Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/5/1991BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 1991 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Richard N. Bird, Chairman James E. Chandler, County Administrator Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Carolyn K. Eggert Don C. Scurlock Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9:00 A.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. INVOCATION - Rev. Julius Rice, Pastor Community Church, United Church of Christ 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Margaret C. Bowman 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS a. Atty. Vitunac req. the addn.to today's Agenda of a re -assignment of lease for Rampmaster, Inc. with regard to an early pay-off of their industrial developmnt revenue bonds. b. Commr. Eggert req. the addn of a report on Alcoholic & Drug Abuse & Mental Health Council. 5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of 12/18/90 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Proclamation Designating Feb. 22, 1991 as Advertising Day in Indian River County, FL B. Proclamation Designating March 7 - March 9, 1991 as Mentally Handicapped Week C. Received & placed on file in the office of Clerk to the Board: Copy of Minutes of the Quarterly Meeting of the Bd. of Supervisors of Sebastian River Water Control Dist., held on Wed., 12/5/90 D. Approval of appointments of Deputy Sheriff by Sheriff Dobeck: Donald T. Brickner (Volunteer C.A.P.) and Edward V. McCarthy (Volunteer C.A.P.) FEB 5 1991 > ci,4 � mur. tizjt w2 FEB 5 1991 Cr+ BOOK 7. CONSENT. AGENDA (continued) : E. Budget Amendment 022 - FEMA Grant (memorandum dated Jan. 29, 1991) F. Miscellaneous Funds - Budget Amendment 024 (memorandum dated Jan. 30, 1991) G. Anti -Drug Abuse Grant Agreement Revisions (memorandum dated Jan. 30, 1991) H. Final Plat Approval for Olde South Commercial Park (memorandum dated January 28, 1991) I. Request for Permission to Utilize Ind. Riv. Co. Riparian Land for a Single -Family Dock off Calcutta Dr., in Country Club Pointe S/D (memorandum dated Jan. 30, 1991) 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES None 9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Pelican Island Refuge & Archie Carr Nat'l. Wildlife Refuge Presentation by Albert R. Hight, Refuge Mgr., U.S. Dept. of Interior (letter dated Dec. 17, 1990) 2. Appeal from Action of the P & Z Commission: At -Water Estates (Lappeman) Site Plan Submittal (memorandum dated Jan. 25, 1991) B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A VOLUNTEER SPECIAL MASTER PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 162, FLORIDA STATUTES, TO CONDUCT CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES (memorandum dated Dec. 20, 1990) 2. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GIFFORD AREA MUNICIPAL TAXING UNIT BOUNDARIES AND AMENDING THE ASSESSMENT CAP (memorandum dated Dec. 17, 1990) 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS A. Condemnation Resolution for New Courthouse Property Acquisition (memorandum dated Jan. 30, 1991) B. Reservists' Pay Legislation (memorandum dated Jan. 30, 1991) 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT None B. EMERGENCY SERVICES 1. Approval of FY -91 Emergency Management Assistance (EMA) Agreement (memorandum dated Jan. 28, 1991) 2. Approval of Interlocal Agreement with Troop J (Turnpike Troop), Florida Highway Patrol, Relating to Radar Units Purchased by Indian River County (memorandum dated Jan. 24, 1991) C. GENERAL SERVICES None D. LEISURE SERVICES Sandridge Golf Course - Phase II (memorandum dated Jan. 28, 1991) E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET None F. PERSONNEL None G. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Amendment No. 5 - Ind. Riv. Blvd. Ph. III (memorandum dated Jan. 29, 1991) 2. Glendale Lakes Subdivision Temp. Assess- ment until Street Light District is Established (memorandum dated Jan. 22, 1991) H. UTILITIES SWDD Ordinance - Collection and Recycling (memorandum dated Jan. 22, 1991) 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY County Correctional Planning Committee Recommendation re: Gain Time (postponed from meetings of 1/15/91 8 1/29/91) (memorandum dated Jan. 30, 1991) 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD B. VICE CHAIRMAN GARY C. WHEELER al 5 91' BOOK 82 FADE JD i FEB 5 199 BOOK 82 FAL 55S 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (continued): C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT E. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS A. NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 1. Approval of Purchase of Firefighters Personal Alert Safety System (PASS) Required by Florida Division of Workers' Compensation - Budget Amendment 023 (memorandum dated Jan. 28, 1991) 2. Approval of Minutes Meeting of 8/28/90 3. Approval of Minutes Meeting of 9/18/90 4. Approval of Minutes Meeting of 10/16/90 B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 1. Approval of Purchase of Firefighters Personal Alert Safety System (PASS) Required by Florida Division of Workers' Compensation Budget Amendment 023 (memorandum dated Jan. 28, 1991) .— — 2. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 1/22/91 C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT 1. Road Improvement / Martin Paving Company (memorandum dated Jan. 23, 1991) 2. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 1/22/91 15. ADJOURNMENT ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED. Tuesday, February 5, 1991 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, February 5, 1991, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Rev. Julius Rice, Pastor, Community Church, United Church of Christ, gave the invocation, and Commissioner Bowman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Attorney Vitunac requested the addition to today's Agenda of a re -assignment of lease for Rampmaster, Inc. with regard to an early pay-off of their industrial development revenue bond. Commissioner Eggert requested the addition of a report on the Alcoholic & Drug Abuse and Mental Health Council. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously added the above items to today's Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 18, 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 December 18, 1990, as written. BOOK; - r� f� F��IJE �� L_FEB 5 19S1 FEB 5 1991 BOOK PAGE J CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Wheeler requested that Item I be removed for discussion. A. Proclamation - Advertising Day A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 22, 1991 AS ADVERTISING DAY IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA WHEREAS, on February 22, 1991, the Treasure Coast Advertising Federation will be presenting the 12th Annual ADDY Awards saluting creative excellence in advertising produced in 1990; and WHEREAS, these awards recognize the best creative efforts of local advertising agencies, media, printers, and related suppliers during the past year; and WHEREAS, the work of the members of theFederationcontinues to play an increasingly important role in the economic well-being of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Federation provides numerous scholarships to deserving local students wishing to enter advertising as a career; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that February 22, 1991 be designated as ADVERTISING DAY \ in Indian River County, and the Board urges all citizens of Indian River County to recognize the efforts and achievements of all the members of the Treasure Coast Advertising Federation. Adopted this 5th day of February, 1991. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA „011gv Richard N. Bird, Chairman B. Proclamation - Mentally Handicapped Week L_,EB 51998 FROCLAMATION PROCLAMATION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DESIGNATING MARCH 7 THROUGH MARCH 9, 1.91 AS MENTALLY HANDICAPPED WEEK WHEREAS, the Knights of Columbus, Vero Beach Council 5629, will be conducting its annunl Tootsie Roll Drive to help the handicapped and mentally retarded citizens, on March 7 through March 9, 1991; and WHEREAS, proceeds from the donations will be used by the Knights of Columbus for local programs and activities such as the mentally retarded workshop and special olympics program; and WHEREAS, on a nationwide basis, the Knights of Columbus Councils will be conducting similar events during the same time span; and WHEREAS, with the help of many friends and local organizations who have volunteered to assist the Knights of Columbus in this year's endeavor, it is anticipated that the 'proceeds generated will be far in excess of last year's total; and WHEREAS, it is altogether fitting and proper to officially recognize this worthy cause, and to help create a public awareness and appreciation for all those who will be 'aproned and' canistered" on March 7 through March 9, 1991 and most of all, for all those who will contribute what they can from their hearts and pockets to assist the mentally handicapped; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that March 7 through March 9, 1991 be officially observed as MENTALLY HANDICAPPED WEEK in Indian River County, and that special recognition be given to the dates of March 7 through March 9, 1991 in support of this worthwhile endeavor. Adopted this 5th day of February, 1991. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By 3 RICHARD N. BIRD, CHAIRMAN F' ic'r F*561 FEB 5 1991 C. Reports BOOK OC PAGE 562 The following was received and placed on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board: Copy of Minutes of the Quarterly Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Sebastian River Water Control District, held on Wed., December 5, 1990. D. Approval of Deputy Sheriff Appointments ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the following Deputy Sheriff appointments made by Sheriff Dobeck: Donald T. Brickner (Volunteer C.A.P.) Edward V. McCarthy (Volunteer C.A.P.) E. Budget Amendment #022 - FEMA Grant The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Baird: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE:. January 29, 1991 SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT 022 F.E.M.A. GRANT - CONSENT AGENDA FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Joyce Johnston, -Director of Welfare, has obtained a F.E.M.A. grant totaling $76,199.00 for the purpose of assisting welfare applicants with certain living expenses, such as utilities and shelter. In addition, Ms. Johnston was able to obtain $1,525.00 for administrative costs associated with the F.E.M.A. program, funding which will be used to defray certain operating expenditures in the Welfare Department. F.E.M.A. GRANT F.E.M.A. Funds Granted: Utilities $29,717.00 Shelter $44.957.00 Sub -Total Administrative Costs TOTAL RECOMMENDATION $74,674.00 1,525.00 $76,199.00 Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment. 4 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved Budget Amendment #022 as recommended by the OMB Director: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director Entry Number SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 022 DATE: January 29, 1991 Funds/Department/Account Name 1. REVENUE Account Number i Increase Decrease GENERAL FUND/Welfare F.E.M.A. Grant 001-000-331-066.00 $76.199.00 $ 0 EXPENSE GENERAL FUND/Welfare Travel Supplies 001-211-564-037.02 001-211-564-037.04 $ 900.00 $ 625.00 Disbursement 1001-211-564-037.09,$74,674.00 1 1 $ 0 0 0 F. Budget Amendment #024 - Miscellaneous Funds The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Baird: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 30, 1991 SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS FUNDS - BUDGET AMENDMENT 024 CONSENT AGENDA FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The attached budget amendment appropriates funding for the following: 1. Indian River Water Management District billed Indian River County in December 1990 for well plugging done in the 1989/90 fiscal year in the amount of $14,739.80. The attached entry moves the cash balance that was budgeted in the 1989/90 fiscal year into the 1990/91 fiscal year to pay the invoice. 5 FEB 5 1991 BOO P,4 F 3 5 1991 BOQK 82 PAH 55 2. Indian River County has received an invoice from the Indian River Mosquito Control District in the amount of $1,446.00 for mosquito spraying in Fellsmere and Vero Lakes Estates. Anticipating the possibility of another bill, I would like to appropriate $5,000 in the 1990/91 fiscal year. The entry appropriates the $5,000.00 from the cash balance October 1, 1990 in M.S.T.U. 3. Engineering department had ordered work stations in the amount of $10,825.00 during the 1989/90 fiscal year, but they did not arrive until the 1990/91 fiscal year. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved Budget Amendment #024 as recommended by the OMB Director: TO: Members of the.Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER:' 024 DATE: January 30, 1991 Entry I Number! Funds/Department/Account Name ! Account Number 1 1 1. !REVENUE Increase Decrease IM.S.T.U. !Cash Forward 004-000-389-040.00 S 14.740 S 0 EXPENSE M.S.T.U./Planning Professional Services 004-207-524-033.19 $ 14.740 ,$ 0 2. !REVENUE IM.S.T.U. 1Cash Forward s !EXPENSE 004-000-389-040.00!$ 5.000 S 0 IM.S.T.U. !Mosauito Control 004-106-562-088.68 $ 5.000 3. REVENUE ROAD AND BRIDGE Cash Forward 111-000-389-040.00 $ 10,825 ,$ 0 EXPENSE ROAD AND BRIDGE/Engineering Office Furniture and Equipment !111-244-541-066.41 $ 10.825 S 0 6 G. Anti -Drug Abuse Grant Agreement Revisions The Board reviewed memo from the County Administrator's assistant, Randy Dowling: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 30, 1991 FILE: THRU: James E. Chandler County Administrator ANTI-DRUG ABUSE GRANT SUBJECT: AGREEMENT REVISIONS FROM: Randy Dowling Asst. to County Administrato!REFERENCES: BACKGROUND The Board, during its September 18, 1990 regular meeting, approved and executed two Anti -Drug Abuse Grant agreements between the County and New Horizons of the Treasure Coast, Inc. New Horizons is providing a Substance Abuse Counseling Program in the Indian River County Jail and an Intervention/Aftercare Program. These two programs are funded 75% from the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and 25% from County revenue. CURRENT The County received a letter from DCA on January 28, 1991 stating that the two agreements should include an additional paragraph linking the agreements with the grant applications. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board Chairman be authorized to execute the two revised agreements reflecting the required changes. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the two revised agreements with New Horizons of the Treasure Coast, Inc. as recommended by staff. AGREEMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 7 FEB 5X991 PAGE il5 BOOK. 8;,... PAGE 5 FEB 5199 BOOK 82 ME bli H. Final Plat Approval - Olde South Commercial Park The Board reviewed memo from Staff Planner Rison: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Director M. Keat Community Deve p THROUGH: Stan Boling"; '71ICP Planning Director FROM: Christopher D. Rison Staff Planner, Current Development DATE: January 28, 1991 SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR OLDE SOUTH COMMERCIAL PARK SD -87-06-113 i g, to men It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of February 5, 1991. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Olde South Commercial Park is a proposed 14 lot commercial subdivision of an 8.97 acre parcel of land located in the 350 block of Old Dixie Highway S.W., west of Old Dixie Highway. The subject property is zoned CH, Heavy Commercial and has a U.S. #1 Commercial/Industrial Corridor land use designation. A11 roads, drainage and utilities easements and facilities are to be dedicated to the County. At its regular meeting of April 28, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval for the subdivision. A land development permit for project construction was subsequently issued. The owners, Bobby Hiers and Kevin Hawkins, Inc., are now requesting final plat approval and have submitted the following: 1. a final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary plat; 2. a copy of the project's Certificate of Completion issued by the Public Works Department.; 3. a warranty/maintenance agreement and Bill of Sale for the completed, publicly dedicated required improvements; 4. a certified cost estimate for the constructed required improvements. The applicants have submitted a Letter of Credit to serve as security for the Warranty/Maintenance Agreement; however, the Date of Expiration must be extended to provide the ninety (90) day period after expiration of the actual one (1) year warranty period. 8 ANALYSIS: The required improvements have been constructed by the developers. The developers have submitted a Warranty/Maintenance Agreement to guarantee the performance of the completed improvements that are dedicated to the county. The applicants submitted a Letter of Credit due to expire on April 8, 1992. Section 910.13(2)(B) of the Indian River County Land Development Regulations requires that maintenance security expire not less than 1 year and 90 days following acceptance of the improvements by the County. For the plat to be approved on February 5, 1991, 1 year and 90 days following would be no earlier than May 6, 1992. Therefore, prior to recording the final plat, a revised Letter of Credit with an adequate expiration date must be received and approved by the County Attorney's Office. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final plat approval for the Olde South Commercial Park Subdivision, and accept the Warranty/Maintenance Agreement with the following condition: 1. The originally submitted Letter of Credit must be revised and submitted for review and approval by the County .Attorney's Office prior to the actual recording of the final plat. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com- missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously granted Final Plat Approval for Olde South Commercial Park Subdivision and accepted the Warranty/Maintenance Agreement with the condition recommended by staff. COPY OF AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD I. Request to Utilize County Riparian Land for a Single Family Dock (Calcutta Dr., COUNTRY CLUB POINTE S/D The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/30/91: 9 FEB 5 1991 �j wry POOK 82 FA,L 5O FEB 5199 BOOK F'AWL Jth TO: James Chandler County Administrator ON 17, COC RENCE : Robert M. Keat ng, P Community Deve opm Director FROM: Roland M. DeBlois .07 Chief, Environmental Planning DATE: January 30, 1991 SUBJECT: REQUEST,FOR PERMISSION TO UTILIZE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY RIPARIAN LAND FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DOCK OFF CALCUTTA DRIVE, IN COUNTRY CLUB POINTE S/D It is requested that the following data be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 5, 1991. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On December 23, 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Frederick M. Droege of Orlando, Florida requested permission from the County to construct a single- family dock along the east right-of-way of Calcutta Drive in Country Club Pointe Subdivision, Unit #1. The Calcutta right -of way abuts an artificial canal within the subdivision. Mr. and Mrs. Droege are in the process of buying a home on Lot 16, Block 2 of Country Club Pointe, Unit #1, and wish to gain assurance of their ability to construct a dock along said right-of-way. Past county policy has been to allow single-family dock construction within the canal along the right-of-way, provided the dock is owned by a resident of the subdivision, and provided the owner/applicant signs a waiver holding the County harmless regarding liability. In the past, such approval has been handled administratively. In consulting with county attorney staff, planning staff were recently advised that the execution of a "license agreement" approved by the Board of County Commissioners is prudent, beyond past practices of accepting an administrative waiver. As such, this matter is presented to the Board for their acknowledgement and approval. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: On May 6, 1985, then county attorney Gary Brandenburg advised planning staff of the county's policy to allow private single- family docks along the Calcutta Drive right-of-way, on a first- come -first -serve basis, exclusive to residents of Country Club Pointe, provided the county was held harmless (see attached). Subsequently, staff developed a standard waiver form that was utilized for a number of docks within the canal, along the right- of-way. A license agreement would accomplish the same objective, yet is an improved legal document for purposes of risk management in that the county is now self-insured. 10 As part of the license agreement, staff is proposing that an annual licensing fee of $100.00 be assessed to cover administrative cost. It is proposed that county staff will conduct annual inspections upon license agreement renewal, to ensure that the dock is maintained in a safe condition. If upon annual inspection the dock is found in disrepair, the applicant will have thirty (30) days to repair the dock or risk losing continued dock use allowance. • RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the license agreement (attached hereto) between Mr. and Mrs. Droege and the county, to allow the Droeges to construct a single-family dock along the Calcutta Drive right-of-way, whereby the county is held harmless regarding any liabilities. Commissioner Wheeler advised that there are some changes in the agreement that Assistant County Attorney Will Collins will explain. Attorney Collins advised that after the license agreement was sent out in the Commissioners' packets, the County Attorney's Office was contacted by some of the elected officials about revisions that they would like to see in this agreement. Mr. and Mrs. Frederick Droege, who are requesting the ability to put a dock along the east right-of-way of Calcutta Drive in Country Club Pointe, have a contract to purchase, but there is some concern because these docks are to be used only by the people who live there in order to avoid people coming in, parking on the right-of-way and utilizing a dock. Therefore, we are adding a clause to make the license agreement contingent upon closing on the property. We are adding language to make it clear that there can be no assignment or rental of this dock and that the dock is to be for the personal use of the property owner, and adding other language to clarify that if the license agreement is terminated for any reason, the dock would become the property of Indian River County. As it is presently structured, Paragraph #9 says that if the property is sold, the buyer could come in and execute a similar license within 90 days, and if they fail to do so, the dock would become the property of the County. We want to clarify that any event of termination would cause it to become the property of the County. Those are the changes that have been suggested, and we can redraft the license agreement along those lines. There is a requirement for $1 -million of liability insurance naming the County as the additional insured. Apparently, the Droege's present insurance carrier is not willing to insure, and they are in the process this morning of contacting other insurance firms. If they cannot locate a carrier that will 11 FEB 5 1991 BOO 82 Fg,.,E 569 r FEB 5 1991 BOOK 82 FACE 570 0 insure to that amount, we may need to come back and revise this or make it contingent upon some lesser amount that is acceptable to the County's Risk Manager. Commissioner Bowman asked why this is called an artificial canal since every canal is man-made, and Roland DeBlois, Chief of Environmental Planning, explained that is just the standard term that other agencies use for man-made canals. Commissioner Bowman asked if this dock has to be 5 feet above the water, and Mr. DeBlois explained that the Army Corps of Engineers has a nation-wide standard permit that would be issued for most man-made canals such as this one within a subdivision and that the dock construction would have to meet the normal standards of local, state and federal review. Commissioner Bowman pointed out that the Corps require 5 feet so that the grass beds are not shaded, and didn't feel it should have to meet "normal" standards since normal is average. She emphasized that practically every dock that has been built in this county in the last several years is illegal because they are not 5 feet above the water. The reason for this is that the Army Corps does not have the enforcement capacity. When the dock is 5 feet above the water, the sunlight can get down to the grass beds. Mr. DeBlois noted that we normally coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers when the County signs off on a dock construction, but we can look into that matter as far as incorporating the 5 -ft. requirement. Commissioner Bowman felt if that has not been written into our ordinances, it should be now. Chairman Bird asked if it mattered whether grass beds have been identified in the area, and Commissioner Bowman explained that it doesn't matter because you can have grass beds start anywhere if the conditions are right. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the license agreement subject to the changes outlined by Attorney Collins and subject to it being constructed in an appropriate manner. LICENSE AGREEMENT WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARWHEN COMPLETED AND FULLY E ECUTED ve-� . 12 PELICAN ISLAND REFUGE & ARCHIE CARR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE PRESENTATION The Board reviewed the following memo letter dated 12/17/90: d States Department of the FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge P.O. Box 6504 Titusville, Florida 32782 December 17, 1990 Honorable Carolyn Eggert Chairman of Board of County Ccarmissioners Indian River County Administration Building 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 • Dear Chairman Eggert: Interior saimmomus ® Eszummumi '® Y gill III DISTRIBUTION LIST Commissioners Administrator Attorney Personnel Public Works Community uev. Utilities Finance Other As you may be aware, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) administers Pelican Island NWR. Recently two planning documents have been released announcing plans to expand the boundaries of Pelican Island NWR and the Archie Carr NWR. Both refuges establish River County. As a means of � are Partially contained within Indian informed we would As -be pleased a p� the Board of County Cons sion better detailing our interest for both refugesP ide a short (15 minute) Presentation and what it may mean to the county. Indian River County is located in an area of overlap between the tropics and utas. The unique habitats found here are extremel glo lly threatened species. At the ty important to many best wildlife areas are pace of development many of the being lost before our plans can be activated. Several developments (Windsor Polo Club, Orchid Island Beach and Golf Club, and Sea View) are located within core areas identified by the FWS for acquisition. I felt it would be beneficial for the Board Cc mnissioners to have an opportune'learn to of Counnd mrore about our objectives and to answer questions which you may have. If you feel an ora]. presentation or slide show would be beneficial please give me a call to work out the details. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Albert R. Hie t Refuge Manager Ron Hight, Refuge Manager of the U.S. Dept. of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service introduced Dorn Whitmore, who gave a slidefilm presentation detailing the Dept.'s objectives for both the Pelican Island Refuge and the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. After a 20 -minute presentation, Mr. Whitmore advised that their objectives are three -fold: 1) to acquire some property 13 P001, 2 FAH FEB 51991 FEB 5199 BOOK 82 FAr,E 5 / 2 along the edge of the existing refuge boundary that would provide an insulating buffer zone; 2) to acquire property and build a suitable facility to recognize Pelican Island NWR; and 3) to expand the refuge boundaries to include other waters that are important to threatened/endangered species. Commissioner Scurlock inquired as to the agency's position on the canal that is being proposed by Orchid Island, and Mr. Whitmore confirmed that Orchid Island has submitted a proposal to put in a 700 ft. canal that would come in north of the CR -510 causeway and follow the edge of the mangroves, interfacing between the mangroves and the uplands. It would be a 200 -ft. wide canal with potential space for 88 docks as well as space for a boat basin. They are calling it a boat basin, instead of a marina, because there would be no fueling facilities. Their application has to go through the permitting process of the DER and the Corps of Army Engineers, and is presently being reviewed, with the ruling expected within the next several months. The Fish & Wildlife Services has the opportunity to comment on the proposal since they are adjacent landowners, and their ecological service agent in Vero Beach has drafted a response to those plans. The F&W does have some concerns about the concept as to the impact on water quality and seagrasses. In addition to the run-off from developments, there would be chances of fuel and traces of marine paint getting into the water. Increased turpidity would cut down on the light penetration for the seagrass beds. All of these things certainly have an effect on the refuge. Commissioner Bowman understood that the underwater topography is such that the canal would not flush or drain properly. In her opinion, it would be just a cesspool. Commissioner Eggert noted that all the County Commission can do is comment. Chairman Bird expressed the Board's appreciation of the excellent slidefilm presentation. LAPPEMAN SITE PLAN APPEAL - AT -WATER ESTATES Planning Director Stan Boling advised that staff is recommending that the Board deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning & Zoning Commission and make the Finding of Fact and Conclusions as outlined in staff's recommendation dated 1/25/91: 14 TO: Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. eat Community Devel g, AICP pme FROM: Stan Boling, CP 'rector Planning Director DATE: January 25, 1991 SUBJECT: APPEAL FROM ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: AT -WATER ESTATES (LAPPEMAN) SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of February 5, 1991. THE APPEAL: An action of the Planning and Zoning Commission is being appealed by Jim Young of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., on behalf of property owner Edmund Lappeman. The action being appealed is the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny an appeal by Kimley-Horn of a decision of the community development director to not accept for review a site plan application submittal. At its regular meeting of December 13, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 1 to deny the appeal and to uphold staff's findings of fact and conclusions that the applicant's submittal was incomplete and should not have been reviewed. Furthermore, the Planning and Zoning Commission affirmed staff's conclusion that any application submittal now made complete would be subject to the new LDRs (see attachment #1, minutes from the December 13, 1990 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting). On January 11, 1991 the appellant filed with the Planning Division a written appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission action (see attachment #2), requesting that the Board of County Commissioners overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission and direct staff to accept the application submittal for review under the old LDRs. BACKGROUND & CONDITIONS: On September 10, 1990, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. submitted an application request for site plan approval and a corresponding "wetlands designation waiver" for development of property designated as C-2 (Conservation 2, environmentally sensitive). This application was submitted under the old land development regulations (LDR's). 15 FEB 5 99' tloor O. W.,E ) 3 FEB 5 1991 BOOK 8 574 After receiving the submittal, staff determined that the application request was incomplete, lacking an environmental survey (survey of wetlands areas, vegetation and soil types, and surface water and water table characteristics) and that the submittal could not be routed for staff review until it was made complete. Although the applicant asserted in writing that the submittal was complete and had to be processed for review, staff re -asserted its position in writing that the application was incomplete and could not be reviewed without a complete environmental survey. At its meeting of September 11, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the new LDR's. On October 2, 1990, staff began sending notices to all design professionals (architects, engineers) stating that only complete applications submitted prior to 5:00 p.m. October 10, 1990 would be reviewed under the old LDR's. Any application or submittals received after that date would be reviewed under the new LDR's. On October 30, 1990, the applicant furnished staff with an environmental survey in an attempt to complete the submittal received on September 11, 1990. Since this additional material was received after October 10, 1990, the applicant was informed in writing that the new LDRs apply to his submittal as well as any other complete applications received after staff's October 10th grace period deadline. The applicant was then informed that he would need to submit all materials required under the new LDRs for any development request. Because no "wetlands designation waiver" is allowed under the new LDRs, the appellant was also informed that no waiver could be processed under the new LDR's. The applicant appealed staff's decision to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Because the Planning and Zoning Commission upheld staff's decisions and denied the appeal, the appellant is now appealing the Planning and Zoning Commission decision. The Board of County Commissioners is now to consider and approve (affirm) or deny (overturn) the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission that was previously described in this report. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS Contested Issues Three issues are being contested, and they are as follows: 1. *Staff's right to reject (not review) an incomplete application submittal. 2. *Staff's determination that the application was incomplete and lacked a complete environmental survey that was required to be submitted prior to the actual review of the application. 3. Staff's right to apply a general grace period deadline to the request and to now apply the new LDRs to the request. *Note: Staff and the appellant both agree that issues #1 and #2 above relate to the September 10th submittal and that the old LDRs applied to the September 10th submittal. Issue #1: Staff's Right to Reject an Incomplete Application. The appellant contends that under Section 23.1 (site plan ordinance section) of the old LDRs staff does not have the right to find applications incomplete and reject (not review) submittals. It is the applicant's contention that staff must process for review all submittals and allow the TRC to note discrepancies in its discrepancy letters. Staff's interpretation, upheld by the Board 16 of Adjustments on August 8, 1988 in the Fred Mensing appeal case**, is that provisions in Sections 23.1 and 23.2 of the old site plan ordinance give staff the right and responsibility to ensure that submittals are not accepted until they are complete enough to review and contain the information necessary for review. Section 23.1(e)(2) states that the planning. and development director "...shall coordinate the review of the [site plan] application.", and shall notify the applicant "...should any [application] errors, omissions or deficiencies be identified". Subsequently, this section states that: "Each department shall review the application and submit all comments in writing to the planning and development division. Complete applications and comments shall be assembled and forwarded to the technical review committee". Thus, the TRC is not to consider an application until a complete application is assembled. [**Note: the Mensing case centered around the issue of whether or not staff could reject an application for review if a submittal requirement, such as submittal of homestead verification was not satisfied.] Section 23.2 establishes site plan submittal requirements. Section 23.2(a) states that the purpose of the section is: "...to ensure that all site plan applications include sufficient information for local officials to ensure compliance with applicable county regulations." Thus, it is the expressed intent of the ordinance to ensure that the site plan submittal includes all necessary information and complies with all county requirements. Issue #2: Application Rejection Due to Incomplete Submittal (lack of complete environmental survey). Staff contends that the application was incomplete due to lack of a completeenvironmental survey. The appellant contends that Section 23.3(f)(1)(a) was improperly interpreted as an application requirement, since that section is listed as a "review standard" and not as "required application information" which is covered in another section, 23.2. It is the appellant's position that all necessary information was submitted to the County. According to the appellant, the county made an error in requiring submittal of an environmental survey as part of the application. Thus, the appellant contends that the "incomplete submittal" determination was based upon an error. Staff's position is that both the Comprehensive Plan (adoption and effective date February 13, 1990) and sections 23.3(f)(1)(a) and 23.2(a) of the old site plan ordinance required an environmental survey to be part of any submittal request to develop property (such as the subject property) designated as environmentally sensitive on the future land use map. Coastal Management Element Policy 1.4 requires an environmental survey to be submitted with any application to develop the subject property (designated as environmentally sensitive), and states the following: "Policy 1.4: The county shall require an environmental survey prior to submittal of applications for development in environmentally sensitive and environmentally important areas. The focus of these surveys should identify existing natural vegetation, drainage, elevations and significant resources such as wetlands, mosquito impoundments, sand ridges, and historic sites, as applicable." FEB 5 •99 17 No 8 Pr - FEB 5 1991 r-,+' o BOOK 8 2 F'A�[ 1i In addition to this policy requirement, Conservation Element Policy 5.6 also affected consideration of the subject application. Policy 5.6 states: "Policy 5.6: Until the county develops and adopts a wetland and deepwater habitat protection ordinance as described in Policy 5.1 of this element, the county shall continue to implement wetland protection and mitigation regulations as set forth in the county Site Plan Ordinance." Site plan ordinance section 23.3(f)(1)(a) states that "... Wetland areas shall be identified by a survey at the time of the site plan review...". It is staff's position that no meaningful staff review can begin without the submittal of an environmental survey. As section 23.2 states, submittals must include sufficient information for review. Sufficient review information for a site designated as environmentally sensitive includes an environmental survey. In accordance with 23.3(f)(1), the environmental survey was required to determine wetland areas, using wildlife, vegetation, soils, surface water and water table information. Neither the September 10th submittal nor subsequent correspondence received on or prior to October 10th satisfied the following basic informational requirements: 1. Boundaries and acreages of all wetland areas. Boundaries shown on a "Vegetation Survey" did not depict wetland areas, nor could wetland areas be discerned from subsequent correspondence received from the appellant. No acreage amounts of wetlands areas was ever given. 2. The "Vegetation Survey" contained insufficient information showing a vast portion of the site as "VACANT". "Vacant" on a vegetation survey is not meaningful and does not describe vegetation characteristics as required in 23.3(f)(1). In staff's opinion, fundamental information required as part of the environmental survey was lacking. Issue #3: Applying the new LDRs. The appellant contends that the new LDRs cannot now be applied to a submittal that began on September 10, 1990. When new regulations are adopted, the county's policy is to allow complete applications submitted prior to the effective date of the ordinance to be reviewed under the old regulations. In this case the new LDRs went into effect on September 21, 1990; however, staff established an additional "grace period" for submittals, giving applicants until 5:00 p.m. October 10, 1990 to submit complete applications for review under the old LDRs. This grace period deadline was even more lenient than the County's normal policy. Several items should be noted regarding the October 10, 1990 deadline. • The deadline was almost a full month after the well-publicized adoption date of the new LDRs, and went beyond the actual "effective date". • The local professional engineers group, which includes professionals from most of the community's engineering firms, was verbally informed of the deadline in September. A record number of complete applications (seven) was received on October 10, 1990, indicating that the deadline was well known. • Staff sent letters confirming the October 10, 1990 cut-off date a week before the deadline. Letters were distributed to all local professional engineering and architecture firms. The letters stated specifically that only complete applications received prior to 5:00 p.m. on October 10, 1990 18 would be accepted for review under the old LDRs. Staff has consistently and strictly adhered to the grace period deadline with all subsequent submittals. • The County Attorney's Office has indicated that staff could apply the new LDR's to any new proposal or any proposal made complete after September 21, 1990. Summary of Staff's Determination Based upon sections 23.1(e)(2) and 23.2(a) of the site plan ordinance, as well as a ruling made by the Board of Adjustment in 1988 on staff's application of and interpretation of those sections, staff determined that the appellant's September 10, 1990 submittal was incomplete. Staff then informed the applicant that the submittal must be made complete by submitting an environmental survey, and that the submittal could not be processed for review unless and until it was made complete. An environmental survey was required by the adopted comprehensive plan Coastal Management Element Policy 1.4 and section 23.3(f)(1)(a) of the old site plan ordinance but was not satisfied by the submittal. Wetland area acreages and basic vegetation characteristics of a large portion of the site were lacking and rendered the submittal incomplete for review. Staff recommended that the applicant telephone environmental planning chief Roland DeBlois to discuss how the submittal could be made complete. Mr. DeBlois was not contacted by the applicant. Finally, it should be noted that the original submittal was not revised and resubmitted until October 30, 1990, after the October 10th grace period deadline. In fact, the submittal is still not complete, and when the submittal .is made complete the application can only be reviewed under the new LDRs. The new LDR's also require an environmental survey (Chapter 928.04). Board of County Commissioners Consideration of the Appeal Both the appeal of staff's rejection of the application and the appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision were filed by the appellant pursuant to Section 902.07 of the new LDRs. Section 902.07 establishes the items that the Planning and Zoning Commission considered in its decision and that the Board must now consider in its review. According to section 902.07, the Board may uphold, amend, or reverse wholly or in part the action(s) being appealed, and is to make findings in the four following areas regarding staff's decisions: "(a) Did the reviewing official fail to follow the appropriate review procedures? (b) Did the reviewing official act in an arbitrary or capricious manner? (c) Did the reviewing official fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety and welfare? (d) Did the reviewing official fail to evaluate the application with respect to the Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations of Indian River County?" In staff's opinion, the Board should uphold the Planning and Zoning Commissions decision and find that: (a) The reviewing official did not fail to follow the appropriate review procedures. As previously evidenced, sections 23.1(e) (2) and 23.2(a) of the site plan ordinance require that planning staff only route complete application materials for review. "Screening -out" incomplete submittals is consistent 19 EB 5 1991 Poor U F',9uE57-1 I FEB 5 1991 BOOK 82 FAGE 5 iJ 8 with that regulation and is the standard operating procedure that has been used for the past five years. Staff properly held the submittal and contacted the appellant to inform him by phone and in writing of how he could make the application complete. (b) The reviewing official did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In fact, the staff's action was consistent with the comprehensive plan, the site plan ordinance, and established county policies as previously evidenced in this report. Furthermore, staff coordinated with the County Attorney's Office prior to issuing each written determination to the applicant. (c & d) The reviewing official did not fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety and welfare. The reviewing official did not fail to evaluate the application with respect to the Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations of Indian River County. Rather, the Comprehensive Plan and the LDR's were used to guide each determination. It was the very intent of Section 23.3(f)(1)(a) and comprehensive plan Coastal Element policy 1.4 to require a complete environmental survey as part of any application submittal proposing to develop lands designated as environmentally sensitive. The survey requirement is to ensure that staff's review would be meaningful and informed so that the environmental effects and impacts of the proposed development would be properly regulated. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission.deny the appeal and uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission's action and uphold staff's determinations as summarized in this report. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners make the following specific findings and conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT (a) The reviewing official did not fail to follow the appropriate review procedures. (b) The reviewing official did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (c) The reviewing official did not fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety and welfare. (d) The reviewing official did not fail to evaluate the application with respect to the Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations of Indian River County. CONCLUSIONS (a) Staff properly determined that the application submittal was incomplete, and properly determined not to accept the incomplete application for review. (b) Staff properly determined that an adequate environmental survey was required to make the application complete. (c) Staff is now properly applying the new LDR's to any complete application submitted by the appellant. 20 Commissioner Scurlock understood that the main reason staff found the submittal to be incomplete hinges on the incomplete environmental survey, and Roland DeBlois, Chief of Environmental Planning, explained that a environmental study was submitted, but the information given didn't satisfy the following basic informa- tional requirements: In accordance with 23.3(f)(1), the environmental survey was. required to determine wetland areas, using wildlife, vegetation, soils, surface water and water table information. Neither the September 10th submittal nor subsequent correspondence received on or prior to October 10th satisfied the following basic informational requirements: 1. Boundaries and acreages of all wetland areas. Boundaries shown on a "Vegetation Survey" did not depict wetland areas, nor could wetland areas be discerned from subsequent correspondence received from the appellant. No acreage amounts of wetlands areas was ever given. 2. The "Vegetation Survey" contained insufficient information showing a vast portion of the site as "VACANT". "Vacant" on a vegetation survey is not meaningful and does not describe ,_vegetation characteristics as required in 23.3(f)(1). In staff's opinion, fundamental information required as part of the environmental survey was lacking. Commissioner Scurlock understood that if this appeal is denied, a new application could be submitted, but it would be considered under the new land development regulations (LDRs). He further understood that there is no attempt here not to let this property be developed. Attorney Vitunac asked if Director Boling had treated this piece of property any more severely than other properties, and Director Boling replied that he had not. With other environ- mentally sensitive properties, completed environmental surveys usually are turned in during the pre -application conference stage, and Mr. DeBlois then goes out in the field with other jurisdictional teams. He wished to point out that there have been cases in the past where staff said the submittals were not complete and that the applicant needed to provide additional information before it is deemed complete and routed for review. Chairman Bird asked if the wetlands waiver would be any different with the new LDRs, but Mr. DeBlois didn't feel there would be any difference except for densities with regard to what the ratio would have been with mitigation. However, as of February 19, 1990, we still would be applying the one unit per 40 acres to wetlands with a 1 upa transfer. 21 POOK 8 PAGE. 579 FEB 5 1991 FEB 5 1991 BOOK 8 2 FAZE 530 Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the issue at hand is whether they did or didn't have a complete submittal, and that the issue of whether resubmittal under the new LDRs would make it more difficult for them to develop is not the Board's concern here today. Our concern today is whether all the submittals were complete and that staff has acted correctly in denying review. Mr. DeBlois explained that staff determined the submittal as incomplete because it did not satisfy the environmental survey requirements: ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY INFORMATION REQUIREMENT VINDICATES INFORMATION SUFFICIENT FOR SUBMITTAL Submittals [23.2(f)(10] Specific Boundaries & Acreage of Wetlands [23.3(f)(1)(a)(i)] Vegetation i Wildlife Character/Analysis [ 23.3(f)(1)(a)(ii) ] [ 23.3(f)(1)(a)(iii) ] Soil Types/ Duration of Surface Characteristics Water/Water Table Elevation AT -WATER ESTATES SUBMITTAL INFO. E 1. Vegetation Surv. Identifies I.R. Lagoon .m.h.w. , ditches and road 2. Topographic Surv. Identifies land surface elevations, outer boundary of total site 3. Application for Site Total acreage, upland Waiver berm acreage 4. Type 8 Stormnater Permit Appli. S. Sept. 24th Letter from Consult. Identifies^Mangrove Seedlings" only Discusses berm vegetation, fauna diversity typical to impoundments Soil Survey excerpt, general vegetation deeoript. Explains that upland. berms are References Waiver Report boundaries of wetlands as Environmental Survey Sou Survey excerpt general'deecript. Discusses Bydroperiod Soil Survey excerpt, general description of water table elevation Attorney Vitunac asked if there has been any delay caused by County staff that would have caused the applicant to miss the application deadline, and Director Boling stated that he didn't believe so. He believed that both the chronology that is in the report and the correspondence indicate it was submitted a month before staff's application deadline. There were a couple of rounds of correspondence, and Kimley-Horn also received the letter that was sent out the beginning of October to all engineering firms notifying them that the new ordinance (LDRs) would go into effect October 10, 1991. Attorney Vitunac asked if Director Boling had any idea why Kimley-Horn and Associates didn't respond with the proper submittal within that timeframe, and Mr. Boling replied that he did not. 22 Attorney Vitunac asked if the applicant had enough time to make the proper response if he chose to do so, and Director Boling replied affirmatively. Edmund Lappeman, property owner and petitioner in this appeal, stressed that the petition today is for the right to have his application reviewed rather than to reach a conclusion on the site plan itself. One of the contentions here is that the Planning & Zoning Commission improperly interpreted the plain language of Section 23.3 and 23.3 (f)(1) of the Code and that the decision to reject the application as incomplete was erroneous. Apparently reading from the Appeal of Decision filed by James Young of Kimley-Horn and Associates on November 21, 1990, Mr. Lappeman made the following. assertions: M. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IMPROPERLY INTERPRETED THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF § 23.3 AND § 23.3(f)(1) OF THE CODE AND THE DECISION TO REJECT THE APPLICATION AS INCOMPLETE WAS ERRONEOUS A. Section 23.2 is entitled "Required Site Plan Submittals" and specifically sets y forth each item of information required in an application for site plan approval. County staff agree that every requirement of that section was met by Mr. Lappeman's application except one: staff contend that the requirement of § 23.2(f)(10) was not met. B. Section 23.2(f)(10) states that a site plan application must contain the following information "in graphic or written form:" (10) Specific boundaries and acreage of wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas, as appropriate. C. Mr. Lappeman provided more than sufficient information to satisfy the limited requirements of § 23.2(f)(10). The following information was contained in the application: Mr. Lappeman reiterated that the whole argument here has been one of review and they simply wanted to go through the process. Chairman Bird believed that it is staff's contention that in order to start the review process, a certain amount of basic 23 EB 5 199 pm( ` FAu.581 FEB 5199 r�� BOOK ; FAEE b82 information must be contained in the submittal, and that this submittal lacked sufficient information to start the review process. Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that they had to comply with two specific items: 23.2(f)(10) and 23.3(f)(1)(a)(2), and felt that if Mr. Lappeman could show what his submittals were, then maybe the Board could get to whether or not they were sufficient. Mr. Lappeman noted that a reference was made this morning that this was a hurried application, but judging from his invoices, he could only see that it was made with constant trips to the county over this issue. It wasn't an issue that polarized onto a single date or a deadline by one day. It wasn't as highly imperative as all that because for 10 months this has been very much under the auspices of the P&Z and Kimley-Horn. Mr. Lappeman wished to make it clear that this was not just a sudden impulse thing. Commissioner Scurlock asked whether someone was here from Kimley-Horn this morning to discuss the information that they submitted, but Mr. Lappeman stated that they discussed that at the P&Z meeting. Just he and his wife are here this morning. The reason Kimley-Horn is not here this morning is because he has had a dispute with them over other issues not pertaining to this one. Commissioner Eggert asked why this matter wasn't easily resolved by the submittal of the additional information required for a complete application, but Mr. Lappeman didn't know. He noted that he was only the party that is concerned with the property and the development, and these are issues that are sort of out of his surveillance because he is hardly here. Commissioner Eggert was distressed when a situation like this comes up because through the years she has been very aware of how careful staff is in seeing that applications are complete, but at the same time how willing they are to work with applicants to see that they are complete. Commissioner Scurlock asked if staff would again identify the two exhibits that were submitted in an attempt to comply with the environmental survey requirements, and Director Boling advised that the vegetation survey was deficient as was the report that was submitted with the original materials which gave a discussion on the project and the acreage of the upland berms. It did not give acreage of any other type of wetland on site. There was a follow-up letter on September 24th from Jim Young of Kimley-Horn which again referred only to boundaries and where the boundaries might be for the wetlands. 24 Commissioner Scurlock understood then that there were two deficiencies and the applicants were put on notice that they were deficient but never complied with updating their data to make it sufficient. Robert Keating, Director of Community Planning, confirmed that to be correct. He noted that it is difficult to identify specific components that are deficient, but staff looked through their entire submittal to try to find the specific pieces of information. We never got the specific wetland acreages nor the specific wetland boundaries. Those could have been in graphic form or they could have given us the wetland boundaries by a particular survey description or by metes and bounds. They came close to giving us the wetlands acreage by giving us total site acreage and acreage of upland berms, and in response to a letter, they gave us acreage of non-functional wetlands. However, no acreage of wetlands appeared anywhere and no specific boundaries. Chairman Bird asked Mr. Lappeman to focus his arguments on whether the application was complete, and Mr. Lappeman explained that it is Kimley-Horn's contention, as well as his own, that the submittal was complete; otherwise, these last two petitions would never have taken place. Reading again from the Appeal of Decision, Mr. Lappeman pointed out that Section 23.3(f)(1) is not an application requirement: E. Section 23.3(f)(1) is not an application requirement; it merely recognizes that boundaries of wetlands area may not be accurately depicted on the County Comprehensive Plan, and thus must be identified at the time of site. plan review based on an analysis of certain factors: 1. 2. Analysis of vegetation and wildlife Analysis of soil types 3. Duration of surface water and elevation of water table • There is no requirement that this information be collected and given to the County by the applicant. The section only requires that the County use these criteria to determine if a site is wetlands. PEt 5 1991 25 ti+ O Mr,f5 PAGE� FEB 5 1991 llooK 82, PAGE 584 Attorney Vitunac noted for the record that Mr. Lappeman is reading from his own position at the lower level, and, therefore, is not presenting new evidence here. The fact that it is in the Appeal of Decision doesn't mean it is true. Director Boling advised that Section 23.2 (a)(10) specifically adds a requirement that acreages and boundaries be identified. Commissioner Eggert pointed out that we would have to quadruple our staff if everything that was submitted was reviewed before it was ready to be reviewed. It would be an impossible thing, and that is one of the reasons why such rigid requirements were set. Director Boling stressed that staff is just saying that we need that information at the actual time of review, and Mr. Lappeman asked if staff has that information at the present time. Director Boling believed that what was submitted on October 30th would have been complete enough to route it for review under the old LDRs, but it missed the deadline of October 10th. Staff sent a letter out on October 1st and we didn't hear again until October 30th. Mr. Lappeman stressed that three quarters of the submittal was correct, and just because one item wasn't doesn't mean that the whole application wasn't in by that date. He felt that too much importance is being placed on the tail end of this matter. Commissioner Scurlock likened it to your income tax where it is not considered filed until you sign it. Chairman Bird felt there has been acknowledgment that a certain amount of the application was in and was sufficient to start the review; however, certain important aspects were missing, and the package wasn't complete and the review could not start. In his opinion, Mr. Lappeman has not overturned the position of staff that the submittal does need to be in a certain complete form in order for them to start the process and trigger that starting date. Further, the engineers were notified that it wasn't complete and we didn't get their response by the October 10th deadline. Mr. Lappeman stated that it was difficult for him to accept or acknowledge that after such a thorough and important survey, the submittal is regarded as not good enough. In his opinion, this presentation is quite unique. Commissioner Scurlock felt that the real answer here is that all this information now can be put in proper form and resubmitted for review under the new LDRs, but Mr. Lappeman stressed that with the new submittal he wouldn't be grandfathered 26 in and would not be granted a waiver. He was upset because he was there long before Grand Harbor was there. Commissioner Eggert emphasized that the Board could appreciate Mr. Lappeman's feeling, and Commissioner Scurlock explained that the reason for the new rules is to protect our community. If the old rules were okay, we would not have changed them. Mr. Lappeman stressed that for the last 10 years he has been paying taxes on residential of 6 units per acre. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out again that if it was that important, he should have had his engineers respond to the request for a completed application by the deadline of October 10th. Commissioner Eggert pointed out that with the new Comp Plan mandated by the State, we are operating under the new LDRs, and every property owner has had to accept that. Unhappily, that is just the luck of the draw and the risk of the investment. Mr. Lappeman stated that he had no further testimony. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved staff's recommendation to deny the Lappeman site plan appeal and make the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as outlined under staff's recommendation. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR APPOINTMENT OF VOLUNTEER SPECIAL MASTER TO CONDUCT CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached VERO BEACHI PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: Before the undersign. says that he Is Business Mar at Vero Beach In Indian Rive 71,F,FLORIDA ruthotr:! personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath tr of the Vero Beach Press•Journal, a daily newspaper published ounty, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being *hp matter . O'er& /�� In the Ittihad In said newspaper In the Issues of Court, was pub. i�: /r?,/ Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press.Journal Is a newspaper published el Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published In said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail mailer al the post office in Vero Beach. In said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and Milani further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm Of corporation any disdounl, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing Ihls advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. (/ Swom to and subscribed before me this ./...t— day, of 1ri7///Ij/t/yD. 19 77 rl,.;/ /' rt ' (B einess Manager) - / • (SEAL) • FEB 5199 -4Clerk-el-1haCircuitCourt; tndien-Rivkr-Sops. Florida) 27 The Board of County —"'---^— - dian River County. Florlda hereby provides notice of Public Hearings schedt.:ed for 9:05 A.M. on Tuesday. February 5, 1991, to discuss the fol- lowing proposed ordlnances entitled: r AN I COUNTY PROVIDING FORA THERIVERN q AP- POINTMENT OF A VOLUNTEER SPE- CIAL ER . 162, FLORIDA R UST TATO ES,CHAP- TO O CONDUCT CODE ENFORCEMENT AC- • TIVITIES. • •.- . . Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision ' which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which Includes testimony and evidence r upon which the appeal Is based. Jan. 14. 1991 759543 [OOK 8 RAGE 5 5 FEB 5 199` 8001( 82 PACE 58 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/20/90: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney DATE: December 20, 1990 SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE A SPECIAL MASTER FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD The attached ordinance has been prepared to provide for a special master for the Code Enforcement Board. Permission to advertise the ordinance is hereby sought. A public hearing on February 5, 1991 is recommended. Attorney Vitunac advised that this ordinance will help the Code Enforcement Board to work more efficiently and there won't be any expense associated with it. Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the Public Hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board adopt Ordinance 91-2, providing for the appointment of a volunteer special master pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, to conduct Code Enforcement activities. Under discussion, Commissioner Bowman had some concern that we might be putting too much power in one man's hands, but agreed that we should try it and see how it works. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously. 28 ORDINANCE 91-2 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A VOLUNTEER SPECIAL MASTER PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 162, FLORIDA STATUTES, TO CONDUCT CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES. WHEREAS, Code Enforcement Board procedures require Board action before an alleged violator is brought before the Board; and WHEREAS, this procedure may take up to two months from the time the violation is noticed; and WHEREAS, Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, allows for the appointment of a special master; and WHEREAS, the use of a special master especially with respect to notices to appear will reduce the time it takes to bring an alleged violator to a hearing on the alleged violation, NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, that SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. A new section 103.06 of the Code Of Ordinances of Indian River County is added to read as follows: Section 103.06 Code Enforcement special master The Chairman of the Code Enforcement Board shall also be a special master as provided for under section 162.03, Florida Statutes. The special master shall have all of the authority allowed under Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. The primary duty of the special master will be to issue notices to appear. Proceedings initiated before a special master may be continued • before the Code Enforcement Board and proceedings initiated before the Code Enforcement Board may be continued before the special master. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. If any section, or if any sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to 29 FEB 5X991 EOOK O FADE 587 r FEB • 51991 82 EOOK FAGE 5SS be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective upon February. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 5th day of _ES.bruary , 1991. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 14th day oflanllary , 1991, for a public hearing to be held on the 5_ day of _Eahrllary • 1991, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner .$curinc;,j_, seconded by Commissioner Wheeler , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By —CHa i rman Attest By 14.:Z)cadve, Bartor7 qa Cler Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida, this _ull day of Fehriuly 1991. Effective date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 14th day of February, 1991, at 10:30 a.m./p.m. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of—County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. 30 Indu:t Hoitr Cn Ar0v•:d Dalt Aimfn. 1 ��' /2-•31-.q, `tJi / d I /S- $/- tia L1v•i 1 Dt'ril. ' . iiJ9d Hi.k M gr. 1 PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GIFFORD AREA MUNICIPAL TAXING UNIT BOUNDARIES AND AMENDING THE ASSESSMENT CAP The hour of 9:05 o'clock having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL • Published Dally Vero Beach, Indian River County. Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned aulhority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says Thal he is Business Manager o1 the Vero Beach Press•Joumal, a daily newspaper published at Vero�Beach In Indian River County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement, being � In the mailer oL. G' In the I/ _I Court, was pub - fished In said newspaper In the Issues of (-.40/4". f Alfieri' further says That the said Vero Beach Press•Journal Is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, and Ihat the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published In said Indian River County, Florida. each daily and has been entered as second class mall matter at the post office in Vero Beach. In said Indian River Court. ty, Florida, fora period of one year next preceding the lirsl publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and Milani further says that he has neither pald nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing This advertisement for publication In the said newspaper. i Sworn to and subscribed before me this /5/ day o fl'OYIe%yel D. 19 "/ — /i Ps' (Business Manager) . (SEAL) ry-lndien-River-Counly,Fbrida)-- •J • ,, 4s . grow r/ The Board of CountyOC Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, hereby provides notice of Public Hearings scheduled for 9:05 A.M. on Tuesday, February 5, 1991, to discuss the (of- • I prled: oposed ORDANE AMENDING THE GIF - FORD AREA MUNICIPAL TAXING UNIT • j BOUNDARIES AND AMENDING THE AS- SESSMENT CAP.. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which includes testimony and evidence • upon which the appeal Is based. • 759540 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/17/90: TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Board of County Commissioners Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney v December 17, 1990 AMENDMENT OF GIFFORD STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT The Commission recently approved amending the Gifford Street Lighting District boundaries. The attached ordinance has been prepared to accomplish this amendment. Permission to advertise the ordinance is hereby sought. A public hearing on February 5, 1991 is recommended. TPO/sb 31 FEB 5 1991 PAGE 5 FEB 5 994 E;UUK 82 ['AGE 5o?, Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the Public Hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 91-3, amending the Gifford Area Municipal Taxing Unit boundaries and amending the assessment cap. ORDINANCE 9I-� AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GIFFORD AREA MUNICIPAL TAXING UNIT BOUNDARIES AND AMENDING THE ASSESSMENT CAP. WHEREAS, Section 125.01(1)(q) and (r), Florida Statutes, grants the Board of County Commissioners of a non -charter county the power to establish a municipal service taxing unit for any part of all of the unincorporated area of the county within which may be provided street lighting from funds derived from taxes, special assessments, or service charges within such unit only, and WHEREAS, such a district was established for the Gifford area by Ordinance 81-29, and WHEREAS, said district needs to be reduced in size and the boundaries redefined, and WHEREAS, the assessment cap established in 1981 no longer reflects the manner in which street lighting districts are assessed, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO BOUNDARIES The current boundaries of the service taxing unit are set forth in Section 21-141 as follows: 32 The south half of Section 21; the south half of Section 22; the southwest quarter of Section 23; the north half of Section 28; the north half of Section 27; the northwest quarter of Section 26; including Tract 12 and the west half of Tract 11 and the northwest quarter of Tract 14 of Section 27; including Tracts 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Section 28; including that portion of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 22 lying west of the Lateral H canal; including that portion of Tract 13, Section 27 in the unincorporated area of Indian River County; all in Township 32 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida. Section 21-141 "Creation; boundaries of unit" is hereby amended to reduce the district in size and redefine the new boundaries as follows. Section 21-141 Creation; boundaries of unit. There is hereby created the Gifford Area Municipal Taxing Unit under the authority of Section 125.01, Florida Statutes. The boundary of said service taxing unit shall be as follows: The south half of Section 21; the south half of Section 22; the southwest quarter of Section 23; the north half of Section 28; the north half of Section 27; the northwest quarter of Section 26; including Tract 12 and the west half of Tract 11 and the northwest quarter of Tract 14 of Section 27; including Tracts 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Section 28; including the South 9.5 acres of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 22 Tying west of the Lateral H canal; including that portion of Tract 13, Section 27 in the unincorporated area of Indian River County; all in Township 32 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida. SECTION 2. AMENDMENT TO ASSESSMENT CAP Section 21-143. "Levy of taxes; adoption of budget" which reads in pertinent part as follows: The tax shall be equal and uniform under each acre of land assessed and the minimum tax shall not be less than the one -acre rate. The one -acre rate shall not exceed twelve dollars ($12.00). IS HEREBY AMENDED to read as follows: The assessment shall be equal and uniform. SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, orifany sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding 33 /f�"�) l'oc V2 PAL 501 VEB 5 1991 r � FEB 5 i991 BOOK 82 F' uE 592 shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective upon becoming law. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 5th day of February , 1991. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the day of --a*Hary , 1991, for a public hearing to be held on the 5th day of February 1991, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert seconded by Commissioner Scurlock, and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye CommissionerDon C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye ConmissionerCarolyn K. Eggert Aye BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Chairman Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida, this 11th day of February , 1991. Effective date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 14th day of Febr�uary , 1991, at 10:30 a.011, /p.m. and filed -1W the Office of thetl erk of the hoard of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. _ 34 CONDEMNATION RESOLUTION FOR NEW COURTHOUSE PROPERTY ACQUISITION The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/30/91: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 30, 1991 FILE: SUBJECT:CONDEMNATION NEW COU THOU EESOLUTION PROPERTY FOR ACQUISITION FROM: Terrance P. O'Brien REFERENCES: Asst. County Attorne:i BACKGROUND The Board, during its December 18, 1990 regular meeting, approved Concept L for the new courthouse site and authorized staff to proceed with land acquisition. - CURRENT Staff is continuing to negotiate with all affected property owners for the purchase of their property at fair market value. However, it appears that condemnation will be necessary with respect to certain parcels. Therefore, the first step toward condemnation is the adoption of a Resolution authorizing acquisition by condemnation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board approve the attached condemnation Resolution. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 91-13, declaring the acquisition for a courthouse and related functions of certain lots in Block 44 and 45 original town of Vero, Indian River County, Florida, to be a public purpose and a public necessity; and authorizing the acquisition of said lots by donation, purchase or eminent domain. 35 FEB 5 191 pocir 82 59' 991 RESOLUTION NO. 91-13 POOK 8 ' PAGE 594 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DECLARING THE ACQUISITION FOR A COURTHOUSE AND RELATED FUNCTIONS OF CERTAIN LOTS IN BLOCK 44 AND 45 ORIGINAL TOWN OF VERO, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE A PUBLIC PURPOSE AND A PUBLIC NECESSITY; AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF SAID LOTS BY DONATION, PURCHASE OR EMINENT DOMAIN. WHEREAS, the County Administrator, after reviewing possible alternatives, has recommended that Indian River County acquire title to certain parcels of real property in fee simple absolute for providing a courthouse, parking facilities and other related functions; and WHEREAS, the aforesaid acquisition is in the best interest of the people of Indian River County and is reasonably necessary for a county and public purpose, to wit: for providing a courthouse with adequate parking for employees and citizens utilizing the courthouse; and WHEREAS, forthe aforesaid reasons and purposes, Indian River County's acquisition of the fee simple absolute title in certain parcels of real property is necessary; and WHEREAS, the specific parcels of real property that Indian River County needs to acquire for providing the courthouse, needed parking and other related functions are set forth in Attachment "A" to this resolution; and WHEREAS, there are no mobile homes on the properties sought to be acquired, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. This Board hereby adopts and ratifies those matters set forth in theforegoing recitals. 2. Indian River County's acquisition of the fee simple absolute title in the parcels of real property described in Attachment "A" is hereby found and determined to be necessary for the aforesaid reasons, uses, and purposes with acquisition by eminent domain to be made as authorized by Sections 127.01 and 127.02, F.S. 36 RESOLUTION 91-13 3. The County Attorney, his assistant, or designee is hereby authorized and directed to take whatever steps are necessary for Indian River County to acquire in its own name, by donation, purchase, or Eminent Domain Proceedings (Chapters 73 and 74, F.S.), the fee simple absolute title in the parcels of real property described in Attachment "A". In acquiring the described parcels, the County Attorney, his assistant, or designee is authorized and directed to prepare, in the name of Indian River County, a declaration of taking, any and all papers or pleadings, or any other instrument or instruments. In acquiring these parcels the County Attorney, his assistant, or designee is further authorized and directed to prosecute any lawsuit or lawsuits to final judgment, and to defend or prosecute, if necessary, any appeal, either interlocutory or final. 4. The County attorney, his assistant, or designee is hereby authorized and directed to take such further action or actions as are reasonably necessary to fully and completely accomplish the purposes hereinabove authorized and directed. Commissioner ___whapael., offered the foregoing resolution, and moved for its adoption. Commissioner Scurlock seconded the mot -ion, and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Ayo Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Ayo Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aw Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert A.— The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at public meeting this 5th day of lbru ry , 1991. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ByG RIC114'4457 N. Bird, Chairman 37 f'©OK 82 FAGS. 595 5199 B 5X991 ATTACHMENT "A" PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED FOR NEW COURTHOUSE AND RELATED FUNCTIONS Block and Lot Owner 44- 1 82 44-3 44-485 44 - 10 & 11 44 - 12 & 13 144 - 14 45-1 82 45 - No.17'of Lot 3 45 - So.33' of Lot 3 45 - 4, 5, 11 45-687 45-889 45-10 45 - 12, east 75' of Lots 13 & 14 Vero Limited Partnership Davidson Whitfield James & William Harshbarger Patricia Langbehn Bernice Meyer Vero Limited Partnership Bloomfield Vero Corp. c/o Ed Schlitt-Trustee Ennis & Gay Proctor Dr. Robert Moore Vero Limited Partnership S. R. Hubbard Nicholas Limberis Janice Diggs Vero Beach Printing Co. 45 - west 50' of Bernard & Norma Tedeson Lots 13 & 14 LOOK 82 FAE 596 Property Holdings Remote Drive-in Teller Facility Two Story Apartment Building Two Story Residence One Story Residence/ Flower Shop Two Story Residence 8 -Space Parking Lot Professional Office Bldg. Office Bldg. Medical Office Bldg. Parking Lots Professional Ofc. Bldg. Retail/Office Bldg. Two Story Residence Office/Warehouse Medical Ofc. Bldg. All of the above properties are located in ORIGINAL TOWN OF VERO S/D as shown on the plat of Platbook 2, Page 12 of the public records of St. Lucie County, Florida; said lands now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida 38 RESERVISTS' PAY LEGISLATION The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/30/91: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 30, 1991 FILE: FROM. James E. Chandler • County Administrator SUBJECT: LEGIISLATION PAY REFERENCES: As you are aware, the Florida Legislature, during a special session, unanimously passed a bill which permits state, county and city governments to supplement the military pay of employees called up for active duty in the Persian Gulf. Based on information from the Florida Association of Counties, the Governor will receive the bill by Monday, February 4, 1991. There are currently 12 reservists employed as follows: Board of County Commissioners 6, Clerk - 1; and Sheriff - 5. To date, 2 Board and 1 Sheriff employees have been called to active duty. A projection of potential cost is difficult since the total number that may be called to active duty and length of active duty service is unknown. As a result, for illustrative purposes, an estimated maximum cost has been calculated assuming all 12 employees were called to active duty. The estimate includes full 30 day payment, supplemental wage, FICA, and pension. Health insurance, including dependent, is automatically provided by the Federal government program called CHAMPUS. As reflected in the attached, the total estimated expense if all 12 individuals were called to active duty for a full year would be approximately $151,696. The cost for the three employees already called to active duty is estimated at $40,048 if the tour of duty is for 12 months. Funding would be from the appropriate contingencies. Commissioner Scurlock felt the Motion should be to approve it not to exceed the $151,000 at this time, and then come back if we exceed that amount. He felt that would be the best approach since there could be some budgetary limitations. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, that the Board approve supplemental pay to supplement the military pay of employees called up for active duty in the Persian Gulf at an amount not to exceed $40,048; with the understanding that if that amount is exceeded, it will be brought back to the Board for approval. 3 9 BOOK 82 P4E 59 d FB 5 1991 5.1991 f300y PAGE 50P Under discussion, Chairman Bird asked if there is also a provision to keep the positions available for those individuals when they return, and Administrator Chandler confirmed that there is a provision to that effect, plus a mechanism for sick leave, etc. We haven't quantified that, but we have those backup figures if necessary. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF FY -91 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT - BUDGET AMENDMENT #025 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/28/91: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: Doug Wright, Director Department of Emergency Services FROM: John King, Deputy Director - Department of Emergency Services DATE: January 28, 1991 SUBJECT: APPROVAL.OF FY -91 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE (EMA) AGREEMENT BUDGET AMENDMENT #025 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: The Indian River County Department of Emergency Services has received the attached FY -91 Emergency Management Assistance Agreement (EMA) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency through the Department of Community Affairs in the amount of $28,388.72. The Department of Emergency Services has participated in the EMA program for several years and according to the contract, these funds are matched by the County government. The funds are to be utilized to complete the Scope of Work contained in the agreement within the allowed time frames. Due to a delay at the Department of Community Affairs, we are receiving the proposed funding later than usual in terms of the fiscal year. Even though the delay has placed us well into the second quarter, we are still eligible to receive all proposed funding allowable within the agreement. 40 ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The allocation of funds is based on monitoring reports completed by the Department of ,Community Affairs. During the last program analysis and evaluation, the Department of Emergency Services received the maximum allowable score. Acceptance and approval of this agreement will allow this department to continue to improve and expand the current program. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the FY -91 Emergency Management Assistance Agreement and requests the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chairman to execute the appropriate documents to secure the funding of $28,388.72 as proposed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the FY -91 Emergency Management Assistance Agreement, authorized the Chairman to execute the appropriate documents to secure the funding of $28,388.72 as proposed, and approved Budget Amendment #025. (ORIGINAL OF EXECUTED AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD) TO: Members of the Board SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director NUMBER: 025 DATE: January 30, 1991 Entry I Number! Funds/Department/Account 1. !REVENUE ;GENERAL FUND 1EMA-Matching Grant Name ! Account Number 1001-000-331-023.00 Increase. Decrease $28.389.00 S EXPENSE ;GENERAL FUND/Emergency Services; !Salaries 1001-208-525-011.12 $16,819.00 $ !Social Security ,Retirement Contribution ,Worker's Compensation all Travel Other Obligations '001-208-525-012.11 ;001-208-525-012.12 001-208-525-012.14 $ 1,287.00 $ 2,724.00 $ 96.00 001-208-525-039.02,$ 4,863.00 ,001-208-525-039.991$ 2,600.00 $ 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 FEB 51991 16. FA, FEB 5 199 TOOK , FAGE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL FOR RADAR UNITS PURCHASED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/24/91: TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Board of Coun y Commissioners Doug Wrigh , Director Department of Emergency Services January 24, 1991 -Approval of Interlocal Agreement with Troop J (Turnpike Troop), Florida Highway Patrol, Relating to Radar Units Purchased by Indian River County It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at the next regular scheduled meeting. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS In 1983, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved the purchase of one radar unit upon the request of Trooper Blumenthal from the Florida Highway Patrol. The radar was purchased for use by Troop J on the Turnpike in Indian River County. The Turnpike Troop is located in West Palm Beach. The radar unit purchased by the county is identified as a Kustom KR- 10SP, serial number BB -7025 with asset tag #4812 affixed thereon. The value of the asset is reflected as $1,395 on property records, although this is questionable since the unit is now in excess of seven years old. The Florida Highway Patrol has submitted the attached Agreement relating to the use, ownership, and maintenance of the one radar unit purchased for Troop J on July 20, 1983. The unit is still operational and being used on a routine basis by the assigned .officer per Lieutenant Adams at the Troop Headquarters in West Palm Beach. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS No action is being requested by the Florida Highway Patrol other than approval of the Agreement. The other radar units purchased by the county in 1985 and 1989 are being utilized by Troop L in Fort Pierce, Florida, and there will be an agreement forthcoming from Troop L regarding these radar units. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Agreement with the Florida Highway Patrol, Troop J, regarding the use, ownership, and maintenance of the one radar unit identified above. 42 ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the Agreement with the Florida Highway Patrol, Troop J, regarding the use, ownership, and maintenance of the one radar unit identified in the above staff recommendation. COPY OF PARTIALLY EXECUTED AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD SANDRIDGE GOLF COURSE - PHASE II The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/28/91: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 28, 1991 SUBJECT: SANDRIDGE GOLF COURSE E II THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director FROM: Bob Komarinetz Golf Course Dir -' or DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On June 26, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved a budget amendment (#065) for $10,000 to contract with Link Design, Ron Garl, Golf Course Architect. It was to prepare a master plan and conceptual design along with cost estimates of the expansion of the additional 18 holes at Sandridge Golf Course. Staff has met with Link Design and has reviewed the master plan, cost estimates and made modifications accordingly. Included in the cost estimates is the expansion of the Clubhouse facility to handle the increase in play. Staff compiled a detail budget of the costs and revenues of the expansion. Revenue estimated in this proposal are from actual revenues occurring during the 1989/90 budget year. The operational cost estimates used in this report are the increase of course maintenance and the additional staff to maintain the expansion. All other operating cost is computed in the present budget. The golf course is experiencing a lack of tee times on a daily basis especially during the winter months (January thru April). Staff feels that the expansion would accommodate the overflow and additional costs of operations. Make note that the golf course is presently experiencing a $50,000 increase in revenues over the previous budget year through to the month of December. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests permission from the Board of County Commissioners to proceed with the design, surveying, site engineering and obtaining financing to construct an additional 18 holes at the Sandridge Golf Course. Until financing is obtained the initial costs will be paid by golf course operations or inter -fund borrowing. L FEB 5 1991 F'A;F 601 FEB FEB 51991 ROOK PAGE bIJE Referring to a display of the master plan, Golf Course Director Bob Komarinetz pointed out some of the existing uses and the proposed 18 holes and new clubhouse site. He advised that the proposal includes the purchase of the property and the financing. $8,250,000 BOND ADDITIONAL 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE (WITH LAND AT 25 YEARS) ISSUANCE COSTS: UNDERWRITERS DISCOUNT (2%) $165,000 FINANCIAL ADVISOR $20,000 BOND COUNSEL $35,000 INSURANCE (.4) $70,000 BOND PRINTING $5,000 OFFICIAL STATEMENT PRINTING $5,000 MOODY'S OR S & P $15,000 FEDERAL FUND RATE $3,500 MISCELLANEOUS $5,000 VERTIFICATION $4,000 COMFORT LETTER $5,000 LAND CAPITALIZED INTEREST (NET FUNDED) COST OF CONSTRUCTION EXISTING DEBT SERVICE TOTAL $332,500 $482,000 $765,000 $3,950,561 $2,720,000 $8,250,061 ASSUMPTIONS: 1. DEBT SERVICE IS STRAIGHT LINE BASIS BASED ON 7.5% ® 25 YEARS 2. DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE 1.25 44 7.25% 7.50% 7.75% 8% DEBT SERVICE $723,953 $740,113 $756,413 $772,850 LESS EXISTING DEBT SERVICE $241,360 $241,360 $241,360 $241,360 DIFFERENCE $482,593 $498,753 $515,053 $531,490 ASSUMPTIONS: 1. DEBT SERVICE IS STRAIGHT LINE BASIS BASED ON 7.5% ® 25 YEARS 2. DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE 1.25 44 With regard to financing, Commissioner Scurlock felt we are probably in the best position we could be with the lower interest rates, and Administrator Chandler agreed that the timing couldn't be better with the market situation. We are projecting a 7-1/2% interest rate. Chairman Bird anticipated that we will get some excellent bids on the construction of the golf course, and noted that the timing is good also with regard to the use of effluent. He commended Director Komarinetz on the comprehensive report. SANDRIDGE GOLF CLUB - PHASE II CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FEBRUARY 1, 1991 o REVIEW FINANCIAL. POSITION TO DECIDE WHETHER TO EXPAND YES MARCH 15, 1991 o ARCHITECT BEGINS DESIGN JUNE 15, 1991 o OBTAIN FINANCING o ARCHITECT COMPLETES DESIGN SEPTEMBER 1, 1991 o OBTAIN PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION o ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS ONE MONTH OCTOBER 15, 1991 o RECEIVE BIDS FIFTEEN DAYS • NOVEMBER 15, 1991 o AWARD BIDS FIFTEEN DAYS DECEMBER 15, 1991 o BEGIN CONSTRUCTION APRIL 15, 1992 o CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED o FINAL GRASSING COMPLETE NOVEMBER 1, 1992 o OPEN FOR PLAY 45 3 5 1991 NO • _1 r E 603 FEB 5 1991 BOOK 82 PA.r.,E 604 Commissioner Bowman inquired about the $39,000 in architectural services for the design of the new clubhouse, but Director Komarinetz didn't feel that there would be any extensive additional costs since we would be utilizing much of the original design. Commissioner Bowman also inquired about the $482,000 land fee, and Administrator Chandler explained that this is for the 40 acres we acquired from Ciba-Geigy last year with funding from the M.S.T.U. We feel that since this is an enterprise fund, the actual cost should be reimbursed from the enterprise fund as opposed to the general taxpayers. That is why we are looking at including it in this issue, and the $482,000 then would be available for other uses such as our land acquisition fund. Director Komarinetz reviewed the following estimate: SANDRIDGE GOLF COURNE OPERATIONAL COST FACTOR ANALYSIS ADDITIONAL 18 HOLES AND CLUHIIOUSE WITH LAND FOR 25 YEARS PROJECTED REVENUES ESTIMATED: PROJECTED EXPENSE: GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE - ESTIMATE) BASED ON PERNELL, RERR AND FOSTER, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, 1988 P511 HOLE MAINTENANCE REPORT AND ALLOWING 105 FOR THE INCREASE IN COST OF OPERATIONS IN 1991: • (1989) - 521,000 PER HOLE X 18 HOLES 3378,000 10% INCREASE 337,800 $415,800 OTHER GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS) GOLF CAR RENTAL - 70 (y 565.00 PER MONTH/PER CAR X 12 MONTHS 554,600 GOLF CAR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR - 51.000 PER MONTH 312,000 ADDITIONAL LABOR) STARTER FIT - TWELVE MONTHS - 312,000 STARTER P/T - SIX MONTIIS 37,000 RANGER P/T - SIX MONTIIS 37,000 CARTMAN F/T - TWELVE MONTHS 312,000 CARTMAN P/T - SIX MONTIIS 37.000 .CARTMAN MAINTENANCE PIT - SIX MONTHS 38,000 PRO SHOP RELIEF PIT - FIVE MONTIIS 34.000 PRO SHOP•RELIEF P/T - FIVE MONTIIS 34,000 361,000 HOLIDAY PAY: (NINE (9) DAYS) - ESTIMATED 34,000 BENEFITS: •. (BASED ON 38% - FULL TIME - 324,000 a 59,120 (BASED ON 25% - PART TIME - 337,000 a 39,230 318,370 SUB -TOTAL S565,770 CLUBHOUSE OPERATIONAL COSTS ASSUME ONLY COST FACTOR CONSIDERED OTHER THAN LABOR WILL BE ELECTRICITY ALL OTHER COSTS WILL BE IN DIRECT PROPORTION OF REVENUE OF THE CLUBHOUSE FOOD AND BEVERAGE OPERATION. BLECTRICTTy) 31,500 PER MONTH X 12 MONTHS ADDITIONAL LABOR: COOK 1 F? - 12 MONTIIS = 316,300 WAITRESS 1 F/T - 12 MONTIIS - 37,500 1 P/T - 6 MONTIIS - 35,000 CLUBHOUSE CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE 1 F? -12 MONTHS - 316,500 345,500 HOLIDAY PAY: (NINE (9) DAYS) - ESTIMATED 33,000 BENEFITS: (BASED ON 38% - FULL TIME - 340,500.. 315,390 . (BASED ON 25% - PART TIME - 3 5,000 m 31,250 316,640 318,000 DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT) 3482,593 D:1LOT VSWIOI.FCSBICF2SWLAND REVISED: 01-16-91 TOTAL EXPENSES 31,131,503 PROFIT • ,.kz-.,.•,"� _.w....... u,, j16 i' 51,142,077 46 • "t • d Discussion ensued on what to do with the old clubhouse, and it was suggested that it be moved to the Fairgrounds or used as a field office for Utilities. Commissioner Scurlock wished to emphasize that when this 25 -year debt service is over, the County will have two 18 -hole courses that will be completely paid for with the exception of maintenance. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized staff to proceed with the design, surveying, site engineering and obtaining financing to construct an additional 18 holes at the Sandridge Golf Course with initial costs being paid by golf course operations or inter -fund borrowing until financing is obtained. ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES - PHASE III - INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/29/91: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.,�l Capital Projects Manager SUBJECT: Amendment No. 5 - Indian River Boulevard Phase III DATE: January 29, 1991 FILE: amend5.agn DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On January 22, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners authorized additional engineering services to Boyle Engineering Corporation for Indian River Boulevard Phase III at a cost not to exceed $20,000. The attached amendment to Boyle Engineering Corporation's original engineering contract defines the specific tasks for the design changes that were authorized by the Board. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends approval of the attached Amendment No. 5 to the Professional Engineering Services Agreement between Boyle Engineering Corporation and Indian River County. Funding to be from Account 309- North Indian River Boulevard. FEB 51991 47 VooK 82 Foie 605 FEB 5 1991 NOOK Fac OG.. Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that construction of Phase III is almost ready to be sent out for bid and staff is recommending some additional engineering services in the amount of $20,000 to update the plans to the current 1990 DOT standards which requires approval of the amendment that is before the Board. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, that the Board approve Amendment No. 5 to the Professional Engineering Services Agreement between Boyle Engineering Corporation at an amount not to exceed $20,000, as recommended by staff. Under discussion, Commissioner Eggert asked if there is a danger that we would have to do this again if litigation is dragged out on this, and Director Davis advised that by next Monday we will know the results of a petition by some property owners to stop the project. The County Attorney's Office feels confident that the judge will riot stop the project and that we can go ahead and construct the project. Commissioner Scurlock asked if we still are trying to have limited access, and Director Davis explained that it is controlled access. He wasn't quite sure whether legally we would be able to limit it completely. There is a request by the doctors of the medical center who own parcel #109 for access from their parcel onto the Boulevard. They are indicating that if we allow a driveway connection there, they will settle for the appraised value and drop the condemnation on that property. Staff looked at it and sees some merits for some kind of a driveway there such as a right in, right out, and maybe even left -ins, but would deny a left -turn out. Commissioner Scurlock hoped we are going to do everything possible to try to limit, consolidate, and not have more access than we have to, and Director Davis confirmed that is our objective. In fact, we have purchased all the land on the west side, and there probably will be no access on the west side of the road unless the medical center property is allowed access. That is the policy decision that staff is applying to the project. Commissioner Bowman asked about the DOT standards involved in this amendment, and Director Davis explained that some of the items that have to be revised affect the bridge over the Main Relief Canal and the remainder is for updating the project as far 48 as guard rail design and other types of roadway design. After reviewing what is needed, Boyle Engineering has indicated that they feel that the cost could run $6,500 more than the $20,000. However, we are not supporting that at this point in time. He hoped he would not have to come back before the Board for $6,500, but the letter was FAXed in only yesterday and he hasn't had time to give it serious consideration. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously. AMENDMENT NO. 5 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD GLENDALE LAKES SUBDIVISION - TEMPORARY ASSESSMENT UNTIL STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT IS ESTABLISHED The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/22/91: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director'. SUBJECT: Glendale Lakes Subdivision Temporary Assessment until Street Light District is Established DATE: January 22, 1991 FILE: glendl.agn DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS In Feb. 1990, the County Public Works Department received a petition signed by 56 property owners of Glendale Lakes requesting that a Street Light District be established. Staff requested that Florida Power and Light Co. design the Street Light system and prepare a yearly budget. This work was accomplished in June, 1990. The Budget Office was notified on June 29, 1990 of all costs and information necessary to establish a Street Light District. This information was sent to the County Attorney's office for ordinance preparation. Prior to official ordinance adoption to establish the district, FPL prematurely installed the lights without authorization. Monthly bills in the amount of $250 are being sent to the County. The Ordinance was not. prepared prior to Jan 1, 1991, therefore, the earliest date that revenues could be received from a Taxing District would be Oct. 1, 1992. The County must provide interim funding for 22 months of service or request all lighting be removed until a proper district is established. FEB 5 ig91 49 pitriE bJ t FEB 5 1991 BOOK 82 PAGE Ii3OS, ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The alternatives presented are as follows Alternative No. 1 Establish an interim Special Assessment to all properties within the proposed Street Light District area (approx. 80 parcels). The cost per parcel will be approximately $250/mo 0 22 months _ 80 parcels = $68.75 Authorizingesolutions and a public hearing would be required. Is would generate funds for paying the FPL bills through Oct. 1, 1992. Alternative No. 2 Request FPL to remove all 26 lights already installed and to re -install them in October, 1992. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING It is recommended that Alternative No. 1 be approved and that staff be authorized to prepare an assessment roll, schedule a public hearing, and prepare authorizing resolutiona for future Board action. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved Alternative No. 1 and authorized staff to prepare an assessment roll, schedule a'public hearing, and prepare authorizing resolutions for future Board action. PROPOSED SWDD ORDINANCE FOR COLLECTION AND RECYCLING The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/22/91: DATE: JANUARY 22, 1991 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO, DIRECTO SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRI FROM: RONALD R. BROOKS, MANAGER SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT SUBJECT: SWDD ORDINANCE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING BACKGROUND In an effort to satisfy the mandate of the Solid Waste Management Act of 1988 wherein the County is responsible for recycling 30% ----�f the solid wastestream by 1994, the District initially had a 50 study performed by Camp Dresser and McKee Inc. The study was to identify the currently existing recycling efforts and their suc- cess, and evaluate the various recycling alternatives to deter- mine the best approach for accomplishing the 30% recycling man- date. To meet the requirements for implementing a recycling program the District began by manning the currently existing waste collection centers and providing for the segregation and recycling of the following items: 1. Newspaper 2. Waste Oil 3. Yard Trash 4. White Goods/Metals 5. Aluminum Cans 6. Metal Cans 7. Plastics 8. Cardboard As noted in a previous memorandum (Exhibit I), which provides an analysis of the counties current recycling program from March -Oc- tober 1990, the drop off centers, although appearing successful, are not even closely meeting the recycling requirements of the State. The memo illustrates that the District is recycling ap- proximately 10.63% and the private sector is recycling approxi- mately 2.86%. Although these figures look very good for this stage of our recycling program a problem lies in the fact that a maximum of 15% of the material recycled can consist of yard trash and white goods. The remaining 15% must consist of glass, paper, aluminum, etc. Of the overall 13.49% of the wastestream recycled 10.06% was attributed to yard trash and white goods, while only 3.39% was attributed to other materials. Of that 3.39% the pri- vate sector is recycling 2.86% and the current collection center program is credited for recycling 0.58%. This analysis reflects 8 -months of operations, however, it closely relates to the analy- ses provided in the engineers evaluation and recommendation on implementing a recycling program. In the engineering evaluation it was anticipated that the drop-off collection program would re- cycle 1% at this stage of the program, and eventually peak at 3%. It was also estimated that the private sector was recycling ap- proximately 3% and our analysis documented 2.86%. It was further estimated that the current program would, at a maximum, reach 10-12% and we have been able to reach 13.49% due to the success of our white goods and yard trash recycling. The engineers indicated that a mandatory collection program with source separation and curbside recycling would provide the most successful long-term program that would best accomplish the over- all 30% recycling requirement. ANALYSIS Based upon the analysis of the current program and information from the engineering study and nation-wide studies on recycling, staff believes that a curbside collection and recycling program is essential to accomplish the recycling of 30% of the wastes- tream. It would also be of extreme value in accomplishing the mandated separation of yard trash from the wastestream by January 1,'1992. Of further value is the provision by the collectors of curbside collection of white goods and furniture. This type of material, as well as yard trash, is what is commonly dumped.ille- gally even though the free disposal of these items is available at our collection centers. District staff has drafted an ordinance for adoption of a manda- tory collection program and a recycling program. The ordinance also includes more detailed permitting requirements for the man- agement of solid waste, and particularly hazardous and biohazar- dous wastes. RECOMMENDATIONS District staff is presenting the attached draft ordinance before the Board for review. It is recommended that the Board provide comment or recommendations, then establish 'a date for public hearing and subsequent adoption of the ordinance. 51 PUO FEB 5 91 �� PALE 6O9 FEB5991 13001( 8, FAGE.6.1.40 Also attached as Exhibit II is a proposed franchise modification for the two currently franchised solid waste transporters. This franchise is for review, and to provide a breakdown of the pro— posed collection and recycling services, along with the •antici— pated costs thereof. The franchise is an exhibit only at this time and it will be fi— nalized and presented for adoption shortly after the Board considers and adopts the proposed ordinance. Please review the franchise for information on the procedures and anticipated costs associated with the proposed collection and recycling program. Commissioner Scurlock stated that although he has been somewhat of a supporter for mandatory collection, he has changed his mind to some extent after looking at more current numbers than the 13.49% from our present recycling effort. In looking at some later data with Administrator Chandler yesterday, it looks like that number may be as high as 18%. With that increase and with a number of our programs not being fully implemented as yet, plus the fact that there may be some more aggressive programs that could be developed, he felt it would be premature to direct staff to develop an ordinance for mandatory collection at this time. He would prefer to see us go into what he calls Phase 11 of our program, which would encompass watching the programs that we have established already to become fully implemented; going to districting where the two franchised haulers -don't pick up in the same area; expanding our commercial effort for recycling as well as upgrading some of the service centers to encourage more recycling; and having more drop-off containers similar to the ones they have in Ft. Pierce. Commissioner Scurlock felt that in Phase 11 we will have an opportunity to sit back and see what the additional increases are in our recycling efforts. He believed there is a real potential within that to get to 22%-24%. The 30% that we hear is a guideline. When he called Tallahassee to try to identify where we were at, the State commended us and our effort on our reporting. In fact, they told him that Indian River County has one of the best efforts put forth in the state. He felt we could be proud of that and our staff for trying to put a project together. However, the State is mandating a couple of things by 1991, such as the separation of grass material, clippings, etc. He was told that the actual 30% is a goal and not an absolute firm number and one that will be revisited. Therefore, he honestly feels that the best direction we could give at this time is to authorize staff to move forward in an aggressive manner to do the things that he has just said and to delay what he calls Phase 111, mandatory collection, to a later date. In fact, if we can meet our goals in a voluntary fashion, 52 we might not -even get to Phase III. He felt people do have some resentment of government mandating things to them; however, we have a significant responsibility to the environment and to our community, and, therefore, we may get to that third phase in a year and a half or two years because we see no other way to achieve our goal. Commissioner Eggert felt that if we are not going to go into mandatory collection, we really should go hard on recycling. Indian River Shores has been asking for it along with some of the other areas. They really haven't seen a big organized thing about what to do except from the City of Vero Beach, and it seems to be causing more and more frustration. It is fine to ask them to separate their materials and take them out to the transfer stations, but there really ought to be something that we can get into in the meantime if we are not going to go into mandatory collection. Commissioner Bowman emphasized the need for more public education on this matter. We have to get it out to the people that either you do it yourself or you are going to have to pay. Commissioner Eggert noted that another thing that came up in Gifford, where they are very concerned about having to get into mandatory collection, was trying to get a head start on community cleanup. She didn't feel we should drop those plans just because we are not going to go to mandatory collection. There are areas in the county where we need to have a massive cleanup effort coordinated between the community and the county. She believed that would be very helpful in getting things started and would be very good public relations. Commissioner Wheeler agreed that education is probably the most significant thing we an do, but he would like to see more recycling collection centers such as ones the City of Vero Beach has added. Commissioner Scurlock felt he was hearing from all five Commissioners to redouble our efforts on recycling and put a little more resource toward that activity. Utilities Director Terry Pinto assured the Board that Utilities would do everything possible in the effort to increase the voluntary recycling until we see whether or not it will work. As part of this plan, he recommended that we hire a full-time person through Code Enforcement or Environmental Health to monitor the illegal dumping and enforce our ordinances. His main concern here todays goes beyond meeting the 30% mark that the State is requiring, and that is to reduce the amount going FEB 5 1991 2' ,a 53 f� lea PAGE 611 !FEB 5199 BOOK C E b +Gic, F,.� into our landfill, and the second concern is to stop the illegal dumping that goes on in our county. Administrator Chandler noted that just recently there has been a coordinated effort by the Sheriff and Code Enforcement on weekends and after hours to stop illegal dumping. It has a ways to go, however. Commissioner Scurlock stressed that the more recycling we do on a voluntary basis, the more the landfill costs are kept down. Administrator Chandler asked for clarification on whether the Commission wants staff to see what would be feasible in working out some sort of program with respect to those people who already are having their trash collected by the franchised haulers, and Commissioner Scurlock confirmed that was his point. When we get the franchised haulers into separate service areas where they are not running over each other and implement a recycling program with them, there will be some reduction in cost. There also should be some trade-off in terms of additional cost by not having two heavy trucks running up and down the same street. Commissioner Bowman suggested having a "trash alert" phone number for people to call whenever they see somebody dumping illegally. Attorney Vitunac advised that there is a law that allows the County to hire litter control officers appointed by the Parks & Recreation Department who would have jurisdiction throughout the county for road litter, private property litter, and litter in waterways and canals. These officers could fund. out of Utilities even though they are appointed by the Parks & Recreation Dept. He believed they have the right to hand out citations on the spot for littering violations. Commissioner Scurlock didn't feel we could work all of that out today, but did feel that Administrator Chandler had the gist of the matter where all those ideas could be incorporated into a comprehensive Phase II program. Then, if we have to go to Phase III where we cannot accomplish the State mandated goals and we are about to start losing money, we can consider the ultimate. That would be his Motion -- to do those things. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously directed staff to move to Phase II as defined for Administrator Chandler's clarification. 54 COUNTY CORRECTIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE The Board reviewed the following memo dated 1/30/91: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: C arles P. Vitunac, County Attorney DATE: January 30, 1991 RE: COUNTY CORRECTIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION re GAIN TIME Board Meeting February 5, 1991 On January 4, 1991, the County Correctional Planning Committeee, under the Chairmanship of Commissioner Wheeler, met to consider a request from Major Reese of the Sheriff's Office to amend the. County's gain -time policy so that the maximum gain time allowable under state and county policy would be reduced from 20 days a month to 10 days a month. The attached resolution would effect this change by restructuring gain -time earned for satisfactory partici- pation in a work program from a maximum of 11 days gain -time for each day worked to 1/5 day gain -time for each day worked. In addition, all references to "population of the jail" as a factor to consider in awarding gain time were removed. The result is that the gain -time policy under County control will be reduced from 15 days a month to 5 days a month, a 2/3 reduction which, when added to the five days gain -time required by state law, adds up to a total gain -time of 10 days a month. The committee unanimously recommended adoption of this new policy to be effective immediately. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board adopt Resolution 91-14, amending the County's gain -time policy for good conduct by county prisoners by reducing the gain time from 20 days a month to 10 days a month, and eliminating "population of the jail" as a factor to consider in awarding gain time. Under discussion, Chairman Bird pointed out that the reason that we went with the fairly lucrative gain time schedule before was because of overcrowding and now all we are doing is going back and changing it. Commissioner Wheeler advised that we don't anticipate another overcrowding situation for quite a while in the future. 55 FEB 5 1991 PUOK 8 F C[ FEB 5 199 BOOK 82 PAGE SAA Joseph Guffanti, 441 Holly Road, wanted to see the system remain as it is and use the money saved to try a new approach of perhaps setting up a counseling program staffed by volunteers. These volunteers could work with prisoners who have been released in an attempt to educate them and indoctrinate them so they might learn an acceptable way of living. He believed there is a better way of treating wrongdoers and that a little constructive care and genuine concern for their being would be more helpful in producing a more useful member of society. He felt too much effort and money is spent on punishment and not enough on education and rehabilitation. Mr. Guffanti urged the Commissioners to look at education and drug -abuse counseling as a solution. He believed many inmates commit crimes because of a life of ignorance, and stressed that the present criminal system only hardens them. Commissioner Eggert pointed out that perhaps the literacy program at the library might well serve as the volunteer basis. In addition, we are starting the matching grant on the forensic program and getting that into the Jail. If the prisoners are there a little longer time, they might be able to learn to read a little better and get some of the counseling they need. Mr. Guffanti believed the programs should be done outside the Jail, but Commissioner Wheeler felt we are getting into philosophies here, and that we have lost sight of what jails are for. Jails are to punish, and the longer prison terms result in less crime. The cost of having people on the street is considerably higher than having them housed in prison. There are programs at the Jail for those willing to help themselves, but you cannot make people help themselves if they don't want to. Mr. Guffanti still believed there is something wrong with our society. Bill Koolage, 815 26th Avenue, believed that another thing that would be helpful in these matters is if the schools would take an extended day. An extended school day along with the After School Program would provide the proper educational environment at an early age and serve as a prevention program. He felt Mr. Guffanti's comments should be taken back to the Committee, but he also felt that Mr. Guffanti needs to know that the County is carrying on trying to come up with ways of correcting the situation. Commissioner Bowman advised that she had spoke with someone high up in the Sheriff's Department who said that the education programs that they teach now are not successful. She believed that teaching that type of student is probably the toughest teaching job there is in this world, and that we need to upgrade the teaching. Chairman Bird anticipated that the Committee would address the suggestions made today and try to incorporate them to some extent. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91- 14 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR GAIN -TIME FOR GOOD CONDUCT FOR COUNTY PRISONERS; REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 89-59. WHEREAS, §951.21, Florida Statutes, provides that the Board of County Commissioners shall grant deductions from their sentences for County prisoners who commit no infraction of jail rules and who are not charged with misconduct; and WHEREAS, upon recommendation of the Sheriff, the Board of County Commissioners is also authorized to adopt a policy allowing County prisoners extra gain -time for meritorious conduct or exceptional industry; and WHEREAS, the Sheriff has requested that extra gain -time be granted for exceptional industry, constructive exceptional industry,and meritorious conduct, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. Adoption of State -Mandated Gain -Time Policy. Pursuant to §951.21, Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County hereby commutes the time to be served by County prisoners for good conduct with the following deductions being made from the term of sentence when no charge of misconduct has been sustained against the County prisoner: 57 VE6 5 1991 HOOK 1 PAGE 6'15 FEB 51 9 ETU 82 ,, A. Five days per month for the first and second years of the sentence; B. Ten days per month off the third and fourth years of the sentence; and C. Fifteen days per month off the fifth and all succeeding years of the sentence. 2. Exceptional Industry Gain -Time. In addition to the time credits otherwise earned, the County hereby commutes the time to be served by County prisoners who participate in an authorized work program established by the Sheriff when no charge of misconduct has been sustained against the prisoner. Each prisoner who participates in an authorized work program will be graded based upon the following attributes: quality, quantity, diligence, and skill required and will receive gain -time credits based upon an overall performance evaluation as follows: A. Unsatisfactory -- 0 days; B. Satisfactory -- 1/5 day gain -time for each day of work; 3. Constructive Exceptional Indust' Gain -Time. Prisoners who, because of age, illness, infirmity, or confinement for reasons other than discipline, do not participate in an authorized work program, but who demonstrate a constructive use of time, may be granted additional gain -time allowances at the same rate for exceptional industry gain -time in paragraph #2. A prisoner may not be credited with both constructive exceptional industry gain -time and exceptional industry gain -time for the same month. The award of such constructive exceptional industry gain -time shall be made by the Sheriff based upon a consideration of the inmate's conduct, adjustment, effort, conscientiousness, sincerity, and similar attributes, and the kinds and appropriateness of activities in which the prisoner engages. 58 performs 4. Meritorious Conduct Gain -Time. A prisoner who does some outstanding deed, or who an outstanding service meriting additional deductions from the term of his sentence, may be granted meritorious gain -time. The Sheriff may grant a meritorious gain -time award for a prisoner who has: A. performed an outstanding deed such as saving a life, protecting an. officer, or aiding and capturing an escapee; B. provided information that assisted the Sheriff in preventing the introduction of contraband or in deleting other violations of law or rules of the correctional facility; C. performed outstanding service to the jail meriting special award at one time or another over a period of time. 5. Miscellaneous Rules for All Gain -Time. A. Application of deduction credit. Where no charge of misconduct is sustained against the prisoner, the deductions provided by the resolution shall be deemed earned and the prisoner shall be entitled to a credit for a month as soon as the prisoner has served such time as, when added to the deductions allowable, will equal a month. B. Application of deduction credit for sentence of less than one month. If a County prisoner is sentenced .to less than one month, the prisoner shall be entitled to gain -time on a pro -rata basis, and the time shall be deemed earned and the prisoner will be entitled to the credit as soon as the prisoner has served such time as, when added to the deduction available, will equal the term of his sentence. Any calculation of basic gain -time for a partial month shall be pro -rated on the basis of a thirty -day month. 59 FEB 5 1991 BOOK 82 PAGE 617 FEB 51991 NOOK 82 FA;Ebjs C. Gain -time prior to sentencing. County prisoners shall receive gain -time for time served in the County Detention Center prior to the date sentence is imposed, providing that the prisoner is otherwise entitled to gain -time under the provisions of this resolution. Such gain -time shall be credited retroactively at the time of sentencing. 6. Forfeiture of Gain -Time. A. Earned gain -time. Earned gain -time may be forfeited as follows: 1. Without hearing -- a prisoner who is convicted of a crime which occurred while in the custody of the Sheriff shall have all gain -time earned prior to the act constituting the crime forfeited by the Sheriff without prior notice of hearing. 2. With hearing -- a prisoner may have all or part of the gain -time earned forfeited after prior notice and a hearing if the prisoner: (a) violates any penal law of this State, or any rule of the Department of Detention, (b) threatens or knowingly endangers the life or physical well-being of another, or (c) refuses in any way to carry out or obey lawful instructions. B. Unearned gain -time. Unearned gain -time, that is, the right to earn gain -time in the future, may be forfeited under the same procedure as set forth in 6-A-2 above. 60 7. Repeal of Prior Policy. Resolution No. 89-59 and any other inconsistent resolutions are hereby repealed. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner SCur1QCJ( who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner bowman and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Richard N. Bird Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this _all day of FPhru,a„4, 1991. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA • By ATTEST: f'Eb 5 1991 Richard N. Bird, Chairman Indian River Ca Approved 61 f2,00K 'FA' b�e.1 4� ..a �uC FE 5 1991 BOOK 82 F'AGE 620 RAMPMASTER, INC. - RE -ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE - EARLY PAYMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND (ROBERT H. DAVIS AND WILLIAM A. DAVIS) The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/4/91: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, Coun y ttorney DATE: February 4, 1991 RE: ADD-ON ITEM - B.C.C. MEETING 2/5/91 In 1982 Indian River County participated in an industrial development revenue bond for Rampmaster, and the debtor corporation now would like to pay off the bonds early. The County took an Assignment of Leases, Rents, and Profits as security for the County's involvement in the bond arrangement and now must release that Assignment when the bonds are totally paid off. Staff recommends the execution of the Re -Assignment of Lease by the Chairman and its delivery at the time of bond payment. Attorney Vitunac advised that there will be other documents 6 presented at the closing that we may have to sign, such as a satisfaction of mortgage and this release. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the Re -Assignment of Lease and authorized the Chairman's signature on the necessary documents at the time of bond payment, as recommended by Attorney Vitunac in the above memo. COPIES OF RE -ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE AND SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE MENTAL HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL MEETING Commissioner Eggert reported that at last night's meeting, it came up that part of this arbitrary 5% cut and some of the HRS freezes didn't consider what is crisis and what is not. Budgeted for our district was a new crisis unit for $925,000 which would include areas for children. Right now, if a child is brought in, they have to be kept at the nurses' desk, otherwise they are 62 mingled with the adults, which just doesn't work. The Planning Council voted to write their legislators to get this released, and she would like permission to write a letter on behalf of the County Commission to ask that this crisis unit be brought to this district. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman's signature on letters to be written to the Governor and legislators asking that the crisis unit be brought to New Horizons in Ft. Pierce. NORTH COUNTY AND SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICTS The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the Board would reconvene sitting first as the District Board of Fire Commissioners of the North Indian River County Fire District and following that meeting, sitting as the District Board of Fire Commissioners of the South Indian River County. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT The Chairman announced that immediately following the Fire Districts meetings, the Board would reconvene sitting as the Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:20 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: 6 1991 63 Chairman BOOK 7 F'A�G bpi