HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/24/1990t
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 24, 1990
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25th STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Gary C. Wheeler Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 AM 1. CALL TO ORDER PAGE
2. INVOCATION - none
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
a.Chairman Eggert wisnes permission a en a erservation Fund Workshop
in Orlando, includgd as Item 6E.
b.Proclarnation honor cc11 Steve Ftitgh-Co. Extensi Director - Itan 6F.
C. Lease Agree.w/Berl9cuth Mobility - Item lOE�1)
d. Resolution-adcpt 90/91 pr sea non ad va�gr assessments - Item 10E(1)
e. Summary of Taxing Distrs. M111ac e - It l0E (2
f. Budget Amend.for Prc_pe#y Appraiser Nolte - Item 10E(3)
qq. Report re Treasure ��oo Reg. , annirig Council -under Chairman's matter$ -Item 12A(1)
h. Discuss ofNACo AIM re e4iminatian of State Inane Tax Deduction -
under Cammissioner Wheeler s matters - Item 14E 1
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of Minutes of Special
Meeting of 6/22/90
6. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received and placed on file in
Office of Clerk to the Board:
Audit of the District School
Board, IRC, for FY ended 6/30/89
B. Contract for 14th Street canal
dredging
(Memorandum dated 7/13/90)
C. Extension of DCA grant, Local
Government Land Development
Regulation Assistance Program
(Letter dated 7/16/90)
11
D. Release of County assessment liens
(Memorandum dated 7/2/90)
7. CLERK TO THE BOARD
none
none
10. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Transportation Disadvantaged
Coordinating Board Membership
(Memorandum .zd-ated 7113/90)
B. EMERGENCY MANAGEMEXT .
none
C. GENERAL SERVICES
none
D. LEISURE SERVICES
none
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
none
F. PERSONNEL
none
G. PUBLIC WORKS
National Organization on Disability
(Memorandum dated 7/16/90)
H. UTILITIES
1) So. Co. reverse osmosis plant
expansion, degasifier contract
final payment
(Memorandum dated 7/13/90)
2) No. Co. sewer contract No. 3 with
Utility Systems of America, C.O.#3
(Memorandum dated 7/13/90)
J L 2 4 1990
9:05 AAM 8.
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
PAGE
1) Recommendations of County
Fire Ad Hoc Committee
(Memorandum dated 7/24/90)
2) Public nuisance violation
Estelle Ford, Oslo Park
Subdivision
(Memorandum dated 6/26/90)
10:00 AM
3) Presentation on FDOT new
revenue projects/Local State
road construction priorities
in response to the recent Florida
Transportation Legislation which
approved the State Comprehensive
Enhanced Transportation System
Tax, Effective Jan. 1, 1991
(Memorandum dated 7/16/90)
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
none
9.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
none
10. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Transportation Disadvantaged
Coordinating Board Membership
(Memorandum .zd-ated 7113/90)
B. EMERGENCY MANAGEMEXT .
none
C. GENERAL SERVICES
none
D. LEISURE SERVICES
none
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
none
F. PERSONNEL
none
G. PUBLIC WORKS
National Organization on Disability
(Memorandum dated 7/16/90)
H. UTILITIES
1) So. Co. reverse osmosis plant
expansion, degasifier contract
final payment
(Memorandum dated 7/13/90)
2) No. Co. sewer contract No. 3 with
Utility Systems of America, C.O.#3
(Memorandum dated 7/13/90)
10. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS - CONTINUED
H. UTILITIES - CONTINUED
3) Citrus Gardens Subdivision
water distribution system
assessment
(Memorandum dated 7/11/90)
11. COUNTY ATTORNEY
none
12. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
B. VICE CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD
C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN
D. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
E. COMMISSIONER GARY C. WHEELER
13. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
none
PAGE
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS
MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL
BE BASED.
J U L 2 1990
Tuesday, July 24, 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,
July 24, 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
Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Eggert advised that Commissioner Bowman wishes
permission to attend the Land S Water Conservation Fund Workshop
in Orlando, and she asked that be included on the Consent Agenda
as Item 6E.
The Chairman asked that the following items be made a part
of the Agenda also:
Proclamation honoring Steve Futch for service as County
Extension Director - as Item 6F.
Lease Agreement w/BellSouth Mobility - as Item 1013 (1)
Resolution adopting FY 90/91 proposed non -ad valorem assess-
ments - as Item 10E (1)
Summary of Taxing Districts Millage - as Item 10E (2)
Budget Amendment for Property Appraiser Nolte - as
Item 10E (3)
a;
Report re Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council - under
the Chairman's matters as Item 12A (1)
Discussion of NACo ALERT re elimination of State/Local
Income Tax deduction - under Commissioner Wheeler's
matters as Item 12E (1).
JUL 2 41990 13o-« $,o PPrC- 6.7,,
J U L 2 4 1990
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis -
E
sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
additions to the Agenda as spt out above.
Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that he would like to
have a caucus right after the meeting regarding negotiations with
the Firemen and our response to the Union.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 22, 1990.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 22, 1990, as
written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Reports
The following was received and placed on file in the Office
of Clerk to the Board:
Audit of District School Board for FY ended 6/30/89
B. Contract - 14th Street Canal Dredging
The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Dean:
2
DATE: JULY 13, 1990
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
_*
SUBJECT: CONTRACT FOR 14TH STREET CANAL DREDGING
BACKGROUND:
At their regular meeting on Tuesday, June 26, 1990, the Board of
County Commissioners approved funding and awarded the bid for this
project to Wally Bailey of Pierson, Florida.
ANALYSIS:
Attached is an executed contract from Wally Bailey to perform the
work.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval and requests authorization for the Board
Chairman to execute the attached contract for Indian River County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute contract with Wally Bailey
for the 14th Street Canal Dredging as recommended
by staff.
SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
C. Extension DCA Grant - Local Gov_ Land Dev__Reg. Assist. Prgrm
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman,11 he Board unanimously authorized the
Chairman to sign Modification No. 1, Contract No. 90 -
LP -22-10-40-01-171 with the DCA relative to the 89/90
Local Government Land Development Regulation Assistance
Program, as follows:
JUL 2 4 1990 3 POOK uo FAA.
JUL 241990
-..0. _V
STATE OF FLORIDA Finance
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFA1IU$e` _
2 7 4 0 C E N T E R V I E W DRIVE • TALLAHASSEE, F L O R I D A 3 2 3 9 9
BOB MARTINEZ THOMAS G. PELHAM
Gove^nm July 16, 1990 Seaetary
The Honorable Gary C. Wheeler
Chairman, Indian River County
Board of Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Modification No.1, Contract No. 90 -LP -22-10-40-01-171
Dear Commissioner Wheeler:
The Department of Community Affairs and Indian River County
currently have a contract (No. 90 -LP -22-10-40-01-171, effective
January 29, 1990), relative to the 1989-90 Local Government Land
Development Regulation Assistance Program.
Section XII on page 4 of the contract provides for amend-
ments through mutual agreement and written correspondence from
the Department. Indian River County, in a letter dated June 18,
1990, requested an extension to the contract pursuant to 9J-
29.005(8), Florida Administrative Code.
Based upon the county's request, the following modification
is made to Section XI(B) of the contract:
(B) All activities performed pursuant to this program shall
be completed on or before October 31, 1990, which includes an
extension pursuant to Rule 9J-29.005(8), Florida Administrative
Code.
This contract modification shall not be construed as an
extension of the due date for adoption of land development regu-
lations pursuant to Section 163.3202, Florida Statutes, and Rule
Chapter 9J-12, Florida Administrative Code. The sole intent of
the modification is to provide an extension to the deadline for
completion of`activities specified in the contract referenced
above.
All other provisions--of-the contract are still in effect and
are to be performed as specified in the contract. This modifica-
tion is effective on June 29, 1990, and is hereby made a part of
the contract. This modification shall be valid with your sign-
ing. If you agree with this modification, please indicate your
concurrence by signing at the appropriate place below, and re-
turning two original signed copies of this letter. This modifi-
cation shall be attached to the original contract.
Sincerely,
,� Robe�yt q. 11444-e
Robert G. Nave, Director
Chaff n, India Aver Division of Resource Planning
Board of Commissioners and Management
4
� � r
D. Release of County Assessment Liens
The Board reviewed memo from Nancy Mossali of the County
Attorney's Office:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Nancy H. MossaII - County Attorney's Offic�e,t rn
DATE: July 2, 1990
SUBJECT: CONSENT AGENDA - RELEASE OF COUNTY ASSESSMENT
LIENS
I have prepared the following routine release of assessment
lien forms in connection with paving and drainage
improvements to 87th Street in Vero Lake -Estates from 102
Avenue to CR -510 (Project No. 8226), and request the Board
authorize the Chairman to execute them:
(1) Tax I.D. No. 28-31-38-00006-0160-00001.0
Lot 1, Block P, Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
In the names of SINAI BORDELEAU and HAZEL
BORDELEAU
(2) Tax I.D. No. 28-31-38-00006-0160-00016.0
Lot 16, Block P, Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
in the names of FREDRED WELLS, JR. and JESSIE
WELLS
(3) Tax I.D. No. 21-31=311-ODD01-0060-00006.0
Lot .7, Block T, Vern Lake Estates, Unit H
in the names J' ANNAdcGUCKIN and JOHN Q. ADAMS
(4) Tax I.D. No -"-M-31-33-00001-0030-00008.0
Lot 8, Block-:,�, Vero Lake Estates, Unit H
In the names of ANN McGUCK I N and JOHN Q. ADAMS
(5) Tax I.D. No. 28-31-38-00006-0010-00016.0
Lot 16, Block A, Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
In the names of JOSEPH ZYCH and MARY ZYCH
(6) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00005-0070-00005.0
Lot 5, Block G, Vero Lake Estates, Unit A
In the names of GEORGE GIAPOUTIGIS and EVA
GIAPOUTIGIS
(7) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00003-0010-00005.0
Lot 5, Block 1, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 1
in the names,of FLOY J. McKAIN and IRENE•McKA1N
(8) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-0000_3-0010-00004.0
Lot 4, Block: 1 , Vero Lake Estates, Uni t* "1
in the names of HELEN V. GENZA and IRENE C. McKAIN
(9) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00006-0140-00014.0
Lot 14, Block N, Vero Lake Estates, Unit B
In the names of ALAN BAND and PHYLLIS BAND
(10) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00004-0120-00005.0
Lots 5-7, Block L, Vero Lake Esta.tes, Unit A
in the name of DOLORES C. HIGGINS
'JUL 1a9® 5 ROOK �iij F'l,tJ
J
JUL 24 i"M
(11) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00003-0090-00006.0
Lot 6, Block 9, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 1
in the names of CARL KRASINSKI and ALICE KRASINSKI
(12) Tax I.D. No. 28-31-38-00001-0150-00008.0
Lot 8, Block O, Vero,Lake Estates, Unit H
in the names of GEORGE DANIELS and SUE DANIELS
(13) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00002-0050-00001.0
Lot 1, Block E, Vero Lake Estates, Unit C
In the name of.DORIS L. SPIEGEL
(14) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00003-0010-00003.0
Lot 3, Block 1, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 1
in the name of EARL W. BACON
(15) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00002-0130-00001.0
Lot 1, Block M, Vero Lake Estates, Unit C
in the name of CAROL McKINNEY
(16) Tax I.D. No. 28-31-38-00006-0120-00001.0
Lot 1, Block L, Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
in the names of WALTER REED and MARGARET REED
(17) Tax I.D. No. 28-31-38-00001-0100-00008.0
Lot 8, Block J, Vero Lake Estates, Unit H
in the names of DAN LOMBARDI and CATHERINE
LOMBARDI
(18) Tax 1.13. No. 28-31-38-00001-0100-00006.0
Lot 7, Block J, Vero Lake Estates, Unit H
In the names of PASQUALE FERRARI and MARIA FERRARI
(19) Tax I.D. No. 28-31-38-00001-0020-00006.0
Lot 7, Block B, Vero Lake Estates, Unit H
In the names of *RANCIS McCULLOUGH and DOROTHY
McCULLOUGH sl
(20) Tax I.D. No.. 27-31-3S-00005-007040006.0
Lot 6, Block G, Vem Lake Estates, Unit A
In the name of LEA1 L I LOTT I
(21) Tax I.D. No. 28-31-38-00006-0040-00016.0
Lot 16, Block D, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 1
In the names of DAVID EVERETT and DOROTHY EVERETT
(22) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00004-0030-00005.0
Lot 5, Block C, Vero Lake Estates, Unit A
in the name of MILDRED E. HAUSE
(23) Tax I.D. No.. 28-31-38-00001-0020-00008.0
Lot 8, Block B, Vero Lake Estates, Unit H
in'the names of EDWARD B. DIXON and ANNE K. DIXON
(24) Tax I.D. No.,27-31-38-00004-0020-00006.0•
Lot 6, Block B, Vero Lake Estates, Unit A
in the names of EDWARD-B..DIXON and ANNE K. DIXON
(25) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00002-0090-00001.0
Lot 1,'Block 1, Vero Lake Estates, Unit C
In the names of LESLIE BAXTER BUTLER and RANCE
HAYES BAXTER and RANCE HAYES BAXTER
(26) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00006-0200-00005.0
Lot 5, Block T, Vero Lake Estates, Unit B
in the name of WILLIAM GUNTHER
(27) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00003-0080-00001.0
Lots 1 E 2, Block 8, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 1
In the names of SAVAS TAMTAKIRIDIS and HARIKLIA
TAMTAKIRIDIS
6
(2a8) Tax I.D. No. 28-31-38-00006-0160-00016.0
Lot 16, Block M, Vero Lake Estates, Unit I
In the names of JAMES SCHMITT and MILDRED SCHMITT
(29) Tax 1.D. No. 28-31-38-00006-0040-00001.0
Lot 1, Block D, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 1
in the name of FRANCES BETZ
(30) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00002-0010-00032.0
Lot 32, Block A, Vero Lake Estates, Unit C
In the names of FRANK JOHNSON and RUBY JOHNSON
(31) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00002-0010-00031.0
Lot 31, Block A, Vero Lake Estates, Unit C
in the names of FRANK JOHNSON and RUBY JOHNSON
(32) Tax I.D. No. 27-31-38-00002-0010-00030.0
Lot 30, Block A; Vero Lake Estates, Unit C
in the names of RICHARD BURSON and BETTIE BURSON
and MYRIS JO PORTER
Back-up information for the above is on file in the County
Attorney's Office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized the
Chairman to sign the Release of County Assessment
Liens listed above.
COPIES OF SAID LIENS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
E. Out -of -County Travel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Out -of -County Travel for Commissioner Bowman to
attend a Land and Water Conservation Fund Workshop
in Orlando on August 1, 1990.
J OIL 1990 7 , �ooK tj "
JULY C d
F. Proclamation Honoring Steve Futch
ROOK 80 F'-," .
Chairman Eggert read aloud the following Proclamation
honoring Steve Futch for his service as the County Extension
Service Director and presented it to him amid applause and good
wishes from the Board members and audience.
P R O C L A M A T I O N
HONORING STEVE FUTCH
FOR EXEMPLARY SERVICE
AS THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
EXTENSION SERVICE DIRECTOR
WHEREAS, STEVE FUTCH was employed by. Indian River County on
May 31, 1985 as the County Extension Service Director; and
WHEREAS, STEVE has been known as a dedicated, hard-working
young man by his colleagues; and
WHEREAS, STEVE has assisted the Future Farmers of America
school chapters with citrus judging teams training and with their
County Fair livestock.project; and
WHEREAS, some of the creative works STEVE FUTCH has been
associated with include the Master Gardner Exhibit at the McKee
Jungle Garden Preservation Society and the Indian River County
Agricultural tour; and
WHEREAS, STEVE acted as a major consultant for the John D.
and Catherine MacArthur Foundation in 1988; and
WHEREAS, the 1988 Outstanding Young Men of America award was
bestowed upon STEVE FUTCH; and
WHEREAS, STEVE will assume a full-time citrus extension
position at the Citrus Research and Education 'Center. in Lake
Alfred, Florida.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, Florida that the Board
appreciates the exemplary service STEVE FUTCH has given to Indian
River County and its citizens, and the Board extends best wishes
to STEVE.in his future endeavors.
Adopted this 24th day of July, 1990.
8
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ZL Z,,4) 7:7-1
Caro yn Y- Eggert, airman
RECOMMENDATIONS OF COUNTY FIRE AD HOC COMMITTEE
Chairman Eggert, who is also Chairman of the County Ad Hoc
Fire Committee, asked the Board's consideration and approval of
the 14 items recommended by the Ad Hoc Fire Committee at their
meeting on July 13, 1990. She asked if the Board had any
questions regarding them and noted the main one was to go to
referendum.
Commissioner Scurlock, a member of the Ad Hoc Fire
Committee, commented that there was -some modification to the
recommendation. He advised that one of the things they did to
try to bring professional fire service to the North County and
improve the level of service was to encroach into the reserves to
fund some paid positions. That, however, was an interim measure
and could not continue; so, after this year, there will be a
problem funding those paid positions if we don't find some
mechanism to increase the millage. After looking at all this and
having the situation where Indian River Shores chose not to
participate, it changed some things dramatically. In order to
create a new district and to have a millage available to us, we
would have to do this before the first of the year; so the
referendum would have to take place in November; however, knowing
the residents in this county and how sophisticated they are when
it comes to voting on issues, they are going to want a full
explanation of anything they vote on. Another consideration is
that it seems the School Board is having a "menu -type" referendum
on the November ballot where more than one choice is made
available to the voters. It, therefore, is the strong feeling of
the committee that the November ballot would not be a good time
to hold a referendum for the South County Fire District. The
thought at this time is to have a referendum in March, and
actually have two referendums - one revolving around the North
County which would be aimed at expanding the millage cap for that
North District, and concurrent with that, there would be a
referendum countywide that would propose the creation of a
9
JL 24 x'90
HOK
� ° 6.
Li r �, p
unified district, exclusive of the Shores, and that district
would have its millage cap and take effect the next budget year.
The idea is that if the entire overfill District concept failed,
at least we would have an opportunity to have the North County
millage passed, and conversely, if that failed, we would have the
opportunity for the overall district to pass. The time con-
straints in regard to getting the funding mechanism are what
makes all this difficult.
Chairma.n Eggert remarked that she has heard that it is not
definite that the School Board referendum is going to be in
November, and she felt if we tell them we are coming on with this
in March, it may make a difference.
Supervisor of Elections Ann Robinson informed the Board that
the School Board has said they want to get their referendum on
the ballot in November, but they have not put that in writing so
far.
Chairman Eggert reviewed the proposed changes to the draft
Proposed Comprehensive Master Plan to Consolidate and Unify
Emergency Services, which are as follows:
1) Change the name of the Department of Emergency Management
Services to the Department of Emergency Services.
2) Referendum in March 1991 re the concept of an Emergency
Services Special District and also one re changing North County
millage.
3) Direct the preparation of a Contract whereby the West and
North County Fire Districts would contract for fire service to be
provided by the South County Fire District.
4) Approve establishment of a Fire Prevention and Training Bureau
headed by a Bureau Chief to ensure that fire safety code, inspec-
tions, training and other functions are uniform throughout the
districts.
5) Recommend volunteer participation in the total emergency
services endeavor to perform secondary response duties from
existing station locations but at reduced levels of funding.
6) Recommend the County Attorney Attorney prepare lease
agreements with the Sebastian Volunteer Fire Department to lease
Stations 20 and 70.
7) Recommend approval of the funding contained in current budgets
relative to the respective fire district; said funding to include
10
additional staffing for either Station 20 or 70 by October 1,
1990, and for the remaining station by April 1, 1991.
8) Recommend staff to position personnel and equipment, as
appropriate, to achieve maximum fire and EMS protection.
9) Recommend the concept of Standard Personnel Rules and
Procedures whereby all fire and EMS staff would operate under a
single set of directives.
10) Recommend the Proposed Comprehensive Master Plan to
Consolidate and Unify Emergency Services as a six-year plan in
lieu of a five-year plan with changes necessary to move from the
concept of a General Fund millage to an Emergency Services
Special District millage in FY 91/92, if approved by the
electors. Also recommend the removal of the Town of Indian River
Shores from the Master Plan except for reference and future
assistance agreements.
11) Recommend housing of all emergency services providers in the
same stations if current locations can accommodate the additional
staff and emergency vehicles.
12) Recommend parity in terms of pay for fire and EMS personnel
as soon as funding can be identified for reasons of morale and
fairness considerations.
13) Recommend background investigations be conducted on fire and
EMS service applicants to determine qualifications and fitness
for duty with the public emergency services.
14) Authorize staff and County Attorney to prepare an Ordinance
for user fees for certain additional services provided by the
fire service to generate revenue for use in reducing expenses.
Chairman Eggert stated that she would like to have Board
approval of the items listed above.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to approve the recommenda-
tions of the Ad Hoc Fire Committee and to include
moving forward to the March, 1991, ballot for a
referendum.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the Committee should be compli-
mented on how well and how quickly they came together on all this
and certainly staff also for their background work.
Chairman Eggert stated 1. that she especially wanted to compli-
ment staff for the extra work and effort they put into this.
Emergency Management Director Wright confirmed that his
staff, including a cross section of the Fire Service, worked very
J U L 24 1990
hard on this for many days and nights.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to speak for or
against the Committee's recommendat.,ions. There were none.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
PUBLIC NUISANCE VIOLATION (OSLO PARK SUBDV./ESTELLE FORD)
Roland DeBlois, Chief of Environmental Planning, made the
following presentation:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. Keat ,I
Community Devel men Director
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois, AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcement Section
FROM: C.G. Bowling
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: June 26, 1990
SUBJECT: Public Nuisance Violation
Estelle H. Ford
Oslo Park Subdivision Unit No. 2, Lots 7 & S. Block Y,
,
according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book
4, Page 13, of the Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of July 24, 1990.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITZDMj
On January 24, 1990, Code 7Enfbraement ztaff sent a Notice of Public
Nuisance to Estelle If. `fid, vncmrning the overgrown weed
condition and/or junk, I=msb Amd debris accumulation on his/her
property in Oslo Park Unit 2_ The Respondent was cited as
maintaining the property in W=Ratitm of Section 13-18 of the
County Code, which prohibits the..accumulation of weeds in excess
of 18 inches in height within a platted, recorded subdivision.
Section 13-18 also prohibits the accumulation of junk, trash, and
debris on property in unincorporated Indian River County, except
for approved solid waste deposal facilities or approved salvage
yards.
The subject property was posted as set forth in Section 12-23 of
the County Code, giving the Respondent thirty (30) days to abate
the weed nuisance.
12
The nuisance violation was not abated within the required thirty
(30) day time period. Therefore, in accordance with Section 13-
19(b), County Code, County Personnel (i.e., Road & Bridge Division)
cleared the nuisance violation, with costs to be assessed against
the property owner(s).
Section 13-21 of the County Code requires that the cost of a County
nuisance abatement shall be calculated and reported to the County
Commissioners, who, by resolution, shall assess such costs against
the subject property. This matter is presented herein to the Board
for consideration to adopt said resolution.
ALTERNATIVE AND ANALYSIS:
Section 13-21(a), Public Nuisances, of the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Indian River County specifically reads as follows:
"After abatement of a nuisance by the County, the cost
thereof to the County as to each lot, parcel or tract of
land shall be calculated and reported to the Board of
County Commissioners. Thereupon, the Board of County
Commissioners, by resolution;. shall assess such costs.
against such lot, parcel, or tract of land. Such
resolution shall describe the land and state the cost of
abatement, which shall include an administrative cost of
seventy-five dollars ($75.00).
Such assessment shall be a legal, valid, and binding obligation
upon the property against which made until paid. The assessment
shall be due and payable thirty (30) days after the mailing of a
Notice of Assessment, after which interest shall accrue at the rate
of twelve (12) per cent per annum on any unpaid portion thereof."
Cost for equipment use and labor, as indicated by the Road & Bridge
Division, plus the $75.00 administrative cost, calculates to be:
Labor: $77.20
Equipment: $60.50
Administrative Fee: $75.00
Total: $212.70
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
proposed resolution ,o,ssessing $212.70 in abatement cost, in
accordance with Section 13-21(4)1 of the Indian River County Code
of Laws and Ordinances.'
Commissioner Wheeler brought up the inequities that have
occurred caused by some people dumping on other's property and
then the property owners are charged for cleaning up the mess,
which he believed is very. unfair.
Commissioner Scurlock d'id not feel that is any different
than when someone deliberately scratches your car or spray paints
your house, and the owner is responsible for repairing the
damage.
13 pt Fid
UL 2 4-1 0 v
JUL P4
�96
Chairman Eggert
agreed that the property owner has
some
responsibility to look after their own property, but she hoped
that the debris is checked to see if there is any way to identify
the one who dumped it.
Chief Planner DeBlois advised that they do check the debris,
and if they find something that indicates who may have dumped it
there, they try to serve notice on that person also.
Community Development Director Keating confirmed that it is
in the Ordinance that finding something with names on it in the
debris is prima facie evidence, and they are working with the
Sheriff's Department on this.
Commissioner Bowman noted that although the evidence may
point to someone, possibly that person paid someone else to take
his trash to the dump but it was dumped illegally.
Commissioner Bird felt that the system we are using now is
the best we can come up with, but believed we owe it to the
property owners to try to find the guilty person, if possible.
Commissioner Scurlock expressed his belief that once you
start nailing those who dump illegally, the word will get out
quite quickly.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 90-86 assessing costs of County weed
nuisance abatement on Lots 7 8 8, Block Y, Oslo Park
Subdv. Unit 2, owned by Estelle Ford.
14
RESOLUTION NO. 90-86
A RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ASSESSING COSTS OF COUNTY WEED
NUISANCE ABATEMENT ON Oslo Park Subdivision Unit No 2,
Lots 7 & 8, Block Y, according to the plat thereof, as
recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 13, of the Public Records
of Indian River County, Florida
SUCH ASSESSMENT BEING A BINDING OBLIGATION UPON THE
PROPERTY UNTIL'PAID.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has determined that the regulation of the accumulation of
weeds is in the public interest .and necessary for the health,
safety, and welfare of the citizens of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County Ordinance No. 87-33, "Public
Nuisances," defines as a public nuisance weeds 'in excess of 18
inches in height on a lot contiguous to a residential structure
within a platted residential subdivision where the platted lots are
at a minimum of 50% developed; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has determined that landowners are responsible for abating
public nuisances existing on their property; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Nuisance calling for the abatement
of the described nuisance was sent to the owner(s) by certified
mail, and notice was posted on the subject property for 30 days,
in accordance with Section 13-23, "serving of notice," of the
County Public Nuisance Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the landowners of the subject property failed to
abate the described weed nuisance within 30 days of the posted and
mailed notice; and
WHEREAS, Section 13-19(b) of the County Public Nuisance
Ordinance (No. 87-33) authorizes County personnel to abate a public
nuisance if the.nuisance is not abated by the landowner within 30
days of notice; and
WHEREAS, as of May 31, 1990, the County Road and Bridge
Division has abated the herein described weed nuisance, in
accordance with Section 13-19(b), of the County Public Nuisance
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Section 13-21(a) of the County Public Nuisance
Ordinance provides that, after abatement of a nuisance by the
County, the cost thereof shall be calculated and reported to the
Board of County Commissioners; thereupon the Board, by resolution,
shall assess such costs against the subject property, such costs
to include an, administrative fee of seventy-five dollars ($75.00)
per lot; and
'WHEREAS, the total cost of equipment use, labor, and
administrative fee for County abatement of the herein described
nuisance is determined to -.be $212,70; and
WHEREAS, Section 13-21(c) of the County Public Nuisance
Ordinance provides that the assessment shall be due and payable
thirty (30) days after the 'mailing of a notice of assessment,
whereby if the owner fails to pay assessed cost within the thirty
(30) days, a certified copy of the assessment shall be recorded in
the official record books of the County, constituting a lien
against the property, subject to twelve (12)_percent per annum
interest;
15 n?C!P i� 1"'F60,11
JVD Li 2 41990
r-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1) The foregoing recitals are adopted and
ratified in their entirety.
2) The costs of county abatement of the herein
described weed nuisance, totaling an amount of
$212.70, is hereby assessed against Lots 7 and
8, Block Y. Unit 2, of Oslo Park Subdivision,
presently owned by Estelle H. Ford, whose
listed address is 350 Bonny View Drive,
Lakeland, Florida 33801.
3) The $212.70 assessment shall be due and
payable to the Board of County Commissioners
thirty (30) days after the mailing of a Notice
of Assessment to the landowners, after which,
if unpaid, a certified copy of the assessment
shall be recorded in the official record books
of the described property, subject to twelve
(12) percent per annum interest.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock, seconded by Commissioner Wheeler , and
adopted on the 24th day of July , 1990.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ze_t�"'t'j k'/ S�z-a--
CarolyyEggert.
.46airman
LOCAL STATE ROAD CONSTRUCTION PRIORITIES/FDOT LEGISLATION
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Davis, as
follows:
16
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director CP
SUBJECT: Local State Road Construction Priorities in
Response to the Recent Florida Transportation
Legislation Which Approved the State Comprehensive
Enhanced Transportation System Tax -
Effective Jan. 1, 1991.
REF. LETTER: 1) Rick Chesser, P.E., DOT District
Secretary to Honorable Gary Wheeler
dated July 2 ,1990
2) Jamie A. Cochran, DOT District Manager of
Manager of Programming and Contractual
Services to Jim Davis dated Jul. 5, 1990
DATE: July 16, 1990
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
As a result of the,..passage of the new State Transportation
Legislation, the State of Florida DOT will receive an
additional $13 million in revenue to be spent on state and
federal roads in Indian River County during the next five
years beginning Jan 1, 1991. Florida Statute S339.135(4)(c)
requires the DOT to receive local public input as to how
these funds should be spent. The State DOT representatives
will be present at the July 24, 1990 meeting to receive
local comment on desired projects.
County staff has prepared a recommended list of prioritized
projects to be considered. Comment was also received by the
City of Vero Beach Engineering Department. As a result, the
following list of projects was presented to the
Transportation Planning Committee meeting on July 11, 1990.
The Committee unanimously approved the recommended
prioritized list as follows:
Priority
Project Description
Estimated Cost
Recommendation
1)
US#1 Traffic Operations -
$ 250,000.00
Closed Loop System
(Interconnection of up to 25
Intersections)
2)
SRAlA Widening - South City Limits
to Banyan Rd
(Unfunded portion only)
$ 1,000,.000.00
shortfall
3)
SRAlA Widening - Banyan Rd to
Fred Tuerk Dr
(2 1/2 miles)
$ 2,000,000.00
4)
US#1/Intersection Improvement
- $ 500,000.00
4th St/IR Blvd (Old Dixie)
1.
5)
SR60 Median Improvements from
(I-95 to 41st Avenue)
including 90th & 82nd Avenues
Inter. $ 1,500,000.00
6)
SRAlA & CR510 Intersection
$ 500,000.00
7)
IR Blvd Phase IV - Royal Palm
Blvd to 53rd St
and connecting roadways -
Parallel By -Pass to US 1
$ 5,000,000.00
JUL_
24
1990
?carr
8) US#1 Right -of -Way Acquisition $ 500,000-.00
in concert with new development
9) 27th Avenue Widening ' $ 2,250,000.00
$13,•.00,000.00
In addition, the following project is recommended as an
enhancement to F1. Turnpike System:
SR60 Widening (I-95 - West County Line)
20 miles @ $1,000,000/mile = $20,000,000
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
The County staff and Transportation Planning Committee concur that
the recommended list of projects should be submitted to the DOT
as additional projects for inclusion in the DOT Five -Year
Construction Plan, and that all existing projects in the
Five -Year Plan remain as programmed.
Director Davis introduced staff members from the District 4
office of the FDOT - Joe Yesbeck, Director of Planning and
Programs, and Jamie Cochran, District Manager of Programming and
Contractual Services.
Mr. Yesbeck came before the Board, advised that the Governor
signed the new Transportation Bill into law on June 22nd, and
handed out the following:
7/23/90
IMPROVED TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM FOR FY 90/91 THROUGH FY 95/96
Special Features: * New transportation revenue to ?DOT
(about $500 Million per year Statewide
over Five Years).
* Combination of additional fees and
four cent gas tax increase in each
county in District 4.
* Additional fees begin July 1, 1990#
Gas tax increase begins January 1,
1991.
* Appropriates $500 Million in Amendment
4 Bonds for advanced Right -of -Way -
acquisition.
18
Assignment of Funds: * Public transportation: Increase share
of state funds to a minimum of 14.3%
until the year 2000: Afterwards share
increases to a minimum of 156.
Ports: $8 Million per year for
infrastructure improvementsi Seaport
Commission created.
Intrastate Highway System (fully
controlled and partially controlled
access) created. Funding as follows:
* FY 90/91 - $76.6 Million
* FY 91/92 - $136.6 Million
* FY.92/93 - $151:3 Million•
Indexed at the consumer price index
thereafter.
Proceeds from the State Comprehensive
Enhanced Transportation System Tax
(additional four cents) must be
distributed back to the District where
collected and to the maximum extend
feasible, programmed for use in the
County where collected. Known as
"District Dedicated Revenue' or 'DDR•
funds.
7/23/90
ALTA)CATION OF DISTRICT DEDICATED REVEM (DDR)*
(III. MILLIONS)
TOTAL 18.4 46.6 51.2 55.6 60.0 64.7 296.5
*This revenue is also known as the State Comprehensive Enhanced Transportation System Tax and includes the new
four cents of gasoline tax for each county in District 4
Mr. Yesbeck noted that basically they looked at three
priorities - (1) to protect the adopted program; (2) to look at
the projects that had been deferred or deleted over the last
couple of years and bring them back; and (3) then to add new
projects. Mr. Yesbeck then 'referred to the status of key
projects in Indian River County, as follows:
19
JUL •�
90/91
91/92
92/93
93/94
94/95
95/916
SIE -YEAR
TOTAL
Broward
9.0•
22.5
24.5
26.3
28.1
30.1
140.5
Indian River
0.6
2.0
2.3
2.6
2.9
3.1
13.7
Martin
0.8
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
3.0
13.4
Palm Beach
6.6
16.8
18.5
20.2
21.9
23.7
107.7
St. Lucie
1.2
3.2
3.6
4.0
4.4
4.8
21.2
TOTAL 18.4 46.6 51.2 55.6 60.0 64.7 296.5
*This revenue is also known as the State Comprehensive Enhanced Transportation System Tax and includes the new
four cents of gasoline tax for each county in District 4
Mr. Yesbeck noted that basically they looked at three
priorities - (1) to protect the adopted program; (2) to look at
the projects that had been deferred or deleted over the last
couple of years and bring them back; and (3) then to add new
projects. Mr. Yesbeck then 'referred to the status of key
projects in Indian River County, as follows:
19
JUL •�
F-- cr
, I,'] f-� 1 -7
STATUS OF KEY PROJECTS IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
AS OF 7/23/90
Mr. Yesbeck explained that the money raised by the 44 will
go back to the DOT District where it was raised and to the
maximum extent feasible to the county in which it was raised. He
informed the Board that they have met with Director Davis who
showed them the new priority list that was reviewed by the
Committee, and they will come back in October and tell the Board
exactly which projects off that list the DOT will be able to fund
with that new revenue.
Commissioner Bird inquired about the status of SR 60 from
1-95 west to the County line, and Mr. Yesbeck advised that they
have included the resurfacing.of SR 60 from west of 512 to the
County line in 1991. He noted that it will be difficult just to
resurface that road and have it last any length of time; it
actually needs to be almost reconstructed,.and they are sending
out some of their maintenance and design people to see if there
is not some other technique short of completely rebuilding to get
a good surface until we can do something better in later years.
Chairman Eggert emphasized that is our only E/W exit out of
town, and she felt it should be widened, not just resurfaced.
20
=a�amaa.aml.`eM.'t Cet; i�aaaaaQaaaaaaaaaaffiaaasxvms
�am�asasasa�e�am
massaaasmsaa:a=R�aaaaaa:teams
WPA #FY
PKOJECT
PHASE
IN
ADOPTED
FY IN
IMPROVED TENTATIVE
4115310
$9 60 from 20th Avenue
CST
92/93
90/91
to US 1
4115332
.5R 60 from US 1 to
CST
92/93
90/91
Indian River Blvd.
4115359
$R 60 from Commerce
CST
92/93
90/91
to SR 5
4115392
SR 60/Merrill Barber
CST
92/93
92/93
OVIdge
4115398
SR 60 from west of
CST
UNF
91/92
CR 612 to I-95
4115428
SR A -1-A from SR 60
CST
91/92
91/92
to south city limits
Mr. Yesbeck explained that the money raised by the 44 will
go back to the DOT District where it was raised and to the
maximum extent feasible to the county in which it was raised. He
informed the Board that they have met with Director Davis who
showed them the new priority list that was reviewed by the
Committee, and they will come back in October and tell the Board
exactly which projects off that list the DOT will be able to fund
with that new revenue.
Commissioner Bird inquired about the status of SR 60 from
1-95 west to the County line, and Mr. Yesbeck advised that they
have included the resurfacing.of SR 60 from west of 512 to the
County line in 1991. He noted that it will be difficult just to
resurface that road and have it last any length of time; it
actually needs to be almost reconstructed,.and they are sending
out some of their maintenance and design people to see if there
is not some other technique short of completely rebuilding to get
a good surface until we can do something better in later years.
Chairman Eggert emphasized that is our only E/W exit out of
town, and she felt it should be widened, not just resurfaced.
20
Mr. Yesbeck explained that any widening they did would be
just putting in paved shoulders to widen the road to bring it up
to today's standards for a 2 -lane road.
Commissioner Scurlock inquired about the item for SR 60
widening 1-95 west to the County line, 20 miles at a million
dollars a mile, or a total of 20 million dollars, which is on a
separate handout, and Director Davis explained that as staff
received the early information regarding the new transportation
legislation, we sat down with the City of Vero Beach and some of
the other municipalities and came up with what they felt was a
priority list to spend 13 million dollars. Realizing that the
new transportation legislation also included a very hefty program
for enhancement to the Turnpike system, it was felt that SR 60
was somewhat of a unique project in that it does link up with the
Florida Turnpike, and that improving it might be considered an
enhancement to the Turnpike system. Director Davis believed
there is a program to look at the major E/W roadways in the state
and come up with a plan to enhance those within the next 10
years. He doubted we can break this out and accelerate it prior
to that program, and believed we will have to wait for the
4-laning of SR 60 for quite some years, but it will be improved.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that SR 60 is a corridor which
is a straight shot from the east coast of Florida to Tampa on the
west coast, and he believed it is about the only one that is a
straight route.
Mr. Yesbeck agreed that SR 60 is a priority, and they do
have 2 million or so set aside for it in Indian River County in
92/93, but that is for resurfacing.
Commissioner Scurlock did not feel that is the long range
solution. The whole thing needs to be reconstructed, and if we
are doing that, we ought to'do it 4 lane. He asked if we could
make that a toll road, and Commissioner Bowman asked about an
Expressway Authority.
2110
4 1990671 Sc.
BOOK F,1C
Mr. Yesbeck advised that because it is one of the cross -
state roads, he did not think they would be looking at trying to
put a toll on it. He confirmed that the DOT is supposed to
develop an intra -state system plan for•.the next 20 years, and
they are right now in the process of developing that plan. He
agreed you do want to put in the cross -state roadways, but
stressed that it is also important to put in the U.S. routes -
U.S.I - U.S. 27 - U.S. 19, etc.
Chairman Eggert commented that she gets the feeling that the
N/S roads carry a higher priority and that certainly will not
help us in an emergency situation.
Commissioner Bird hoped that the improving of SR 60 is not
caught up in some politics because of possibly taking traffic off
the Turnpike, but Mr. Yesbeck believed that widening SR 60
conceivably could make the Turnpike a more desirable route.
Discussion continued at length in regard to not only the bad
condition of SR 60, but the dangers caused by it being a 20' road
with hardly any shoulders.
Commissioner Scurlock referred back to the priority list set
out in Director Davis' memo. He commented that it seems
attention is being paid to A -1-A rather than U.S.I and wished to
know the reason for that.
Director Davis pointed out that the first priority project
is the U.S.I closed loop system, and Commissioner Scurlock agreed
but pointed out that more money is directed to A -1-A.
Director Davis explained that the reason that is such a high
priority is that the plans are already in motion for that work.
Commissioner Scurlock then questioned spending 21 million
for widening 27th Avenue, which he believed is going to be given
back to us. He felt the state should get it in shape first, and
Director Davis stated that is why we are recommending it be
widened.
Commissioner Scurlock next wished to know why we should
spend so much money on U.S.I.
22
Director Davis explained that the State has done an
extensive study on U.S.I. in the 3 county area, and it recom-
mended improvement through the whole Indian River County area and
discussed converting it to 6 lanes. We have been waiting for
some implementation of that study.
Chairman Eggert believed that 5 million for Indian River
Boulevard will help U.S.I.
Discussion continued as to the various priorities, acquisi-
tion of right-of-way, etc., and Commissioner Scurlock commented
that possibly we should take all this money and just use it to 4
lane SR 60 rather than do all these other projects.
Director Davis felt we need to give DOT some strong direc-
tion to take a hard look at U.S.I. and if the Lachner Report is a
report that is going to predict the destiny of U.S.I in the
3 -county area, that is fine, let's move on with it, but if it is
not, let's break Indian River County out of the 3 -county study.
Their thought was to address U.S.I with the first priority being.
the closed loop system and the Boulevard connecting it back to
U.S.I in the northern section.
Mr. Yesbeck pointed out to the Board that there are a number
of different programs that are just becoming available. Back in
1988, there was an amendment for advanced acquisition of R/W.
That basically has started a new process in the Department that
matches well with what Director Davis has put together on land
banking R/W along U.S.I. There is a program they are involved
with where they are going ahead and trying to put together what
they call a corridor report to get something like an approved
master plan of what, in this case, the county wants U.S.I. to
look like, and then they will work cooperatively towards getting
the R/W necessary to meet this ultimate road.
Commissioner Scurlock thought Director Davis said we had a
plan that did that, and Mr. Yesbeck believed that plan is a
couple years old, and they, as a Department, need -to go back and
get that study out.
23 �I OK OU F'A6r, 6 yj
JUL 24 190
JUL 2 4 1990 POGK 80F'�uF. 700
- Commissioner Bird referred back tg SR 60 and stressed that
he would certainly hope that we coordinate the timing of any
improvements there with the improvements being done by the St.
John's Water Management District as their trucks are really
breaking down the road.
Mr. Yesbeck wished to make one more point - he noted that in
the past the relationship of the DOT and local government as far
as putting together a work program was very casual, but a lot of
things have happened in the last few years, one of which being
the County's Comprehensive Plan, and they are trying to work
within that. He further noted that a lot of the projects listed
qualify for different programs; so, it is possible they may not
compete with one another.
William Koolage, interested citizen, believed that most of
the citizens in the County are upset about SR 60. It is our only
escape route, and it is of prime importance not only to the
county but to the whole east coast. He noted that the water
management districts cause some of the problems with that road
and expressed his belief that they should contribute some of
their funds to the improvement of SR 60.
Commissioner Bird asked what we can do as a part of this
meeting to impress the DOT and the State of Florida that we feel
4 laning of SR 60 is one of our utmost priorities.
Mr. Yesbeck noted that the DOT is required to take the local
government's priority list and use it as a basis for for their
work program, but he stressed that they cannot include something
that is not consistent with that county's Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Scurlock felt it would be a tremendous help if
we could at least get SR 60 4-laned out to Blue Cypress Lake.
Extended discussion continued stressing the vital importance
of improving and widening SR 60, the difficulties involved, the
tremendous cost because of the canals, etc., and Director Davis
informed the Board that in the last couple of years there have
been meetings between the St. John's District, the DOT, and
24
- M
County staff regarding the possibility of putting two new lanes
for SR 60 on top of the dike south of SR 60 that is under con-
struction at this time, and that dike is being master planned so
that the top width of the berm could accommodate two new lanes
for SR 60.
Commissioner Bird asked if the DOT actually have a plan
anywhere on a dusty shelf that shows 4-laning SR 60, or is this
something we have to start planning from scratch. If it is, he
felt we better start thinking about "rat -holing" some money away
for that purpose because it may be years coming about.
Director Davis advised that there are no old plans, just an
agreement between the District design engineers and the St.
John's District to accommodate the need for the 4 -lane facility
along that section where the dikes are being constructed. It was
pointed out that is only a 2 mile section.
Director Davis informed the Board that on the second page of
the DOT Draft Five Year Work Program (1990-91 through 1994-95) is
8.2 million for SR 60 to be funded with federal aid widening and
surfacing funds, and he would not want to jeopardize losing those
federal funds. That is a substantial widening and resurfacing
program that is already programmed from 512 west to 1-95, and he
emphasized that is not this new money.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if the cost of widening the road
to 24' might not almost put you in the ballpark of going ahead
and 4 laning because he believed even that width will take you
into the canals, but Director Davis pointed out that moves you
into Federal Highway Administration design criteria for a
multi -lane facility, and you open up a whole new gamut of
regulations that could make it much more expensive.
Discussion continued about 4-laning as opposed to widening
the 2 lanes, and Commissioner Scurlock felt the easy solution
would be to put a dollar toll on that road and go ahead and build
it. He believed residents would be happy to pay a $1.00 or even
higher toll to travel a 4 -lane road1to get to the Turnpike .
J U L 24 1990
2 5 MOK FAGF .
nor
JUS 24 1990
Director Davis believed we are getting good input from the
Board at this workshop. Number one, he believed we need to give
Mr. Yesbeck and his staff a recommendation that we need to dust
off the Lachner Study and make some decisions on U.S.I. as
opposed to widening through the urban area and the areas beyond
the Boulevard, and perhaps that needs to be a very high priority
in Indian River County. Secondly, he pointed out that if you
look at their 5 -year program, the whole first page is to be
accomplished in 90/91, and when you move into the final two
years, we don't have any projects in there with for the old
revenue source; then you will see the new revenue moving in for
some of the things we have been talking about today. Director
Davis stressed that not only are we looking at the new revenue
today, but also the standard 5 -year revenue from the DOT.
Perhaps we can move ahead with the 8.2 million for the SR 60
project and express the desire that will not be a bandaid but it
should be a viable reconstruction or widening of SR 60 in its
present alignment with the intent that in the future we take a
look at the 4 -lane situation and perhaps move towards that
project in the tail end of the 5 -year program.
Chairman Eggert asked if Director Davis might want to
reprioritize the list presented, and Director Davis indicated
that he felt that list can stand on its own.
Administrator Chandler asked if the DOT, recognizing our
priorities, can't look at SR 60 as a project separate and apart
from this and look at not only this additional 13 million new
revenue, but look at a combination of other revenue sources and
come back to us with an overall recommendation for SR 60 based on
that rather than looking at just one revenue source.
Mr. Yesbeck agreed that could be done and in the meantime
continue with SR 60 and the priority list as it is.
James Granse, concerned citizen, wished to point out that
only a very few people are here today attending this meeting,
which is an extremely important one as it affects the future of
26
the people of the County. He would like to impress the Press
with the need to make people aware of this.
Director Davis informed the Board that Attorney Bruce
Barkett is here to talk about U.S.I. R/W acquisition in concert
with new development. Director Davis noted that in the last
couple years we have been sort of in a dilemma as to whether the
County should purchase additional R/W on U.S.[ as new development
comes in, not only in the unincorporated area but also in the
City of Vero Beach, Sebastian, etc. Some of this R/W
acquisition, now that we are paying for it, is running into the
tens and twenty thousand dollar range, and do we want our impact
fee revenue to be spent primarily for R/W acquisition along a
state roadway or do we want that money freed up to do capacity
projects on the county system. If we just secure R/W with the
impact fee money, we are going to dilute our ability to do some
road work in the county.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that the option is to increase
the impact fee to accommodate both.
Director Davis advised there has not been a funding source
quickly available from either the state or federal government for
these R/W acquisitions on roads such as U.S.I. or SR 60, and his
question is do we want to step in and use our impact fees or
spend our Gas Tax revenue for these acquisitions. He pointed out
that the City gets part of that revenue also, and do we want to
come into an incorporated area and use our funds to buy R/W.
Commissioner Bird asked if the DOT buys R/W along the U.S.I.
corridor in other counties, and Mr. Yesbeck stated that has not
been their practice, but they are starting to get into that now.
Attorney Bruce Barkett came before the Board and commented
that, as
he sees
it,
"buying"
is a
very loose
term. The
appraisal
shows
that
the
201"
they
are prepared
to dedicate is
worth $36,854, and staff agrees that is a fair value. The impact
fee the County has asked for is $18,000,.and all his client.is
looking for is to be relieved of the impact fee.
J U L 24 1990
27 MOF 0 r.� < �j�p�1,
��'.yF i l
JUL 2 4
1990
eOCIF
-
The Board expressed
some confusion as to exactly
what Mr.
Barkett was talking about, and Administrator Chandler commented
that he had felt this item still was tracking through the staff
level.
Director Davis advised that this relates to Item 8 on the
priority list, which is U.S.I. R/W Acquisition in concert with
new development.
Attorney Barkett further clarified that he has an applica-
tion in for his client. They are ready to pull a building permit
with the City for a site plan on U.S.I and 19th Place. The
Comprehensive Land Use Plan shows a R/W deficiency on U.S.I. of
401, and as part of the site plan process, the comment came back
from the County that the applicant should dedicate 20' on U.S.I.,
and so the City asked his client to dedicate that R/W. His
client is ready to dedicate the 201, but submitted an application
for impact fee credit because he is donating $36,000 worth of
property. He believed staff recommendations were generally
favorable, but apparently there have been other similar situa-
tions, and it caused Jim Davis to question whether the County
should be in the business of buying R/W on U.S.I. Attorney
Barkett stressed that the only reason he is here today is because
he would like a decision on this particular site on U.S.I.
Administrator Chandler did not see how the Commission can
make a decision as they do not have the specific facts before
them.
Director Davis explained that this item actually was
directed towards the DOT and what their feeling was on such
advance R/W acquisition. He believed that what Attorney Barkett
is talking about needs to come back to the Board as a specific
agenda item.
Commissioner Bird asked what our policy has been in regard
to giving impact fee credits.
Attorney Vitunac advised that we have always given credit.
If they owe us money and we owe them money for the land we are
28
- 4
buying, we set them off and the difference is in cash, but he
believed what Director Davis is asking is do we want to apply
this policy to U.S.I. because he doesn't have enough cash
available to pay for U.S.I. R/W.
Commissioner Scurlock thought we established a policy where
we decided we will pay everyone for what we take and adjust our
impact fees to truly reflect this R/W acquisition. If it is
something site related, then there is no credit, but when we take
it for just general R/W acquisition, then we should pay for it.
Director Davis confirmed that we have done that in the 20
Year Road Improvement Plan. The problem is that the U.S.I.
corridor does not show a widening project in the 20 year horizon,
and our impact fee ordinance is tied to the 20 Year Plan.
Administrator Chandler advised that one of the things staff
will bring back to the Board is a projection of the cost for R/W
acquisition over the 20 year program; however, not on U.S.I.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the question is whether we are
going to adjust our impact fees to pay to acquire this R/W along
state or federal highways, or are we going to rely on the state
or the feds to acquire their own R/W.
Director Davis believed possibly there could be a joint
funding mechanism to acquire this cooperatively with the City and
the DOT.
Discussion continued regarding R/W acquisition on U.S.I.,
impact fees, etc., and Attorney Vitunac pointed out that Attorney
Barkett's client is going to pay the $18,000 impact fee no matter
whose plan U.S.I. is in, but the question is do you want to buy
his 20' of land or not - do you want to buy it now or wait until
the time the improvements actually are to be done?
Commissioner Bird noted that he does not want to be short-
sighted, but he does not want to be unreasonably far-sighted
either, and he was not sure it is reasonable to continue to pick
up little bits and pieces of R/W along U.S.I.
JUL 2.4 1990
29
BOOK 705
�nilrl V �.�VC. 71-16
,JUL 2 4 1990
It was pointed out that the problem is that if we don't buy
this property, the owner can build on it, and Director Davis
explained that what we have in Mr. �arkett's specific case is
that in the City of Vero Beach we have.%a BlockBuster Video coming
in, and we are telling them that our Thoroughfare Plan calls for
20' more of R/W in the City limits in that area. Even though it
is a state and federal roadway and is in the City limits, we
still have it on our Thoroughfare Plan, but as he interprets our
impact fee ordinance, he cannot give an impact fee credit unless
that link is on our 20 Year Road Plan; so, instead of using
impact fee revenue or giving them impact fee credit, the question
is should we be using the unincorporated portion of the Gas Tax
revenues to buy that R/W when the cities already have their fair
share of those same revenues. Director Davis felt that ethically
the City ought to be buying that R/W within their City limits.
Attorney Barkett stated that if that is the case, then don't
tell the City to make it a requirement of site plan that they
dedicate 20' of R/W, but Director Davis pointed out that U.S.I.
is on our Thoroughfare Plan and in our Comprehensive Plan and the
County is responsible for the collector road system.
Administrator Chandler believed that Asst. County Attorney
Terry O'Brien was addressing this particular case and possibly
advising new policy.
Commissioner Scurlock felt this agenda item is more
complicated than he expected, and he did not believe he can react
to it today.
Director Davis agreed but felt it is good to have the DOT
participate to some degree in this discussion. He confirmed that
he will be bring Mr. Barkett's particular item back in the next
few weeks.
Commissioner Bird asked if the DOT needs any specific
action, and Mr. Yesbeck advised that the first step, if the
Commission has any comments regarding the plan presented today,
30
is to come to the public hearing in Fort Pierce on August 2nd,
and the next is to address putting in any new projects on the
priority list. They really need that information by mid
September.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to take
no other action today but direct staff to continue
to pursue what has been discussed and then come back
with a recommendation so the Board can address what
needs to be addressed.
Commissioner Bird commented that it is like a breath of
fresh air to see the State finally recognize the transportation
needs and come up with these kind of funds.
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED COORDINATING BOARD MEMBERSHIP
The Board reviewed memo from Senior Planner Boudreaux:
JUL 24 1990
31 �OC�K FAGF :1'1 r'
J U L 24 1999
TO:- James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keat ng, CP
Community Deve op t Director
THRU: Sasan Rohani
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Cheri Boudreaux
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: July 13, 1990
�00F 10 71 j
RE: TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED COORDINATING BOARD
MEMBERSHIP
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of July 24,'1990.
DESCRIPTIONS & CONDITIONS
On May 8, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of the county's application to the state to become the
local Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA) for the provision
of transportation disadvantaged planning activities in the area.
The State's Transportation Disadvantaged Commission (TDC)
officially notified the county by letter of its approval as the
DOPA on June 15, 1990.
The next step in the process is for the DOPA to officially appoint
the appropriate members of the Local Coordinating Board.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
Chapter 427, Florida Statutes and Rule 41-2, Florida Administrative
Code, specifically outline the mandated requirements of the
Coordinating Board's structure and duties. A copy of the
"Coordinating Board's Operating Guidelines" are attached hereto for
reference.
By law, the Coordinating Board must have eleven (11) voting
members. The structure of the eleven (11) member Coordinating
Board must be as follows:.,
(1) A member of the DOPA who is an -elected official to serve
as the official chairperson for all Coordinating Board
meetings;
(2) A representative of the Florida Department of
Transportation;
(3) A representative of the Florida Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services;
(4) A representative of the Public Education Community;
(5) A representative of the Florida Department of Labor and
Employment Security;
32
(6) A person who is recognized by the Florida Department of
Veterans' Affairs as a representative of the veterans in
the service area;
(7) A person who represents the economically disadvantaged
and is recognized by the Commission's Community Action
Representative.
(8 ) A person over sixty years of age representing the elderly
in the service area;
(9) A handicapped person representing the handicapped in the
service area; and
(10) Two citizen advocates representatives; one must represent
a user of the system.
Additional non-voting members may be appointed by the DOPA.
According to the "Coordinating Board Operating Guidelines", the
DOPA should appoint individuals who have positions of
responsibility within an agency at a level high enough to allow
them to adequately represent their agency during Coordinating Board
discussions and when votes are being taken.
The Council on Aging (COA) which is currently the County's
Transportation Disadvantaged Provider and the other governmental
agencies such as the Florida Department of Transportation, et.al.,
will provide input into the 'specific selection of appropriate
individuals to serve on the Coordinating Board. For expample, the
state agencies will appoint their own representatives to become
members of the Coordinating Board.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners create
the eleven (11) member Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinating
Board, direct the staff to contact referenced state agencies for
their appointments, and direct the staff to request input from the
Council on Aging regarding other appointies. The staff recommends
that the Board defer action on appointing members until its August
71 1990 meeting.
Chairman Eggert believed we already appointed Commissioner
Bowman as the Board's member and assumed staff would work with
Commissioner Bowman on this.
Community Development Director Keating advised that staff
can contact the various agencies that are required to have
representatives but they are not sure how the Board wishes them
to proceed with the other representatives and whether the Board
wants them to take the initiative.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board approved staff
J U L 2 4 1990
°
33 .500C 40M
p'u 6��
BOOK S
J U L 24 1990
recommendation as set out above and directed staff
to work with Commissioner Bowman and come back to
the Board with names of appo,iinties.
LEASE AGREEMENT W/BELLSOUTH MOBILITY (TOWER SITE)
The Board reviewed memo from the Director of Emergency
Management Services:
TO: Board of County \ Commissioners
FROM: Doug Wright,' D rector
Emergency Management Services
DATE: July 17, 1990
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF LEASE AGREEMENT WITH BELLSOUTH MOBILITY
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
at the next scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On February 14, 1989, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a request by BellSouth Mobility for an
option to lease 2,475 square feet of property (45'x 55') located
near the South Winter Beach Solid Waste Collection Center for a
mobile telephone tower site. The option on the property was
predicated on BellSouth Mobility paying the sum of $100.00 per
month to the County for a maximum period of two years. Thereafter,
the initial lease would either be cancelled or continued under
mutually agreed upon terms.
BellSouth Mobility desires to erect a 285' tower to place equipment
on for use in providing cellular telephone service for the Indian
River County link. Included in the lease is an easement for access
and utility service from South Winter Beach Road. The County owns
approximately 19.5 acres at the subject site with about 3.2 acres
being used for the refuse station.
BellSouth Mobility has received approval from, the Federal
Communications Commission to 7roceed with providing cellular phone
service for this area.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The property is not currently being utilized and no plans for use
of this property in the long term are under consideration.
The Master Plan for the sophisticated cellular telephone system
requires a limited are within a county in order to facilitate
alignment of antennas from one cell to another. Due to this
requirement, the County owned Hobart Tower is not within the
designated area and space is not available at the 285' level.
34
The proposed Lease Agreement provides for an initial term of five
(5) years beginning on the date the option is exercised at an
annual rental of $3,600 to:be paid in equal monthly installments
on the first day of the month, in advance, to Indian River County.
An option in the lease provides for an extension of the lease for
four. (4) additional five. (5) year terms by giving the County
written notice at least six (6) months prior to the end of the
current term.
The annual rental for the first five year extension is increased
to $4,140, the second extension to $4,761, the third to $5,475,
and the fourth to'$6,297. If at the end of the fourth five year
extension term the Agreement has not been terminated by either
party by giving written notice six months in advance, the Agreement
continues in force upon the same terms and conditions for period
of one (1) year and for annual terms thereafter until terminated
by either party by giving six months written notice prior to the
end of the term. Monthly rental for this period would be equal to
the rent paid for the last month of the fourth five year extension.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the
proposed Lease Agreement with BellSouth Mobility and authorize the
Chairman to execute the referenced lease.
Commissioner Bird commented that he has a problem. He
agreed that this tower is desperately needed in this county and
he is all in favor of it; however, the way he reads this lease,
it sounds as if you are leasing them just this little bit of land
for their tower, but in Paragraph 22, it says that, at the
tenant's option, they may erect either a self supporting tower or
a guyed tower. If they should choose to erect a guyed tower,
then they will need an additional 315' easement in all direc-
tions, and if they do that, we are tying up a property of about
10 acres in size, and in that case, he felt we are not getting
enough money.
Director Wright advised that we have encouraged them to go
with the free standing type, which we feel would be more appro-
priate, and he further noted that Ron Brooks, Director of the
Solid Waste Disposal District, felt if we could have some say
about where guy wires could be placed, this area might be of use
to the SWDD. `
Commissioner Bird believed even if it is an unguyed tower,
you need some drop zone, and he wished to know if this land -is
owned by the Utilities Department.
35 BOOK r'A�
JUL 241000
- Utilities Director Pinto explained that the property is
owned by the County, but it is actually under the SWDD. He
continued that conditions have changed since they originally
looked at this, and he also has some concerns about the guy
wires, which he believed could greatly hamper the use of the
property, particularly now that we are into recycling. He was
not concerned about the money aspect, but was concerned about the
guy wires.
Board members continued to present concerns about guy wires,
the possibility liability if we place something near that tower
in the drop zone, the land we are losing the use of, and adequate
compensation.
County Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that he would
like to research this back over the last two years when this
lease was originally presented and asked that the Board postpone
action on this for two weeks.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously.agreed to
defer action and table this matter until the next
meeting.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROPOSED NON -AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS FY90/91
Commissioner Scurlock commented that we have not had any
discussion this year on Vero Lake Estates Road 8 Drainage
Improvement District and wondered what the mood is out there and
if we have sufficient funds to do what we want to do.
Public Works Director Davis believed Vero Lakes is happy
that we paved 87th Street and they want us to pave 101st Avenue.
He believed we can do that paving, and it will complete a paved
loop system within that subdivision. Staff is also trying to
bring the Board a final report on their drainage study. As to
the proposed $15.00 per parcel/acre assessment, he has heard no
36
comments one way or the other, and he does feel it is enough
money to pave 101st St.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
Resolution 90-87 adopting Fiscal Year 1990/91
Proposed Non -Ad Valorem Assessments.
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 87
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ADOPTING FISCAL YEAR 1990/91
PROPOSED NON -AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the
Board hereby adopts the following proposed non -ad valorem
assessments for the 1990/91 fiscal year:
1990/91
DISTRICT WASTE GENERATION UNIT
Solid aste Disposal District ��$33.UU
1990/91
STREETLIGHT PARCEL/ACRE CHARGE
Gifford -1,97 0 0
Laurelwood $22.00
Rockridge $.5.00
Vero, Highlands $25.00
Porpoise Point $30.00
Single Streetlights N/A''
Laurel Court $33.00
Tierra Linda
Vero Shores $28.00
Ixora $23.00
Poinciana Park $31.00
.Roseland $ 6.00
OTHER
euro -Lake Estates $15.00•
(Roads E Drainage Improvement)
The first public budget hearing for proposed
non -ad valorem assessments is scheduled *for September 5,
.1990 at p.m.
The resolution was moved for adoption by
Commissi,bner Wheeler and the motion was seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock and, upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice -Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed and adopted this 2Lth day of July, 1990.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
7 I
By
aro n Eg rt
Chaff man
r .CW
37
BOOKwu
JUL 24 1990
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT SUMMARY
OMB Director Baird reviewed the following summary:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
TAXING DISTRICT SUMMARY
Ad Valorem Taxing Districts
General Fund
M.S.T.U.
South County Fire
North County Fire
West County Fire
Ad Valorem Tax Voted
Library Bond Issue
Aggregate Millage
District
Solid Waste Disposal District
Streetligh
Gifford
Laurelwood
Rockridge
Vero Highlands
Porpoise Point
Single Streetlights
Laurel Court
Tierra Linda
Vero Shores
Ixora
Poinciana Park
Roseland
1989/90
Millage
5.1844
1.9642
1.5803
1.0000
0.3169
0.3967
7.4838
1990/91 Rolled
Back Millage
PER PARCEL ACRE CHARGE
1989/90
Waste
Generation Unit
$33.00 (2)
1989/90
Parcel/Acre Charge
$15.00
$23.00
$5.00
$25.00
$30.00
N/A
$20.00
$0.00
$30.00
$23.00
$0.00
$0.00
Other
Vero Lakes Estates $15.00
(Roads and Drainage Improvement)
(1) Rolled Back - Not Applicable
(2) Equivalent Residential Unit Charge $52.80
38
5.0040
1.8857
1.5382
0.9505
0.2797
0.3829 (1)
1990/91
Millage
5.1512
1.6211
1.6230
1.0000
0.2906
0.3594
7.2290 7.3010
1990/91
Waste
Generation` Unit
$33.00 '(2)
1990/91
Parcel/Acre Charge
$15.00
$22.00
$5.00
$25.00
$30.00
N/A
$33.00
$28.00
$23.00
$31.00
$6.00
$15.00
Director Baird informed the Board that our aggregate
proposed millage is 7.3010. This year our aggregate was 7.4838;
so, we are below our current aggregate millage, but we are not at
the rollback rate, which is 7.2290, and we will have to advertise
in our 1/4 page ad that we are 1% above rollback. The second
required ad is a full page ad that will show roughly a 7.62%
increase in total overall expenditures.
Commissioner Bird hoped that the Press will pick up the
point that our aggregate millage actually is less than the
aggregate millage was for last year because the ad makes it sound
as if there is a slight increase.
Director Baird confirmed that the proposed aggregate millage
is actually 2% less than we had last year.
Administrator Chandler wished the Board to know that he met
with Directors Keating and Davis in regard to the additional
traffic studies and capacity studies tying into concurrency and
the Comp Plan, and they both feel we can do this in-house rather
than hire a consultant.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
above Summary Sheet; set the time for a public hearing
on the Tentative Budget for Wednesday, September 5th,
at 5:01 P.M.; and authorized the County Administrator
to sign the certificate of actual value.
PROPERTY APPRAISER'S REQUEST FOR BUDGET AMENDMENT
OMB Director Baird informed the Board that at the Budget
workshops, Property Appraiser Nolte had requested additional
funding for raises in the approximate amount of $26,000. After
meeting with Mr. Nolte, he determined that the actual amount was
going to be $25,727. Director Baird further explained that we
only fund 81.87% of that in the General Fund and our portion will
JUL 24 1990
39 �
BOOK
JUL 2 4 690
be $21,062; however, the budget amendment for Mr. Nolte's total
budget must be the $25,727.
i
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
following Budget Amendment in the amount of $25,727,
as requested by the Property Appraiser.
OR -404 PA Re*nfl Number
M.07fa9
PROPERTYAPPRAISER WA 1
• BUDGET TRANSFER/AMENDMENT an
County Indian R1ver OFFICIAL nwv7d r._ N.tre DATE 7/19/90
Year ending September 30,19 91
www+netatwcdentss.oaT(tkelmdpl,ts.MeotrM�af� em Tom
bnnrion
W&W_ jpappoMtHtrpwst,
IDe"rtDab
me evertus
40
NATiONAL ORGANIZATION ON DISABILITY
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Davis and
attached letter to Mrs. Forlani:
TO: Chairman Carolyn Eggert
FROM: James W. Davis,'P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: National Organization on Disability
Ref. Letter: Omer Ostensoe, NOD, to Liz Forlani
dated 6-28-90
DATE: July 16, 1990
In reviewing the programs offered by the NOD, I feel the
county staff would benefit from the Program Information
Network (PIN), and some of our park and recreation projects
may be eligible for an NOD award. Since no cost is involved
in joining, I feel it would be beneficial to have a local
representative.
• "
LC'b.''"I`'A
ui
soma" R.
DIRECTO
��-
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION ON `- �►,�+Q
IK Dmad .A41 r18' Ff t9 fyrt
VIII"
mV �ti. QN.
DD
% 0 Jrtn}�rn;ssioners
�� A*n1nistrator
ABILITY. private, non•pmw meani:atim
brut i. RidF, �" <., y
Mae w�Ro v,.su�pr _1 910 Sixteenth Street, NW • Suite 600 • Washington, DC 20006 efsrj . r2
FNIPLUsk � ��C�l I �1,�s� Ornr'1zi
a MW CEO, (202) 293-5960 • TDD (202) 293-5968 • FAX (202) 293-7999 a
McOOirator ilicc �dprbS
MprT i. i O M.D.
olamCFO
matzo t q1tr1c6nilyftWd 111010P. E14. fey,
mak eater. i timer June 28, 1990
iatota S. Bra". M.D. F• p
Gowwwoloeftim
WHOMEC""" Dear Liz Forl4o i :
Ritlortal Ta t w imftRe
ewi
It was good speaking to you by telephone today and
EUMM1
learning that your county may wish to become a partner with
Jobe wP cMa$.1t,�
N.O.D. in our Community Partnership Program.
Tow Ca4a
IlWupatp Director
ffaCo. M•
As promised, I have enclosed a Representative Designation
WestYtplgttso EleetrlC Cmporatbn
Form. It requires the county's chief elected official's
R.Mc halra
NOD FM*MRrrWnM.AMWAYCorp
signature as well as the name and address of the person
mUm
Sl'bftM
appointed as Representative. Return it to N.O.D. as soon as
atart�,atdceo
ChWM WCE
possible. B entering y' partnership
P y g your community's artnershi now, you
OWV11m"'�'"-
.k.
,
are eligible to p $ y
g� participate in our 1990-1991 25 000 community
prosdwawards
The G&W OrWkaft Im
competition.
No. Whibrop Danfloor
FotxWer, TAe WzJ VW Aaud
WlmuR.Ro"11
CUM= aM CEO
Your Representative serves as a liaison between the county
J.C.F"n"Co..itto.
M'M
MI'�
and N.O.D. for a two year term. The Representative may be a
SERO/BT
disabled or non -disabled person --a public employee or a private
mt
MaTJw orw"
citizen--but should beonewho has contact with the disability
Da Wry
community in your area. We look forward to learning about, and
RMCftmw am enC.Peor
sharing with other community partners (CPs), information about
SNOOK�0
Joel 0.Robino.
disabilit y programs in your community.
COQ AAF P., ML
Wdud T. Roe
prosdom
N.O.D.'s recently announced Program Information Network
,,� ,h;;°�"�'
(PIN) is a tool to assist CPs. The PIN is a quick response
;E°
information and referral computer network of successful
co Perm
programs and projects designed and carried out by local
'�--�•�^� Partners. Enclosed is the PIN questionnaire which we ask CPs
JUL 2 4 1990
41nnNN LL 0-r
nor,
JUL 2 4 1000
wmom.
Oft A. Slift
Reimatairman.cmamsmeftco.
to return listing information about disability programs that
Preakem. Sipa Associates
Mile LeeMMMalasy
may be helpful to other communities. CPs may request
W.Reid ,Tbaai'
information from PIN by writing or - phoning N.O.D.
Potomac Ekctrie PowerCompany
Rahn 1w Harold WIOce
Director.TMKeahngCommw*
Joss" O. William.
We are' glad you and your icounty will be part of our
CbaaaamamlCEO
growing network of communities nationwide who recognize the
Warner-Lambert Company
flaslYngultre
importance of working together to expand the participation of
Presklem
NamenalcounepofuRam
disabled persons in American life. We look forward to
receiving your reply soon and to working with you.
Ectad Knmdy, Jr.
Special Ambassador for Ne
Deem Of Disabled Persons
Sincerely,
CONORESSIONAL SPONSORS
Sem. William AnmslronO, CO
^�
Sem. Also lramlsa. CA
Sea. Robert Dols. KS
S". Dow Dow Dareab ar. NN
Sm Tom Narkln, a
Sea.NutNdOald.OR
Omer Ostensoe
SMEasmbKenn".6u
Assistant to the President
Sao. Pam Simon, I
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
staff recommendation.
Discussion ensued as to having a representative who is
disabled, and it was agreed to contact Donald Kettlewell in this
regard.
SOUTH COUNTY RO PLANT EXPANSION (DEGASIFIER - FINAL PAYMENT)
The Board reviewed memo from the Department of Utilities:
DATE: JULY 13, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO J/` ��
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SE VICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. McC
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJ IN
BY: DEPARTMENT IL SERVICES
SUBJECT: SOUTH COUNTY REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT EXPANSION,
DEGASIFIER CONTRACT FINAL PAYMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -88 -03 -WC
BACKGROUND
On March 29, 1988,t'he Board of County Commissioners approved a
contract with H -O -H Systems, Inc., in the amount of $102,000.00 for
two degasifier units to be installed at the South County R.O. Plant.
On September 2, 1988, H -O -H shipped the degasifiers to the job site.
Per the contract, H -O -H was to be paid 750 of the contract upon
42
� r �
delivery. The remaining 255 ($25,500.00) was to be paid after
start-up and acceptance. At the time of acceptance, H -O -H was to
provide a letter of credit in the amount of $25,500.00 for a period
of one year, in lieu of a maintenance bond. Several cosmetic
problems occurred with the degasifiers, and it took almost one year
to resolve these problems.
ANALYSIS
Despite the cosmetic problems, the system has been functioning since
January of 1989. We feel that H -O -H has demonstrated good faith by
following up with the problems. We have held their retainage for
more than one year after start-up (the units have continued to
perform as designed), and the cosmetic problems have been corrected.
Attached are the required release of liens and final pay request.
Considering the length of time we have held their retainage, we now
wish to waive the requirement of a letter of credit and make final
payment. (See attached letter of recommendation from the engineer.)
The staff of the Department bf Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the release of retainage in
the amount of $25,500.00 to H -O -H Systems; Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
release of retainage in the amount of $25,500 to
H -O -H System, Inc., as recommended by staff.
NORTH COUNTY SEWER CONTRACT NO. 3 W/UTILITY SYSTEMS OF AMERICA
(CHANGE ORDER NO. 3)
The Board reviewed memo from Engineer McCain:
J U L 24 1990
43 mR
JUL 2 4 159U
DATE: JULY 13, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINO
DIRECTOR OF UT SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. McC
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECTEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF U Y SERVICES
mor 80 �' l: C: s2 i:.
SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY SEWER CONTRACT NO. 3 WITH UTILITY
SYSTEMS OF AMERICA, CHANGE ORDER NO. 3
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -87 -27 -CCS
BACKGROUND
Three items are adcMessed in this Change Order. They are as
follows:
1) The addition of 2,100 linear feet of 6" force main to serve New
Horizons Mobile Home Park. This line had to be rerouted due to
easement acquisition problems. (See attached monthly report and
Item No. 7 on Masteller and Moler letter of March 26, 1990.)
2) The elimination of valve position indicators on the plug valves
in the force main system (Items No. 32 through 37A on the
Change Order).
3) A lump sum change due to unknown underground conditions (per
contract) on U. S. #1 right-of-way north of State Road 510.
ANALYSIS
The net economic effect of this Change Order is as follows:
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Total Increase
The Change Orders to date.are as follows:
Change Order No. 1
Change Order No. 2
Change Order No. 3
Total Decrease in Contract
+ $15,750.00
$ 6,316.00
+ $ 8,500.00
$17,934.00
+ $ 1,373.80
- $25,926 * 25 7
+ $17,934.00
- $ 6,618.45
Along with this total decrease, we also have a savings carried over
from the Henry Fischer Developer's Agreement of $37,317.00 as we do
not have to put in a new lift station at Breezy Village.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order No. 3 with
Utility Systems of America.
44
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Change
Order No. 3 with Utility Systems of America as recom-
mended by staff.
1.9.3. Change Order,
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE $3,362,691.30
DATE July 11, 1990 REVISED CONTRACT PRICE $3,380,625.30
JOB NAME Indian River County Proiect #US87-27-CCS
North—County Subregional Sewer System/Contract #3
OWNER Board of County Commissioners, Indian River County
JUL,2 4 1990
91
45
ORIG.
REVISED
UNIT
ORIG.
TOTAL
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
PRICE
UNITS
PRICE
CHANGE CHANGE
PRICE
I
I
I
I I
25
I 1
16" Diameter Force Main 1
1 I
7.501
I
8,6851
I
65,137.501
I
+2,1001 + 15,750.00 P
1 I
80,887.50
32
16" Diameter Plug Valve 1
I I
900.001
I
71
I
6,300.001
I
- 71 - 6,300.001
I I
0.00
32A
16" Diameter Plug Valve I
1 I
660,001
f
N/A 1
I
N/A 1
I
+71 + 4,620.001
I 1
4,620.00
33
18" Diameter Plug Valve 1
I I
1,100.001
1
21
I
2,200.001
I
-21 - 2,200.00 1
I I
0.00
33A
18" Diameter Plug Valve I
860.001
N/AI
N/A 1
+21 + 1,720.001
1,720.00
34
110" Diameter Plug Valve 1
I
1,200.001
I
61
I
7,200.001
I
-_61 - 7,200-001
I 1
0.00
34A
I
110" Diameter Plug Valve 1
1
960.001
1
N/AI
1
N/A 1
1
+61 + 5,760-001
1 1
5,760.00
95
1
1=YdMamte'r Plug Valve 1
1,600.01
.'21
:x,200.001
4 GI + 3AW-001
;0.00
35A
I I
I WL Dimaetftr Plug Valve 1
1
I
360.001
1
I
N/A I
1
I
N/A 1
1
I I
+21 + &,720.001
1 1
`'
2,720.00
36
1
120" Diameter Plug Valve 1
5,200.001
51
26,000.001
- 51 - 26,000.001
0.00
36A
I I
120" Diameter Plug Valve 1
I
4,960.001
I
N/A I
I
N/A I
I 1
+ 51 + 24,800.001
24,800.00
37
I I
124" Diameter Plug Valve 1
I
8,500.001
I
I
81
I.
68,000.001
1 1
- 81 - 68,000.001
0.00
37A
I I
124" Diameter Plug Valve 1
8,260.001
I
N/AI
I
N/A 1
I I
+781 + 66,080.001
66,080.00
53
1 I
1Seed & Mulch 1
I
0.341
I
85,0001
I
28,900 1
1 1
+2,6001 + 884.001
.29,784.00
69
1 I
1 Cant ets U.S. #1 1
I
N/A I
"I
I
N/A I
I
N/A I
I I
+ 11 + 8,500.001
8,500.00
1 1
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1 1
I+ 17,934.001
I I
JUL,2 4 1990
91
45
K t (7)
.�L)
R 4 R +R F w! a +h w R A k .t A A A A !t w i A A A A w a a w a! F A� A w A A� A A A w w A A A w A w w♦ A w w A A A A A A! a! .R �! a a a
The amount of the Contract w3.13 ba, .=� ( INCREASED) (UNCHANGED) by
the curt, of:9eyanteen J;,�ue4rid N-iti6',-tsHundred Thirty Four acid 00/ICC'
(written amount.)
_�..— Dollars 1817`934.00 ) .
The Centracc total including this Change Order •affil be:
T hrze t; Ilion Three Hundred Ei�r�tx„ 7h�uaa.nd �x Hundred Twenty F'ivt t+n¢,
(written amount)
30"'100 - Dollars ($3,380,625.30
The Contract Time provided for Pr-o-;ett Completton will be tDitKE*S_%{ri
D a y e.
( )
This dr-icument w111 bacoMe s Odpplement to the Contract and all
provisions will apply hereto.
w! w A A *4 A A *40 w w 40* A A w A w w w! A A A w *A* 4, a w A! A! A A**4 A A
CONTRACTOR: .. �. � DATE:
ENGINEER:
OWNER:
N" cr Go Approved
-7.
'_'.uclgnt
Utilities
Gf America
--C;rGATE: 2/449n �.._.._
ttoler 4sociatest_Ir:c —..._..----------
'Izlelle_ DATE:
than kiv,�r Courlty_ Ut til_ C!E+��ti,t� crranre G 1p.t - Director
DATE:
R.C. Boaof County issioners; Carolyn R. Eggert, Chairman
CITRUS GARDENS SUBDV. WATER SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Engineer
William McCain:
46
DATE:
JULY 11, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL SERVICES
SUBJECT: CITRUS GARDENS SUBDIVISION
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ASSESSMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -89 -17 -DS
PREPARED WILLIAM F. McCC
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PR ECER
BY:DEPARTMENTERVICES
BACKGROUND
On December 12, 1989, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved the start of project UW -89 -17 -DS. The
project will ultimately serve approximately 109 properties in the
above-mentioned subdivision. The design of this project has been
completed and is ready to go out for bid.
ANALYSIS
This project has been set up as an Assessment District, and will
assess the property owner along the route of the proposed
- distribution system. To accomplish -this, we have prepared the first
two of four resolutions mecessaxy T= an assessment project and are
now bringing them to the 33o=d of qty Commissioners for approval.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached resolutions so
that we may set a hearing date for the preliminary assessment.
JUL 24 1990
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted Reso-
lution 90-88 providing for a water distribution system
to be installed in Citrus Gardens, method of payment of
assessments, etc., and adopted Resolution 90-89 setting
a time and place for a public hearing regarding the pro-
posed installation of a water system in Citrus Gardens.
47
JUL 2 4 1990,
RooK �'' E'72
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 88
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROVIDING FOR
A WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM TO BE INSTALLED IN
CITRUS GARDENS; PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED
M -ST, 1G1r=_0_707P PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF
ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND, LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF
AREAS SPECIFICALLY SERVED.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County has determined that the improvements herein
described are necessary to promote the public welfare of
the county and has determined to defray the cost thereof by
special assessments against the properties specially
benefited thereby, which improvements are hereinafter
referred to as Project No. UW -89 -17 -DS,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County does hereby determine that a water
distribution system shall be installed in CITRUS GARDENS,
and the cost thereof shall be specially assessed in
accordance with the provisions of §11-42 through §11-47 of
the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County.
2. The total estimated cost of the above-described
improvements is shown to be $208,373 (or $0.179544137 per
square foot) to be paid by the property specially benefited
as shown on the assessment plat on file with the Department
of Utility Services.
3. A special assessment in the amount of $0.179544137
per square foot shall be assessed against each of the
properties designated on the assessment plat. This
assessment may be raised or lowered by action of the Board
of County Commissioners after the pubic hearing required by
the referenced County code.
4. The special assessments shall be due and payable
and may be paid in full within 90 days after the date of the
resolution of the Board with respect to credits against the
special assessments after completion of the improvements
(the "Credit Date") without interest.
48
If not paid in full, the special assessments may be
paid in five equal yearly installments of principal plus
interest. If not paid when due, there shall be added a
penalty of 11% of the principal not paid when due. The
unpaid balance of the special assessments shall bear
interest at a rate of 12% from the Credit Date until paid.
5. There is presently on file with the Department of
Utility Services a plat showing the area to be assessed,
plans and specifications, and an estimate of the cost of the
proposed improvements. All of these are open to inspection
by the public at the Department of Utility Services.
6. An assessment roll with respect to the special
assessments shall promptly be prepared in connection with
the special assessments.
7. Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Indian
River County Utilities Services Department shall cause this
resolution to be published at least one time in the Vero
Beach Press Journal before the public hearing required by
§11-46.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye.
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed'and adopted this 24th day of July, 1990.
Attest
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
a, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
T-- aro I/ n K E 2W
t
Cha ih an
t rf/ K. gfarton, ui erK
JUL 24 19 0 .
-1949
JUL 24 N90
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 89
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SETTING A TIME
AND PLACE AT WHICH THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY IN
CITRUS GARDENS AND OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS MAY
APPEAR —B-5IME THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND BE HEARD AS TO THE PROPRIETY AND ADVISABILITY
OF CONSTRUCTING A WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, AS TO
THE COST THEREOF, AS TO THE MANNER OF PAYMENT
THEREFOR, AND AS TO THE AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE
SPECIALLY ASSESSED AGAINST EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED
THEREBY.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County has, by Resolution No. 90-88 , determined that
it is necessary for the public welfare of the citizens of
the county, and particularly as to those living, working,
and owning property within the area described hereafter,
that a water collection system be installed in approximately
properties hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the cost to be
specially assessed with respect thereto snail De
$0.179544137 per square foot; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has caused
an assessment roll to be completed and filed in the Utility
Services Department; and
WHEREAS, §11-46, Indian River County Code, requires
that the Board of County Commissioners shall fix a time and
place at which the owners of the properties to be assessed
or any other persons interested therein may appear before
the Board of County Commissioners and be heard as to the
propriety and advisability of constructing such system, as
to the cost thereof, as to the manner of payment therefor,
and as to the amount thereof to be assessed against each
property benefited thereby,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The County Commission shall meet at the County
Commission chambers in the County Administration Building at
the hour of 9:05 A.M. on Tuesday, August 21, 1990, at which
time the owners of the properties to be assessed and any
50
other interested persons may appear before said Commission
and be heard in regard thereto. The area to be improved and
the properties to be specially benefited by the construction
of such system are more particularly described upon the
assessment plat and the assessment roll with regard to the
special assessments.
2. All persons interested in the construction of said
system and the special assessments against the properties to
be specially benefited may review the assessment plat,
showing the area to be assessed, the assessment roll, the
plans and specifications for said system, and an estimate of
the cost thereof at the Department of Utility Services any
week day from 8:30 A.M. until 5:00 P.M.
3. Notice of the time and place of this public hearing
shall be given by the Department of Utility Services by two
publications in the Press Journal Newspaper a week apart.
The last publication shall be at least one week prior to the
date of the hearing. The Indian River County Utilities
Services Department shall give the owner of each property to
be specially assessed at least ten days notice in writing of
such time and place, which shall be served by mailing a copy
of such notice to each of such property owners at his last
known address.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Bird and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice -Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 24 day of July , 1990.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN IVER COUNTY, LORIDA
By CJ � L�-
JUL 24 1990 aro y K.gg rt
51 Chai an
[+j.rl 80 F"au 727
JUL 2 4199(l
DISCUSSION RE SUPPORT OF OUR COMP PLAN POLICY AT TCRPC
Chairman Eggert informed the Board that we are now in a
situation where our Comp Plan policy regarding preservation of
native upland vegetation wasn't brought forward at the Regional
Planning Council. The Committee will be having a workshop on
this August 10th. We must accomplish getting something that
will work with our Comp Plan, and she felt that it would be
totally unfair to Commissioner Bowman, being the environmentalist
she is, to ask her not only to support that policy, but to fight
for it, when we know that she did not vote for it. Chairman
Eggert, therefore, would like to ask the Board if they would
allow her to go to that August 20th workshop meeting to represent
us in our fight for the Comp Plan.
No objections were voiced.
DISCUSS NACo ALERT RE ELIMINATION OF STATE/LOCAL INCOME TAX
r%rr%l Irl -r I r%w1
Commissioner Wheeler referred the Board to the following
NACo Alert:
52
`ACo Alert
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
r,123242s�6' 440 FIRST STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20001
TeL 202/393-6226
RECEIVED w
BOARD COUNTY Contact: Susan J. White, ALD
COMMISSIONERS ti
Chief Elected Officials, State Association Executives,
Board of Directors, and Steering Committees
FROM: Mike Stewart, President, NACo
DATE: Tuesday, July 17, 1990 \
RE: Bipartisan Leadership Effort to Reduce the Federal Budget
Deficit Through Elimination of State/Local'Income Tax De-
duction.
URGENT!! PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION AND THE
BUDGET NEGOTIATORS LISTED ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE H
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (NACo) HAS LEARNED THAT
BUDGET NEGOTIATORS FROM BOTH PARTIES HAVE JUST DECIDED TO
ELIMINATE THE STATE AND LOCAL INCOME TAX DEDUCTION AS A MEANS TO
REDUCE THE FEDERAL DEFICIT. 'MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF COUNTIES, AND ALL COUNTY OFFICIALS, ABSOLUTELY AND
UNQUESTIONINGLY OPPOSE THIS METHOD OF DEFICIT REDUCTION.
FOR THE PAST DECADE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN UNDERMINING
THE EFFORTS OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHEN IT HAS COME TO
REVENUE RAISING, WHILE IMPOSING MORE RESTRICTIVE AND REVENUE
CONSUMING MANDATES AND CUTTING BACK VITAL FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS
USED BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. DEDUCTABILITY HAS ALWAYS
BEEN ACCEPTED AS AN ESSENTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE TO PROTECT
THE INTEGRITY AND FISCAL INDEPENDENCE OF THE SEPERATE STATES AND
LO^...AL GOVERNMENTS .
REPEAL OF DEDUCTABILITY WOULD B INTERFERENCE WITH THE
MOST FUNDAMENTAL OF ALL STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT RIGHTS --THE
POWER OF EACH TO RAISE REVENUE AND FINANCE SERVICES AS IT DEEMS
APPROPRIATE.'
THE ATTACKS ON THE STATE AND LOCAL TAX DEDUCTION REPRESENT:
0 CONTINUATION OF THE SHIFT OF RESPONSIBILITIES TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. I'
0 DOUBLE TAXATION.
0 UNFAIR BURDENS ON THE MIDDLE CLASS.
THE LOCAL PROPERTY TAX WILL BE NEXT!!I M
Commissioner Wheeler personally felt if the federal
government did eliminate that deduction, it would save the State
of Florida money.
We have lost the right to deduct our sales
53
JUL 2 4
1990
tax,
and he
believed we are making up the difference across the
nation, in essence, by subsidizing those states that do have an
income tax.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 90-90 in support of the efforts of the
bipartisan group effort to reduce the federal budget
deficit through the elimination of state/local income
tax deductions.
RESOLUTION NO. 90- gp
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, IN
SUPPORT OF A CONGRESSIONAL BIPARTISAN LEADER-
SHIP EFFORT TO REDUCE THE FEDERAL BUDGET
DEFICIT THROUGH THE ELIMINATION OF STATE/LOCAL
INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS.
WHEREAS, Congress In an effort to balance the federal
budget Is considering the elimination of state and local
Income tax deductions; and
WHEREAS, certain states, such as Florida, have no
state or local Income tax and therefore have not been able
to benefit from any such Income tax deduction; and
WHEREAS, states which are able to deduct state and
local income taxes from their federal income tax obligation
are, therefore, getting an undue advantage over states such
as Florida.; and
WHEREAS, treating all states on an equal basis would
be a more fair method of attacking the federal budget
deficit,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The County goes on record In support of the
Congressional bipartisan effort to reduce the federal budget
deficit through elimination of state and local Income tax
deductions from federal tax obligation.
2. - The Clerk to the Board is authorized to send a
copy of this resolution to the National Association of
Count•les, the State Association of Counties, the
54
Congressional delegation from Indian River County, Florida,
and'to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Ways
and Means of the U. S. Congress.
The resolution was moved by Commissioner Whpplpr
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Sriirinrk*
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice -Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared. the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 24th day of July, 1990.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By L � r•f •xJ .0 ,
=51FoT- ggge
Vice yha� firman
(Cont.) DISCUSSION RE SUPPORT OF OUR COMP PLAN POLICY AT TCRPC
Commissioner Bowman noted that she did not hear any Board
action on the Chairman's earlier suggestion that she be allowed
to represent the County at the Regional Planning Council
committee workshop. Commissioner Bowman pointed out that she was
appointed by the Chairman of the TCRPC to sit on their
Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee, and she assumed she
was put there because they wanted some kind of balance on that
committee. Commissioner Eggert was appointed to the Transporta-
tion Committee. She informed the Board that when they both were
down at the RPC meeting on Friday Chairman Eggert had suggested
that they switch committees, but Commissioner Bowman advised that
she had pointed out to Commissioner Eggert that she would have no
standing on the Agricultural & Natural Resources Committee, and
vice versa.
Commissioner Bowman continued that what came up at that Ag &
Natural Resources Committee meeting was another option, and she
felt that as a member of that committee and as a representative
JUL 24 1990
55 , ,��" F.gr,F �IP1
JUL 24 1990
of the County, that it is her privilege to consider every option
that may come before that committee. The option was one that was
prepared by Dan Carey's staff, which was entirely different in
some respects from the County recommendation; so, when the
Committee met, she asked them to table the matter and have a
workshop, and that is what is going to happen.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the issue is that the majority of
this Commission took the position to support the policy that was
conveyed to the TCRPC, and he believed the question is can
Commissioner Bowman, who voted in opposition, support that
position. If she can't and feels uncomfortable with it, he
understands that this puts her in a difficult position, and that
is what the Commission was trying to avoid. Therefore, would it
not be better for the Chairman to represent us on this issue.
Commissioner Wheeler believed that anyone representing the
County at the RPC is there to represent this Board's views
regardless of their own personal feelings, and Commissioner
Bowman stated not necessarily.
Commissioner Wheeler felt that is why the Chairman brought
this matter up.
Commissioner Bowman contended that the workshop has nothing
to do with this, but Chairman Eggert noted that workshop is to
decide what is to come forward to the public hearing.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the bottom line is that the
Board has taken a position that the Chairman and our Community
Development Director have conveyed to the TCRPC and the State.
The majority of the Commission favor that position, and our
representative on the TCRPC should present that position.
Chairman Eggert commented that the whole thing that concerns
her about the workshop and the need to fight for our position is
that from this workshop will come that single policy, and her
biggest concern is to have something that is workable in the
framework of our Comp Plan. She did feel Commissioner Bowman has
been put in a terrible position since she did not vote for
56
our position in the Comp Plan and felt that to ask her to fight
for this is asking too much, which is why she is asking to be
substituted for her on that committee. Chairman Eggert did not
believe the TCRPC has any problem with changing people on
committees.
Commissioner Bowman continued to stress that what comes out
of the workshop will go to the vote of the Council as a whole,
and Commissioner Scurlock believed the question is can Commis-
sioner Bowman support the position the Board is maintaining
instead of going with one of these other options.
Commissioner Bowman noted that what the Board is suggesting
is saving only 15%, and as far as conserving natural resources,
that is actually worthless. She further noted that AG is exempt
and they are sitting there as if they are being oppressed. She
felt strongly that you need to have money to purchase something
that will work out.
Discussion continued at length regarding the details of the
County's policy, and the Chairman stressed that the Board did
make a
decision
and
take
a certain stand, and she feels we are
honor
bound to
fight
for
that.
Commissioner Scurlock brought up the possibility of having a
written statement that the majority of the Commission feels
differently about this position than Commissioner Bowman.
Different options were discussed, and Commissioner Scurlock
again asked Commissioner Bowman if she could go down to the RPC
and fight for the Board's decision.
Commissioner Bowman continued to stress that it is only a
workshop and that she would like to consider all the options.
She noted the Chairman can attend that workshop, but she is a
member of that committee and she will be a member of that commit-
tee until she is asked by th'e committee to withdraw from it.
Discussion continued along the same lines with Board members
stressing the vital importance of supporting the County's policy
at every level.
57 -
J U L 24 1990)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, Commissioner,,Bowman voting in opposi-
tion, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote directed that a
letter be sent to the Ag & Natural Resources Committee
of the TCRPC requesting that Commissioner Eggert be
appointed to that committee in place of Commissioner
Bowman.
CAUCUS CANCELED
Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that he needs some time
to make his presentation and that he would like to cancel the
caucus until another time.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:50 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
58
4
aha 1 rman