Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
5/8/1990
BOARS ACTION AND IMPLEMENTATION BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA A G E N D A REGULAR MEETING 14AY 8, 1990 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25th STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA i COUNTY C014MISSIONERS i a Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman James'E. Chandler', County Administrator Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman.- Margaret hairman-Margaret C. Boinuan 'Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Gary C. Wheeler Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to•the Board None E{�?Q Off. 9:00 AM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2 . INVOCATION - 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Don C. Scurlock Jr. 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 1. 8B(4) -Howard Rezoning Request (WITHDRAWN) 2. Letter from DER in re recycling Grant Funds 3. Parks & Recreation Committee Report 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 6. CONSENT AGENDA A. Amendment to Elections Budget Approved. (Memorandum dated 5/l/90) B.. Proclamation Designating Approved. Teacher Appreciation_ Day and Teacher Appreciation Week Approved. C: IRC Bid 90-65, Gasoline, Diesel Fuel and Other Oil Products Memorandum dated 4/27/90) D• ==;C Bid 90-72, Guardrail Approved. pp (Memorandum dated =/30/90) E, The sailaoard Center Approved. addendum. to Agreement (Aiemorandum dated 5/2/90) Approved. ?• Release of County Utility Liens (Memorandum dated 5/2/90) 7. CLERK TO THE BOARD None E{�?Q Off. WAY 8 1990 9:05 AM Ord. 90-9 adopted. 8. A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None Ord. 90-10 adopted. Directed staff to properly address this issue by creating a category specific to this type use. BOOK 02 err 80 F�:,�t B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1) Schlitt Request to Rezone 5 Acres from A-1 to RS -1 (Memorandum dated 3/14/90) 2) Indian River Aerodrome Property Owners Assn., Inc. Request to Amend the A-1, Agricultural District Setback Adopt the DNR Plan except tha3RR Requirements establish a 20 mph speed zona (Memorandum dated 4/25/90) central portion of the St. Se between U.S.1 bridge and the trestle bridge U that the canRevisions to the County Interim appropriately marked; that weManatee Protection Plan slow speed 500 east & west oU.S.1 bridge & once past it (Memorandum dated 4/30/90) then be opened up to 20 mph tintracoastal. We endorse conthat the Commercial fisherman Howard Request to Rezone 1.88 exempt. (see bottom of 2nd Acres from RS -6 to CN WITHDRAWN AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST Withdrawn at applicant's request. L 9. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None 10. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Approved as rec. & appointed comm. Bowman to set up a Coordinating Board Transportation Disadvantaged Grant Application (Memorandum dated 5/2/90) B. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Approved. Approval of Change Order #1, Indian River County Jail Phase III (Memorandum dated 5/2/90) C. GENERAL SERVICES Approved. Library Furnishings (Memorandum dated 5/2/90) D. LEISURE SERVICES - None . E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET `•!one s .-Z SCS.3ZL :one G. PUBLIC V ORKS Indian River Blvd. Phase III, Approved. agreement for Professional Services, Expert Witness Services, Boyle Engineering Corp. (Memorandum dated 5/1/90) E ffm R. Approved. Approved. No action Approved. Approved. Approved. L:� 10. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS - CONTINUED : H. UTILITIES Approval of Task Orders for Evaluation of General Development Utilities Systems in Vero Highlands, Vero Beach Shores, and Sebastian Highlands (Memorandum dated 5/1/90) - -' I1. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 12. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT 1. SWDD small Co. grant funds - letter DER. Auth. sig. of Chairman. 2. Meeting with DCA re: Comp. Plan Report B. VICE CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD 1. Report on P & R Committee meeting of 5/3/90. Renewal of license agreement between Co. & archers. Modification of Airmasters Lease. Extend.flying hrs. from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p m. C. CONI1IISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN u D. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. E. COMMISSIONER GARY C. WHEELER 13. SPECIAL DISTRICTS None Item 8B3 continued... The Board adopted the DNR Interim Plan with three exceptions: 1. Include the total area east of Hole -In -The -Wall Island up to the power line and marker 113. 2. Gifford Cut should be cut off at the NE corner of Fritz Island. 3. Move the ski area north of Porpoise Point to the east following the contour of the river with a smaller buffer of 300 ft. ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL AflY 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. MAY 1990 ut � Tuesday, May 8, 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, May 8, 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 Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner Scurlock led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Chairman Eggert announced that the Howard request for a rezoning, Item 8B (4) has been withdrawn at the applicant's request. She wished to add as 12A under her matters an emergency item relating to a letter received from the DER in regard to Recycling Grant Funds. She also wished to add as 12B a short report on meeting with the DCA in Tallahassee. Commissioner Bird asked that a report on the Parks and Recreation Committee recommendations from their meeting of May 3, 1990, be added under his items. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the withdrawal from and addition to the Agenda of items as described above. mc'K i �` 1990 F��cc CONSENT AGENDA I BOOF 80 PAGE 0E) A. Amendment to Elections Budget The Board reviewed memo from the Supervisor of Elections: May 1, 1990 TO: HON. CAROLYN EGGERT, CHAIRMAN, BCC q FROM: ANN ROBINSON, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS 7A'� RE: ITEM FOR CONSENT AGENDA OF BCC ON MAY 8, 1990 Please amend the elections budget to include the balance owed by each municipality for the March 13 election; the total amount equals $5,911, and it will be put into the Special Elections'Account, 001-700-519-036.74. The money comes from the municipalities as follows: Vero Beach $3,953.32 Sebastian 1,591.13 Orchid 317.57 Fellsmere 50.59. Thank 'you . ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the amendment to the Elections budget as set out above. B. Proclamation - Teacher Appreciation Week & Day ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously designated Teacher Appreciation Week and Teacher Appreciation Day as set out in the following Proclamation: 2 P R O C L A M A T I O N WHEREAS, a strong, effective system of free public education for all children and youth is essential to our democratic system of government; and WHEREAS, the Indian River County School system has made considerable progress in the social, technological and scientific fields due to our system of free and universal public education; and WHEREAS, much of this progress can be attributed to the qualified and dedicated teachers entrusted .with educational development of our children and their full potentials; and WHEREAS, teachers should be accorded high public esteem, reflecting the value that the community places on public education; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate that teachers be recognized for their dedication and commitment to educating their students; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of May 14 through May 20, 1990 be designated as TEACHER APPRECIATION WEEK in Indian River County, Florida, and that May 18, 1990 be designated as TEACHER APPRECIATION DAY in Indian River County, Florida. The Board further urges all citizens to pay tribute to our public school teachers. Adopted this 8th day of May, 1990. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Caroly K. Eggert 'hairman Roos. Far, rj MAY 81990 3 1AY $ 1.990 - r� BOOK 80 PAGE u d C. Bid #90-65 - Gasoline, Diesel Fuel, etc. The Board reviewed memo from the General Services Director: DATE: APRIL 27, 1990 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR I FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BID #90-65 GASOLINE, DIESEL FUEL AND OTHER OIL PRODUCTS BACKGROUND: On request from the Department of General Services the bid for Gasoline, Diesel Fuel and other Oil Products was properly advertised with thirty seven (37) invitations to bid sent out. On April 25, 1990 bids were received. Twelve (12) vendors submitted proposals for the commodities. This was a co-operative Invitation to Bid issued by the Indian River County Purchasing Division on behalf of the participating Agencies for the purchase of their respective estimated annual requirements for gasoline, diesel fuel and lubricants indicating plus or minus .profit added on to the Oil Price Information Service, Orlando Florida.. t A.- "ANALYSIS :Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain Adherence to `Specification. The following low bidders met all requirements. TRANSPORT (7800 GALLONS) TANK WAGON (5000 GALLONS) 1. Regular Unleaded 1. Regular Unleaded Fort Pierce Oil Plus $.0270 Fort Pierce Oil Plus $.0551 2. Premium Unleaded 2. Premium Unleaded Gulf Products Minus $.0049 Fort Pierce Oil Plus $.0551 3. Midgrade Unleaded 3. Midgrade Unleaded Coastal Fuel Plus $.0131- Marco Petroleum Plus $.0956 4. Diesel #2 4. Diesel #2 Coastal Fuel Plus $.0165 Fort Pierce Oil Plus $.0551 5. Super Premium 5. Super Premium Fort Pierce Oil Plus $.0270 Fort Pierce Oil Plus $.0551 MOTOR OIL LUBRICANT Glover $2.10.per gallon Addision Fuel $2.402 per gallon (Union Guard Oil 440) (Chevron Multi Motive GR2) The following is a record of cost over the past two years: PREMIUM UNLEADED 1988-1989 + .0097 1989-1990 + .0022 4 DIESEL 1988-1989 + .0141 1989-1990 + .0126 FUNDING: Monies for these purchases will come from Department Budgeted Accounts for Fuel and Lubricants. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the award of a one year OPEN END CONTRACT to the above Vendors. An estimated purchase of 250,000 gallons of diesel fuel and 170,000 gallons of unleaded gasoline is projected. Also, authorize Purchasing to renew the contract for one additional year subject to satisfactory performance, zero cost increase, vendor acceptance and determination that renewal is in the best interest of the County. The initial contract period shall begin on June 1, 1990. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded.a one year open end contract to the vendors set out in staff memo dated April 27, 1990, for the materials covered in Bid #90-65, and per the following Bid Tabulation: 4/26/9p ' BOA= OF coma -Y C0x&tr=0Ar q law 65AS0e4TffV3WCLFlorida�''•.9b'D PURCHASING DEPT. BID TABULATION Sdwiibed By Domrt>icc L Mm=la ,......e oma mm as%a•` ,..� t.,....w =.ma„ P]T'iT Z-HASINN MA11AGM5 . ' :�.1. Hid Nm nr 90-65 Date Di Dpening 41m/9n Re.^oa> inded Award AR1C�' Hid Title r se,;•s/zesa Foa 7 Eegola I8� I !!ia 4'.&I mml a UP- I Weeded unleaded Premim 93 IIolesded I r�i ao r "'"'a ]Sid -G ada 7oleaded t 02 El*- Premien 43 rotor Cil 5 s,t la�be n „C I� 12 I I I I INB I I -., I °' 7i�ro7eam NIB Rro IMI /B S n p.. �- ,, • Ftoaaea lae -13,11 I Nr lilts I Rro I R I ' . Rro ( NB �13 I A/8 I 11/8. I N/8 I R/8. bwles W ca INB I Nro I NB I W1 B_ ! 7d/3 I NB I Nro I n I NB I NB INB I N/s 1 SnSms an co ( +.70 i *.10 I +.10 I +•10 ( +•� I *•� I+.7D I +.1a 1 *.10 . 12.92 Per Gall 3.24 PeY Gallen Manx Oil W IRB NIB I RIB I ( _Nro I Nro INB I Na ( NB • 12.10 Per Gall 2.84 Per Gall® RB INB I NB I NB I.NB I N's 7.I. i + n„n ` . m rn i *•a 1 *•0551 INro I +,05n 1 *.0551 12.BB1Per GJ 3.593 Per Ga71® Gulf Prodaeta IRB -.0049 1+.0170 14.M11 NIB I NIB I NB INB I +.0717 I NB I RB I NB t I ni ra I m I m Nro I NB INro INro NB 13.036Per GJ 3.2% Per Gall® . Hacco Petrolpnm INro I +.0306 .0306 1+.a346 I +.0506 +.0956 I ..1056 I*.0956 I *.0.916 ( +.1356 13.51 Per GJ 3.28 Per Gan- Caastal.Ptrl • INro • I ..0731 .0731 +.0165 INB Nro Nro Nro NB Nro Nro 1 i 12a.Addaaun C; •' INro ]Nro » Fro' INro- • JN/3 "no" Nro Rro Nro Nro Nro 2.295Per 2.402 Per MAY 8 1990 5 BOOK 5} V L b �3E (' q MAY 8 1990 BOOK ®0 PALE 00 D. Bid #90-72 - Guardrail The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Mascola: DATE: April 30, 1990 TO: HORNORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY C 144ISSIONERS THRU: H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General' vice ' N#Ma FROM: Dm nick L. Mascola, Manager Division of Purchasing SUBJ: Indian River County Bid #90-72/Guardrail BACKGROUND: On reg7est from the Road and Bridge Division the subject bid was properly advertised and Fourteen (14) invitations to bid were sent out. On April 18, 1990, bids were received with Two (2) vendors submitting proposals for the commodity. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the submittals to ascertain adherence to all specifications. Sea Contracting was the low bidder that met all requirements for guardrail. x FUNDING: Monies for this purchase will come from Road and Bridge Accounts for other Road Material/Supply. RECOHVIENDATIONS: Staff recarmends the award of a one year OPEN END CONTRACT to Sea Contracting with an estimated value of $36,939.00. Also, authorize Purchasing to renew the contract for one additional year subject to satisfactory performance, zero cost increase, vendor acceptance and detA,�;�ation that renewal is in the best interest of the County. The initial contract period shall begin on the date of award. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #90-72 for Guardrail to Sea Contracting at an esti- mated value of $36,939 and approved a one year open end contract with same as recommended by staff and per the following Bid Tabulation: 6 ! BOARD OF CObNTY COMMISSIONERS Dates 4/19/90 1840259hSved.V;;6B6 cLnor&3060 PURCHASING DEPT. BID TABULATION ' TMMwv OUR 6674000 �p .a Z �•K S.won TN.p.pot 7141011 . Submitted By Dominh* L. Mascola PURCHASING MANAGER # Bid No.90-72 Data Of Opening 4/18190 s Recommended Award R10P' Bid Title Guar ai 7 1. Sea Contracting Co Item 1 S150,00 Syro Steel Company Item 1 $250.00 P.O: Bos 1137 •• 2 $ 78.12 to treat Girard, Ohio 44420• 2 $185.00 3 Loxahatchee Florida 334701 ~ Al -75 $200.00 4 $ 38.75 5 $ 77.50 5 $200.00 7 $ 44.00 7 $175.00 8 $135.00 $ 35.00 100 S 2.00 10 $125.00 0 122 $ .400 1 4 ii $i2g.99 12 $125.00 13 $125.00 14 $410.00 I 510.00 $525 99 15 $130.00 FOB 3 Days FOB 30 Days ' E. Extension of Agreement w/The Sailboard Center The Board reviewed memo from Asst. County Attorney Collins: TO: The Board of County Commissioners FROM:�William G. Collins it - Assistant County Attorney DATE: May 2, 1990 SUBJECT: The Sailboard Center - Addendum to Agreement have been requested to prepare an addendum extending the Agreement between Indian River County and The Sailboard Center by the Hazens and Commissioner Bird. The Addendum: 1. increases the annual license fee 100 per year; 2. revises the insurance requirements to reflect our new self-insurance status; and 3. makes the Agreement automatically renewable unless terminated. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Chairman to execute the Addendum upon receipt of an insurance certificate in coviformance with the terms of the Addendum. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the Addendum to the Agreement with The Sailboard Center upon receipt of insurance certificate as recommended by staff. 7 MAY 81990 BOOK 80 D - GE ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT BETnVEEN THE SAILBOARD CENTEE A_f_D 1 19-D-IAR-R-i GES CoIJNTY-UT 'E6 NOVEMBER —1,-1-988 On November 1, 1988 Indian River County and Burchard Hazen, Jr. and Patricia Hazen, doing business as The Sailboard Center located at 9125 U.S. Highway No. 1; Wabasso, Florida 32957, hereinafter referred to as "Sailboard Center" entered into an Agreement whereby the County agreed to permit the Sailboard Center to occupy and use the County park premises at Wabasso Causeway for the purpose of renting sailboards, providing instruction, etc. The above Agreement which is attached as Exhibit "A" heretois hereby revised as follows: 1. Paragraph 2a is revised to increase the annual license fee ten percent (100) per year (i.e., the fee for the year November 1, 1989 to November 1, 1990 shall be $330.00. The fee for the year November 1, 1990 to November 1, 1991 shall be $363.00, etc.). 2. Paragraph 2e is revised to increase the public liability insurance policy limits to no less than $500,000.00 per person and $1,000,000.00 annual aggregate. 3. The provisions of paragraph 3 are hereby revised to make this Agreement automatically renewable on an annual basis unless terminated pursuant to the terms of paragraph'3 of the November 1, 1988 Agreement. IN'WITNESS WHEREOF, Indian River County and the Sailboard Center have caused this Addendum to the Agreement of November 1, 1988 to be signed in their respective names. ATTEST: e f ey VKV Barton CIerk C�r� APPROVEAff D:GC S— 1990. 13 �y 8 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By CaroIyr). €gger ," Fialrman Indian River Cn Approv d Dale Admin. , U Legal Budget i r-o7l�(J Dep 1.' tom' L�<i Risk Mgr_ '/J Burchard Piazen, Jr. a ricia Hazen F. Release of County Utility Liens The Board reviewed the following memo from Sandy Bartolucci of the County Attorney's Office: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Sandy BartolucciCounty Attorney's Office DATE: May 2, 1990 SUBJECT: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 5/g/90 RELEASE COUNTY UTILITY LIENS I have prepared the following routine lien -related documents and request the Board authorize the Chairman to execute them: , Release of Special Assessment Lien ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT Tax I.D. #07-33-40-00001-0013-00001.0 in the name of ALFRED CHANDLER 6 DOROTHY CHANDLER Release of Special Assessment Lien ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT Tax I.D. #01-33-39-00036-0230-00009.0 in the name of HAROLD RABINE & ELSIE RABINE Release of Special Assessment Lien ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT Tax I.D. #12-33-39-00003-0010-00017.0 In the name of WILLIE WELLS Release of Special Assessment Lien ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT Tax I.D. #12-33-39-00001-0006-00007.0 In the name of CONSTANTINE SZEWCZAK 6 ANNA SZEWCZAK Release of Special Assessment Lien ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT Tax I.D. #01-33-39-00035-0210-00015.0 in the name of KENNETH FROMAN & ELSIE FROMAN Release of Special Assessment Lien ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT Tax I.D. #12-33-39-00001-0004-00008.0 In the name of EUGENE MALET 6 MARCELLE MALET Release of Special Assessment Lien ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT Tax I.D. #01-33-39-00036-0200-00006.0 In the name of LESLIE HART & LEOLA HART Release of Special Assessment Lien ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT Tax I.D: #07-33-40-00001-0013-00014.0 in the name of FAYETTA A. LOWRY Back-up information for the above -documents is on file in the County Attorney's Office. 9 BOOK 12 �� F'AGc �, MAY 8 1990 BOOK 80 FADE 13 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the Release of Liens listed above. COPIES OF SAID RELEASE OF LIENS ARE ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. REZONING 5 ACRES A-1 TO RS -1 (ROBERT SCHLITT) The hour of 9;:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: �* ¢� VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL z' Air Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River Codnty, Florida 'COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA WAr y� 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 in the matter of� / �- in the _ — _____— Court, was pub - ed 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 for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. // �41V 1 Sworn to and subscribed before me this _ (, // .� day of �-A.D. 19 (Business Mana r) (Clerk of the-Gireail Court, Indian -River Florida) -- (SEAL) r .y , "s::, . . -. e .. 6.:J --- NOTICE — PUQIJC HEARING Notice of hearing.to Consider the adopt(on of.; a County ordinance rezoning land from: /bt, A ntist DiistdcL The subject pfropgerty Is Ipricultural District to RS -1. �ntly; owned by Robert W. and Joann Schlltt and Is Io - sated on the west side of 86th Avenue approzl- mately 860 feet north of. 4th Street The subject property containing approximately 8 acres Is Iying In tract 8, Section 18, Township 33S,: Range 39 East, Iylrand.being ig Inddien River. County. A public hearing at which parties In interest - and citizens shall have an opportunity to be - heard, will be' held by the Board of County Com- missioners of Indian River County, Florida, In the County -Commission-Chambera.1el.the Counttyy Administration Building; located at "1840.45th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday. May 8, 1990, at 9:05 a.m. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed- ings Is made, which Includes testimony and evi- dence upon which the appeal Is based-, Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Carolyn Eggert Chairman April 17, 1990 - 874734 t Community Development Director Keating made the staff presentation, as follows: 10 TO: James Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development D % ' ector THRU: Sasan Rohani S - . Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: Cheryl A. Tworek .Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: March 14, 1990 SUBJECT: SCHLITT REQUEST TO REZONE 5 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RS -1 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at'its regular meeting of May 8, 1990. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: This is a request by Robert W. Schlitt to rezone property from A-1,. Agricultural District, (1 unit/5 acres) to RS -1, Single -Family Residential - 1 (1 unit/acre). The property is located on the west side of 66th Avenue, approximately 1,290 feet south of 8th Street. The applicant intends to split the subject property in order to create another building lot. On March 22, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the approval of this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utilities systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject parcel -contains a single-family residence and is zoned A-1, Agricultural District. All property to the west of 66th Avenue is zoned Agricultural. The property to the east is currently zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential - 6 (up to 6 units/acre). Agriculture is the predominate land use in this area. The area west of 66th Avenue is devoted almost entirely, to citrus; there is an old grove to the north of the property and an active grove to the west. The property to the east, Pinetree Park Subdivision, contains a substantial number of single-family homes on lots of approximately 7000 square feet in size. The property immediately south is an approximately 5 acre parcel containing a single-family residence and a barn. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and all surrounding property west of 66th Avenue as R, Rural (up to 1 unit/acre). Property east of 66th Avenue is designated L-2, Low -Density 2 (up to 6 units/acre). MAY 8 1990 11 KOK FAGE � MAY 81990 BOOK ®0 PAGE Transportation System The subject property has direct access designated as an urban minor arterial Functional Class and Thoroughfare Plan. 66th Avenue is a two lane unpaved road way. No improvements are shown or are at this time. Environment on 66th Avenue, which is on the 2010 Future Roadway In its existing condition with 50 feet of right -of - scheduled for 66th Avenue The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive on the Comprehensive Plan but is within the 100 year floodplain as depicted on Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps. Utilities Public water and wastewater are currently not available or programmed for the subject parcel; however, the area is within the year 2010 service area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, development in this area will be limited to very low densities, with the applicant(s) providing their own utilities. Analysis In reviewing this request, staff has examined the existing land use pattern and the future land use pattern set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The RS -1, Single -Family Residential - 1 District is intended to provide opportunities for low-density residential development on the fringe of suburban development and is the highest density permitted within the Rural Land Use category. Agriculture has been the major use of land in this area; however, residential uses have been established along the roadways. The most significant concentration of residential uses in the area is Pinetree Park Subdivision directly across the street from the subject property. Despite the lack of services and paved roads, the area's proximity to more developed areas of the county enhances its attractiveness for low density residential development. The predominance of agricultural uses will provide some limitations to development in the area as residential development and subdivisions adjacent to active agricultural- operations are required to provide buffers. The long term development of this area will depend on improvements to 66th Avenue and the provision of public water and sewer. It is unlikely that these improvements will occur in the near future. Conclusion The subject property is located in an area designated for rural development and dominated by agricultural uses. Residential uses will be restricted to very low densities by constraints provided by agriculture, lack of roads, services and drainage. The proposed change in zoning would be consistent with county policies and would not create a noticeable change in existing land uses. Therefore, it is the opinion of staff that the proposed zoning would be reasonable and not negatively impact adjacent properties. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that ,the Board of County Commissioners approve this request. 12 The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none, and she thereupon closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 90-9 rezoning 5 acres west of 66th Avenue and south of 8th Street to RS -1 as requested by Robert Schlitt. ORDINANCE NO. 90- 9 i AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO RS -1, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -1 DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF 66TH AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 660 FEET NORTH OF 4TH STREET, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING'THE EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a* recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: The North 1/2 of the East 10.39 acres of Tract 8, of Section 18, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, according to the last general plat of land of Indian River Farms Company Subdivision as filed in Plat Book 2, page 25, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida; said land now situate in Indian River County, Florida. 13 ABY 1900. BOOK fA�r 101 I r MAY 8 1990 BOOK 60 FAGE 1 Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District to RS -1, Single -Family Residential -1 District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 8th day of May 1990. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 17thday of April , 1990, for a public hearing to be held on the 8th day of May , 1990, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Wheeler , seconded by Commissioner Bowman and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Ave Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Ave Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Don C. Scurlock Ave BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: xt2� Carolyn . Egg rt" Cha1rman AMEND A-1, AG DISTRICT, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS (AERODROME SUBDV.) The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 14 ¢ VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL r Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River Codnty, 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 a1)Vero Beach in Indian River County,•Florida; that�the attached copy of advertisement, being a _1 in the in the _— _ _ Court, was pub- s ���� • • ' Alshed 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 for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this da o A.D. 19 �.: ;,. (BusinaTvs Manager) ,, (C a Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) FN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING , NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commoners of Indian River County, Florida, shall hold a ppuublic hearing at which par - lee 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 :11340 25th Street, Vero Beach: Florldsoon Tuesday, May 9;1990, at 9.05 a.m. to consider the adoption of an Ordinance entitled: r AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER ' COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING SEC- {•,� TION 4(A), AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, . OF M ENDIX A, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AMENDING SECTION qq((A)) (f) TO RE-` DUCE THE REQUIRED RSAR AND SIDE YARDS FOR : CERTAIN. USES AND LOCATIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR AND EFFECTIVE 11%."; CTIVE DATEocvicewo�u r ; A copy of the proposed ,Ordinance will be available at the Planning DepaMtent office on the second floor of the County Administration Building. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal Is based. ., Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Carolyn Eggert, Chairman April 17,1990 974790 Community Development Director Keating made the staff presentation, as follows: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Ro art M. Keating, AICP Community Develolom ector THRU: //nt Sasan Rohani <, b` Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: Robert M. LoeperpL Senior Planner DATE: April 25, 1990 SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER AERODROME PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. REQUEST TO AMEND THE A-1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS It is requested that the consideration by the Board °meeting of May 8, 1990. data herein presented be given formal of County Commissioners at its regular 15 Boor. 80 F' ijE IS SAY 8 MU LOOK 80 PAGE 10 `BACKGROUND CONDITIONS: The Indian River Aerodrome Property Owners Association has submitted a request to amend the zoning code by reducing the side and rear yard setbacks in the A-1, Agricultural District. Presently, thirty (30) foot side and rear yard setbacks are required in the Agricultural District. The applicant proposes to amend the setback provisions to fifteen (15) feet to ensure uniformity within the subdivision, preclude the necessity for variances and provide agreement between the zoning and covenants of the subdivision. The Aerodrome subdivision units 1 and 2 were platted in 1972 and contain lots of approximately 3/4 to 1 1/2 acre in size and also contain a private airstrip and related taxi -ways. This portion of the subdivision has been and is zoned A-1,' Agricultural. Additional lots known as unit 3 were platted in 1987, and are zoned RS -1. The A-1 district permits residential development and has a 5 acre minimum lot size. Thirty (30) foot setbacks are required for all yards (front, tear and side). The district also permits airstrip facilities as special exception uses. Many garage/hanger structures have been constructed on Aerodrome lots, either through variances or oversight, and these structures encroach into the 30 foot setbacks. Over the years, eight variances have been granted for the original 40 lots. On March 22, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of this request. Analysis As stated, over the years a number of variances have been given allowing structures to encroach into the required rear or side yard setbacks in the Aerodrome subdivision. In granting these variances, the Board of Adjustment has recognized reduced setbacks in the Aerodrome subdivision. For the Board of Adjustment to grant a variance, eight (8) criteria must be met. Three of these criteria have significance when applied to the subdivision. These ;are the special condition, no public detriment, and reasonable use jcriteria. A special condition exists in the subdivision since many variances have been granted and garage/hanger structures have been built encroaching into the normal setbacks. No detriment to public welfare exists with the reduced setbacks as many property owners have utilized the reduced setbacks and the A-1 district setbacks are the most extensive of any zoning district. Finally, the use of individual lots for hanger structures has been deemed reasonable use of the property by previous actions of the Board of Adjustment. Setbacks, generally, are an integral part of land development and zoning regulations. Their primary purpose has been to protect public health and safety. Over the years many of these issues, such as fire safety, air circulation and accessibility to natural light, have been lessened through building technology. In residential areas, however, setbacks still play an important role in the aesthetics of a neighborhood. While the density of an area is controlled by zoning provisions which regulate the type of structures, permitted uses, and minimum lot sizes, the setbacks determine how a development is perceived. Large setbacks will provide for a more open and less crowded appearance than small setbacks. Setbacks in the current code vary by district type and density. Residential side yards are generally 10 or 15 feet, while rear yards range from 20 to 25 feet. The code also recognizes the need 16 M for flexibility by providing provisions for the reduction of required yards for certain accessory uses and structures such as pools, and utility buildings. In the case of the Agricultural district, 30 foot setbacks are based on minimum 5 acre lots; however, lots in Aerodrome units 1 and 2 are not larger than 1 1/2 acres. Essentially, the Aerodrome setback issue arose because the lots as originally platted did not conform to the five acre minimum lot size for the A-1 District. Once the undersized lots were created and homeowners requested approval ,for accessory uses such as. hangers which are customary for this type of development, variances were granted. Because variances have already been granted and structures built, it would seem only fair that consistent regulations apply to all lots. Alternatives Several alternatives should be considered before amending the zoning code as proposed. The most obvious alternative would be to rezone the subdivision. A change in zoning from the A-1 district to the RFD or RS -1, however, would not provide the relief sought, since those districts also have side and rear yard setbacks similar to the A-1 setbacks. In addition, airstrips are only permitted in the A-1 district as special exception uses. Second, the application of the request within the A-1 district must be considered. Since the setback problems described herein are confined to a particular subdivision, solutions such as setback reduction should be confined to that subdivision. Thirdly, the unique nature of the Aerodrome is that residents desire to build garage/hangers to store the family automobile and airplane, a situation that does not occur in other subdivisions. Therefore, reason would dictate that setback reductions should be limted to the unique structures that occur in this subdivision. Conclusion The Indian River Aerodrome subdivision units 1 and 2 were approved by the county with smaller lots than required by the A-1 zoning district. Compounding this situation is the unique nature of subdivisions with an airstrip as the main feature which results in the necessity to construct hangers on residential lots for, the storage of small aircraft. To address this issue, the Board of Adjustment has over the years granted numerous, setback variances for such uses. Therefore, a change in as they are in fact applied in this relief for affected property owners, additional variances and ensure the regulations as applied to other areas. RECOMMENDATION: the setback requirements, subdivision, would provide eliminate the need for integrity of the zoning Based on an examination of the facts and analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners amend the Agricultural District regulations to reduce side and rear yard setbacks to 15 feet for hanger/garage structures for subdivisions with special exception approval for airstrips. Commissioner Scurlock believed what is occurring here actually is an illegal use, and we are just compounding it. He asked why we don't reclassify it to a different category or MAY 81990 " Root � L- MAY 8 1990 ROOK 80 PAGE 21 create a new category that would allow airstrips in a residential community under certain conditions. Director Keating agreed that is one alternative, but noted that one of the issues is do you want airstrips where you have more units per acre. He noted that Fly -In Ranches, which is an airstrip subdivision, actually is an airstrip with 5 acre parcels adjacent to it, and he felt that really meets the intent of the Ordinance. Commissioner Scurlock asked what you do with an existing AG airstrip that then later was subdivided because we have another one in the county,..and Director Keating explained that what is proposed would allow reduced setbacks for hangars, but any lots created still would have to be a -_minimum of 5 acres in size, which is the current AG District requirement. Commissioner Wheeler believed most of these owners have gone through the variance process for their hangars, and this takes a long time. He noted that there are other counties that have air park type subdivisions where people have units of an acre or acre and a half along the strip. He realized that the portion of the Aerodrome Subdivision we are talking about is not in compliance, and noted that people have had trouble getting mortgages because of that. Commissioner Scurlock continued to stress that we should clean this situation up. He felt that actually none of the variances are proper, and if we should have airstrips along with residential units, then we should have a proper category for this and have proper setbacks and proper planning. Director Keating advised that staff feels that a 5 acre minimum is acceptable for this type subdivision because they do not feel you would want to encourage a lot of them within the more urbanized area of the community. Commissioner Wheeler did not think you would see this and felt there should be some way to address this so that the exist- ing units are protected. 18 L_J Discussion continued regarding various alternatives, and Chairman Eggert asked if there is some urgency about this. Commissioner Scurlock thought that staff is trying to do the right thing, but he gets tired of doing the "right" thing in the wrong way. Chairman Eggert suggested that possibly we could handle this particular matter now and then address the overall situation, and Commissioner Wheeler agreed. He believed there are some people out there waiting to build hangars, and pointed out that applica- tion itself not only costs $500 but it is time consuming. Attorney Vitunac interjected that if someone does come for a variance in the future, his office will have to say that we think it is an illegal variance, and the Board agreed. Discussion continued, and Commissioner Wheeler advised that he happens to live in the Aerodrome Subdivision, but he lives in the legal area where it is 1 upa. Chairman Eggert determined that no one was present repre- senting the applicant. She asked if anyone wished to be heard regarding this request; there were none; and she thereupon closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 90-10 amending the AG District regula- tions to,reduce side and rear yard setbacks to 15' for hangar/garage structures for subdivisions with special exception approval for airstrips and further directed staff to move ahead to address this situation properly by creating a category for the specific use. AJ �4. n el 19 RUOK �0 F' „.,c I MAY 8 1990 BOOK. 80 PAGE 2 I ORDINANCE NO. 90-10 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION 4(A), AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, OF APPENDIX A, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AMENDING SECTION 4(A)(f) TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED REAR AND SIDE YARDS FOR CERTAIN USES AND LOCATIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: 01mr-mTnwT 7 Section 4(A)(f) of Appendix A, the Zoning Code, Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: (f) Dimensional regulations. As provided in Table 4(A).1, herein and Section 3(A).1, application of district regulations. TABLE 4(A): SIZE AND DIMENSION CRITERIA A-1 ZONING DISTRICT Regulation Size Maximum density 0.2 Minimum lot size 5.0 Minimum lot width 150 Minimum yard Front 3 015 Side 30 /152 Rear 301/152 Minimum floor area SF 750 Tenant 400 Maximum building height 35 Maximum lot coverage 30 Minimum open space 50 Unit of Measure d.u. per gross acre acres feet feet feet feet sq. ft. per dwelling unit feet percent of lot percent of lot 1 As established in section 3 (A) .1 (e) (3) (f) , for all lots created after the effective date of this ordinance which are adjacent to active agricultural operations, all yards for nonagricultural activities shall provide a minimum fifty -foot setback or a heavily landscaped twenty -five-foot bufferyard. 2 The minimum side or rear yard shall be reduced to fifteen (15) feet for airplane hangers/garages for subdivisions which have received special exception approval for airstrips 20 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 Snecial Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 3 CODIFICATION The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be chanaed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions. SECTION 4 SEVERABILITY .If any section, part of a sentance, 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 legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. Coding: Words in OY-jhOV-4 XhA type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions. 21 BUuK J F',4.Gi MAY 08 WO I MAY 8 WO BOOK 80 PAGE 25 ORDINANCE NO. 90- 10 SECTION 5 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgement 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 8th day of May , 1990. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 17th day of April, 1990, for a public hearing to be held on the 8th day of May , 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 Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Commissioner Don C. Scurlock Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDI RIVER COUNTY By Carolyn K Eggert, C firman ATTEST BY 22 PUBLIC HEARING - REVISIONS TO INTERIM MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: :=` S '1 /0 P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Flaldo 32961 562-2315 SC'I'A TY F INNRIAA WveR Prog 3ournal Relate the umleralgned authZy pncaonaI% appeared JJ. Schumann. Jr. who on oath .aye that he Ia Rusin+. Manexer of the IViM�ien River Ca�ufy. F aortda; that cer tmWlehed at Very Beach In �a-. al% 'n dS iw _1 _�?�j s a- (— billed wan published In said nowspsper In the Issues) r1t1 qo—' sworn to and subscribed before me this V Business Manager (SEAQ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MANATEE PROTECTION SPEED ZONE PLAN FDNR PROPOSED REVISION A public hearing is to be held at which the Board of County Commissioners will consider adopting a resolution to establish o revised interim manatee protection speed zone plan for waters of the Indian River Lagoon and St. Sebastian River in Indian River County. The pro- posed revisions to the Board's February 6, 1990 interim Manatee Protection Plan are based on Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR) jurisdictional review comments and rec- ommendationa: The hearing will occur at a regular meeting of the Board, which begins at 9:05 a.m. on Tuesday, May 8, 1990, to be held in the County Commissioners Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. Copies of the proposed revised plan are available at the Indian River County Planning Division office on the second floor of the County Administration Building. For questions con- cerning this hearing, please contact, Roland DeBlols, at the County Community Development Department at.567-8000. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY-s-CAROLYN K. EGGERT 'INTERIM MANATEE SPEED ZONES PROPOSED REVISION Match Llne 1 _��°"r amus. Intracoastal waterway plus 100' buffers exempt from slow speed ' Slow speed. area -Non— •restricted area 23 BOOK U fA c MAY 8 1990 BOOK. 80 PAGE 27 Roland DeBlois, Chief of Environmental Planning, advised that the DNR in conjunction with the U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service has reviewed the Board's submitted plan and determined that it did not provide adequate protection for manatees. In that respect, they met informally with some representatives of the county, such as the water skier interest group represented mostly by Mr. Bill Moody, and also met with staff to come up with what they thought would be an acceptable plan. Chairman Eggert believed our county seems to have the best track record of manatees not being killed, but we also seem to be faced with one of the more restrictive plans, and she did not understand this. Commissioner Bowman stated that the fact that you don't find a carcass in Indian River County doesn't mean they aren't hit here. They don't die where they are hit; so, there is no reason to assume the mortality in this county is any lower than it is anywhere else. Chairman Eggert asked if the manatees that died during the freeze situation would be found close to where they died or elsewhere, and Commissioner Bowman believed it would be pretty close to where they died. Chief Planner DeBlois advised that the State and the Wildlife Service looked at Indian River County from the standpoint of its value as a migratory corridor. It is a narrow part of the river with substantial sea grasses throughout, and, in addition, the Sebastian River is a documented area for manatees. Commissioner Bird reviewed the history of what has occurred to this point with our Manatee Protection Plan wherein we felt the Plan recommended by the Committee was too restrictive as far as boaters were concerned and adopted a plan that was more lenient towards the boaters with the result that the state did not like our Plan. He informed the Board that, for some reason, possibly because he was so vocal about the Plan, the State 24 contacted him and asked if the County was dead set on sticking with this Plan, which the State felt was not restrictive enough for the protection of manatees, and he advised them that he felt we would certainly consider any alternative plan they might offer as a compromise. The State has come back with a modified plan, which is what the Board is reviewing today. Commissioner Bird further advised that he, along with Planner DeBlois, Rich Giteles representing the Sebastian Inlet Taxing District, and Bill Moody representing the water skiers, already have looked at the State's modified plan, and it was felt it was basically a good plan with possibly some additional modifications to it to allow the boaters a little more flexibility. Those modifications are set out in the memo from Chief Planner Roland DeBlois, as follows: TO: James Chandler County Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. eat g, Community Developmehe Director -TJAFROM: Roland M. DeBlois, AIICP Chief, Environmental Planning DATE: April 30, 1990 RE: Public Hearing on Revisions to the County Interim Manatee Protection Plan It is requested that the data herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of May 8, 1990. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: Since the Board of County Commissioners adopted an Interim Manatee Protection Speed Zone Plan (Resolution No. 90-20) at a public hearing on February 6, 1990, the Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR), Division of Marine Resources, has reviewed the plan and has made the determination that the plan does not provide adequate protection for manatees. As such, the FDNR has submitted a proposal and requests that the Board consider adopting it in lieu of the previous plan. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: The FDNR proposal is a combination of the Board's adopted plan, the Sebastian Inlet Tax District's plan (north of Wabasso), and the Ad 25 mUC .0 Frgi. 28 � hiAY 81990 � ROOK ©-U f'Ar,E Hoc Committee's original plan recommendations, with some modifications. FDNR staff and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Manatee Coordinator have met with Bill Moody, representing water skiing interests, in an effort to accommodate popular water. recreation use areas of the county. The FDNR has also proposed to widen the non -restricted travel corridor of the Intracoastal waterway channel by adding 100 feet to each side of the channel to allow for additional boater maneuvering area for safety considerations. Comparison with the Board's February 6, 1990 Plan and the Sebastian Inlet Tax District's Recommended Plan St. Sebastian River: The FDNR's proposed plan is consistent with the Board's adopted plan for the St. Sebastian River, which calls for a slow speed throughout that portion of the St. Sebastian River in Indian River County. The Sebastian Inlet Tax District's recommended plan would allow for a 20 m.p.h. travel corridor in the St. Sebastian- River, between the U.S. #1 Bridge and the F.E.C. railroad tracks, with the remainder of the St. Sebastian River in Indian River County being slow speed. The travel corridor was proposed to provide river residents a reasonable travel time in accessing the Intracoastal Waterway channel. The District has also recommended that a non- restricted area extend from the U.S. #1 Bridge to the ICW channel. North of Wabasso Bridge: The Board's adopted plan placed no speed restrictions in the Indian River Lagoon north of Wabasso Bridge. The FDNR proposal recommends a slow speed zone from the western shoreline of the Lagoon to the ICW channel in the area of the St. Sebastian River, and a similar area in the vicinity of Duck Point. The remaining lagoon north of Wabasso Bridge is proposed to have a 600 foot slow speed buffer along the lagoon shorelines. The Sebastian Inlet Tax District's plan varies slightly from the FDNR's proposal north of Wabasso in that it would allow for a non- restricted area in the vicinity of islands just south of the St. Sebastian River in the Indian River Lagoon. The islands and surrounding waters are presently used as a water ski area. South of Wabasso Bridge: The Board's adopted plan placed a slow speed zone at the Moorings Development, and a 40 m.p.h. maximum speed/moderate wake in the Jungle Trail Narrows. The FDNR's proposed plan calls for non -restricted areas in the Jungle Trail Narrows, Gifford Cut, and between Prang Island and Porpoise Point. The proposed FDNR plan also would provide a non -restricted area north and south of the Wabasso Causeway. The ICW channel plus 100 foot buffers non -restricted area would apply throughout Indian River County. The remainder of the Indian River Lagoon south of Wabasso Bridge is proposed to be slow speed. It is the FDNR and USFWS' position that the proposed revised plan represents a compromise from the standpoint of manatee protection, taking into consideration popular recreational use areas, and reasonable boat traveling time allowances. The areas proposed for slow speed were arrived at with consideration to water depths, seagrass mapping, manatee siting, and manatee behavior pattern observances. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed revised Interim Manatee Protection Speed Zone Plan, with the following changes: 26 1. Include a 20 m.p.h. travel corridor in the St. Sebastian River between the U.S. #1 Bridge and the F.E.C. railroad tracks, maintaining a 600 foot slow speed zone along the southern shore in this area of the river. 2. Include a non -restricted area between the St. Sebastian River U.S. #1 Bridge and the ICW channel, (funneling to the 20 m.p.h. travel corridor). 3. Change the slow speed zone in the Indian River Lagoon, located just south of the St. Sebastian River west of the ICW channel, to a 600 foot shoreline slow speed buffer, rather than having it extend to the ICW channel. Commissioner Bird asked that Chief Planner DeBlois review the charts showing the State Plan and explain our proposed modifications, working down the river from north to south, and Planner DeBlois referred to the following charts which show the State's recommendations and also the Plan the Board previously adopted: At 8 199® 27 1 " rY :i. Match tine BOOK. 80 FADE 31 28 alc m !!n ■ Mat ||n AY 8'wo 29 mor. .RU Ry j� FF__ MAY 8 1990 NOTE 8 Tne day0eacmri we praalNy mum• toned and post -ons we apWo■,male KU II p •se• StACrSC`) IVCp eP,,OOtt: W!P Ct 91! F FT etPt t1.yS {T o.' ewa c• awl. rt f, I FI R t 1 � i Vero Shores 1 tpl ` ,OO, 80 PAGE 13 Match, , 1 OIPO ewa Cao ���• ,•/ P•Ia tP•P S•PIA Cwwwf 39 10 tTfi: 25 33 36 ? • 7 rA r aP : ,r 9 ! � ANCHORAGE AREA I10.73b (see nae A). t 7A IS 33 33 2�e 7B 3O 9 40. 1s.doced Romps i 4 16 26 31 0 ° i•scot soot[ 1011 Ct 10 ►t 33 Oi IB of ct as rt .aI CtPT a1 1 I ih9q F R Lt 70ai ` `-t tssss� t7 1t 30 33 1� R R 3' �RNY' 28 ,1 3 1 R N YSmultxd r 'g ai / my 8 34 j29 i 31 •a / Craw/0 rd F 4' e i Oslo T 1 S✓'xea Rcr� Y \ ♦ 28 i 21 31 s� / I 'b 1 I 2S I / 4 ♦ 32 36 r/c Pt I 14 18 26 / ,u . 31• t 1 ill 121 37 1-11 Y6 30 FI R �,tltt t 1 � i Vero Shores 1 tpl ` ,OO, 80 PAGE 13 30 Match, w.a " 9 T11- 39 10 25 33 36 ? • 7 rA r aP : ,r 9 ! ANCHORAGE AREA I10.73b (see nae A). IS y '• + a 7A IS 33 33 2�e 7B 3O 9 40. 1s.doced Romps i 4 16 26 31 0 ° i•scot soot[ 1011 Ct 10 ►t 33 Oi IB of ct as rt .aI CtPT a1 1 ih9q F R Lt 70ai ` `-t tssss� t7 1t 30 33 1� R 3' �RNY' 28 ,1 3 R N YSmultxd r 'g ai / my 8 34 j29 i 31 •a 1 4' 24 35 • 7 28 Y \ ♦ 28 i 21 31 s� 32 39 1 I 2S I / 4 ♦ 32 36 r/c Pt I 14 18 26 21 29 29 33 V 29 ill 121 37 1-11 Y6 30 �,tltt 14 -S 32 314 ,1 y 23 281.1 1 32 �'' tl.t11 29 31 1 1 1 2%29 JIt 1 t. t9 1.1 4t'1 11 31 16 21 31 38 t �. :• IB ?2 13 IO 33 • IO twe 13 j 29 3t .1 v 32 , I / ' 16 12 ° 13 2° 71 It ' It tt t1 IS ° 31 �. II 28 29 t to 1 12 u .10 1 77 1 7 ►. iq7 t It 32 n TANK_ t 1 9 1 6 to is 27 S SA 31 vii - 10 iso 9 0 1 w1� INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INTERIM MANATEE SPEED ZONES (AS RECOMMENDED BY FDNR) Intracoastal Waterway plus 100' buffers \1 •� ' exempt from slow speed la �1 ® -Slow speed area / M`. -Non -restricted area i 30 1 2S 4 1 39 NIO 1 s 1 ' �6 4i I 8 R 4sce5 jj3.0 4'. �j e90t�k 8 19 90 J� c� �ri lJt f.,,�4� plry��j�j�y/ Attachment A I AN 1 • re O + 1 11 s i •` 43 4a �Qo. 4� • Romp S e \ �j I e 20 s 35 21 3Sr 6 O a 2 • _20 � --Slow speed area ,1�"•: 8 19 43 rn[o React �-��11 Ant 935 Land PI `P°cS i38 I OR c 4391 r[RI [.,)91 i1R43ee 123.6Q l•• s 4 Z(,� 3 ? 4j. -%tt Duck PI 1 .1•, 1' a 3•. pie i t.. 4 s, "PA II sr 5 6 1 3 P o 13 5, I i ti 1� e i 36 44 'Z�rS s g S S 5� Md a 2 PA 41 5 f '•••i•• i7 'el 2n ISI g1• 6 s i•'' ?S ao 6 6 I� 4 --! 111 46 5 Qla4 1 d•� 2 bby j �� �✓ r,39 !L I . m" m 4w. 6 '••...•.S 1.93.64 a•r tt, I 5 1 �.::::, 44 j'1 I FION 164'63 6P,tio ;4o'nA ne to _,/rti oo .:::.w•.t:• 6 6 ~/ 4! 4j 44 i S,••:'• lrn40 4 .;•6r•f �1•,��, 6./� ro�riaot 5 5 • S V •17 PAA 3611RM� g r vim IF i 78 cpypE,y O 76 41 M4n`rort o ,3.n • I 'ri I W . 7 els �., l 39 '' ,•�.1 44 •` 1 3 Ilg 6 e . f7 Q 0 �e •P4 4 IP5.4'r10 ^" Surfaced F 25 t• i 7 -' Je4, Q� Romp t 7 1 1 34 B 40 1 ° . S 44 r, 2q`tlls 6 oc,24 PA, lr 6 6.. ; g S �I6 6 . 2 36 • ' P4 6 A SEBASTIAN INLET 5 1 1 4? I tj0 ! .• 24. W CAUTION ?1 2 sues i 61p 6 6 2• r Rom 166• Postage through the inlet Is not recom. i !" 116 8 41i zMGHORAOf / w31 R d mended wilhonl local knowledge of an I i AAEA � Ilt 5 hazardous conditimn affkelhlg this area. iS IM-730(soenoreA) o 79 _ . • a .• 1 �6 6 • . J10r1 Romp 5 '• 4 jl Sp 4 ` ?? w tl �I = 26 �5461 4 I 6PA ' 35 2 6 •I 5 s 6 r P Ramp . q•6~BA oiR t6 cp. ! PA •rT''1 Sebastian 5 S 3 4 $ 6 2 . 51% 26 ilf a 22 1�, 6 �•r q ♦ 11 f, p9 1 1 I 37 42 '` 70 S •SfI• Romp "66" $lack Pf 2 :3 ?6 it 044 IN- I•1 4 8 I4 kW 17 • r 11. 44 1 t I 44 4 e 4 th 11,E ^,e I. O i!a I s 11 a,[7, 1 �o• 1 0 I S ), 43 1 M.nQrolelA/ 32.1 Rome ^ 51,6 3 3 e •rwr A \••`� ` Im it ' % 1 /off 4 ,• �, r5��• Rao �4 INDIAN RIVER'COUNTY Iso II 3 INTERIM MANATEE SPEED ZONES 1 64 p. to e 271 f1O41 4191 R 01 . (AS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY BCC) 2 •7 Ip l ST.SEBASTIAN RIVER ;1 Paulel (that portion .in Indian River -County) 2 4 it _}' Slow speed throughout, , or o west of US* 1 bridge 1 ; , 1 2S 4 1 39 NIO 1 s 1 ' �6 4i I 8 R 4sce5 jj3.0 4'. �j e90t�k 8 19 90 J� c� �ri lJt f.,,�4� plry��j�j�y/ o _ •;T01no 1 I AN 1 • 05 o 11 O I S --Slow speed area I Duck PI 1 11 : 2 to i ..PI"11 3 e ll I O 76 41 M4n`rort Match I n e • I 'ri w n •` 1 7 1 0 , 2;,, 3 4' . 6 1� sy4s 1 1 34 B 40 1 ° 1 2S 4 1 39 NIO 1 s 1 ' �6 4i I 8 R 4sce5 jj3.0 4'. �j e90t�k 8 19 90 J� c� �ri lJt f.,,�4� plry��j�j�y/ r MAY 81994 BOOK ; PACE 35 f Attachment A u� 0 t c h ' 032 6 32 eer Wage � 2 � t■[I�m �tim line ���� age 111111 1s 1 / ` z3 �o es• 1 et Isrc3 2n.? 2 fl Man[ 4 1 PFUCAA! IS! ANO; e 32 �•\e�" 38 3 4 \ : 1 '- NA71OREl I0.11i! l)Lll S F' _mop \a` 1 0 o ►�,i,, ►o \ ..„�r,,,l,,..I..../,, 4 4 4 I (lnotau•.Jurful 11 �.�`' 1' fl'�'1'�r/%i../I�o x,45 4 4 .-�;�•'�.`�'�P0 a4 IM �ttt y4 p•�' o � �\ \ IIAhf�yFr/c �%'•� ::_. .ln.•Lt.a by `` r•�Y� M1 © ',r2 .% �i iii ., q 3 rR, &N %.. aVF ..4' .�`I•� ►� o = 36 / 47i iii «pr,4ere�r 1 r60 r'u+'rryw .t•...., _ _ .45 "a±grr�rwar 1 ,"�o r rot• s �2 Ar. / = v A� 7 line Iq►r S ,3' 3S A� rhCHFggF � 43 e ► .Y ora <:;:•.., ::' "' 16' 38 �• • `Y — ? 2:p wabasso near ; e NIP ' %• :�:{�y64” : • FI 0 6 1611 •M.P 1 4 i.2S �`\` ,,, S,` o f\P 3 v t..e ` •61' 1 ,5 tl j . ! 1 �,\4 ,\` oti. ` 4s. 3 1 Z 2T� `69• to j 120 / o�4�r�lr�t����.o 44 Waba98o Z /' �"J "9D•if •'6 a �' nr�I�rrr r4''�`,`,\ `• v f t 3 2 1 �a Yt / 1 1 °/6f •}'t;`,• 9 /° 2135 159 Z i It 4 Z Z /.,?+ h•81• If 43 \ 3 :-1 is 712 ~ i 1 1 1 0 fir: /. tt'6]• qA5 S=6 27 39 41 d 1 2 IN 1 51 t 13 if e' 414 Her art MOt1►n ►+ec\611 •;:;: •v,0:9s• •i4 II 14 40 fj w 42 12 S gy 87 3 f\P • 2 008 0 Man[re.e'• .0 42 /61199 932 1 44 1 eed►t 1••y IS 26 I 1 :i ?�� • 4 t n Marib�l� 8 % 1 i • 2a 1 �•�t c7 a Pinslelendl" 8 39 43 1 ,IOJr" , • O 4s I1:R •ItHI• i 6 1 2%"*6 f ♦ 2S 33 \ Zrgoa� 7 o _ ' e a=, . 39 err,•►w 6 t1DIeN►► 9 28 sure • e Z '.. .i� 31 4 c ' y Ird �11-0. ? 7 Ito' /Q 4 4. 11 4 •'FI R Iaec 1611 q � II 4 1 1� 3. 11 22 S 2 1 d 3 1 38 110, \V\ n 13 tfe•� 1 1I/; t0 m m m m m Its m a� t, e" � 1[[t r [I�i� m M. NOTE B _ A) 1. _ .. i s»r..•p•r' 33 _ 32 WinterBeach 1% FIR 40 '1* a k\2 1 0 1 .4 TO 26 36 i i 33 I ry{laq� 4S1,?0 i Z 4 ~II e 12 9 27 11 JI 'O Vdt jj6 p 39 1 4% f 1 Is N IPI 4 �y 1 A o 8 26 34 36 19 40 rp° 4 2� , flR46091411'10' 03110.3'! iT R 27 35 ' 3 • q. 4 • 10 6 1 ilii 3S 10 34 19 41 2 •°►]alf"O's��"• INDIAN RIVER'COUNTY 3 i INTERIM MANATEE SPEED ZONES I°2�' (AS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY BCC) a,S I6P i r I q 3 I 2 i Z 3 j3 i Man JUNGLE JUNGLE TRAIL NARROWS / 1 1 S 1 ' It 1 * P ff-- Moderate wake/ I os e Floatza•t 1 4�Iv 1 40 mph max. 2 1 I y� NcCeelur J 7 5 IS I /5. 0 2 2 2 i 25 3S 36 36 11 6p• [ [6 I "N s 1 4 IS p 36 / g• i H e so /-36 Rhe 1 �3J'r2r• 0 132S _ 14 19/ 4yem platform PA 11e[ 6 FI R 4tac 11611"112' b . 5 `i # z (21 4 K!p 1!166/4 _ // 3 11 '133 14 IS a ti38 oa 4 m m m m m Its m a� t, e" � 1[[t r [I�i� m M. NOTE B _ A) 1. _ .. i s»r..•p•r' 33 _ 32 ■ - M Attachment A MAY 8 WO 33 BOOK,. G.r. ,3 ch e MAY 8 1990 BOOK 80 PAGE e37 Planner DeBlois had an overlay which compared our proposed modifications to the State's plan. He explained that portion of the lagoon near the St. Sebastian River would be narrowed somewhat and what they would do basically would be extend a 600' buffer and continue that up to the mouth of the river. This would free up the island areas which presently are used mainly for skiers. Also, a 20 mph travel access corridor is proposed between the U.S.I. bridge and the railroad tracks, which would allow for quicker access time for that stretch of the St. Sebastian River, the remainder of that river being slow speed. Commissioner Bird felt the easiest way to address this is to work down the county from the north part of the river to the south in segments. He clarified that as regards this particular northern -most segment, the thought was to maintain a 600' shoreline buffer all along the west shore of the Indian River but to open up the area around the islands, which is a very popular area for skiers, and also to open up a 20 mph corridor in the center of the St. Sebastian River between the U.S.I. bridge and the railroad trestle where the river is fairly wide. He believed this is consistent with the Sebastian Inlet Taxing District's plan for this area, and they have spent a lot of time studying the area. Commissioner Scurlock asked if this is acceptable to the DNR, and Commissioner Bird advised we do not know; he believed that the Sebastian area and then the area to the south around The Moorings have the most manatees, and again stressed that he would like us to address the northern areas first and then move on to the south, section by section. Pat Rose, Administrator for the Marine Mammal Program for the DNR, came before the Board. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to comment and agreed that he would be glad to go through this from north to south as suggested by Commissioner Bird. Mr. Rose felt there are some complicated factors on the Sebastian River in that the County boundary line runs right down 34 s the center of the river, and they are working on protection plans with both Brevard County and Indian River County. In fact, they just sent their proposed rule for Brevard County to the Florida Administrative Weekly for advertisement and are scheduling public meetings to get additional input. He informed the Board that they included the rest of the Sebastian River that was in Indian River County in that rule, and the main reason for this was the critical nature of the need for protection of the manatees within the Sebastian River system. This part of the rule making will go to the Governor some time in June, and the rule making for the rest of the county will go to the Governor in the fall. Mr. Rose assured the Board that they will certainly take the Board's comments back to the'Governor, but noted that they did not include a 20 mph corridor in the proposed rule that just went out for publication. Commissioner Bird just wished to make the point that the river is extremely wide in that area, and having a corridor in the center for the boaters would still leave a large area along both the shorelines for the manatees to migrate in and out. Mr. Rose advised that they have looked at that possibility, but they spent a lot of time evaluating that area and still are not recommending such a corridor. He wished the Board to be aware that they feel that what is proposed is --a minimum plan for protection of the manatees and they will be back working with the county in the intervening years towards the final plan which is scheduled for 1993. Commissioner Scurlock felt, in other words, they are just tightening the noose and by 1993, they will have everyone out of the river but the manatees. Mr. Rose stated that is not it at all. The point is to take that time and work out reasonable solutions to protect the manatee and allow for the recreation and commercial uses of the river system. BOOK 35 MAY 81990 J MAY 8199(1 p �OC�K Ci0 FA;E Commissioner Bird did not think anyone on the Commission is not 100% in favor of protecting the manatees, but if the interim plan is too restrictive to begin with and there are more manatee deaths, he feared it will result in the State practically shut- ting down the river to boaters. He, therefore, would like to see the interim plan the least restrictive to the boaters that we can make it and still afford the manatees protection. Mr. Rose stated that is the direction they are working. He pointed out that as you first start proceeding south from the Sebastian River confluence, the series of spoil islands actually create a boundary, to the west of which there is very excellent manatee habitat which is used on a very regular basis and is in high need of protection. That same situation also occurs as you continue south, but they are leaving out some of those islands in recognition of the skiing needs, etc., and are trying to balance the protection of the manatee with the uses on the waterway. Mr. Rose pointed out how the protected area starts out much wider and then becgmes much narrower as you proceed south and stressed that they are trying to protect only the most important areas. Commissioner Bird inquired if they would agree to allow the boats at least 20 mph from the U.S.I. bridge out to the Intra- coastal once they exit the St. Sebastian River.. He noted there is a wide expanse of water there. Mr. Rose advised that is an area they are still studying. It is not a part of their proposed rule, and it is open for discussion. What they are hoping is that through better channel marking and things that are coming in the future for that whole stretch between the river and the inlet, they can come out with something, but it is still a very important area. Actually the funneling channel for the animals going in and out is at the mouth of the river, but he did believe there is room to work on those areas as you proceed away from the mouth of the river. Commissioner Bird asked if they are willing to accept any 36 compromise as far as those islands are concerned - possibly from the outside portion of the islands out to the Intracoastal. Mr. Rose stated that they would have to look at that, but stressed that they made significant sacrifices in opening up the islands to the south. They tried to make choices and give the boaters some flexibility, and he felt they have gone a long way toward trying to do what Commissioner Bird wants done. Chairman Eggert asked if anyone present wished to speak at this time regarding the area from the north county line down to Wabasso Bridge. Jens Tripson, 1740 21st Street, Vero Beach, appeared on behalf of Pelican Island Audubon Society. He commented that he is hearing a lot of talk about the width, and while width will be critical in some of the narrow areas, he thought something that needs to be addressed in the ordinance is depth of the water. -In the channel, manatees generally can sink out of the way, but in some of the areas where there is boat traffic and grass flats, the water may be only 3' deep and the manatees can't get out of the way; so, he did feel something about the depth should be included to give the manatee some leeway. Of course, boats shouldn't be in the grass flats anyway. Claude "Bud" Kleckner informed the Board that he has a copy of a letter he wrote in 1986 to then Chairman Doug Scurlock on this same subject, and 4 or 5 of the items in the letter are as applicable today as they were in 1986. At that time we had a panel discussion that included boaters, U.S. Fish 8 Wildlife, the Marine Patrol, and fishermen, and they could reach a consensus on a few items. Mr. Kleckner noted that in his letter he likened the water system to a highway system with collector streets, residential streets, school zones, etc. He felt the Intracoastal Waterway is a bit like 1-95, and the manatee area could be considered a school zone; there are a lot of similarities; and he felt strongly there should be a comprehensive water use plan not only for manatee protection, but also for the protection of human 37 BOOK 80 F, "4 0 AY 8 1990 J ,MAY 8 1990 BOOK 80 FADE 41 life and property. He also felt there should be speed limits but believed that should be dealt with on the overall state level. Mr. Kleckner agreed that it is a good idea to talk about the river in segments, and he will later wish to talk about the area below the Wabasso Bridge. He was, however, disturbed about the arbitrary 100' plus or minus, 600' kind of distances that we are placing in the ordinance. He concurred with Mr. Tripson's concern about the depth of the water. He pointed out, for one example, that the water around Pelican Island is only 1' deep but that area is marked unrestricted. Actually he felt the depth of the water is a much more important consideration than the width. Mr. Kleckner noted that there are some very good grass beds, as well as nesting animals, in the area around Pelican Island. In fact, Spratt Point is a rookery area, and he believed a contour depth line should be extended around that area. He pointed out that in 1986 it was suggested that water skiing should be allowed only in designated areas, and those should be open areas that are not sea grass beds. He stressed that the point is that we should identify areas that are deep enough so the boats don't tear up the bottom and that also are deep enough for water skiing. Commissioner Wheeler believed those are valid points, but questioned how you are going to mark those areas. He personally felt that what is being discussed will be absolutely impossible to enforce. Chairman Eggert believed the area Mr. Kleckner is talking about is only 1' deep, which would certainly limit the use by big boats, and Mr. Kleckner noted that the depth is marked on charts. George Carley, 9868 River View Drive on the Sebastian River, commented that his goal is to get rid of the pollution. He felt a channel exempt does have some merit; however, just east of the U.S.I. bridge and under it, there is very shallow water on both sides of the channel, and he personally had the traumatic experi- ence of hitting a manatee there. 38 Mr. Carley continued that as you come in where the old road went across, you have another very narrow channel, and under the railroad trestle, you have another one. If you slowed up just for those 2 areas, and the rest of the area between the U.S.I. bridge and the railroad trestle, you wouldn't use up more than about 5 minutes each way, and he felt that is a small price to pay to save a manatee. Mr. Carley spoke in favor of exempting commercial fishermen because of their knowledge of the river and where and when the manatees are on it. Tim Adams, 426 SW Maple Street, Sebastian, commercial fisherman, felt it is of the utmost important that the commercial fishermen do get some form of an exemption. What is being proposed will impact them tremendously, and when you get shore- line buffers such as are being proposed, it hits them right in the heart. Some fisheries will be able to continue and probably not need an exemption; however, in the south end of the county with all slow speed, every aspect of the commercial fishing industry that does any kind of river fishing will be impacted. He advised that they have worked closely with the DNR on this and are trying to get the exemptions worked out to a point where possibly 20 mph would be the maximum and no exemptions on the weekends. Mr. Adams stressed that the commercial fishermen understand there are critical areas where they will not get exemptions, and basically they just want a type of exemption that will allow them to continue their business and afford protection to the manatees and boating safety as well. Commissioner Bird believed that commercial fishermen are issued a license, and Mr. Adams explained that basically what they have is a salt water products license and to get that you have to prove annually that your livelihood derives from commer- cial fishing. The DNR now has an exemption in place for the Banana River. You have to fill out a form and file it, and it then is up to the DNR to determine whether or not it is a bona fide hardship and you absolutely need that exemption. MAY 8 WO 39 Nor 8 `.�N� Fr__ MAY 81990 n BOOK 80 FAIG E 4 Chairman Eggert asked if we are exempting or are we saying we would support the DNR exemption, and Commissioner Scurlock believed it would be that the Commission supports the concept of exemption and that would be worked out with the DNR and the commercial fishermen. Mr. Adams informed the Board that the DNR has worked well with the commercial fishermen in the past, and he felt they have made a real honest effort to understand the situation they are putting them into. Bruce McIntyre, 701 Shore Drive, Vero Beach, wished to commend the Board on the decision they made first time around on the manatee situation. He believed the Ad Hoc Committee, headed by Commissioner Bowman, had good members and got good input from the general public. The Board then voted on what they thought was the most realistic approach to what unfortunately seems to be the battle of the boaters versus manatees. Mr. McIntyre noted that this county has been very fortunate with its safety record with both boats and manatees. In the areas we are talking about now, the DNR has refused to accept what the Board voted on and sent forward, and he believed that has been their track record with about every county that has submitted a plan. Mr. Mclntyre.stated that why we need_the .increase in the speed limit in the Sebastian River between the U.S.I bridge and the railroad bridge is because there is a ridge there, and you need to have your boat up on a plane to get over it. He contin- ued that the Commission voted -2 relatively protected exempt areas for the water skiers - one to the islands in the east of the river and just south of Sebastian Inlet next to the Intracoastal, and those the DNR has agreed to leave in there. He stressed that part of the problem with manatee protection is that you are driving the kids out into the channel to do their skiing, which is a dangerous situation; so, he was very grateful that area was saved. A very good area was taken away, however, west of the islands which are west of the Intracoastal from approximately 40 River Run condos north to just south of the municipal ramp in Sebastian. That area is deep water; it is protected from the islands and protected from boat traffic; and the manatee sightings in that area, from what he has heard, are very few and far between. Mr. McIntyre felt the edges of the river are fine and well protected for the manatee because they are too shallow for boats, and he believed it really doesn't matter how wide the buffer zone is that we are talking about because as soon as you get out of the channel, it is the most shallow point there is. Mr. McIntyre especially wanted the Board to realize that the DNR is proposing to take away 50% of the ski- area up in the Sebastian area, and a lot of the people from Vero come up there just to get away from the congestion further down the river. Charles Sembler, 969 Fulton Way, spoke in support of the County's plan. He believed what we are dealing with here is typical Tallahassee politics. They are trying to shove their plan down our throats, and they are trying to take a little bit more day by day. Mr. Sembler did not think that anybody wants to kill a manatee. He personally doesn't, and he has 100 boats at his dock that don't want to kill a manatee. He doesn't think a very aggressive plan.of this nature, which just about whitewashes the entire River, is the way to approach this - there are people's livelihoods concerned, and he did not think we have to accept what the state mandates. He believed the County's plan is a very responsible one that would be good on an interim basis, and could even be reviewed in a year and some emergency action taken if a problem continues to exist. He stressed that if we don't get the commercial fishing exemptions, 80% of his fishermen will be out of business, and he pointed out that represents 1/7 of every dollar of the local economy. Mr. Sembler advised that Mr. Rose has been very helpful on some issues, but nobody can agree on everything. He asked that the Commission work together with them so they can try to build respect for the law instead of the contempt which is taking place today. BOOKS 41 "AY 8 iQ has lived on the north fork of the Sebastian River, the C-54 Canal, for about 10 years. He owns a boat with a top speed of about 35 mph, and he is a member of the Brevard County Manatee Advisory Board. Mr. Cramer stated that the C-54 Canal is without a doubt a manatee sanctuary. Every day the manatees travel from that sanctuary out to the Indian River to feed, and they must go down the Sebastian River between the railroad trestle and the U.S.I. bridge to get there; so, he did not see how you can dump them out of their C-54 sanctuary canal into a 20 mph speed zone in that area. Mr..Cramer stated that actually the 20 mph is a terrible speed for many boats, especially if you have 5 or 6 people in,the boat, because the bow comes up high and the prop goes lower in the water, which is where the manatee is. A 20 mph speed is also a destructive wake speed. He advised that the distance from the RR bridge to the U.S.I. bridge is about 1.174 miles, and at 7 mph, it takes about 10 minutes; at 20 mph, the elapsed time is 31 minutes, or a difference of 61 minutes. He believed it takes about 10 minutes to smoke a cigarette or to drink a beer, and what is the rush! Mr. Cramer did not feel that we are entitled to save 6 minutes at the risk of killing a manatee and urged that we slow down in that area to 7 mph and take time to enjoy the river. He further recommended that we have a 7 mph speed limit for the entire Sebastian River and, in addition, extend this out toward the Intracoastal possibly 200 yards and give these animals a chance to disburse north and south to feed. Mr. Cramer believed that actually there is very little commercial fishing in the Sebastian River, but he did agree the commercial fishermen must have exemptions. He further noted that Bill Moody is on record in favor of giving the Sebastian River as much protection as it can have, and he is on record as supporting Bill Moody's plea for recreational boating and water skiing. 42 BOOK 80 PAGE 45 Wally Cramer, 9606 Mockingbird Lane, Micco, advised that he has lived on the north fork of the Sebastian River, the C-54 Canal, for about 10 years. He owns a boat with a top speed of about 35 mph, and he is a member of the Brevard County Manatee Advisory Board. Mr. Cramer stated that the C-54 Canal is without a doubt a manatee sanctuary. Every day the manatees travel from that sanctuary out to the Indian River to feed, and they must go down the Sebastian River between the railroad trestle and the U.S.I. bridge to get there; so, he did not see how you can dump them out of their C-54 sanctuary canal into a 20 mph speed zone in that area. Mr..Cramer stated that actually the 20 mph is a terrible speed for many boats, especially if you have 5 or 6 people in,the boat, because the bow comes up high and the prop goes lower in the water, which is where the manatee is. A 20 mph speed is also a destructive wake speed. He advised that the distance from the RR bridge to the U.S.I. bridge is about 1.174 miles, and at 7 mph, it takes about 10 minutes; at 20 mph, the elapsed time is 31 minutes, or a difference of 61 minutes. He believed it takes about 10 minutes to smoke a cigarette or to drink a beer, and what is the rush! Mr. Cramer did not feel that we are entitled to save 6 minutes at the risk of killing a manatee and urged that we slow down in that area to 7 mph and take time to enjoy the river. He further recommended that we have a 7 mph speed limit for the entire Sebastian River and, in addition, extend this out toward the Intracoastal possibly 200 yards and give these animals a chance to disburse north and south to feed. Mr. Cramer believed that actually there is very little commercial fishing in the Sebastian River, but he did agree the commercial fishermen must have exemptions. He further noted that Bill Moody is on record in favor of giving the Sebastian River as much protection as it can have, and he is on record as supporting Bill Moody's plea for recreational boating and water skiing. 42 Robert LeMasters, commercial fisherman from Sebastian, expressed his opinion that this whole manatee thi.ng is inhumane. You are trying to save something that is starving to death. The grass beds are 60/65% gone, and if you are going to save the manatees, you must first address the pollution that is occurring and is killing the grass beds. He felt it is time the state puts the cart behind the horse instead of ahead of it. Charles Webb informed the Board that he lives at the end of a channel over near the river with a bunch of manatees. There were 5 of them six weeks ago and he has some movies of them. Now only 4 are left and of the remainder, 3 have scars on their backs from propellors. He agreed with Mr. LeMasters that the manatee has to eat, and if we really want to save them, they have to be able to eat and have a place to hide out. He noted that there are more and more manatees taking refuge in places where they didn't used to hang out, such as the channel where he lives. There are a lot less commercial fishermen than there used to be, but now you have a lot of boaters running around at high speed who don't know what they are doing. If we are going to control the manatee population, we must control the areas they feed in, and there is no reason for people going 50 mph over grass beds 3' deep. People whiz down narrow channels where they are not supposed to, and Mr. Webb expressed his belief that people obey the law only when there is a uniformed officer visible. He personally did not see where commercial fishermen should even be involved here. They know what they are doing and they do not crash their boats and damage their equipment. He felt the answer is to place a few sensible restriction on such things as whizzing around at 40/50 mph for no reason, but unless we have some enforcement and public acceptance of it, it it just another compliance with something Tallahassee wants to do so we get it off their backs. Judith DeLaney Vallee, Executive Director of Save the Manatee Club of Orlando, spoke of the exceeding importance of the MAY 81990 43 BooK f';1Lc 4U' -- - din a 81990 BOOK 80 PAGE 47' Sebastian River as a manatee refuge and felt what the county is proposing is minimally acceptable for the protection of the manatee. She did not favor a 20 mph channel exemption in the Sebastian River and hoped that the state will stick to their stand and insist on a slow speed there. She further advised that her club is not in favor of an overall exemption for commercial fishermen and feel they should have to prove economic hardship. Ms. Vallee emphasized that we are talking about saving time versus saving a species. They are in favor of the plan as an interim protection measure, but hope that the county will adopt a stronger Resolution than was adopted before. Paul Lindsey, 632 Wallace Avenue, Sebastian, Chairman of the Sebastian Inlet Tax District Advisory Committee, informed the Board that their original concept was one of compromise and when the DNR thought that the Commission was much in line with their thinking regarding the speed limits, they were persona non grata, but as it turned out when the Commission did not accept the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation, the Sebastian Inlet District then became the good guys. Mr. Lindsey felt this whole thing needs to be approached in the spirit of compromise and thought that the Board has come up with a good proposal. He stressed that we want to do everything we can to protect the manatee,, and we want to do it without excluding the boating interests in Indian River County. Bill Moody, 6315 48th Ave., stated that he has heard a lot about this issue from the start. His main point is that we need to have an education and licensing program for boaters, and that burden needs to be put in the state's hands. Mr. Moody agreed that commercial fishermen need an exemption. They are on the river every day and know how to act on it. He wanted to make everyone as smart about the river as they are, and continued to stress that we must teach the people and make them get a license, which would also create revenue for enforcement. Mr. Moody personally felt the regulations are unnecessary at this point in 44 time because our record is good, but the state is looking to the future and the river is getting full. He was convinced that the state will never reduce the restrictions they do put on even if the manatee deaths are reduced, and while he felt the plan the county has come up with now is a good plan, what concerns him is that if we don't address teaching the people how to use the river,'the state will be back wanting more and more restrictions. Robert Turner of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, advised that he is a biologist, a boater, and an advocate for protection of the manatees. He believed that most boaters feel that slow speed is a small price to pay for protecting the manatee. He related the low manatee mortality in the county to the low level of boating traffic and stressed that as boat traffic increases in Indian River County, it becomes more and more important to control it. Mr. Turner stated that Sebastian Creek is one of - the most important manatee habitats on the east coast, and he felt it is important that all boats travel at slow speeds while operating in the Creek. He believed the plan the County is considering today is a compromise and advised that the Service believes this plan provides a minimum level of protection necessary to reduce the potential for conflicts between boats and manatees. Commissioner Scurlock asked if Mr. Turner was in support of the modified plan that staff is recommending, and Mr. Turner clarified that he was in favor of the plan the state presented back to the county; he was in favor of slow speed in the entire Sebastian River. Discussion followed as to just which areas the DNR actually has compromised on and also in regard to the fact that it seems we have been included in a rule the DNR generated in working with Brevard County regarding the Sebastian River. Chairman Eggert expressed her unhappiness with this rule being printed before the Indian River County Commission agreed to it. MAYu15® 45 BOOKU� MAY 8 WO BOOK 80 PAGE 40 Captain Bill Rogers, 408 Ponoka St., Sebastian, member of the Sebastian Parks 6 Recreation Advisory Committee and also their North County Recreation liaison, came before the Board. In regard to the 20 mph speed limit up to the FEC railroad bridge, he noted that Mr. Rose mentioned sacrifice, and he has heard the word "compromise," and he agreed that ultimately to make this work, we will have to sacrifice and compromise. He advised that the City of Sebastian is at this time considering parking permits for the 2 public boat ramps in downtown Sebastian that are used quite heavily. Dale.Wimbrow Park and Donald MacDonald Park are overflow valves for a lot of that traffic, and he believed when the parking permits are implemented, a lot of the people coming to the area are going to be forced to use those parks and then are going to be forced to use slow speed all the way out to the Intracoastal under the DNR recommendations. As to the slow speed not being so time consuming, Captain Rogers would dispute that. He noted that he is a fishing guide and also a canoe outfitter on the Sebastian River, and he has a first hand intimate knowledge of what is going on out there. That area is a very big sport fishery area, and on a weekend there are many small boats fishing the flat areas. Those people will be impacted, and they are the ones who are going to be making the sacrifices. Captain Rogers stated that he personally would support the recommendation the Sebastian Inlet Tax District came up with, and he also supports a 20 mph channel exemption to the railroad bridge. Under the current proposal this is going to afford the manatees better than.50% protection if the channel is going to be marked, and he felt there is no reason the channel can't be marked; if you are interested in protecting the manatees, you find the dollars to do that. Captain Rogers further noted that those who frequent Dale Wimbrow Park and Donald MacDonald Park boat ramps are primarily small boat operators, and 20 mph is maximum speed for most those size boats; they probably only need 10/15 mph. He agreed that we 46 W r � � do need protection for the manatees in that area, but there must be some compromise to allow boaters some freedom to move in and out because when you accumulate the Sebastian River and the Indian River restrictions, you are talking about a couple of hours in travel time. In regard to the remark made earlier about people not being in a hurry to get anywhere, in many instances, especially in the summertime, the sport fish that are feeding in the flats areas are gone by 9:00 A..M. - they move out to a deeper pool of water and that is similar to what the manatees do. Captain Rogers emphasized that he is not asking to be running around the flats, and he was sure the sports fishermen aren't either, but what they would like is to have access to these areas and he felt that it must be considered that there are a large number of sport fishermen using the waterways in our area. The Sebastian River has a tremendous tarpon fishery up near the C-54 Canal. Captain Rogers noted that there is no doubt in his mind that it would have a significant impact if he had to run from the Intracoastal Waterway all the way up to the C-54 Canal at slow speed. So, when we get down to the spirit of compromise, he noted that he had originally proposed a 20 mph speed limit to Dale Wimbrow Park, and currently it is being proposed to have 20 mph only to the FEC bridge, which cuts it in half, and he would consider that a compromise. If you cut that back, he felt you are then eliminating any compromise at all, and he wanted the state and the county to remember that the people who are out there on the river are the ones who are going to have to be adhering to the rules and make the sacrifices. Commissioner Scurlock got the impression, after hearing all the dialogue today, that the actual area that is the problem is the funnel from the Indian River into the Sebastian River, or the mouth of the Sebastian River rather than the link all the way back into it, and he felt it would be more reasonable to limit the slow speed to that particular area. 47 BOOK � F.�GE 51-4 MAY 1990 BOOK 80 PAGE 51 Mr. Rose agreed that is certainly one critical area. The highest concentration of manatees is not necessarily there, but that is the area they all have to pass through to get back and forth. He stressed that the DNR researched the 20 mph concept extensively. The time saving was about 5 minutes, and with the added confusion on the water way, their conclusion was that there was not a significant savings to the boater and that it was definitely a greater threat to the manatees. Commissioner Scurlock asked if they had looked at the entire corridor being a slow zone versus just part of it being a slow zone, and Mr. Rose confirmed that they did. Mr. Rose commented that their understanding of the County's last Resolution was that the county did support what the DNR had proposed in rule making for the Sebastian River, and he wished to know if that is correct or if they have misinterpreted that. Commissioner Bird advised that we did say slow speed for everything west of the U.S.I bridge in our original Resolution, which was in conflict with the Sebastian Inlet Tax District's recommended plan. Mr. Rose wished the Board to understand that they have no' proposed rule for the rest of Indian River County; they would not have finished that before working with the county on it. Commissioner Bird wished to know once we leave the U.S.I. bridge and and start heading east, if we can't designate a certain area there, possibly 500' east of the bridge, as slow speed and then from that point increase the speed to 20 mph on out to the Intracoastal. Mr. Rose noted that it would require additional channel marking and additional study to develop that, but he d.id feel something like that can be worked out. Commissioner Scurlock agreed that we do not want idle speed all the way out to the Inlet. Commissioner Bird further commented that he would be willing to give up the area west of the Intracoastal that we had proposed 48 to go back into the high speed zone and accept the DNR's original plan as a compromise, with the DNR agreeing that at some point outside the U.S.I bridge, we allow the speed to increase from there to the Intracoastal, but he still had some problem with the slow speed in the Sebastian River. He felt the Sebastian River is extremely wide at that point, and if we could work together and establish a fairly narrow channel in the center of that span between the U.S.I. bridge and the railroad bridge where we could allow 20 mph, he believed that the manatees are intelligent and would learn to stay out of it. He noted that there are 2 public boat ramps further up in the prong of the Sebastian River that have continued use, and the people who launch there want to get out to the river. Mr. Rose expressed his confusion as to just which area we are talking about now, and Chairman Eggert noted that, in other words, Commissioner Bird still wants to include Item 1 of the staff recommendation. Mr. Rose pointed out that this is not the final Manatee Protection Plan, and the reason we are dealing with a 3 year period is so that we can go far beyond saying just where you are going to regulate the boat speed; we need such things as marina siting plans, which includes where you locate your boat ramps, etc. He stressed that the DNR is sensitive to the fact that people want to launch in the Sebastian River, but they want to see boat ramps provided in other areas so they can locate the boaters closer to where they are going. Commissioner Wheeler commented that he has heard that manatees learn to avoid high traffic channels; so, if there was a narrow channel in a wide area, isn't it reasonable to feel they would avoid it? Mr. Rose noted that in some spots they have to come in together, and Commissioner Wheeler agreed that when you come to that bottleneck, then you need the slow speed, but he further pointed out that we are reducing the ski area and thereby Y L- 819909 BOOK b F,,�t 5 SAY 8 1990 BOOK 80 MiGE 5_' 7 increasing the potential for accidents. We have to have an opportunity to recreate on the river, and he did agree that the single most important thing is to have education and licensing. Mr. Rose advised that there is a Bill alive in the House side to do that. He, however, felt if there is any mistake the Department is making now, it is erring in the favor of leaving skiing area - they have left the most used ski areas. Commissioner Scurlock felt we must get this in perspective. We could have all men get on space ships and simply leave the earth to the animals, but there must be a trade-off - we want to use the river and be able to enjoy it and share it. He further noted that as Darwin pointed out, species do come and go, and it is a natural process not just man related. Discussion ensued about the low manatee mortality in Indian River County, and Commissioner Bird believed that actually there were more manatees killed by the freeze this winter than by boats. Mr. Rose agreed that is true, but believed that only accentuates the need to control the death that are man related. He noted that there is a problem in Indian River County and it is not just in the future. There were no manatees killed by boats before 1981, and we had the highest in any single year killed in 1989; so, there is an existing problem, and it is going to get worse in the future. Commissioner Bowman contended that the freeze kill was not totally unrelated to man - it is man who build the power plants that now attract the manatees to their warm water instead of them going to the warm springs where they are more protected. Mr. Rose assured the Board that "we" do adjust, and if we find what we have done is not right as things change, we will consider redoing it, but he did not think that is likely because we have made great sacrifices already. Commissioner Scurlock asked if "we" is the Department or the 50 s � � people because he just hoped the agencies in the State of Florida don't forget that "well happens to be the people. Michael Keifer, 1943 Charlotte Avenue and member of the Legislative Committee of the Marine Interests Association of the Treasure Coast, wished to clarify a point that Mr. Rose indi- cated. We did 21 years ago eliminate the Intracoastal Waterway in the Vero Beach area from the manatee speed zone, but he believed we expanded the area and also the time frames. The Marine Interests Association felt the plan sent to the state was an adequate one for an interim measure. Mr. Keifer noted that 1993 is the deadline for the final plan, and there is no reason we can't develop a plan sooner than that. In regard to the suggested 600' buffer from the shoreline in the north area instead of 3001, they feel that is a compromise, and the Marine Interests Association would support the Board's modifications but would also suggest they use that same logic throughout the county, particularly in the southern portion. If the Board adopts the modified plan, the Association would back them on that, but they would also ask that the county stand their ground and hold that as close as possible to their final plan. Frank Gerholdt, member of the Sebastian Inlet Tax Distri.ct- Advisory Board and also an alternate for the Brevard County Regulation Committee, spoke in support of the -DNR Plan as modified by Commissioner Bird. He felt it represents a reasonable compromise and comes very close to the District's plan, on which they spent a great deal of time and which plan is backed up by considerable data dating back as far as 14 years. Mr. Gerholdt stressed that we must put things in perspective and realize that if every boat were taken off the Waterway, we still would lose 2/3 of the manatees that are presently dying. He believed that actually the county's manatee kill record may be the best in the state, and the reason Indian River County was included was simply because it is a transition county - manatees are traveling between Brevard County and counties to the south. 1 8 WO 51 E��O� CS�J F,1 L) �1 Fr- BOOK�'`y 0 FADE 56 Mr. Gerholdt also concurred with Commissioner Bird's point that interim rules do tend to become permanent and there is good reason for not taking a heavy handed approach. He stressed that all this should be put in perspective in the plan. Rick Giteles, resident of the south fork of the Sebastian River, wanted to keep all this in focus. He wished to point out that we are not here to ask DNR's permission to legislate a moderate plan - they are here to advise us. They are good people and they are doing a good job, but they are here on a mission. If we have to ask their permission, we don't have to be here; they can just phone us the rules. Mr. Giteles wished to point out that there is an established manatee traffic pattern on the Sebastian River from the C-54 north fork out to the Indian River, and the manatees do hug the Brevard portion of that river. Mr. Giteles expressed his support of the interim plan and believed it is a reasonable compromise which addresses all needs. He wished to underline the fact that in 15 years there have been been 3 manatee deaths in the Sebastian River and that was with no protection whatsoever. Here the county is offering a compromise giving what we feel is reasonable boating access at a reasonable speed only as far back as the FEC railroad trestle, and this gives 900 of the Sebastian River back to the manatees, which is 90% more than they had before. Mr. Giteles advised that when they had a public hearing in the Sebastian Inlet Taxing District, the overwhelming majority of people were for less control by the DNR. Everyone cares about manatees, but the boats are not killing manatees in the Sebastian River, and he firmly believed that when you have an established boat pattern in that river, the manatees will be safer than they ever have been. Mr. Giteles urged that the Board stand by their position. Chairman Eggert asked if anyone else wished to speak on the area from the north county line down to the Wabasso Bridge. There being none, she closed the public hearing on that portion. 52 The Chairman asked what was the intent of the Board regard- ing the 1' depth that was discussed around the Pelican Island area. Environmental Planner DeBlois advised that is also the area of heavy sea grasses, and he believed it wasn't included simply because most boats can't go in that 1' depth. Chairman Eggert did not see the harm of having it slow speed in that case, and Planner DeBlois believed it would benefit the nesting area of Pelican Island from that standpoint. Commissioner Bird stressed this would be with the exception of Spratt Creek which has deeper water. Chairman Eggert clarified that she was talking about the area to the east of Paula around Pelican and around Horseshoe Islands, which is all 1' depth. Mr. Moody interjected that that area was mainly left unregulated for commercial fishing purposes. It is not of any value to the recreational people whatsoever. He noted that they did leave a narrow portion along A -1-A unregulated as a benefit for jet skiers and anyone else who wanted to park their cars right along the river. Commissioner Bowman noted that on Page 48 of the backup, there is a reference to a jet ski area north and south of Wa.basso Bridge and she did not believe anyone had specified jet skis anywhere. Planner DeBlois explained that printed text is part of what the DNR had submitted, and during discussions, that area was talked about as non -restricted based on some allowances for jet ski use. It actually is used for recreation in general without any intent to direct jet skiers there, and, therefore, staff recommended it just be included in the non -restricted area. Commissioner Bowman believed it should just state that an unregulated area is proposed north and south of Wabasso Bridge. 5 g BOOK 80' pqE 5 MAY 8 icy® J BOOK 80 PAGE 57 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopt Resolu- tion 90-58 approving the DNR Plan, with the exception that we establish a 20 mph speed zone in the center portion of the St. Sebastian River between the U.S.I. bridge and the RR trestle bridge, that channel to be appropriately marked and made as narrow as we can; that we then go to slow speed for 500' east and west of the U.S.I. bridge, and once past the 500' area to the east, then open up to 20 mph to the Intracoastal Waterway; and that we also endorse the commercial fishermen being exempt. (The southern area of the river is to be addressed next and added to the same Resolution.) Chairman Eggert opened the public hearing on the DNR Plan relating to the section from Wabasso Bridge south and asked if anyone wished to be heard. Bruce Maclntyre, who spoke earlier regarding the north county area, noted that he has 4 kids, all of whom are water rats and most of the fun they have had on the river has been skiing, mainly below the Wabasso Bridge. The new diagram has knocked out the area the majority of the people use, which is around Hole -in - the -Wall (Ski Island) area. He clarified that this is roughly from Marker 113 at the north -down to Marker 110. He felt the second area where you have created a time bomb is where the only kid was ever killed in this county water skiing. That is the area through the islands just north of Fritz Island, and now it appears as though we are going to make it legal to kill someone else there. The little cut that comes back from the Old Channel (Gifford Cut) is fine, but when you get down to the base, it takes a jog over to the west. That is a blind corner and it definitely should not be a ski area. Mr. Maclntyre felt the 54 Board should cut the skiing area off at the northeast corner of Fritz Island. Board members indicated their agreement with this proposal. Mr. Maclntyre then referred to the area from Sea Grove down to just before where The Moorings start - that is where St. Edward's has their summer camp, which is an excellent program, and he can't tell from the way the map is shaded in whether this is helping them or hurting them, but he would hate to see that summer camp squeezed out. Commissioner Bird stated that shaded area would be from just south of Prang Island down to Porpoise Point, and Mr. Maclntyre asked how far offshore it starts. Planner DeBlois advised that right now it was proposed that the non -restricted area would begin 600' from the shoreline. Mr. Maclntyre felt that is too far out; it would be back on the flats again. Commissioner Scurlock asked if his concept then would be to move the unrestricted area closer in at this point. Mr. Maclntyre agreed that it should be closer in there and that we should cut the one off at Fritz Island so they can't go through the narrows there, and drop the Hole -in -the -Wall situation down where the best of the skiing is. Bill Moody concurred and advised that the only reason the area beyond Gifford Cut was considered was because of the popularity of it. He felt it is an area we could give up, and he does recognize the potential for problems there. He advised that he had made everyone aware of the St. Edward's ski school, and the main concern of the state was that we stay away from the shoreline. There really is no decent water in the south end of the county to water ski as far as quality water skiing goes and that was just an area where they said we have to have it somewhere - let's make it here. Mr. Moody felt possibly we need a buffer from the shoreline, which is the state's main concern, 55 BOR 80 f'A�E MAY � 190 FF- MAY 8 1990 BOOK -7 80 P, GE 5C and we could let it follow the contour of the shoreline a certain distance out. Mr. Moody stressed that there really is no other place for skiing in the South County. In regard to the Jungle Trail Narrows area, he believed the whole idea of the plan was to establish a corridor for the manatees to travel in, and basically we are leaving the entire west half of the river for the manatees and leaving the east part for the people to enjoy, and he felt that is a good compromise. He did feel the Jungle Trail Narrows zone should be dropped down to at least Old Ski Island (now Gem Island). Any way we can make these ski zones a little bit bigger and Longer to make it safer, he would like to see happen because the people need protection as well as the manatees. Bud Kleckner, 786 Holly Road, chairman of the Indian River County Conservation Committee, wished to address the Jungle Trail Narrows area, not specifically towards manatee protection. He has noticed that the large boats with displacement hulls, particularly in the spring and fall migration, really barrel through there with a very big wake. He is concerned with the erosion this causes and felt there should be a wake restriction. Planner DeBlois advised that in the Board's previously adopted plan that area was 40 mph with a moderate wake requirement. Commissioner Bird agreed we should slow down the big boats going through there, but questioned how we do that. Mr. Rose stated that it would be fine to make that reference in the Resolution, but it would require a parallel course of action through the Marine Patrol. It was agreed to include that reference. Mr. Kleckner expressed his agreement with Mr. Maclntyre in regard to the dangerous area of the blind turn below Gifford Cut and again emphasized the need to protect the sea grass. Charles Webb spoke at length and in detail of the danger of the blind curves in the labyrinth area of small lagoons and islands below Gifford Cut. He stressed that this is an area 56 where the interest of the boaters and the interests of the manatees come together and urged that the approach from the New Cut to the Old Cut be closed off entirely - not the entire Gifford Cut. He was informed that the Board in an earlier discussion has already indicated their agreement with the proposal to eliminate that as a ski area and make it. slow speed. Jens Tripson felt the problem we will see with closing off this area is enforcement. He believed there was a "No Skiing" sign there when the only county ski death occurred. Mr. Tripson also believed that there already is a law requiring no wake under bridges, but it is not being enforced. Chairman Eggert asked if anyone else wished to speak. Mr. Kleckner felt strongly that we should have a Resolution on licensing as suggested by Bill Moody, and he was sure this would be supported by both Florida Audubon and the Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club. Mr. Rose wished to re-emphasize that in the DNR's counter proposal the areas that were proposed for skiing are still very critical areas for manatees, and they will still want to continue to work with the county on these in the future to find solutions that will be safer for both manatees and boaters. As to the suggestion to extend the area east of Hole -in -the -Wall Island, Mr. Rose stated that will increase the risk to manatees and make it more difficult to enforce the distinction between the ski area and the regulated area. He felt it will add a major sign posting burden and create more confusion, and he, therefore, would be concerned about extending that area. Commissioner Wheeler believed that island and that area probably is the most popular area in the river for recreation, and Commissioner Bird felt even if it takes additional signage, we need to do it. Mr. Rose continued to stress that it will compound their problems. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard, and the Chairman closed the public hearing on the southern area. MAY 8 1990 57 BOOK PAGE MAYS 199a BOOK PAGE Discussion ensued regarding the three areas discussed. Chairman Eggert believed we have a suggestion to extend the ski area by Hole -in -the Wall down to the Gem Island area approxi- mately, or Old Ski Island, and Planner DeBlois wished to know if that area would be more specifically described as going to Marker 113 that Mr. McIntyre is proposing and is it to include the total area east of Hole -in -the Wall up to the power line. This was confirmed. Chairman Eggert noted the next change would be the cut off of Gifford Cut at the northeast corner of Fritz Island, and then we have moving of the ski area north of Propoise Point to the east following the contour of the river with a smaller buffer. Commissioner Scurlock felt that change could be worked out with staff, and Planner DeBlois advised that he would suggest a 300' buffer following the contour of the shoreline. Commissioner Bird felt we should leave it at 6001, but objections were raised by the commercial fishermen and also Mr. McIntyre. Approximately 300' was generally agreed upon - whatever could be worked out that would accommodate St. Edward's summer camp. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously added to Resolution 90-58 their approval of the DNR Plan for the area of the River south of the Wabasso Bridge with the following 3 exceptions: (1) Include the total area east of Hole -in -the -Wall Island up to the power line and Marker 113. (2) Gifford Cut to be cut off at the NE corner of Fritz Island. (3) Move the ski area north of Porpoise Point to the east following the contour of the river with a smaller buffer of approximately 3001. 58 Planner DeBlois asked if the shallows area north of Pelican island was left as is. Commissioner Bird felt the 1' depth there will keep both boats and manatees out of the area, and that was generally agreed upon. The DCA later in the meeting requested additional clarifica- tion. Mr. Rose advised that as the DNR tied to interpret the decision on extending the area opposite Hole -in -the -Walt, one way it is a major problem, and the other way they can live with it. The DNR's concept was to allow a westward corridor for the manatees to move while still accommodating skiing. He believed the county can extend the area to the south as in the Motion, but the question is did the county intend that area then to go west. If it is just extended to the south tip of the island and the east, they can live with that. west. Commissioner Scurlock believed we extended it south not Mr. Moody referred to the map and noted that the little piece of an island opposite Gem Island was at one time part of Gem Island, and when the channel was renegotiated, they cut that part off. He believed what is being said is that we stop it at that little part of the island which is part of Gem Island, which would leave the west corridor for the manatees to travel. It was agreed that would satisfy everyone. RESOLUTION 90-58 is included, as follows: 59 eooK 80 FacE � RESOLUTION NO. 90-58 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING A REVISED INTERIM MANATEE PROTECTION SPEED ZONE PLAN FOR WATERS OF THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, REPLACING RESOLUTION 90-20. WHEREAS, manatee protection and boating safety are concerns in the interest of public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, on October 24, 1989 the Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR) made recommendations to the Governor and Cabinet regarding boating safety and manatee protection strategies for thirteen "key" manatee protection counties, including Indian River County; and WHEREAS, in considering FDNR's recommendations, the Governor and Cabinet voted to give the thirteen key counties 60 days or until December 26, 1989 to choose among three alternatives regarding local speed zone regulations, those alternatives being: 1) a 300' wide shoreline buffer slow -speed zone (marked navigation channels exempt), 2) a maximum 30 m.p.h. speed limit within marked channels, 20 m.p.h. elsewhere, or 3) a locally develop site-specific interim speed zone plan; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners authorized the establishment of an Ad Hoc Manatee Protection and Boating Safety Committee to make recommendations concerning the selection and/or formulation of a local speed zone alternative; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners conceptually approved said Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations and forwarded such recommendations to the FDNR to satisfy the December 26, 1989 deadline, conditioned upon the County retaining the flexibility to reflne the submitted recommendations based on subsequent public workshop/hearing input; and WHEREAS, on February 6, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the adoption of a finalized interim manatee protection plan, and considered comments made public at a joint public workshop on the matter held January 30, 1990 in Sebastian; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an interim manatee protection speed zone plan, Resolution 90-20, and forwarded said plan to the FDNR for review and consideration for incorporation into State rules; and WHEREAS, FDNR found Resolution 90-20 not to provide adequate protection for manatees, and consequently submitted a proposal to the Board requesting that it be adopted in lieu of Resolution 90- 20; and WHEREAS, the Board has now held a public hearing to consider the adoption of the FDNR proposal with certain modifications, as set forth in "Attachment All attached hereto; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, hereby approves a revised interim manatee protection speed zone plan as set forth in "Attachment All attached hereto, in lieu of Resolution 90-20, said plan to be submitted to the FDNR for incorporation into State rules. 60 The foregoing having been moved by Commissioner Bird and second by Commissioner Scurlock upon being put to a vote, was carried with a vote as follows: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman A y e Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly 1990. passed and adopted this 8th day of May INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY: Z ��Z Carolyn/)K- Egger hairman Attachment A Revised Indian River County Interim Manatee Protection Speed Zone Plan DEFINITIONS "Day marker" means the official U.S. Coast Guard maintained navigation channel markers as designated on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration navigational charts or accurate repro- ductions thereof. "Day markers" shall include any buoy used by the Coast Guard as a replacement for a damaged day marker. "Slow speed" is approximately seven (7) m.p.h.; a water vessel that is not operating on a plane and which has settled into the water and is proceeding without wake or with minimum wake is proceeding at slow speed. "Water vessel" means every description of boat, watercraft, barge, and airboat used or capable of being used as a means of transpor- tation on water, including personal watercraft. DESCRIPTION OF SPEED ZONE REGULATION AREAS All speed zones and non -restricted areas shall be in effect year-round. Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) The ICW marked channel is exempt from speed regulation throughout Indian River County, as is a 100 foot buffer extending shoreward from each side of the marked channel, to aid in navigation of the channel. MAY $1990 61 �noK bu �.{c� U l J 1990) BOOK 80 FADE St. Sebastian River. That portion of the St. Sebastian River within Indian River County west of US Highway #1 is declared a slow speed zone, with the exception of a 20 m.p.h. travel corridor to be established between the US Highway #1 Bridge and the F.E.C. railroad tracks. An exception to the referenced 20 m.p.h. travel corridor shall be a slow speed zone extending 500 feet east and 500 feet west of (and under) the US Highway #1 Bridge at the mouth of the St. Sebastian River (as indicated on the map). That portion of the St. Sebastian River within Brevard County (including C-54 canal) shall be subject to the restrictions of Brevard County and the State of Florida. Indian River Lagoon/Western Shoreline, North of the Wabasso Causeway• From the Indian River/Brevard County line and from the western shoreline out to•the marked channel of the ICW (with 100' buffer) south to day marker "65" is slow speed, except for a 20 m.p.h. travel corridor extending from the St. Sebastian River US #1 Bridge east to the ICW channel. From day marker "6511.to day marker 73 a 600 foot slow speed shoreline buffer extends waterward from the western shoreline. At day marker "73" the slow speed zone widens out to the marked channel of the ICW (with* 100' buffer) extending south to day marker "76". A 600 foot slow speed shoreline buffer extends from day marker "76" to the Wabasso Causeway. Indian River Lagoon/Eastern Shoreline, North of the Wabasso Causeway: From Coconut Point to the Wabasso Causeway a 600 foot slow speed shoreline buffer .shall be in effect. The slow speed zone shall continue southward from Coconut Point along the eastern side 'of Horseshoe Island. Indian River Lagoon From South of the Wabasso Causeway to the .inaian River ne: The Indian River Lagoon, from south of the Wabasso Causeway to the Indian River/St. Lucie county line, is proposed as a slow speed/ICW channel -exempt zone with four (4) non -restricted areas described as follows: an area south of the Wabasso Causeway, to begin 600 feet off of the western shoreline and to end 600 feet off of the western side of Wabasso island (as indicated on the map); the Jungle Trail Narrows from south of the Wabasso Causeway to the northern tip of Barker Island; Gifford Cut -or the old ICW channel (as indicated on the map); and the eastern side of the Indian River Lagoon from channel day marker "153" southward to just north of channel day marker "156" and eastward to a north -south meandering line 300 feet waterward of the eastern shoreline. Commercial Fisherman/Fishing Guide Exemptions: Indian River County supports and shall honor speed restriction exemptions for commer- cial fishermen and/or fishing guides, as per State approval and permit requirements for such exemptions. 62 ® M s 500' Ea: Match .o line r Attachment A r 6s ,MAY 81990 Boor. FAuE MAY 8 1990 BOOK 80 PAGE 67 Attachment A 64 1p etch MM line NM 7 line MAY 8 1990 L— M Attachment A 65 BOOK 80 F„po A WAY t�MNOistt�el�ssi E B It daybeamns ate Onvateiy main• Ta -ed and poStbonS ate aplw0snnale v.110 11 IS ♦Sec. STACKS •utn emo ,.p► Ct 92 VIEW Ct,4 / It" e°u Ca 1 FIR 4ee ry I 0..0 ewe Cu e u,w C, eS tt SovsA C�t9�l it s�•� . 1� \ Vero Shores I t 1 ROOK 80 PAGE 60 Attachment A T 4 _ Ri#Ii If�Ar`�! �'i�'e� M a tch Ge,► ' I ITS e Svl� ►. na•.« 39 '.1 10 b. ' �e }: 616 7 ► C 9 2S 33 36 4• r 6 ANCHORAGE AREA IS y ryIla. 73a /see rote Al, s 7B 7A !S 30 33 33 2jo s 40• Ibtt I6 N Surfaced Romp :. 4 26 e e.saaa[ ee,ecC 9 33 31 60 on Ca 90 rI 16 Of Ca [[ 99 tat CCet[er CC tillF R Lf 1 aa•, 17 it 1033 a e 1611"I♦/ ` 33 1� efN , l ?8 RN �� R N 7' Buta•,Ceo H rep 9 34 3 r� p ' 31 ag •b '11' to � `S a4 ?4 3S 7 28 ♦ 28 i � 21 11 � 32 39 `I 9 1 I 2S l� 4 ♦ 32 29 38 �D .l t 12 14 16 26 21 29 29 33 29 1 11 21 37 ' X -'I L121 26 30 14 : 1 .�. 1 I 1 . S 32 23 281"1 32 34 1 1'1 29 31 1 IS 2S 29 11111 11 19 I l 1'I 16 ' 21 31 1 3fi ' 26 22 16 U 10 33 10 oma 13 79 31 IS 12 13 ' A 1 8 . .. J • t If 11 IS 31 11 79 79 12 z 1 10 JO 11 77 32 TANK \ 9 1 �� 78 8 10 id 27 S SA \ 31 ... yy -1.- REVISED INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INTERIM MANATEE SPEED ZONES --= Intracoastal Waterway plus 100' buffers \ ' exempt from slow speed 1� 1 -Slow speed area -Non-restricted area EZObA If 66 TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED GRANT APPLICATION The Board reviewed memo from the Community Development Director: TO: James Chandler County Administrator FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP /QI44K Community Development Director DATE: May 2, 1990 SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED GRANT APPLICATION It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of May 8, 1990. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: Recently, the state substantially changed its transportation disadvantaged program. Through approval of a new state statute during the 1989 session, the legislature created a Transportation Disadvantaged Commission. This commission has taken over responsibilities previously held by the state Department of S.:,. -Transportation. With creation of this. new commission, the funding/ administration of local transportation disadvantaged programs is changing. Pursuant to the commission's administrative rule approved on January 10, 1990, each area must have a designated official planning agency (DOPA) in order to receive transportation disadvantaged funding. In urbanized areas the established metropolitan planning organization serves as the DOPA; however, in non -metropolitan areas such as Indian River County the DOPA can be either a city, the county, or the regional planning Council. In Indian River County, the Council On Aging (COA) has for years been receiving transportation disadvantaged funds and providing transportation disadvantaged services. While the COA is not eligible to be the DOPA, the COA may continue to provide transportation disadvantaged services if it is designated as the coordinator by the DOPA. To ensure that the COA continues in its transportation disadvantaged provider capacity, Indian River County must become the local DOPA. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: For Indian River County to become the DOPA, the county must submit an application and commit to providing a local match for a.state grant. A copy of the completed application is attached; funding for the local match is $8,520.00 (atleast 1/2 must be in cash; the other 1/2 may be in-kind services), and this would have to come from contingency funds. Subsequently, the board of county commissioners operating as the DOPA will need to do the following: appoint a coordinating board (with an elected official serving as chairman); provide staff support and resources; recommend to the Transportation Disadvantaged Commission a transportation coordinator; and develop a transportation improvement program The costs to the board of becoming the DOPA are uncertain at this time. While staff estimates that required activities will consume approximately one-half of a man year of a planner's time each year, � 67 BOOK FADE 70 j ,M, ' 0 1 1 BOOK 80 PAGE 71 much of that cost will be paid by grant funds from the Transportation Disadvantaged Commission. If the COA is designated as the coordinator and undertakes some of the mandated DOPA activities, the costs and man-hour needs will be even less. As for benefits of the county becoming the DOPA, these accrue primarily to the community. By accepting the DOPA role, the county will ensure that the Council On Aging continues to receive transportation disadvantaged funds and continues to provide its high level of transportation disadvantaged services. The board has two alternatives regarding this program; it can either accept or decline the DOPA designation. Both the advantages and disadvantages of accepting the designation are detailed above. If DOPA designation is not accepted by the board, it is likely that. the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council would be named the DOPA. If the TCRPC is designated as the DOPA, it may recommend that another agency, other than the Council On Aging, be appointed as coordinator. This would result in a loss of funding and curtailment of services by the COA. With the TCRPC as the DOPA, the board would also have less control over local transportation disadvantaged planning and service provision. RECONIlUNDATION. The staff recommends that the board of county commissioners approve the DOPA application, authorize the chairman to execute the application, appropriate funds in the amount of $8,520.00 (atleast 1/2 in cash; the other 1/2 may be in-kind services) to match available grant funds, and agree to appoint a coordinating board at a later date. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the DOPA application, appro- priate funds in the amount of $8,520 (at least 1/2 in cash, the remainder in-kind services) to match grant funds, and agreed to appoint a coordinating board at a later date. Chairman Eggert requested that Commissioner Bowman take on the setting up of this Board and work with it, and Commissioner Bowman consented. CHANGE ORDER #1 - JAIL PHASE III The Board reviewed memo from Director Wright: 68 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Doug Wright, Director Emergency Management Services DATE: May 2, 1990 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER #1 - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL PHASE III 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: The contractor for Phase III construction of the Indian River County Jail filed a claim date March 8, 1990 for additional compensation in the amount of $29,498.66 plus twenty (20) days time extension of the construction period. According to the Contractor, the claim was predicated on his discovery of buried piping and conduits beyond what he had anticipated in his original bid and this had delayed his progress on construction of the facility. The Construction Manager, Architect, and staff reviewed and rejected ::;the claim in total. Since that time negotiations have been ongoing w}which has resulted in a compromise of a ten day extension for the ;::Contractor which has been approved by all parties with the exception of the Owner. Formal documents for Change Order #1 are now before the Board of County Commissioners for approval and execution if deemed appropriate._ ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: Change Order #1 does not add any additional funding to the contract/bid prior awarded to Robert F. Wilson Company. That figure remains at $5,103,000.00. The only change is an additional ten (10) days of contract time from 425 days to 435 days after receipt of notice to proceed. The change order has been executed by W.R. Frizzell Architects and Robert F. Wilson, Inc. The Construction Manager and staff approve the additional ten days since it has been verified that time was lost due to no fault of the Contractor. RECOMMENDATION: The savings of approximately $30,000 to Indian River County in negotiating this claim is a result of close coordination, good communication, and cooperation between the Construction Manager, Frizzell Architects, and staff. The Construction Manager concept is proving its value to the County and staff feels additional benefit will be realized before the project is completed. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order #1 which singularly provides a contract time extension of 10 days and no compensation. Staff further recommends that the Board authorize the Chairperson to execute the appropriate documents to formalize the Change Orde-. 69 BOOK U PAGE41 AY 8 1990 Q BOOK ®0 FAGE 73 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved Change Order #1 as recommended by staff and authorized the Chairman to execute the appropriate documents. Chairman Wheeler expressed his pleasure that the Construc- tion Manager is working out as we had hoped. Emergency Management Director Wright advised the Board that this will move the completion date to March 11, 1991, instead of March 1st. CHANGE OWNER IR 2140 ARCHITECT ORDER CONTRACTOR IRIR AIA DOCUMENT 6701 FIELD ER OTHER.R FM, Lastovica PROJECT: Indian River County Jail, Phase III CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 1 (name, address) DATE: April 20, 1.990 TO CONTRACTOR: ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 2140 (name, address) CONTRACT DATE: October 17, 1989 Robert F. Wilson, Inc. CONTRACT FOR: Phase III Addition P.O. Bos 760 Vero Beach, FL 32961 The Contract Is changed as follows: Extend the Contract completion dates (substantial and final) by 10 calendar days each at no additional cost to the Owner. Not valid until signed by the Owner, Architect and Contractor. The original (Contract Sum) (rjX0 3X0ft)0}a0g0gK6qX01was ................... . .. . . f 5,103, 000.00 Net change by previously authorized Change Orders ............................... t — 0 — The (Contract Sum) (OltXi 10Y4rMX1XYjX0[tX@ K0jprlor to this Change order was .......... f 5,103, 000.00 The (Contract Sum) 9MXd D[d(@(3dl0)0l0)rANXwill be (unchanged) by this Chapge Order In the amount of .............................. S — 0 — The new (Contract Sum)M0)tXX((X0[K#)4)OIMTW0 including this Change Order will be ..$ 5,103,000.00 The Contract Time will be (increased) Ten ( 10 ) days. The date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore Is 435 days of ter receipt of. notice to proceed. NOTE. This summary does not reflect changes In the Contract Sum, Contract Time or Guaranteed Maximum Price which have been authorized by Construction Change Directive. W.R. FRIZZELL ARCHITECTS. INC. ROBERT F. WILSON. INC. Indian River -County ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR OWNER 5600 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 P.O. Bos 760 1840 25th Street Address Address Addrea 1m 1; h _ 17FL 33416 Vero Bp -ac _3 61_ Vero Beach, FL 32960 By — --��% A_ By DATE �� � - DATE � Z J � i � DATE AIA DOCUMEMr 0701 rd'i.N(;E ORDFat 1987 EDITION • A1A* • 01987 • TIIE ANDLtGAI. •- UFf�ly�jlNc1�87 - AMERICAN IN511rUTR OP AROUTP.CTS, 17.15 NFW YORK AVE., KW.. WA.SIUNGTON, D.C. 24=6 Charles P. Vilunac 70 LIBRARY FURNISHINGS The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Dean: DATE: MAY 2`, 1990 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES SUBJECT: LIBRARY FURNISHINGS BACKGROUND: At the regular meeting on May 1, 1990, the Board deferred staff's request to purchase the subject commodities on existing contracts with other governmental entities. Staff was directed to provide additional information as to specific contracts, vendors and their locations. ANALYSIS: - Attached is a list provided by the interior design architect, with the .:;requested information. One of the vendors is GSA (U.S. Government —Contract which has been previously authorized by the :Board to purchase from. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff requests approval and authorization to purchase library furnishings from all other existing contracts with governmental entities. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved staff recommendation in regard to purchasing library -furnishings. INDIAN RIVER BLDV. PHASE 3 - EXPERT WITNESS SERVICES The Board reviewed the following memo from Public Works Director Davis: 9 �OVr. Q i1 JC MAY 8 1990 71 Fr- -7 MAY 8 1990 BOOK 80 FACE 75 TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., CR Public Works Director SUBJECT: Indian River Boulevard Phase 3 - Agreement for Professional Services - Expert Witness Services - Boyle Engineering Corp. DATE: May 1, 1990 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Staff is currently meeting with legal and environmental consultants (Boyle Engineering Corp) to prepare for the Florida DER FS Chapter 120 Administrative Hearing on the FDER Dredge and Fill Permit for Indian River Boulevard Phase III. The hearing will be held in the City of Vero Beach City Hall Chambers on June 5-7, 1990. The attached agreement provides for Boyle Engineering Corp. to provide expert witness service at $900 per day per person. It is anticipated that approximately five days of depositions and expert testimony services will be required, in addition to preparation for testimony. RECOMMMU DATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that the subject Agreement be approved and the Chairman be authorized to execute it. Funding to be from Fund 309, Indian River Boulevard North. Chairman Eggert wished to know why the expert witness is more costly than all of the other of Boyle's personnel as listed on their chart of hourly rates. This is $900 per day, and she believed there is supposed to be just one person. Administrator Chandler noted that it was supposed to be a flat fee for the company, and Attorney Vitunac referred to the last paragraph of Exhibit A of the same contract in which they did their other hourly rates and pointed out that said for Expert Witness - $900 a day. Commissioner Bowman believed that charge is not for the use of one person but for the use of their whole staff. Administrator Chandler agreed that it is all encompassing, but it amounts to $900 per person per day, and at this point in time, they are estimating 5 days maximum and one person. Chairman Eggert felt we should be careful to watch out for things such as this in the future. 72 0 i r ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the Agreement with Boyle Engineering Corporation for expert witnesses services. AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, entered into at Vero Beach Florida, Indian River Count onthe3!?thdayof April ,19_90 _byandbetween Indian River County a political Subdivision of the state of Florida hereinafter called "Client," and BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION, a California corporation, hereinafter called "Boyle," Is as follows: The Client engages Boyle to perform professional services for a project known and described as Preparation and expert witness services related to Indian Rivpr Boulevard North Extention Right of Way Mitigation condemnations hereinafter called the "Project." The Client and Boyle, for mutual consideration hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: A. Boyle agrees to provide and perform certain professional services for Client upon the Project as follows: See Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set set forth in full. B. Period in which services are to be rendered., Beginning upon Boyle's receipt of a fully executed copy of this agreement which shall serve as Bople's notice to proceed. C. Client's responsibility shall be as follows: As set forth in Exhibit A. D. Client agrees to pay Boyle as compensation for Its services as follows: As set forth in Exhibit �.. _ DSS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have accepted, made and executed this agr�meat upo fie'terms; conditions, and provisions above stated, and on the reverse side hereof, the day and year first abo a `ntten_ BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION L� BO F!!sk Mgr. (Boyle) (Client) -----•- s' � D By By Title i3eg;oevAtt /%%2 Title R ha i. le v e e: 5-B-&-) eon.e•tc� �esaa . fs% t.tJ. �O_. Sn.US AGREEMENT W/EXHIBITS IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE.OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. MAY 8 1990 73 BOOK �� Facr I I MAY 81990 BOOK 80 77 TASK ORDERS FOR EVALUATION OF GDU SYSTEMS (VERO & SEBASTIAN) The Board reviewed memo from the Asst. Director of Utility Services: DATE: MAY 1, 1990 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT / DIRECTOR OF UTI SERVICES PREPARED HARRY E. ASHER kKk AND STAFFED ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES BY: SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF TASK ORDERS FOR EVALUATION OF GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES SYSTEMS IN VERO HIGHLANDS, VERO BEACH SHORES, AND SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS BACKGROUND General Development Utilities owns and operates two separate water and wastewater utility systems within Indian River County. The systems serve the Vero Highlands/Vero Beach Shores and the Sebastian Highlands areas. The Indian River County Utilities service. area surrounds both of these systems, and Indian River County currently sells water to General Development Utilities to provide service to the Vero Highlands/Vero Beach Shores area. 7t: `ANALYSIS The Board of County Commissioners has authorized, through its action on April 17, 1990, the Department of Utility Services to pursue negotiations for acquisition of General Development Utilities Systems within Indian River County in the Vero Highlands/Vero Beach Shores and Sebastian Highlands area. In order to effectively pursue the negotiations, Indian River County will need an independent estimate of the value of the General Development Utilities Systems in the Vero Highlands/Vero Beach Shores and the Sebastian Highlands. This evaluation will provide Indian River County with details of each system's assets, liabilities, condition of plant and equipment, and cash flow to permit Indian River County to arrive at an accurate estimate of the value of the General Development Utilities systems. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the attached Task Orders 2 and 3 with CH2M Hill to be provided under the Agreement to Furnish Economic and Financial Consulting Services to Indian River County, dated April 3, 1990. Task Orders 2 and 3 provide for the independent evaluation of the General Development Utilities Sebastian Highlands Utility System and Vero Highlands/Vero Beach Shores Systems for the fee of $29,947 per 'Task Order. -The funds for this evaluation will be paid from Account No. 472-000-169-178.00; in the event the systems are not purchased, the costs will be expensed through utilities operating costs. 74 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved Task Orders 2 and 3 with CH2M Hill for the evaluation of General Development Utilities Sebastian Highlands and Vero Highlands/Vero Shores for the fee of $29,947 per Task Order as recommended by staff. SAID TASK ORDERS 2 & 3 ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. LETTER FROM DER RE RECYCLING GRANT FUNDS The Board reviewed letter from the DER, as follows: !f:11)'Florida Department of Environmental Regulation rs Office Bldg. • 2600 Blair Stone Road 0 Mdlat>assee, Florida 32399-2400 Bob' nin overnor hale Tvachtmann, Secretary 4P,9 'u� John Shearer, Assistant Secretary r►o /U9U DISTRIBUTION LIST tom`' April 26, 1990 R crt �. Cc.m -.:_s,oners v. - Administrator V Administrator Attorney c Per-otnnel Caro (E£L}� rt Pub;:c :"dor%!-, Chairman, oard of County Commissioners INDIAN RIVER County Utii., es ✓ 1840 Twenty-fifth Street Finance Vero Beach, FL 32960 RE: FY89-90 Recycling and Education, Waste Tire, and Small County Grant Funds Dear Commissioner Eggert: We continue to have questions concerning the deadline for spending FY89-90 grant funds. The terms of the Grant Agreements -for FY89-90 clearly state that the grant period is " October 1, 1989 through September 30, 1990". No new obligations may be made for FY89-90 after September 30, 1990. You will have until October 31, 1990 to expend grant funds and liquidate all obligations. A - final request for payment must be submitted no later than November 30, 1990. In order to ensure that the Grantee understands that any grant funds will revert to the Solid Waste Trust Fund after this deadline, we are requesting that you sign the form on page 2 and return it by May 16, 1990 to: Department of Environmental Regulation Solid Waste Section 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. If you have any questions about the requirements of the Grant Agreements, please do not hesitate to call me at (904) 922-6104 or Suncom 292- 6104. - • Si cerely,���..✓ G C Bobby Adams Grants Specialist Supervisor SAY $1990 75 Bou 80 F'nE 78 I MAY �99d BOOK PAGE 79 Administrator Chandler informed the Board that we will have expended the funds by October 1st. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to sign and return the following form as requested by the DER. April 26, 1990 Carolyn K. Eggert INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Signature:___ vv Title: Chairman—Board of county Commissioners Approved: 5-8-90 I hereby acknowledge that grant funds for FY89-90, according to the terms of the Grant Agreement, are for the period October 1, 1989 through September 30, 1990, and that all obligations must be liquidated by October 31, 1990. I understand that the final request for payment for FY89-90 grant funds must be submitted no later than November 30, 1990. REPORT ON MEETING WITH DCA IN TALLAHASSEE Chairman Eggert reported that she, Administrator Chandler, Asst. County Attorney William Collins, and Community Development Director Keating, met with the DCA and probably got about 5 minutes of information out of a two hour conversation. We are sending up aerials and working on our development controls, etc. It appears that the DCA does�not want to go to the Administrative Hearing very badly, but she didn't know that we have anything to lose by going to an Administrative Hearing. Director Keating agreed that when the DCA was asked to speak, they didn't tell us anything more than we have seen in all their written information; so, what we are trying to do right now on the staff level to address some of their concerns is send them aerials of the amount of citrus we have in the urban sprawl area and send them excerpts from our Plan with citations identifying all the tight land use controls we have, and we are also trying 76 �J i AN to identify exactly what has happened with some of the other counties as far as the densities they have been permitted in the required controls. Unless the Board wants staff to move further in a different tack, that is how they will continue. Commissioner Scurlock stressed that he still thinks we have a good plan and should take a strong position. Administrator Chandler confirmed that staff has taken the position that we do have a good plan, and they are not suggesting moving from that position. Commissioner Bird felt a graphic that would be impressive and helpful would be to send them a map of the county showing that since we adopted the Comprehensive Plan in 1975 there has been virtually no residential built in the area we show as 5 upa. Chairman Eggert did not believe they are so concerned about the 5 upa as they were at one time. She believed they are talking about overall densities. They see that we have a lot of AG mixed in, which they don't really understand, and she frankly thought it was obvious that a lot of them haven't read our plan. Chairman Eggert confirmed that unless the Board directs other- wise, we are going forward to support what we have. Commissioner Scurlock felt that if we don't see some move- ment in the next 2/3 weeks, we should go higher up and have more meetings. Chairman Eggert further informed the Board that HRS said we would have more federal funds for drug abuse that should be coming down here, and that the Secretaries of State Departments and legislators essentially said at the Treasure Coast Legislative Conference in Tallahassee that we don't have any money and nothing is going to be passed. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE SUMMARY Commissioner Bird reviewed the following summary, noting that action is needed only on Items 1 and 4. Item 6 has been taken care of on the Consent Agenda, and the remainder of the items are informational: EOOK. OU PAGE so aY � 1990 77 I MAY' 9 1990D BOOK 80 F,%E 81 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE SUMMARY May 3, 1990 1) Renewal of License Agreement Between IRC and I.R. Archers The Committee unanimously recommended that the license ' agreement be renewed subject to IRC being•'included on the Club's insurance policy. 2) Request to Consider Jungle Trail as a County Park The Historical Society has requested that the County consider taking over the Jungle Trail as a County Park. Committee member Michael Wodtke volunteers to work with the Historical Society to develop a plan and report back to the committee. 3) Request to Rent Canoes in Dale Wimbrow Park Sebastian Safari, a business in Sebastien, requested permission to operate a canoe rental operation on an hourly basis out of Dale Wimbrow Park. Committee approved the concept and suggested that Mr. Pollard meet with the County Attorney and Risk Manager to work out -an agreement. 4) Modification of Airmasters Lease The Airmasters Club has requested that the County extend their flying hours from 7 P.M. until 8 P.M. Committee voted unanimously to recommend that their hours be extended. 5) Boat Ramp Agreement, Barney Green Site on C-54 Canal Agreement between St. Johns River Water Management District, Florida Freshwater Fish and Game Commission and Indian River County to construct a boat ramp and parking area to access the C-54 Canal. St. Johns will provide the site and maintain the road up to the site. Florida Freshwater Fish and Game Commission will build the boat ramp and maintain it. IRC will improve and maintain the parking area and park. St. Johns will also try to provide the material for the parking lot when they build their levies. Committee unanimously recommended that the agreement be approved. 6) Extension of Sailboard Lease Committee unanimously recommended automatic renewal of the Sailboard lease unless teminated. Increase the license fee to 10% per year, and revise the insurance requirements to reflect County's new self-insurance status. 7) Operate Concessions at Gifford Park A request to operate concessions at Gifford Park was received, however, enough particulars were not provided and no one attended the meeting to explain the proposal. Action was withheld until more information is available. 8) Request for Telephone at Dale Wimbrow Park Because of the remoteness of the park, Mr. Schum, committee member, requested that a telephone be installed. The phone can be installed for $149.50 with a monthly cost of $48.94. Committee unanimously recommended that the telephone be installed. 78 � f in � � r ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the renewal of the License agreement with the Indian River Archers subject to the County being included on the Club's -insurance policy. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously agreed to the extension of the flying hours of The Airmasters Club from 7 P.M. until 8 P.M. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:10 o'clock P.M: ATTEST: Clerk 79 �,e 4"'t, Chairma BOOK 80 'AGE 8�