS
RESOLUTION NO. 4, -FINAL ASSESSMENT
BACKGROUND:
The Rockridge Area Sanitary Sewer System Project has been completed.
Final project cost is $1,990,157.67.
ANALYSIS:
The preliminary assessment for each property was $3,200.00. That
assessltent did not change. It is broken down as follows:
1. Line Extension Cost $1,250.00
2. Grinder Pump Installation 700.00
3. Impact Fee 1.250.00
TOTAL ASSESSMENT PER UNIT: $3,200.00
The cost of the grinder pump systems is $292,638.00, line extension is
$542,627.00, and impact fees is $510,000.00.
62
The final assessment is limited to the cost of $282,800.00 for the
grinder pump systems, $527,500.00 for line extension, and $510,000.00
• for impact fees.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the final assessment resolutions.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 90-24, establishing the actual cost for the
low pressure grinder pump system for the Rockridge Area
Sanitary Sewer System (designated as Project US -08 -CCS)
to be paid by the special assessments with regard
thereto, etc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 90-25, establishing the actual cost for the
line extensions for the Rockridge Area Sanitary Sewer
System designated as Project US -08 -CCS to be paid by
the special assessments with regard thereto, etc.
KOK I9 1,A"E.32po
FED 0 1990 63
Reso. Rockridge Sewers ( First Part)
FEB2 G
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA
RESOLUTION NO. 90--2-4
BOOK
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ESTABLISHING THE ACTUAL COST FOR THE LOW PRESSURE
GRINDER PUMP SYSTEM FOR THE ROCKRIDGE AREA SANITARY
SEWER SYSTEM (E.P.A. PROJECT C-120502060)
DESIGNATED AS PROJECT US -08 -CCS TO BE PAID BY THE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WITH REGARD THERETO; GIVING
CERTAIN CREDITS AGAINST SAID SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS;
PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF SAID SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida
(the "Board"), by Resolution No. 88-100, adopted on October 11, 1988, determined
to make special assessments in connection with the low pressure grinder pump
system to be installed in approximately 404 properties designated on the
assessment plat with respect to the special assessments;
WHEREAS, said Resolution described said improvements, designated the
location of the improvements to be constructed, the part or portion of the
estimated cost thereof to be paid by special assessments ($282,800), the number
properties to be specially assessed (404) ($700 per property), the manner in
which said special assessments are to be made, and-h6w said special assessments
are to be paid;
WHEREAS, the Board, by Resolution No. 88-101, adopted on'October 11, 1988,
set the time and place for a public hearing at which the owners of the properties
to be assessed and other interested persons would have a chance to be heard
concerning the propriety and advisability of the improvements.and the
assessments, and for the Board to act as an equalizing board as required by
Section 11-47, Indian River County Code;
WHEREAS, the Board on November 1, 1988, at 9:05 A.M. conducted the public
hearing with regard to the improvements and the special assessments;
WHEREAS, the Board, by Resolution No. 88-112, adopted on November 1, 1988,,
confirmed and approved the assessment roll with respect,to the special
assessments which assessed a total of $282,800 against 404 properties ($700 per
property); and
WHEREAS, the improvements have now been completed and the actual cost
thereof to be paid by the special assessments has been determined.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. After deducting the amount of the applicable state and federal pants,
the actual cost of the improvements to be paid by the special assessments is in
excess of $282,800.
2. Accordingly, no credit shall be given against each special assessment
with respect to the improvements and each special assessment shall be in the
amount of $700 ($282,800 divided by 404 properties).
3. The special assessments shall be payable as provided in Resolution No.
88-100.
4. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to Section 11-47, Indian River
County Code.
5. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed.
6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
The foregoing Resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock—
and
CurloCkand the motion was seconded by Commissioner Wheeler
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
. Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Vice -Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. .&Y -Q
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler -AYE
The Chairman thereupon declared the Resolution duly passed and adopted this
20 day of February 1990.
i
e*y tKB aa /
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEG SUF ICI�NCY
Charles P. Vitunac,
Attorney for the County
FEl1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
' Z' W.,
By
Carolyny. Eggert, Yiairman
in&n Riva Ca
Approved Date
Admin.
-1 q—
Legal
_01 10
Budget
�p
Risk Mgr.
3 301
0
1' 'Final Reso. Rockridge Sewers (Second Part)
,FED 12 () 1!1-90
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 25
BOOK I PA E
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ESTABLISHING THE ACTUAL COST FOR THE LINE
EXTENSIONS FOR THE ROCKRIDGE AREA SANITARY SEWER
SYSTEM (E.P.A. PROJECT C-120502060) DESIGNATED AS
PROJECT US -08 -CCS TO BE PAID BY THE SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS WITH REGARD THERETO; GIVING CERTAIN
CREDITS AGAINST SAID SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS; PROVIDING
FOR THE PAYMENT OF SAID SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida
(the "Board"), by Resolution No. 88-102, adopted on October 11, 1988, determined
to make special assessments in connection with the line extensions to be
installed to approximately 422 properties designated on the assessment plat with
respect to the special assessments;
WHEREAS, said Resolution described said improvements, designated the
location of the improvements to be constructed, the part or portion of the
estimated cost thereof to be paid by special assessments ($527,500), the number
properties to be.specially assessed (422) ($1,250 per property), the manner in
which said special assessments are to be made, and how said special assessments
are to be paid;
WHEREAS, the Board, by Resolution No. 88-103, adopted on October 11, 1988,
set the time and place for a public hearing at which the owners of the properties
to be assessed and other interested persons would have a chance to be heard
concerning the propriety and advisability of the improvements and the
assessments, and for the Board to act as an equalizing board as required by
Section 11-47, Indian River County Code;
WHEREAS, the Board on November 1, 1988, at 9:05 A.M. conducted the public
hearing with regard to the improvements and the special assessments;
WHEREAS, the Board, by Resolution No. 88-113, adopted on November 1, 1988,
confirmed and approved the assessment roll with respect to the special
assessments which assessed a total of $527,500 against 422 properties ($1,250 per
property); and
WHEREAS, the improvements have now been completed and the actual cost
thereof to be paid by the special assessments has been determined.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
i
1. After deducting the amount of the applicable state and federal grants,
the actual cost of the improvements to be paid by the special assessments is in
excess of $527,500.
2. Accordingly, no credit shall be given against each special assessment
with respect to the improvements and each special assessment shall be in the
amount of $1,250 ($527,500 divided by 422 properties).
3. The special assessments shall be payable as provided in Resolution No.
88-102.
4. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to Section 11-47, Indian River
County Code.
5. All resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed.
6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
The foregoing Resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock , and the motion was seconded by_ Commissioner B i rd
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert gY„P-
Vice-Chairman Richard
N.
Bird
Commissioner Margaret
C.
Bowman
Aye—
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. A,_yp
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Am_
The Chairman thereupon declared the Resolution duly passed and adopted this
20 day of February , 1990.
ATTEST:
e r Vartonj
rki.�c�•v
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFIC�IENCY_�
Charles P. Vitunac,
Attorney for the County
FEB 1999
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
1—d—
.Carolyn - Eggert Oairman
Indian Riva Ca
Approved Date
Admin.
Legal
Budget
Dept.
Risk Mgr.
F' -! o'er
BOOK
F_
FEB 2` 0 1990
BOOK A
VISTA ROYALE WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS - CHANGE ORDER #1
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/26/90:
DATE: JANUARY 26, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED JOHN F. LANG &�,
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL PECIALIST
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES o
SUBJECT: VISTA ROYALE WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
CHANGE ORDER #1
BACKGROUND
The Department has entered into a contract with IFAS (University of
Florida) and St. Johns River Water Management District for an
effluent reuse study. The Department is obligated to install an
irrigation system in the County grove. The firm of Allen's
Environmental Equipment, Inc., has previously removed tanks of the
type necessary for the project, and erected same for the Department.
This firm is currently under contract with the County.
ANALYSIS
The Department is currently utilizing Allen Environmental to perform
identical work as required at the County Grove. That work consists
of refurbishing and installing a small ground storage tank (7,500
gallons) with appropriate flanges and constructing the associated
yard piping. The Department desires to include this work in the
change order to start the irrigation project at the County Grove.
The cost will be $11,000.00, and this will extend the completion
time of the Vista Royale Improvements Project by 15 calendar days,
as the same crew will be utilized for this work. The funding for
this project is to come from Account No. 472-000-169-082.00, the
Effluent Irrigation System work in Progress Account.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department
Commissioners
work described
$11,000.00.
of Utility Services recommends to the Board of County
that the chairman execute the change order for the
previously at a cost increase for the project of
68
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order #1 for a cost increase of $11,000, as set
out in the above staff recommendation.
Commissioner Bird advised that the owners of the golf course
down there contacted him about using some effluent on that golf
course, and Utilities Director Terry Pinto reported that he has
been talking with them also.
CHANGE ORDER FORM
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
PROJECT: US8905DC
VISTA ROYALE WASTEWATER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
DATE: January 23, 1990 CONTRACTOR: Allen's Environmental
Equipment, Inc.
OWNER: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AGREEMENT DATE: December 20, 1989
The following changes are hereby made:
Original CONTRACT PRICE $ 134,360.00
Current CONTRACT PRICE ADJUSTED by previous CHANGE ORDER $
Net (Increase) (VWA&) Resulting from this CHANGE ORDER $ 11,000.00
The current CONTRACT PRICE including this CHANGE ORDER $ 145,360.00
ORIGINAL CONTRACT TIME: 45 Working Days Date2/18/90
Current CONTRACT TIME adjusted by previous CHANGE ORDER Date
Net (Increase) (ZMXAXMa) Resulting from this CHANGE ORDER Days 15
Current-PONTRACT TIME Including this CHANGE ORDER Date3/5/90
CHANGES ORDERED:
I. GENERAL
This change order is necessary to cover changes in the work
to be performed under this Contract. The GENERAL
CONDITIONS, SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITIONS, AND SPECIFICATIONS
apply to and govern all work under this change order.
Change Order No. 1
Change Order Page 1 of 3
FEB 20, 199U
3�11,
_BOOK ( F!„�. ,
BOOK
II. REQUIRED CHANGES
Refurbish and install 7500 gallon ground storage tank with
associated yard piping
III. JUSTIFICATION
Necessary for grove irrigation project
IV. PAYMENT
$11,000.00
V. WAIVER
79 PAGE .335
This Change Order constitutes full and mutual accord and
satisfaction for the adjustment in contract price or time
as a result of increases or decreases in costs and/or time
of performance caused directly. and indirectly from the
change.
This•Change Order represents an equitable adjustment to the
contract and CONTRACTOR hereby waives all rights to file a
claim on this Change Order after it is properly executed.
VI. APPROVAL AND CHANGE AUTHORIZATION
Acknowledgements:
The aforementioned change, and work affected thereby, is
subject to all provisions of the original contract not
specifically changed by this Change Order; and,
It is expressly understood and agreed that the approval of
the Change Order shall have no effect on the original
contract other:than matters expressly provided herein.
Change Order Request By: Department of Utility Services,
Indian River County, Florida
Ch a p(s) Ordered By.
-RECOMMENDED BY:
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
Engineer
By:
Signature Date
Title:
APPROVED BY:
John Frederick Lang
Environmental Specialist
ACCEPTED BY:
Contractor
By:
Signature Date
Title:
Indian River County. Florida
Owner
By: .Q- �. — QO
Sig ture Date .
1
70
'." 4.c. Go ApyorM Dole
nyrnln,
i 7— y—�J
9udget
Utilltlec
a-��•yV
Rick Mgr.
_I
EPA "NO DISCHARGE" NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
SYSTEM PERMITS
DATE:
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/7/90:
FEBRUARY 7, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL ERVICES
SUBJECT: EPA "NO DISCHARGE" NATIONAL POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMITS
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: JOHN F. LANGtL'
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
The Department of Utility Services has been required by the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency to apply for NPDES permits for all
wastewater treatment plants. The Department has received or will
shortly receive a "No Discharge" Permit for the following wastewater
treatment plants:
West Regional
Gifford
Vista Royale
Vista Gardens
Laurelwood
River Edge
Breezy Village
Sea Oaks
The requirements of these permits are a short one-page report
concerning sludge disposal practices, a copy of the FDER mandated
sludge analysis, a listing as to sludge quantities generated from
each facility, and an analysis of the sludge from each facility as
detailed in the Congressional Federal Register. The intent is to
track sludge generation nationwide.
ANALYSIS
The laboratory analyses as detailed are a required sampling in the
first year of each permit, as evidenced in the attachment. The cost
shall not exceed $10,000.00. These funds were not budgeted during
the budget preparatory process, as the first permits were not
received until October 1989. Analysis lag time will be
approximately 45 days and sampling kit preparation will be
approximately 10 days. The Breezy Village facility's sludge has
been exempted from analysis, as that facility is to be
decommissioned with the North County system construction.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the spending of not more than
$10,000.00 for the required permitted analyses from Account No.
471-218-536-033.19 (Other Professional Services - Sewer). This work
be performed by the contracted laboratory previously awarded
the open contract.
rdei e,g
71 NOOK
FED 2d` �� 0 n n
BOOK .79 F',�.GE.3,1
John Lang, Environmental Specialist, advised that Utilities
is testing 125 compounds, and Commissioner Bowman pointed out
that we are actually doing the lab work for the EPA.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that would continue because of
the EPA's work load.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
the spending of $10,000 for the required permitted
analyses, as set out in the above staff recommendation.
FINAL ASSESSMENT - 6TH AVENUE SEWER PROJECT - RESOLUTION
CONFIRMING AND RECORDING THE ASSESSMENT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/20/90:
DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: 6TH AVENUE SEWER PROJECT FINAL ASSESSMENT
AND THE FOURTH RESOLUTION CONFIRMING
AND RECORDING THE ASSESSMENT
IRC PROJECT NO. US -88 -08 -CCS
PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: WILLIAM F. MCCAIN
CAPITAL PROJECTS NEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
On June 27, 1989, a public hearing was held and Resolution Number
Three was approved to confirm and record the preliminary assessment
for this job. We now wish to have the fourth resolution approved,
and the final assessment confirmed and recorded.
72
ANALYSIS
Attached please find the fourth resolution, along with the final
assessment role. The final project cost was reduced by $4,221.781
and the assessment role has been adjusted to reflect this decrease.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the final assessment for the
6th Avenue sewer project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 90-26, certifying "as -built" costs for
installation of a sewer collection system on 6th
Avenue from 8th Street to U.S. Highway #1, designed
as Project US -88 -08 -CCS.
FE 0 3
BOOK, Fa.cc9 :
h"- 1
EDOK. i� FAGE ��
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 26
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CERTIFYING
"AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR INSTALLATION OF A SEWER
COLLECTION SYSTEM ON SIXTH AVENUE FROM EIGHTH
STREET TO U.S. HIGHWAY #1, DESIGNATED AS PROJECT
#US -88 -08 -CCS, AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED
BY SUCH PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION
DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND
INTEREST.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County determined that the improvements for the
property located with boundaries as described in this title
were necessary to promote the public welfare of the county;
and
WHEREAS, on June 27, 1989, the Board held a public
hearing at which time and place and the owners of the
property to be assessed appeared before the Board to be
heard as to the propriety and advisability of making such
improvements; and
WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County
Commission adopted Resolution No. 89-65, which confirmed the
special assessment cost of the project to the property
specially benefited by the project in the amounts listed In
an attachment to that resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified
the actual "as -built" cost now that the project has been
completed are the same as in confirming Resolution No.
89-65,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. Resolution No. 89-65 Is modified as follows: The
completion date for the referenced project and the last day
that payment may be made avoiding interest and penalty
charges is ninety (90) days after passage of this
resolution.
74
2. Payments bearing interest at the rate of 12% per
annum may -be made in five annual installments, the first to
be made twelve (12) months from the due date. The due date
is ninety (90) days after the passage of this resolution.
3. The final assessment roll for the project listed In
Resolution No. 89-65 shall as be shown on the attached
Exhibit "A."
4. The -assessments, as shown on the attached Exhibit
"A," shall stand confirmed and remain legal, valid, and
binding first liens against the property against which such
assessments are made until paid.
5. The assessments shown on attached Exhibit "A" to
Resolution No. 89-65 were recorded by the County on the
public records of Indian River County, and the lien shall
remain prima facie evidence of its validity.
This resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Bowman and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was
as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice -Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 20 day of February 1990.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By _ eatt'?-1—
,L rolynK / ggert
Cha 1rm
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
N
F E
75
FED
2 ' �S90ROGK
79
F1GE341
question,
REPORT ON FACo MID -YEAR LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE
only in
the State of
Commissioner Scurlock, having just attended FACo's mid -year
conference in Jacksonville on February 14-16, felt we could
probably identify this particular state meeting, which was a
legislative review meeting, as gloom and doom. Nothing from the
meeting excited him from the standpoint of the State in any way
living up to the responsibilities of either not mandating
programs for fund them if they do mandate them. In fact, one
legislator's report was that no dollars are being spent anywhere
in the State of Florida on any projects for new construction that
aren't associated with federal dollars. The only money they have
is to match with federal monies, which means no new bridges and
none of the projects that we went through with the DOT on our 5,
10, and 15 year plans. There is money for maintenance, however.
Commissioner Scurlock reported that the specific question
came up about concurrency and how the counties have been mandated
through the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan criteria to do
certain things in terms of planning our infrastructure or
declaring a moratorium on new development. It was very heavily
suggested that the State is not going to be able to meet its
commitments to keep its infrastructure because it probably will
take $300 -million to get to the same infrastructure level as of
1983. He
felt
there
is no
question,
not
only in
the State of
Florida,
but in
the
entire
country,
that
we are
in an
infrastructure crisis. Indian River County will feel the crunch
by having no Twin Pairs, no new bridge, and no major expansion of
any of the state road networks. There is no money there -- there
is a shortfall -- and it just is not going to happen. This is an
election year and the Republicans and the Democrats seem to be
working at cross purposes. How they solve this problem is going
to be critical for Indian River County with regard to portions of
AIA, U.S. #1 and some of the other State roads, because it is
going to be moratorium time unless we find some way to fund these
76
road improvements. It is just not a prosperous time in the State
of Florida, and he believed that Indian River County would be
impacted to the point of going back to providing the essential
services of safety, health and welfare.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that the key question that came
out of this meeting was what can the counties do to get the most
improvement with the fewest dollars, and the answer is
maintenance of your existing system. He strongly recommended
that this county create a stormwater management utility, and work
with the drainage districts because they transgress each other's
turf and come up with a standard culvert and size because what we
have done is put a big pipe with a little pipe which results in
retention ponds. He felt we could implement funding of our
existing maintenance program through the establishment of a
utility and move that out of the Public Works budget. Then, as
we have more time, get somebody on Board to analyze in depth the
entire county in terms of capital improvements. So, the first
phase would be to get something in place for maintenance, and the
second phase would be to get a long-range capital improvement
plan. Commissioner Scurlock felt we could do that very quickly
and he would urge the Commission to request the County
Administrator to move ahead with that.
Administrator Chandler advised that they have been looking
at it and trying to formulate some ideas to bring back to the
Board in the near future. He noted that during the development
of the new Comp Plan, the emphasis was on drainage and the
implications of that both for short and long range plans.
DISCUSSION_ REGARDING NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET SCHEDULES
Commissioner Wheeler felt the concensus is that we would
like to get rollback on our taxes this year, and would recommend
that that we send a letter to the constitutional officers and to
,J nc�w
77 I FaGE ��r✓
coo �� °�
NOOK %9 F'.1G��c1�
th-e other groups that we deal with during budget time, advising
them of our goal to get rollback taxes this year and asking their
assistance and cooperation in attaining that goal.
Administrator Chandler advised that he has been talking to
the county departments and felt the goal of bring taxes in at
rollback is realistic, not easily attainable, but attainable.
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that we cannot keep giving
somebody else 18%, 20%, or 22% increases when the County gets
only 2% or 3% and inflation itself is only 4%.
OMB Director Joe Baird advised that the constitutional
officers, the State agencies and the other agencies account for
in excess of 60% of our general fund budget. The County itself
is 30% and 10% is in contingencies.
Chairman Eggert felt we should notify all the agencies we
give funding to, and Commissioner Wheeler stressed that everyone
should be notified.
The Board indicated their agreement to having the Chairman
write a letter to state and Local agencies, the county's consti-
tutional officers and community groups advising them of our goal
of keeping taxes at rollback this year and asking them for their
cooperation and assistance.
Lengthy discussion ensued regarding next year's budget and
where we can save money without severely cutting services, which
eventually led to the tremendous cost of operating the Jail and
how the stockade program would save some money.
Commissioner Wheeler felt that before the opening of Phase
III, we should reevaluate the manning level, since the operation
of Phase 111 will increase the operating budget drastically. The
Commissioners instructed the County Attorney's office to pursue
the lowering of the manning level imposed by the Florida
Department of Corrections.
78
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:45 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
'FL7 Lf
J990
L-
Clerk
e
79
/
FA F. . W.W-rzod
Pau344