HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/17/1992BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1992
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman
Richard N. Bird
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Gary C. Wheeler
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *'* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * i
9:00 A. M. 1. CALL TO. ORDER
2.
INVOCATION - Rev. Julius Rice, Pastor
Community United Christian Church
3.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Gary C. Wheeler
4.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/ EMERGENCY ITEMS
1) As 11-B-2, termination agreements with Treasure Coast
Broadcasting Co.
2) As 13-A-3, a report on the request for a state investigation.
3) As' 13-A-4, appointments to the IRC Housing Authority.
4) As 13-A-5, report from FAC re Governor's request to county
government.
S.
_ PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular, meeting of 1/28/92
B.. Regular meeting of 2/4/92
7.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. ' Received and placed on file in the Office of Clerk
to the Board:
Copies of the Fellsmere Water Control District Minutes
of the Board of Supervisors Meetings for
FY 90/91
Report of Convictions, Month of February, 1992
t
B. Occupational Licenses' Taxes Collected During Month
of February
( memorandum dated March 5, 1992 )
C. Annual Financial Report
( memorandum dated March 6, 1992 )
MAR 17 1992
MAR 17 1997BOOK
)FACE
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd. ):
D.
Resignation from Economic
Development Council
( memorandum dated March
5, 1992 )
E.
IRC Bid #92-36 / Tri-Plex
Greensmower
( memorandum dated March
10, 1992 )
F.
Request from Forest Park
Homeowner's Assoc., Inc. to
Close Forest Cay St. on Fri.,
4/3/92 for Block Party
( memorandum dated March
8, 1992 )
G.
Subordination of Utility Agreement for Impact Fee
Extension ( Kelly)
( memorandum dated March
4, 1992 )
H.
Misc. Budget Amendment 018
( memorandum dated March
11, 1992 )
1.
Agreement for Professional
Services Between the City
of V. B. S 1.R.C, and David M. Griffith E Assoc., Ltd.
( memorandum dated March
9, 1992 )
S. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a. m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Request by Ken Richardson to Speak Regarding
Proposed Right -of -Way Sale Agreement - King's
Highway, Vero Beach Realty Corp. to I.R.C.
( letter dated March 4, 1992 )
2. Request by Dean Lockwood to Speak Regarding
Special Night Meeting of BCC to Discuss Pine
Tree Park S/D
( letter dated March 10, 1992 )
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Florida Baptist Family Ministries Request for
Special Exception Use Approval to Construct a
Dining Room Addition
( memorandum dated February 26, 1992 )
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Interlocal Agreements for Participation in a County
Housing Trust Fund
( memorandum dated March 9, 1992 )
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
Approval of FY 92 Emergency Management Assistance
Agreement
( memorandum dated March 9, 1992 )
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd. ):
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. David Marine Site Plan; 4th St. Additional
Right -of -Way - Budget Amendment 019
( memorandum dated March 5, 1992 )
2. Florida Department of Transportation Recipro-
cal Fee Waiver Agreement
( memorandum. dated March 5 199
2)
3. Replacement of 20th Ave. Bridge Over the South
Relief Canal - Final Pay * Request, B.K. Marine
Construction, Inc.
( memorandum dated March 9, 1992 )
4. 1. R. Blvd.
Phase III Embankment Materials
( memorandum dated March 8, 1992)
H. UTILITIES
Blue Cypress Lake Wastewater ater Service Project
( memorandum dated March 9
1992 )
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
1. Judge Smith's Ruling Re: Clem, Polackwich 8
Vocelle / Prince Contracting Co., Inc.
( letter dated March 11, 1992 )
2. Family Day Care Regulations
( memorandum dated March 5, 1992 )
B. VICE CHAIRMAN MARGARET C. BOWMAN
C. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD
MAR 17 199'
BOOK CE ���
MP,
11. COMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd. ): !BOOK 60
D. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK. JR.
E. COMMISSIONER GARY C. WHEELER
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
Bid #92-54 / Hazardous Waste Contractor
( memorandum dated March 9, 1992 )
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, March 17, 1992
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, March 17, 1992,
at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman;
Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Gary C.
Wheeler; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were James E.
Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County
Attorney; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy
Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Reverend Julius Rice, Pastor of Community United Christian
Church, gave the invocation, and Commissioner Wheeler led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Eggert requested the addition of the following items:
1) As Item 11-B-2, approval of two termination agreements with
Treasure Coast Broadcasting Company.
2) As Item 13-A-3, for the record, a report on the request for a
state investigation.
3) As Item 13-A-4, appointments to the Housing Authority.
4) As Item 13-A-5 a report from FAC concerning the Governor's
request to county government.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously added the above
items to today's Agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 28, 1992. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 1/28/92, as written.
BOOK C,
boij
MAR 171992
L-
MAR 1992
BOOK 8 5 F'A,uE 6 U 7
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 4, 1992. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 2/4/92, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Scurlock requested that Item E be removed from
the Consent Agenda for discussion.
A. Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to
the Board:
Copies of the Fellsmere Water Control District Minutes
of the Board of Supervisors Meetings for FY 90/91
Report of Convictions, Month of February, 1992
B. Occupational Licenses' Taxes Collected During Month of February
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted the
following report from Tax Collector Gene Morris:
MEFdOBAI�IDDlI
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
DATE: March 5, 1992
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be
informed that $6,891.74 was collected in occupational license
taxes during the month of February, representing the
issuance of 262 licenses.
'4- A'< .
Gene E. Morris, Tau Collector
GEM:sc
K
C. Annual Financial Report
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/6/92:
CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of
County Commissioners
DATE: March 6, 1992
SUBJECT: AN�AFNCIA REPORTFROM: iWat ins, Finance Director
Florida Statutes require the following: "On or before March 31 of
each year, each unit of local government shall submit a copy of a
financial report covering its operations during the preceding
fiscal year." Additionally, annual Financial Reports prepared by
a county will include the financial statements of all dependent
special districts and the constitutional officers.
The Indian River County Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year
1991 will be submitted to the Florida department of Banking and
Finance by March 31, 1992. This report will be signed by the
Chief Financial Officer and the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners.
Respectfully request the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the chairman to sign the Fiscal Year 1991 Annual Financial
Report.
cc: Jeff Barton
0
3
'MAR 17 1992
BOOK
A
MAR 0 1992 BOOK 85 1 U-E&jS
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
Fiscal Year 1991 Annual Financial Report and authorized
the Chairman's signature.
REPORT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
D. Resignation from Economic Development Council
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 3/2/92:
CLIMATIC CORPORATION
MECHANICAL CONTRACTING
1140 17TH PLACE
BEACH.VERO FLORIDA 32960
1 .sj
'0
FAX (407) 778.78M
Q
"MAR 19042
0�
C
RECEIVED
vl
as"!
BOARD COUNTY]
m•
COMMISSIONERS
Mrs. Carolyn K. Eggert neo?
Economic Development Council
Indian River County
1840 25th Court
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Mrs. Eggert:
AIR CONDMONING & HEA71NG
RESIDENTIAL - COMMERCIAL
March 2, 1992 DISTRIBUTION LIST
Co.:zmiss:oners * . 1
Administrator
Attc. ney
Per:7s,•nnel
Public Works
Com►,unity Dev.
Utilities
Finance
01ther
As a result of businesses acquistions in Melbourne and
Orlando, I find that I am going to beout of town on Tuesdays for
the foreseeable future. Therefore, I must reluctantly resign
from the Economic Development Council. It has been an honor and
a pleasure to serve on your fine council.
HWH/kl
4
Sincerely,
CLIMATIC CORPORATION
Ge.—Ic k��
H.W. Hauser
President
� � r
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted the
resignation of H.W. Hauser from the Economic Development
Council.
E. IRC Bid #92-36 -- Tri-Plex Greensmower
The Board reviewed the following memos dated 3/16/92:
DATE: March 16,.1992
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manage
SUBJECT: IRC Bid #92-36/Tri-Plex Greensmower
Sandridge Golf Course
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Specifications mailed to:
Replies:
VENDOR
Robinson Equipment
Mims, F1
DeBra Turf
Ft Lauderdale, F1
Hector Turf
Deerfield Beach, F1
Nucrane Machinery
Sanford, F1
November 6, 1991
Six (6) Vendors
Four (4) Vendors
TOTAL LUMP SUM
$13,440.00
$14,200.00
$14,249.00
$14,758.00
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $14,200.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Golf Course Operations Other Machinery and
Equipment
BUDGETED AMOUNT: $15,000.00
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to the second highest
bidder, DeBra Turf, as the overall lowest, most responsive and
responsible bidder meeting specifications as set forth in the
Invitation to Bid.
11
BOOK
MAR 17 1992
MAR 17 M
DATE: March 16, 1992
TO: Fran Boynton,'Purchasing Manager
FROM:S05�4-;55R
if intendent
SUBJ: Bid #92-36
1 (1
!BOOK sa, r"!'L N �I
In review of your memo dated 02-18-92, I am writing this follow-up memo
in hopes of expediting an award for Bid #92-36, a Triplex Greensmower.
Apparently there is still a need for more information as to why I have
not selected the low bidder. I feel that we have done so. In the
specifications it was requested that the mower was to have the
following:
1. 11 bladed reels (the more blades the higher the clip rate)
2. Interchangeable reels (each reel and motor can be swapped if needed)
3. 16 hp gas engine
4. Single point adjusting reels (for ease of adjusting bed knife to reel)
5. Groaning reels should be able to raise and lower from a set height
without the use of tools
The low bidder, Robinson Equipment, did meet some but not all the
requirements, more important though, and of extreme concern is the
history and reliability of their proposed greensmower. Purchasing
Department and myself have deternuzed through contacting several users
that these mowers had poor performance and reliability records.
1. Grand Harbor Golf Course --had three (3) mowers , used them for six
(6) months and had to send than back because they are not at all happy
with the quality and performance.
2. John's Island Golf Club --had numerous hydraulic problems and leaks.
They ended up converting the mower to a reserve apron mower.
Since Sandridge is a very busy public golf course, it is essential to
have a proven leader of golf course equipment, both in reliability and
performance.
The next low bidder, DeBra Turf, submitted a bid for the Jacobsen Greens -
mower, the unit is currently in use at our golf facility. This unit
meets the overall specifications and it is staff's recamendation to a-
ward the bid to DeBra Turf.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that there has been some
additional information on this bid, and the recommendation has been
changed to go with the second low bidder, DeBra Turf, as the most
responsive and responsible bidder meeting the specifications.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded IRC Bid
#92-36 to DP -Bra Turf in the amount of $14,200, as set out
in the above staff recommendation.
6
F. Closing of Street for Block Party - Forest Park Homeowner s
Association
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/8/92:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
G.
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,1
Public Works Director J,
FROM: Michael S. Dudeck, Jr.,
County Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Request from Forest Park Homeowner's Association
Inc. to close Forest Cay Street on Friday,
April 3, 1991 for Block Party
REF. LETTER: Jack McCarthy to Board of County Commissioners
dated March 4, 1992
DATE: March 8, 1992
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
FILE: forest.agn
Residents in Forest Park Subdivision have requested
permission to close a portion of the Forest Cay Street for
their annual block party. The party is scheduled to
commence at 4:00 PM and end at approximately 9:00 PM. Staff
has not objection to this request, provided that:
1) Proper barricades are installed by the Traffic
Engineering Division or the residents of the homeowners
association and that the block representative contact
the Traffic Engineering Division at 569-5143
seventy-two hours prior to event.
2) A block representative be listed as a contact person in
charge of the event in case the road needs to be
opened.
3) Access to emergency vehicles be maintained.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval.
No funding is applicable.
7
MAR 1_7 1992 aooK f� t
A
mom. 85 FAa SIC
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
request by the Forest Park Homeowner's Association to
close Forest Cay Street on Friday, April 3, 1992 for a
Block Party, as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
G. Subordination of Utility Agreement for Impact Fee Extension
Kell
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/4/92:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: March 4, 1992
RE: SUBORDINATION OF UTILITY AGREEMENT
FOR IMPACT FEE EXTENSION (KELLY)
A County utility customer is refinancing his mortgage and the bank has
requested that the County sign the attached subordination agreement
covering the utility lien that he has with the County. This agreement
will ensure that the County's lien is subordinate to a new first
mortgage being put on the property.
We have prepared the relevant agreement, and the Utilities Department
has no objection to the Board's authorizing Mr. Chandler to execute the
subordination of the impact fee lien.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
County Administrator Chandler to execute the
Subordination Agreement for impact fee extension for Chad
A. Kelly, as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
8
I 7i
H. Misc. Budget Amendment 018
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/11/92:
TO: Members of the Board
Of County Commissioners
DATE: March 11, 1992
SUBJECT- MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 018 - CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following:
1. The attached entry reconciles the Property Appraisers budget to the
amount shown by the Department of Revenue and also reallocates the
breakdown between tax districts. (See Attachment A)
2. The State Health Department had requested the purchse of a "Medical
Records Imaging Module". in the amount of $3,775.80 in a list of items
approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Unfortunately it was
left off the overall total amount.
3. The attached entry appropriates a grant in the amount of $120,000 that
we received for Treasure Shores Park.
4. Courthouse property was purchased in the 1991/92 fiscal year, but was
budgeted in the prior year 1990/91.
5. Health Department capital equipment and expenditures were budgeted
in the old fiscal year 1990/91, but were not delivered and paid for until
the 1991/92 fiscal year. This entry appropriates funding in the 1991/92
fiscal year.
6. In the 1990/91 fiscal year the Board of County Commissioners approved
funding the unforseen capital cost of the sewer line for the Humane
Society at a cost of $31,800. The funding needs to be moved to the
1991/92 fiscal year.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget
amendment number 018.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment "A"
Budget Amendment 018
9
DOOK 3
F
m n 17 19,924
300K 65 F,�, t 6 45
ATTACHMENT "A"
PROPERTY APPRAISERS BUDGET
AS OF FEBRUARY 19, 1992
RECONCILATION
ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL $1,772,403 0.8211
LESS EMPLOYEE - -U$16,750)
BENEFIT ROUNDING - $1,7559653 ($13)
DEPT. OF REV. ADJ. (DAVID'S SALARY) $197559640 ($307)
FINAL BUDGET $1,755,333
X 0.8211
TOTAL $1441304
GENERAL FUND
0.8211
1,441,304
NORTH COUNTY FIRE
0.0068
11936
WEST COUNTY FIRE
0.0008
1404
SOUTH COUNTY FAZE
0.0572
100405
LIBRARY BONDS
0.0188
33000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Budget
Amendment 018 as follows:
10
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 018
DATE: _ March 11. 1992
,GENERAL FUND/
i
!Bud, Trans -Property Appraiser
.1-001-500-586-099,06.1S
11
1 077'S
0
'GENERAL FUND/
i i
!Reserve for Contingencies
1001-199-581-099.91.15
11
01$
1,077
!EXPENSE
'SOUTH COUNTY FIRE/
'Bud. Trans. -Property Appraiser
.1114-120 522 099.06!S
0'S
976
,IRS -VENUE
� t
i
'SOUTH COUNTY FIRE/
i
!Cash Forward
li14-000-389-040.0015
oilg
976
1
!EXPENSE
11 11
11
'NORTH COUNTY FIRE/
!Bud Trans. -Property Apprasier
1115-104-522-099.065
o'S
116
IRE -VENUE
I i
i
'NORTH COUNTY FIRE/
i
!Cash Forward
L115-000-389-040.00!$
0'S
116
'WEST COUNTY FIRE/
!Bud. Trans. -Property Appraiser
1116-104-522-099.061$
i
0'S
1.596
_41_Rzvmquz
i
'WEST COUNTY FIRE/
!Cash Forward
!116-000-389-040.00.15
O.1S
1,596
i
!EXPENSE
i
'
'LIBRARY BONDS/
!Bud. Trans. -Property Appraiser
1203-117-586-099.0615
O'S
154,000
EXPENSE
'LIBRARY BONDS/
!Cash Forward
1
203-117-513-099.9211S
154 ppp1,$
o
2. EXPENSE
i
i 11
11
'OPTIONAL SALES TAX/Health Dept.'
!Office Furs & Eguip.
!315-106-519-066.411$
3-776!S
0
'OPTIONAL SALES TAX/Court Fac.
i
'
!Reservefor Contingency
i
X315-909-581-099.91!$
0�5
--3,776
3. (REVENUE
i
i
'TREASURE SHORES PARR/
!Grant
•311-000-334-074.00'S
i
120,000is
0
�EXPENS
'TREASURE SHORES PARR/
!.Construcion in Progress
311-210-572-066. 11S
120 000;5
o
I
4. !EXPENSE
! i
i
'OPTIONAL SALES TAX/Court Fac.
11
11
AJAR J7 1992
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
BOOK FALEC� 6
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
FROM: Joseph A. Bair NUMBER: 018
OMB Director DATE: March 11,-1992
Budget Amendment: is
Page ._ 2 of 2
I. Agreement for Professional Services - Joint City/Countv
Recreation Study - David M. Griffith & Associates Ltd
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/9/92:
Vero Beach / Indian River County
Recreation Department
1725 -17th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
(407) 567-2144
(407) 778-74% Fax
M1
Patricia A. Callahan
Dhector MEMORANDUM
P0111 Wilkes
Mumerof 1
Leis01eP7Orams TO: Jim Chandler, County Administrator�v
Callahan, Recreation Directorn�
Bethel creek House FROM: Patricia
4405 N. AIA I
Community center DATE: March 9. 1992
2266 14th Avanue
Rlverhouse
305 Acacia Road
Bohhi B°nlick As approved by the Indian River County Board of County
Facilitiesr Commissioners on March 3
(4M 562-4859-409 • 1992, please find attached
contracts with David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd.,
at a price not to exceed $48,960 for the joint City-
Beachea& WaterWdy County Recreation Study.
4405 N. AIA
Mchad Sale The Vero Beach City Council unanimouslya
SM234- contracts at the March 3rd Council meetin. approved the
(40� z34 -says
12
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
Agreement for Professional Services between the City of
Vero Beach and Indian River County, and David M. Griffith
& Associates, LTD., for the joint City -County Recreation
Study, and authorized the Chairman's signature.
COPY OF PARTIALLY EXECUTED AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
(FULLY EXECUTED COPY NOW ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO BOARD)
REQUEST BY KEN RICHARDSON OF SOUTHERN REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP. TO
SPEAK REGARDING PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY SALE AGREEMENT - NORTHWEST
CORNER OF KINGS HIGHWAY AT SR -60 - PROPOSED SITE FOR INDIAN RIVER
SQUARE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/13/92:
TO: James E. Chandler DATE: March 13, 1992 FILE:
County Administrator
SUBJECT' Right -of -Way Purchase -
• King's Highway North of SR60
/f_�)
FROM Randy Dowling REFERENCES:
Asst. to County Administrator
The Board of County Commissioners, during their February 25, 1992 regular
meeting, considered a right-of-way purchase on King's Highway north of S.R.
60. During this meeting, the Board made the final decision not to authorize the
Chairman to enter into an agreement for this right-of-way purchase which was
contingent upon rezoning 17 feet north and adjacent to the Indian River Square
site. However, the Board did authorize staff to acquire the needed right-of-way
without specifying any particular means of doing so.
County staff received a letter dated March 4, 1992 from Southern Realty
Management Corp. concerning this matter. Mr. Ken Richardson requested that
this matter be placed on an upcoming agenda for reconsideration. Since Mr.
Richardson's request was submitted before the agenda deadline, staff followed
agenda policy and placed his request on the March 17, 1992 agenda. Mr.
Richardson has been notified that he is on the March 17, 1992 agenda and that
the Board may or may not reconsider his item during this meeting or any other
upcoming Board meeting.
13
I
r
r
BOOK Ft':GE
Ken Richardson of Southern Realty Management Corporation and
Dean Luethje of Carter Associates, Inc., consultant engineers,
asked whether they could go ahead and make a presentation now or
whether the Board wished to consider whether they wanted to
reconsider.
Chairman Eggert felt the Board needed to consider whether to
reconsider.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the Board does not need to
decide whether to reconsider it until after their matter is before
the public and that would be the basis on which to take the vote.
Chairman Eggert advised Mr. Luethje that he and his client
have five minutes to state their position, and Commissioner
Scurlock requested that only new information be presented.
Mr. Luethje didn't know what had been presented at the last
meeting as he and his client were not present. He would like to
take the five minutes to go over three points: physical
conditions; staff recommendations on the agreement, plus the
staff Is recommendation on the rezoning, which the Board may or maY
not have seen; and then the economics of it, if that is a
consideration. Referring to a preliminary site plan, Mr. Luethje
described the areas surrounding the subject property on the
northwest corner of Kings Highway and SR -60, explaining that Kings
Highway needs 40 feet of additional right-of-way and the developer
would be pushed in from the east by 40 feet. From a maintenance
standpoint, they would like to have 17.5 feet (or one-half acre) to
the north rezoned from P14-6 to CG. The RM -6 parcel in back of the
CG parcel is planned for stormwater retention area and green space
for the shopping center and there would be landscaping in there.
They realize that this piece of property has been to the well
several times as far as rezoning is concerned, and they figure this
is the last go to the well on this situation.
Mr. Luethje understood that County staff has come up with an
agreement that would allow them to basically set the price on this
particular property based on what they are paying for this piece of
property. Generally, the RM -6 property is about $75,000 an acre
and the CG area is about $250,000, about three times as much. He
understood that the Board expressed concern at the last meeting
that possibly this was a contract zoning situation, but that Deputy
Attorney Will Collins had found some previous court cases that this
would not be contract zoning, in his opinion, because it stands on
the zoning qualifications. Mr. Luethje pointed out that Planning
staff has prepared an 8 -page document on why they feel this could
be done from a zoning standpoint, not an economical standpoint.
However, the economics definitely are a consideration.
14
_I
L�
Chairman Eggert read aloud the first paragraph of staff's memo
of March 13 detailing the action taken by the Board at the February
25 meeting. She recalled that there was concern expressed about
moving the CG line 17.5 feet further north. The Board's motion was
not to sign the agreement. The motion did authorize staff to go
out and purchase the needed right-of-way for the road and not to do
anything regarding the site plan, the node situation, or anything
else concerning this item. It was simply to acknowledge that
Public Works needed the right-of-way and that we were to purchase
what it was that we needed for our roads and not to do anything
that involved the site plan in any way.
Commissioner Bird understood the agreement called for the
owners of that corner parcel to sell the CG property to the County
for about $32,000 which would go toward their traffic impact fees.
If the County wished to negotiate with the owners of the CG
property, that land is valued at approximately $250,000 an acre, so
one half acre of the CG land would be approximately $125,000, a
difference of $80,000-$90,000.
Commissioner Bird asked how critical the rezoning of 17.5 feet
was to the overall project, and Mr. Richardson explained that
basically it would allow them to pick up about 80 parking spaces
and allow them to do an out -parcel gas station fronting on SR -60.
He felt the 17.5 feet they are asking for is very critical to the
project and really doesn't pose a problem to the surrounding area.
Staff did a thorough investigation of it and found that it will not
pose a problem.
Chairman Eggert commented that apparently it did. There also
was the situation where they would have to go through a Comp Plan
amendment to increase the size of the node.
Community Development Director Robert Keating explained that
this is an unusual circumstance. Staff has determined that if the
property on the east side of their property on the west side of
Kings Highway is acquired by the County for right-of-way, it will
be taken out of the node and additional area can be considered in
the node and then rezoned for commercial. Without acquisition of
that piece of property by the County, the node would be at its
maximum and the rezoning could not occur.
Commissioner Bird believed there were some benefits in
agreeing to reconsider this matter since there is a potential here
of saving about $90,000 in right-of-way acquisition funds. Having
a cooperative attitude might enable them to go ahead and do this
project which probably would put millions of dollars worth of
construction to work in our county and probably create hundreds of
jobs. He understands some Commissioners have very strong feelings
04.1
MAR 17 1992 moK � Four c '
A
GSA 0 1992
BOOK ''
0
about encroachments into residential neighborhoods, but this would
take only 17.5 feet from a 349 ft. buffer that is shown in their
site plan for open space and stormwater retention area.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the net result would be that they
would gain enough space for an additional 80 parking spaces, and
wished to point out that the gas station would be a highly
intensive use and a peak use in that location.
Mr. Richardson commented that generally an out -parcel gas
station provides for one-stop shopping. In order words, people in
the shopping center would not have to go back out onto SR -60 to
find a gas station.
Mr. Luethje advised that they would be putting in deceleration
lanes on SR -60.
Commissioner Bird felt that it may be that you could better
accommodate the traffic intensity and flow generated by a gas
station in a shopping center type of situation than you could in a
stand-alone parcel. Obviously, the major tenants going in on the
back of the property must not think a gas station would be a
negative use to have in their front yard.
Director Keating advised that staff is looking at these issues
in the order in which they have to be looked at. Staff has looked
at the potential rezoning and drafted an agenda item, but it has
not yet gone to the Planning & Zoning Commission, so there is no
recommendation to bring to the Board on the matter. In addition,
staff has had pre -application meetings with the applicant on the
site plan, and traffic control, overall traffic generation and
level of service are major considerations in the site plan process.
There are a lot of issues that staff is looking at, but we have not
yet come up with any specific recommendations to the Board on all
these issues.
Commissioner Bowman emphasized that particular intersection
already is a very hairy intersection. It is especially bad for
people who are trying to make a left turn going west. There is no
way you can see around the traffic that is stacked up on the west
side of the intersection.
Chairman Eggert felt the Board had discussed this matter very
thoroughly at the February 25 meeting and there is a procedure they
are going through. Each of us expressed ourselves on how we felt
about the agreement with the condition. She didn't feel any
differently; she still felt we should buy the right-of-way, but
that it should be processed through our regular procedures.
Director Keating advised that right now everything is on hold
because the rezoning cannot be considered until the additional
property is acquired. The node is at its maximum size right now,
M
M
and unless there is a reduction in the amount of acreage in the
node, the rezoning cannot go forward without a Comp Plan amendment.
Chairman Eggert reiterated that the Board has authorized staff
to go ahead and purchase the right-of-way. She asked how much
right-of-way is needed and whether it is enough to make this
difference.
Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that the County needs
an additional 40 feet of right-of-way from the center line along
Kings Highway. A total of 65 feet is needed, and the County has
title to only 25 feet at the present time. When we widened Kings
Highway about 5-6 years ago, we communicated with the property
owner and we agreed to provide some turn lanes to serve his
property in exchange for him deeding some additional right-of-way
to the County. We sent him a deed in the mail and he verbally
agreed to that, but for some reason, the deed was not recorded.
The County went ahead and built the widened roadway, however.
Director Davis believed the property owner has been aware of that
for 5 years, but has never protested that fact. At this time we
are claiming that we have a portion of the right-of-way by
prescriptive rights.
Mr. Richardson wished to note that they have owned that front
portion of the property for only two years.
County Attorney Vitunac felt that Chairman Eggert's question
is that since we are going to buy the right-of-way one way or
another, doesn't that automatically reduce the size of the node
just as much as if we signed this contract that they are asking for
now.
Director Davis stated that it did not, because until it is
actually acquired for right-of-way and the papers are signed, the
property is still in the node.
Attorney Vitunac understood that if the County buys the right-
of-way without this contract by going ahead and condemning this
property, the node would be reduced and the developer could proceed
with the rezoning of any other additional land if they so wanted.
Director Keating stated that was correct, and Chairman Eggert
added that the Board did authorize staff to go ahead and buy the
right-of-way. She understood then that they would have to wait
until the moment that right-of-way is purchased by the County
before going ahead with the rezoning.
Mr. Luethje believed the nitty gritty of it would be the
selling price of that piece of property, but felt Mr. Richardson
can address that. He pointed out, however, that if the County buys
it now, the County would pay $125,000. If the County signs this
agreement, the County would pay $35,000 for it.
17
r -
MAR J.7 IM2 �or,K 4 F„.,r ;tip
Commissioner Scurlock felt it sounds more like contract
zoning, and Chairman Eggert added that is something we shied away
from. She felt that if we need to go through our regular routine
to acquire the land and find out what it is worth, then that is
what we have to do. Chairman Eggert stated that she has a big
objection to start getting ourselves involved in this kind of
contract thing even though it may seem like a wonderful thing.
Commissioner Bird stated that based on what he has heard he
was tending to lean toward allowing them the additional 17.5 feet
of commercial and allow them to proceed with the shopping center.
If we are going to get the right-of-way one way or another, he
would rather make that decision now and save $90,000.
Chairman Eggert stated that she would very much love to see
the jobs out there, but she feels that something could be done
there that isn't quite as intense and doesn't further encroach on
the residential development north of it and doesn't add as much
pressure to that corner. That is partially where she is coming
from in her overall feeling of it.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if it was going to cost the County
$125,000 to acquire that property, and Administrator Chandler
advised that we have not even begun negotiations with the property
owner. We are hearing some things this morning in the context of
the applicant trying to get the Commission to reconsider, but he
felt we need to sit down with the owner to see what that price is
going to be.
Chairman Eggert just.had a problem guaranteeing someone 17.5
feet, and Commissioner Bowman emphasized that she has a problem
with contract zoning as she felt it is verboten. She stated that
she is absolutely opposed to anything that is in a gray area.
Commissioner Bird's Motion that the Board reconsider the
request died for lack of a second.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board denied by a vote of
4-1, Commissioner Bird dissenting, the request to
reconsider the purchase agreement for right-of-way
on Kings Highway.
is
REQUEST BY DEAN LOCKWOOD FOR SPECIAL NIGHT MEETING OF BCC TO
DISCUSS PINE TREE PARK SUBDIVISION WITH REGARD TO UTILITY PROJECTS
AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
The Board reviewed the following
3/10/92:
10 March 1992
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Indiai River County, Florida
Dear Sire
letter and memo dated
C-111
� g 9167//e��
j MAR 1992 d,
ADMINISyMT6lM
OMCE q'
This constitutes a respectful request'for me, Dean
Lockwood, 19 -year resident, property owner, taxpayer and
law-abiding citizen of Indian River County, Florida, to
be placed on the Cou"ty Commissio" Agenda. The purpose
of my request is to seek a special night meeting vis a via
the County Commissiam and the property ow"ers/petitio"ers
of Pine Tree Park subdivisio", which is predomina"tly a
bedroom community."
The subject to be addressed at the night meeting ie
the future Special-Assessment-tax-fi"anced projects e.g.
cou"ty water system, paving a"d drai"age, street lighti"g,
etc. being co"sidered for Pi"e Tree Park.
I &wait your reply.
ja
ctan D. o Pine TreaPark reside"t, property
"er/petitio*er.
P.O. Boa 6383
Vera Beach, Fla., 32961
Phi (407) 562-8520 (leave message)
',votes. Ha"d delivered to County Admi"Istrator's Office 3-10-'92
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: March 10, 1992 FILE:
THRU: -James E. Chandler, County Administrator
SUBJECT: Pine Tree Park S/D
Future Capital Projects
N�
FROMRandy Dowling REFERENCES:
Asst. to County Administrator
County staff recently received a letter from Dean Lockwood, a Pine Tree Park
subdivision resident and property owner, requesting that the Board hold a
special night meeting with the subdivision's property owners to discuss future
capital projects within the subdivision.
Since Pine Tree Park is included in Phase III of the Utilities Department Water
Subdivision Expansion Plan, the entire subdivision is scheduled to have water
lines In about 2-1/.2 years. This subdivision also has two petition paving and
associated drainage projects tracking through the Public Works Department. One
petition paving project, 63rd Avenue from 4th Street to 8th Street, has the
required 67% of the property owners agreeing to the . project while the other
petition paving project, 61st Avenue from 6th Street to 8th Street, does not
have the required 67%. The valid petition paving project is in the initial
pre -design phase. Currently, the subdivision is not in any street lighting
district.
19
MAR 17" 1992 B 0 0 K f, Pic 0
ivIA 1-7 199? BOOK
Chairman Eggert requested that Mr. Lockwood limit the presentation
of his request to five minutes.
Dean Lockwood, long-time resident of Pine Tree Park
Subdivision, advised that when the residents of their subdivision
found out that the County had intentions of forcing a water system
upon them through a special assessment tax, he initiated a petition
drive in opposition to the proposed project. They have obtained
nearly 100 signatures representing 50% of the subject properties.
Going door to door, they found that 95% of those contacted did not
want county water. Five percent did want the water. The majority
of the people did not understand how the County could force them to
hook up to water and it was anticipated that it would take a night
meeting before the Board of County Commissioners to explain the
process, which is the reason why he is here today. .Mr. Lockwood
pointed out that their subdivision is mostly a community of hard
working people who cannot afford to take off from their jobs to
attend a Tuesday morning meeting. The majority of these people
cannot afford to pay assessments and impact fees for water, sewer,
paving, and streetlight projects, especially in these hard times.
A few of the owners have talked with Mr. Chastain of the Utilities
Department, but there doesn't seem to be any communication. Staff
says the project is going to happen, and that's it.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that there are 718
lots in the subdivision, 260 residences, and 555 I.D. parcels
(meaning some people own more than one lot) , which leaves 351 lots.
Build -out of that project is 51.12%. He explained that this is
part of the phasing that the Board directed Utilities to do under
the new Comp Plan. He anticipated that it would be at least 18
months before.we put a spade in the ground and that the project
would be completed in one year after that at which time the final
assessment would be made. Director Pinto noted that this is one of
the areas where the new Comp Plan calls for us to go into because
of the concern about densities and the under -sized lot situation.
Commissioner Scurlock suggested that we go through the normal
process and have staff meet with the property owners in the
evening. Then, if the project is going forward, staff will bring
it to the Board where it can be determined if the first public
hearing should be held in the evening.
Chairman Eggert explained that requirements in our Comp Plan
are causing some of these involuntary assessments, but every effort
is made to hear everyone's position on the matter.
411
M
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that Pine Tree Park was swamp
area before it developed, which is why they have very poor
percolation and very poor drainage.
Mr. Lockwood continued his arguments against the improvement
projects, stressing the need for a night meeting with the BCC so
that more people could attend.
Commissioner Wheeler asked why water is coming in and not
sewer, and Director Pinto explained that water is the primary
utility in such areas because of the close proximity of wells to
septic systems.
Chairman Eggert didn't feel a motion was needed on this matter
since there is a normal process to follow in proposed utility
projects and the first step will be a night meeting with staff to
provide the property owners all the information on the project.
PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST BY FLORIDA BAPTIST FAMILY MINISTRIES FOR
SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A DINING ROOM ADDITION
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this Public Hearing has been properly
advertised, as follows:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL ,
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press-Joumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a zieU
in the matter of r
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal Is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before m his day of 1.19_
• t 4
: (Business Manager)
(SEAL) N'N'�q P�•'+'+-, �rewq rt 1+,.t.},
21
MAR i,f�
Subject. Site
•
-------------
60L. 646 ar
. :,•
�a
30th 3 i
NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING
Notice of hem" to atinskim the anintia ofsp
exception approvdconft ca. ejap.
the loation 38, Township 32 s� and locate I Is PlesOntlY ti se
above m8P for the Iocetim Re�B 39 E sea th
citizens
PAft
an whichrt�pertiea In Interest erx
a ld Wen=aon d a°t �h �SOC
i rrdesion chambere� the SCh
WBuBtSng, boated at 1840 TLth street, Vero t3eaq,
on Tuesday, Merch 17, 1992 at 9:05 a.m.
vrhAoh may meat � L, o appw ery d to en
meeting pn need to en
aura that a verbatim reooro of the prongs i.
made, which Includes tooftony and evklerros upon
which the appeal is based.
INDIAN RIVEFI COUNTY •
BOARD OF COUNTY CORMS
879712
0 K r
Bo A
BOOK 8� UL 6 1
Planning Director Stan Boling presented the following staff
recommendation for approval of the special exception use:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keatirp, A
Community Devel pmen Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP i
Senior Planner, CurreDevelopment
DATE: February 26, 1992
SUBJECT: Florida Baptist Family Ministries Request for Special
Exception Use Approval to Construct a Dining Room
Addition
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of March 17, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Carter and Associates, Inc. has submitted an application for
special exception approval and administrative site plan approval on
behalf of Florida Baptist Family Ministries to construct a 1,066
sq. ft. dining room expansion located at 1006 33rd Street.
The subject property is zoned RM -6, which permits up to 6 units per
acre; however, the subject property's land use designation is L-1
which only permits up to 3 units per acre. When there is a
conflict between the zoning and land use designations, the land use
designation governs. The staff has applied the RM -3 district,
Residential Multi -family up to 3 units per acre, to the overall
Project site (which includes the recently approved duplex units)
and the residential center area of development. Although the
facility is being physically expanded, no beds are being added to
the facility, and no increase in project "density" will result.
The physical expansion of a residential center facility requires
special exception approval in the RM -3 and RM -6 districts.
The administrative approval site plan application submitted along
with the special exception use request has been approved by the
Technical Review Committee (TRC) subject to special exception use
approval being granted by the Board of County Commissioners. Thus,
'if the Board grants the special exception use request, then the
site plan approval will become effective.
Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Board of County
Commissioners is to consider the appropriateness of the requested
use based on the submitted site plan and the suitability of the
site for that use. The Board may approve, approve with conditions
or deny the special exception use. The County may attach any
conditions and safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts and to
ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area.
W
L�
At' its February 13, 1992 meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners grant special exception use approval with the
condition outlined in staff's recommendation as it appears at the
end of this report.
ANALYSIS:
1. Size of Development Area: 118,876 sq. ft. (entire
residential center site)
2. Zoning Classification: RM -6 Residential Multi -family (up to
6 units per acre)
NOTE: the RM -3 zoning district
standards apply to the site, as
described above.
3. Land Use Designation: L-1 Low Density 1 (up to 3 units per
acre)
4. Building Area:
Existing: 15,618 sq. ft.
Proposed: 1,066 sc. ft.
Total: 16,684 sq. ft.
5. Total Impervious Area:
Existing: 28,154 sq. ft.
Proposed: 809 sc. ft.*
Total: 281963 sq. ft.
*Note: the proposed building addition is being
constructed over an area of which a portion is
already impervious.
6. Open Space Required: 40%
Provided: 75%
7. Traffic Circulation: This development will not affect the
existing traffic circulation pattern. However, this portion
of the project is accessed by a roadway (33rd Street) that has
a sub -standard width. Pursuant to the county's road paving
requirements (section 952.09(5)(c)1 of the LDRs), the
applicant must escrow its fairshare for the future widening of
a 310' section ( the applicant's frontage) of 33rd Street prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the dining
room addition. The applicant has agreed to escrow for the
future road widening.
8. Off -Street Parking: No additional off-street parking is
required.
9. Stormwater Management: The Stormwater Management Plan has
been approved by the Public Works Department.
10. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan is in conformance with
Chapter 926.
23
4 3
'ROOK
11. Utilities: The existing development currently utilizes City
water and sewer services. This addition will not affect the
water and wastewater services.
12. Concurrency: Since this expansion is accessory to the
residential center and will not intensify the project
"density", no concurrency certificate is required in relation
to the dining room addition.
13. Specific Land Use Criteria:
A. The use shall satisfy all applicable regulations of the
State of Florida and Indian River County as currently
exist.
B. The approving body shall determine that the proposed use
is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms
of the intensity of land use. As a measure of land use
intensity, the expected number of persons per acre of the
proposed use is equivalent to the number of persons per
acre allowed within the respective zoning district. The
number of persons per acre within the zoning district can
be derived by multiplying the density (d.u./acre) by
household size estimates for that structure type. For
the purposes of this section, the following household
size estimates shall apply: single family homes, 2.5
personsper dwelling unit; multiple family, 2.0 persons
per dwelling unit. The persons per acre intensity of the
group home shall not exceed one and one-half times the
intensity of adjacent residential zoning district(s).
C. To avoid unsafe or unhealthy conditions that may be
produced by the overcrowding of persons living in these
facilities, a minimum floor area per person shall be
required. Floor area requirements shall be measured from
interior walls of all rooms including closet space.
1. Total interior living space. A minimum of two
hundred (200) square feet of interior living space
shall be provided per facility resident. Interior
living space shall include sleeping space and all
other interior space accessible on a regular basis
to all facility residents.
2. Minimum sleeping areas. A minimum of eighty (80),
square feet shall be provided in each sleeping
space for single occupancy. A minimum of sixty
(60) square feet of sleeping space shall be
provided for each bed in a sleeping space for
multiple occupancy.
3. Bathroom facilities. A full bathroom with toilet,
sink and tub or shower shall be provided for each
five residents.
D. To avoid an undue concentration of group care facilities
in one area, all such facilities shall be located at
least one thousand two hundred (1,200) feet apart,
measured from property line to property line.
E. If located in a single-family area, the home shall have
the appearance of a single-family home. Structural
alterations or designs shall be of such a nature as to
preserve the residential character of the building.
24
F. The facility shall satisfy all applicable off-street
parking requirements of Chapter 954. The facility shall
meet or exceed all open space requirements for the
respective zoning district.
G. The maximum capacity of such facilities shall not exceed
the applicable number permitted by the department of
health and rehabilitative services.
H. Group home permits are transferable. If the type of
resident/client changes or the resident capacity
increases to such an extent that it would raise the
facility to a higher level group home as distinguished by the
definition, the facility must be reevaluated for an
administrative permit or special exception approval.
The special exception use application and plans satisfy these
specific land use criteria.
13. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Hospital/MED
South: Single-family Homes/RS-3
East: Vacant/RS-3
West: Grove/RS-3
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners grant special exception approval for the
dining room addition with the following condition:
1. that prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
the dining room addition, the applicant shall escrow its
fairshare of the cost of the future widening of 310' of 33rd
Street.
Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed
the Public Hearing.
e
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously granted
special exception approval for the dining room addition
with the condition that prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the dining room addition,
the applicant shall escrow its fair share of the cost of
the future widening of 310 feet of 33rd Street.
25
MAR 0 199
I
MA '7 1,992
BOOK 80
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION IN A COUNTY HOUSING
TRUST FUND
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/9/92:
TO: James Chandler,
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
1,42
M 'b
ez M. Reatig,
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani S' '
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Christy Fischer GQ.(f
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: March 9, 1992
SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreements for Participation in a County
Housing Trust Fund
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of March 17, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On March 5, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a
resolution creating an Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
(AHAC). In its capacity as an advisory board to the Board of
County Commissioners, the AHAC is responsible for providing
.guidelines on the implementation of county housing policies.
Among those Housing Element policies already addressed by the AHAC
is Housing Element Policy 4.6. Policy 4.6 states that the county
shall sign interlocal agreements with any local municipality which
desires to -participate in the county's Housing Trust Fund. This
policy also states that the amount and method of payment must be
established prior to execution of the agreement.
On December 12, 1991, the AHAC approved the recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners contact the Town of Indian River
Shores and the Town of Orchid to invite their participation in the
county's Housing Trust Fund. This recommendation was made by the
committee based upon policies in the comprehensive plan housing
elements for the Town of Indian River Shores and the Town of
Orchid. In their plans, both towns indicate that they will
participate financially with the county in the provision of
affordable housing.
For that reason, the AHAC requests that the Board of County
Commissioners direct staff to contact the Town of Indian River
Shores and the Town of Orchid on behalf of the Board of County
Commissioners to invite their participation in the county's housing
trust fund.
Housing Trust Fund
As of this time, the county has not formally established its
housing trust fund. Based upon comprehensive plan policies and
staff research, however, it can be assumed that the county's
26
� � r
housing trust fund, when established, will have characteristics
similar to housing trust funds generally.
Housing trust funds are permanently established reserves of
capital, generating regularly renewable sources of revenue, that
are dedicated to the production of affordable housing. Generally,
housing trust funds are used to construct housing, rehabilitate
housing, subsidize rents, assist in the purchase of homes, and
subsidize other related costs such as impact fees for the
development of housing. All of the above are usually targeted to
the population segment with less than 120% of the median area
household income.
The monies for a housing trust fund can be obtained from a variety
of sources such as from government housing programs, real estate
activities, taxes, excess reserve funds or interest earnings on
tax-exempt mortgage revenue bond reserve accounts, pension funds,
and mineral or other resource extraction revenues. The funds
collected in the housing trust fund are typically distributed
through a Request for Proposal process, generally as loans, not
grants, in order to maintain a revolving source of revenue.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The- Department of Community Affairs Rule 9J-5 , Florida
Administrative Code, requires local governments to include within
their housing elements policies providing for the development of
affordable housing for their residents. Due to economic and
barrier island environmental constraints, the Town of Indian River
Shores and the Town of Orchid are limited in their ability. to
provide affordable housing within their respective town limits.
Therefore, both towns have included policies in their plans
supporting the provision of affordable housing in the
unincorporated county, and indicating that they will participate
with the county in the provision of that housing.
Attached to this staff report is a copy of Indian River County's
Housing Element Policy 4.6, the Town of Indian River Shores'
Housing Element Policy 3-1.1.3, and the Town of Orchid's Housing
Element Objective 1. Housing Element Policy 3-1.1.3 for the Town
of Indian River Shores states that the town will provide financial
assistance to the county consistent with the county's provisions
for affordable housing. Housing Element Objective 1 for the Town
of Orchid states that the town will participate in a county housing
trust fund.
While both the Town of Indian River Shores and the Town of Orchid,
through their comprehensive plans, pledge support for the county's
affordable housing activities, neither identifies the amount of
support, the method of payment, or the timing of their
participation. Since the AHAC is presently considering the
structure, use, and revenue sources of the county's proposed
housing trust fund, it is appropriate at this time to pursue the
comprehensive plan commitments made by Orchid and Indian River
Shores.
Given the above mentioned information, it is staff's position that
there are several alternatives available to the Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners regarding this matter.
* The first alternative would be for the Board to take no
action; with this option, the Board would wait and see if and
when the towns act on their affordable housing commitments.
27
MAR 17 199
V- 19!91
r
,ROOK FH..0
* A second alternative would be for the Board to notify the
towns that the county's housing trust fund is being
established and offer the towns the opportunity to
participate.
* A third alternative would be for the Board to notify the towns
of the status of the housing trust fund, reference their
affordable housing policies, and request that they coordinate
with county staff to establish the amount, type, and timing of
their participation.
CONCLUSION
As discussed above, the Town of Indian River Shores and the Town of
Orchid have, through their respective comprehensive plans, made
commitments to participate with Indian River County for the
provision of affordable housing in the county. In its plan, the
county identifies the housing trust fund as one means of providing
affordable housing and allowing for the participation of local
municipalities in the housing trust fund. Therefore, it is staff's
position that it is in the county's interest to contact the Town of
Indian River Shores and the Town of Orchid to invite their
participation in the county's housing trust fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee and staff recommend that
the Board of County Commissioners direct staff to contact the Town
of Indian River Shores and the Town of Orchid, reference their
affordable housing commitments, and request that they coordinate
with staff regarding financial participation in the county housing
trust fund.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously directed staff
to contact the Town of Indian River Shores and the Town
of Orchid, reference their affordable housing
commitments, and request that they coordinate with staff
regarding financial participation in the county housing
trust fund.
Chairman Eggert noted that environmental planner Christy
Fischer, who has done an outstanding job working with the
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, is leaving the County to
take a new job in Palm Bay. She will be missed, but we wish her
well.
28
APPROVAL OF FY -92 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE (EMA) AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/9/92:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: Doug Wright, Director:18
Emergency Management rvices
FROM: John Ring, EM Coordinator A&
Division of Emergency Management
DATE: March 9, 1992
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF FY -92 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
ASSISTANCE (EMA) AGREEMENT
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 IRC Department of Emergency Services, Division of Emergency
Management, has received the attached FY -92 Emergency Management
Assistance (EMA) Agreement from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency through the Florida Department of Community Affairs in the
amount of $25,833. The Division of Emergency Management has
participated in the EMM program for several years, which according
to the contract requires that 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 Florida 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 remain eligible to receive all proposed funding
allowable within the agreement.
AI+TERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The allocation of funds is based on monitoring reports completed by
the Florida Department of Community Affairs. During the last
Program analysis and evaluation, the Division of Emergency
Management received the maximum allowable score.
Acceptance and approval of this agreement will allow this
department to continue to improve and expand the current program.
RECONKENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the FY -92 Emergency Management
Assistance Agreement and requests the Board of County Commissioners
authorize the Chairman to execute the appropriate documents to
secure the funding of $25,833 as proposed.
29
MAR 17 1992
EAR92
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
Agreement and authorized the Chairman to execute the
appropriate documents to secure the funding of $25,833
as proposed, as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
Commissioner Bowman assumed that this was included in the
budget since there is no reference to money here, and Administrator
Chandler advised that it will be in-kind services.
COPY OF PARTIALLY EXECUTED AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
TERMINATION OF'`TWO AGREEMENTS WITH TREASURE COAST BROADCASTING
COMPANY - APPROVAL OF TWO LICENSES WITH SANDAB COMMUNICATIONS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/11/92:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Doug Wright, Director
Emergency Services
DATE: March 11, 1992
SUBJECT: Approval of Termination Agreement between Indian River
County, Treasure Coast Broadcasting Company and Gregory D.
Bone; and Approval of Two Licenses between Indian River
County and Sandab Communications Limited Partnership II
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be
given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners on an
emergency basis at the next regular meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Staff was advised on March 10, 1992, that the owner or owners of
Treasure Coast Broadcasting Company was in receivership in the State
of Massachusetts and Resolution Trust Corporation was preparing to
enter into certain financial matters that relate to the company.
Treasure Coast Broadcasting Company (WGYL) has erected a broadcasting
tower on the property located near the transfer station off Old Dixie
Highway which they have leased from Indian River County.
Since Indian River County owns and has a vested interest in the real
Property referenced above, staff determined that existing documents
should not be assigned, rather new documents should be prepared to
reflect agreements with Sandab Communications Limited Partnership II.
30
A Termination Agreement has been prepared to cancel the prior the
license issued by Indian River County to Treasure Coast Broadcasting
Company, Limited Partnership, which was executed on March 4, 1987.
A Termination Agreement has also been prepared to cancel the license
to occupy and improve county property issued by Indian River County
and assigned to Gregory D. Bone on January 21, 1988, as Trustee,
under that certain trust agreement known as Highland Land Trust dated
December 15, 1987.
Two new licenses have been prepared for Sandab Communications Limited
Partnership II -to use same real property and occupy and improve the
county property located near the transfer station off Old Dixie
Highway. The rate of compensation for the licenses are the same as
prior authorized by the Board of County Commissioners.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The urgency of the matter is related to precluding any involvement
with RTC as relates to any agreements Treasure Coast Broadcasting
Company may have with Indian River County.
The documents attached terminate any contractual relationship with
Treasure Coast Broadcasting Company. The new agreement and license
with Sandab_Communications Limited Partnership II establishes a
contractual -arrangement for the real property and continues the
revenue stream for Indian River County.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the two termination agreements with
Treasure Coast Broadcasting Company referenced above. Staff also
recommends approval of the License to Occupy and Improve County
Property and the License To Use Real Property with Sandab
Communications Limited Partnership II with the Board authorizing the
Chairman to execute the necessary documents.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved two
termination agreements with Treasure Coast Broadcasting
Company and approved two licenses with Sandab
Communications Limited Partnership II, as set out in the
above staff recommendation.
COPIES OF PARTIALLY EXECUTED TERMINATION AGREEMENTS AND LICENSES
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
31
MAP 0 1992 1r oj,
QR V-9
ROOK '1 F" L C' - J3 �/
PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ON 4TH STREET - DAVID MARINE
SITE PLAN
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/5/92:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator i
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. v
Public Works Directo
and
Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer �J,{ ✓
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA
County Right of Way Agent
SU&7ECT: David Marine Site Plan; 4th Street additional right-of-
way - B.A. 019
DATE: March 5, 1992
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The county made an initial offer of $3.00 per square foot for a 15'
x 701 right-of-way parcel zoned CH (Heavy Commercial). The
property owners appraisal for bank financing, and not by a Before
and After Methodology, was $6.84 per square foot. The county made
a counter offer of $5.00 which was also not acceptable to the
property owner. A traffic impact fee waiver was not selected by the
owner.
On the advice of the county attorney's office in order to reduce
costs due to appraisals and in consideration of the waiver of Mr.
Marines attorney fee, staff recommends purchasing the 15' by 70'
parcel for $7,182.00 or $6.84 per sq. foot.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternate 1: Instruct staff to procede and purchase the property
shown on Mr. Marine's site plan for $7,182 (seven thousand one
hundred eighty two dollars).
Alternate 2: Instruct staff not to purchase the property at this
price.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends alternate 1.
FUNDING
Funding from Traffic Impact Fee #101-156-541-066.12
(With budget amendment).
32
County Engineer Roger Cain presented staff's recommendation of
Alternative #1 with the condition that the owner waive his attorney
fee.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously instructed staff
to proceed and purchase the property shown on Mr.
Marine's site plan for $7,182 with the condition, that the
owner waive his attorney fee.
FDOT RECIPROCAL FEE WAIVER AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/5/92:
TO:
THMUGH:
FROM:
BUWZCT:
DATE:
James Chandler •
County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo
Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer
Florida Department of Transportation
Reciprocal Fee Waiver Agreement
March 5, 1992
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Florida Department of Transportation pursuant to Section
335.183 Florida Statutes and to Rule Chapter 19-46 State Highway
System Connection Permits -Administrative Procedure is allowed to
charge access fees for connection permits. The department,
however, has enacted Section 14-96.006 Florida Administrative code
which provides for the payment of a non-refundable fee for
department application processing, review and inspection of access
permits and provides that governmental entities applying for an
access permit are eligible for a waiver from the fee where the
other governmental entity has a reciprocal agreement to waive
permit fees with the department. The agreement before the Board of
County Commissioners implements this reciprocal fee waiver
arrangement.
It appears that any Florida Department of Transportation facility
built in this county would be eligible for a fee waiver. This
would include not only connection fees and normal permitting fees,
but also impact fees and possibly utility services fees. For that
reason we have sent this agreement on to the utility department and
to the planning department for their review and comment. From a
33
MAR 17199
eooK F°,E J13 C-1
cursory examination, it would appear that the Florida Department of
Transportation would be the net beneficiary on this arrangement as
the utility and traffic impact fees for any facilities that might
be built in the county would probably more than offset the
connection permit fees that we pay in connection with any road
improvement projects. However, it should be pointed out that the
Possibility of the FDOT building any future facility in Indian
River County is, at this time, only speculative. The roadway
connection fees charged by the FDOT range from $1,000.00 to
$4,000.00, depending on the road volume.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative No. 1 - Do not approve the fee waiver, with the
explanation that the county will pay all connection fees and all
other proper fees, and that the Board of County Commissioners is
not comfortable in waiving impact fees, especially on utility
services as this is a user cost.
Alternative No 2 - Approve the agreement with the FDOT and have
the Chairman execute on behalf of the Board.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternate No. 1, to return the fee waiver
agreement with an explanation of our objections, and with a
recommendation that the wording "impact fees", "facility charges"
and "capital improvement fees" be deleted from the agreement and
that the agreement be modified to incorporate only normal permit
and connection fees.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board approve Alternate #1
to return the fee waiver agreement with an explanation
of our objections along with a recommendation that the
wording "impact fees", "facility charges" and "capital
improvement fees" be deleted from the agreement and that
the agreement be modified to incorporate only normal
permit and connection fees.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird asked if a more equitable
way to do this would be to have everybody pay their own way, and
Mr. Cain agreed that it probably would be the most equitable way,
but it would raise the costs both to the County and to the State.
They tried to do this because there is a provision in the new
access management code that we get a reciprocal fee waiver
arrangement. Quite frankly, he felt the State just has not thought
about some of these things and that their attorneys had inserted
34
this language so that they would be absolved from paying any fees
whatsoever. We are not the only county that has a problem with
that, and he hoped we can work something out. However, the chance
is very slim that we would ever get to charge the State an impact
fee of any substantial amount.
Commissioner Bowman felt Mr. Cain was being very charitable,
because she thought they were trying to pull a fast one on us.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and carried unanimously.
REPLACEMENT OF 20TH AVENUE BRIDGE OVER THE SOUTH RELIEF CANAL
FINAL PAY REQUEST - B K MARINE CONSTRUCTION INC
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/9/92:
TO: James'Chandler
County Administrator
C�
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P. E...•
Public Works Director
FROM: Roger D. Cain, P.E. .�
County Engineer
SUBJECT: Replacement of 20th Avenue Bridge over the South Relief
Canal - IRC Project No. 8921
Final Pay Request - B. K. Marine Construction, Inc.
DATE: March 9, 1992
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Board of County Commissioners awarded this contract in the
amount of $462,130.00 on May 14, 1991. The contract documents were
executed on July 2, 1991. The contract specified 150 calendar days
to complete the work. Work began and the county started counting
contract time August 5, 1991, such that the contract completion
date was January 1, 1992. The bridge was actually completed,
including required clean-up, on January 30, 1992, exceeding the
contract time by 29 days. The final cost of the bridge including
Change Order Number 1, but not including liquidated damages, is
$456,352.51. This amount is $5,777.49 less than the contract
amount due to underruns in contract quantities.
The contractor has submitted the following required documentation:
1. Final Pay Application
2. Change Order Number 1
3. Contractor's Final Pay Affidavit
4. Contractor's Certification
5. Final Waiver of Liens
35
MAR -17 192 BOOK
oA? ,
BOCK 81"
) F,�IJE 841
By terms of the agreement, liquidated damages can be charged to the
Contractor as he did not complete the project on time and does not
have a basis for an extension of time. The basis for an extension
of time is given by Florida Department of Transportation Standard
Specifications for Road & Bridge Construction 1986 (FDOT Standard
Specs.) referenced in, and made a part of the Contract documents,
Page GC -1, Section 3. The FDOT Standard Specs., Division .1,
Section 8-7.3.2, Page 69, allows extensions for conditions beyond
the control of the contractor not reasonably anticipated at the
time of making the bid, among other reasons.
On December 4, 1991, the county sent a certified letter to the
contractor advising him of our concern over meeting the schedule.
The contractor replied in writing to this letter with reasons for
his delay. (See his 12-10-91 letter). We respond to the four
enumerated reasons as follows:
1. This was verified by the County Projects Inspector. Staff
believes this is a valid reason for extension as given by FDOT
Standard Specs. 8-7.3.2 and recommends granting a seven (7)
day extension for this item.
2. This delay does not fit within the provision of 8-7.3.2, such
as being an area wide shortage, a strike, or natural disaster.
Staff recommends no time extension should be granted for this
item.
3. Removal of•extra end bent piles. The Contractor is required
to inspect the site for these kinds of problems. Some
anticipation of this work could have been anticipated by a
reasonably prudent -contractor in submitting his bid. Staff
recommends no time extension should be granted for this item.
4. This was clearly due to the contractor's own lack of internal
coordination. Staff recommends no time extension should be
given for this item.
Staff recommends a total time extension, within contract terms of
seven (7) days. The new contract time would be 157 calendar days.
Staff wants to make it clear that we are satisfied with the
Contractor's overall performance. His on-site personnel were very
cooperative and responsive. The workmanship and quality was
satisfactory and we would recommend the Contractor for future work
of this kind. Our recommendation is merely to enforce a material
term of the contract which the Contractor knowingly entered into.
In addition, the citizens of the county were required to take a
lengthy detour, school buses and emergency vehicles alike, while
this construction exceeded its completion date. Therefore, the
Board of County Commissioners would be justified in withholding
liquidated damages at the rate of $200.00 per day for the number of
days over the contract term used by the Contractor. The total
number of days the construction was overdue, allowing the above 7
days, was 22 days, at $200.00 per day, or $4,400.00 liquidated
damages. The Contractor has been invited to this meeting to speak
to the Board to present his reasons why liquidated damages should
not be charged.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative No 1 - Approve the final pay request in the amount of
$456,352.51 and withhold $4,400.00 as liquidated damages for
failure to complete the project within 157 calendar days.
Alternative No 2 - Approve the final pay request and withhold no
liquidated damages.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1.
36
M M. M
Engineer Roger Cain announced that Dick Rettstadt of B. R.
Marine Construction of Ft. Pierce is here today to present their
request for final payment.
Richard Rettstadt, 516 Indian Lilac Road - Vero Beach
explained that the project did come in under the original contract
amount. One of the reasons for that is that allotments were made
for pile splices. They did things that they could not get paid
for, such as piling a little bit longer. It eliminated pile
splicing and time delays which could be a problem confronting us
now. There were no change orders on their part, as far as advances
are concerned. There was one deduct order and there were no add-on
change orders. County staff allowed the delay created by the DOT
inspections of the piling yard. With regard to the extra piling
they ran into that some felt they should have known was there, they
knew there was piling there from the bridge they were removing, but
they didn't know there was piling there from a bridge that was
there before. That is what they ran into. Another problem was the
utility crossing. They were under the impression that the water
system was hooked up in a loop system, but after a week or so of
putting in all kinds of piling to support the loop system, it
wasn't used because there wasn't a loop system. In addition, there
were some problems with the curbing and there were some problems
which they created themselves. All in all, the project went very
well and working with County staff was a true pleasure. Keeping
the neighbors happy while this was going on was a job in itself,
but everything worked well. All they are asking is that the Board
approve Alternative #2. Mr. Rettstadt thought the deducts in the
original price exceed the few days that they ran over with the
liquidated damages.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that staff's recommendation
is Alternative f1, but Mr. Cain noted that a couple of the items
that were brought out today were not mentioned in the letter from
the contractor that lists his reasons for the overage. He wished
to point out that we do recognize that the contractor performed
very well and we would recommend him for future County work. We
are not in any way demeaning the contractor nor do we have any
problems with his performance. In a public works contract with
liquidated damages, the terms are spelled out and the time limit is
given. The contractor did exceed the time limit without excuse
given under the terms of the contract. Mr. Cain stated that he
would have no problem granting 4 additional days pertaining to the
pile inspection as requested in their letter. He would disagree a
little bit on whether an inspector might have found the piling for
the bridge that was there prior to that. The piling probably was
4C
MAR 17 199
J'g9999111111 ���l6T�
not readily apparent,
so that could be excused if the
Board feels
generous today. Staff has recommended that the Board grant them
7 days due to the DOT delay, which makes it 22 days at $200 a day
or $4,400. If another 4 days were granted, that would make it
another $800 and bring it down to $3,600. Mr. Cain agreed to
changing staff's recommendation to include 4 additional days.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
staff's modified recommendation of Alternative #1 to
approve the final pay request and allow 4 additional
days, bringing the total to $3,600.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD PHASE III - EMBANKMENT MATERIALS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/8/92:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
.l
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E j
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Indian River Boulevard Phase III
Embankment Materials
DATE: March 8, 1992
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
FILE: irb3emb.agn
Indian River County has a borrow pit located at 4th Street
and 74th Avenue which currently contains both embankment
material and higher quality shell material. The contractor
for Indian River Boulevard Phase III, Sheltra and Son, would
like to excavate 20,000 CY of embankment material from this
pit for construction of Indian River Boulevard.
The borrow pit contains shell at a depth of 12 feet which is
overburdened by embankment material. The Road and Bridge
Division needs shell for improvements to unpaved roads.
Sheltra & Son is willing to excavate 20,000 Cy of shell for
the Road and Bridge Division in exchange for 20,000 CY of
embankment material for construction of Indian River
Boulevard.
38
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Approve Sheltra & Son's offer to excavate 20,000 Cy of
shell material for the County in exchange for 20,000 CY
of embankment material for the construction of Indian
River Boulevard Phase III. The Road and Bridge
Division is currently paying $3.29/Cy for shell.
Sheltra will perform all excavation, including
supplying equipment, fuel, labor, insurance, etc.
Alternative No. 2
Execute a Change Order with Sheltra & Son allowing
Sheltra to purchase 20,000 CY of embankment material
from the County at a cost of $1/CY which exceeds the
County's current cost. Sheltra would supply all
personnel, equipment, labor, fuel, insurance, etc. to
excavate the material and deliver it to the Indian
River Boulevard project.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Alternative No. 1 is recommended whereby Sheltra & Son
excavates 20,000 Cy of shell for the County and 20,000 CY of
embankment for construction of Indian River Boulevard. No
direct cost to the County would be involved.
No Funding is applicable. Revenue received, if Alternative
No. 2 is approved, would be credited to 309-214-541-066.51
Indian River Boulevard Construction.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we meet the same requirements
of buffer and setback at our site as private land mining operators,
and Public Works Director Jim Davis confirmed that we do.
Commissioner Bird inquired about the estimated 20,000 cubic
yards of shell and whether it is good quality shell, and Engineer
Roger Cain confirmed that it is cubic yard for cubic yard and is
quality shell.
Commissioner Bird was interested because he felt we would be
considering shell for use on the cart paths of the new golf course
rather than concrete, and wondered if some of that 20,000 cubic
yards would be available.
Director Davis advised that there are some opportunities to
expand fill. We are expecting to begin Phase IV of the Boulevard
very quickly, and staff would be most happy if we could get as good
a price on the shell as we did on Phase III.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation of Alternative #1, as set out in
the above memo.
39
MAR 17 1992
MOO Fa,�
Director Davis anticipated that this excavating project should
not take more than 60 days, and then we will estimate how much
material will be needed for Phase IV.
BLUE CYPRESS LAKE WASTEWATER SERVICE PROJECT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/9/92:
DATE: MARCH 9, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
AN
FROM: TERRCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI RVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTAIN
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASSESSMENT PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: BLUE CYPRESS LAKE WASTEWATER SERVICE PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US-90-01-DC/CS/ED
BACKGROUND
The Department of Utility Services, in response to the Department of
Health and Rehabilitative Services' and the Department of Environmental
Regulation's concerns of specific public health hazards, and desire to
improve the water quality of Blue Cypress Lake and the St. John's River
Upper Basin, initiated a wastewater improvement project with the Indian
River County Board of County Commissioners' approval.
on November 6, 1990, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a work authorization to provide the engineering
services for the wastewater treatment plant, collection system, and
effluent.disposal system to serve the County Park and the 100 abutting
properties in the Blue Cypress Lake Fishing Club. (See attached
minutes and agenda item.)
Based upon the CCNA selection process, Professional Engineering
Consultants, Inc., (PEC) was selected to provide the necessary
engineering services. We are now ready to begin the assessment process
associated with this project.
ANALYSIS
The cost of the treatment plant and effluent disposal, including
administration, engineering, land acquisition and plant relocation, is
$364,133.40. The cost of the collection system, including
administration, engineering and construction, is $269,069.11, which is
the amount of the assessment portion of the total project costs. The
portion of the 'assessment for the Blue Cypress Lake Fishing Club is
$147,702.39 and the portion for the Indian River County Park is
$121,366.72. The attached map displays the area to benefit from the
project: 100 platted lots in Blue Cypress Lake Fishing Club and the
Indian River County Park. Costs of constructing the wastewater
treatment plant and effluent disposal system shall be recovered through
impact fees. The assessment cost per square foot is $0.379272.
Attached are Resolutions I and II for the assessment project.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached resolutions and set
the assessment hearing date.
CID]
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-48, providing for wastewater service to
Blue Cypress Lake; providing the total estimated cost,
method of payment of assessments, number of annual
installments, and legal description of the area
specifically served.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-49, setting a time and place at which the
owners of properties located in the area of Blue Cypress
Lake may appear before the Board as to the propriety and
advisability of constructing a wastewater line, etc.
41
; �
M P 1992 KOOK a � ,t
_� J
Providing (First Reso.) 3/18/92(legal)Vk/DC .
BOOK)
RESOLUTION NO. 92-48
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR WASTEWATER SERVICE
TO BLUE CYPRESS LAKE; PROVIDING THE TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF
.ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALL-
MENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
SPECIFICALLY SERVED.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has determined that the improvements herein described are
necessary to promote the public welfare of the county and has deter-
mined to defray the cost thereof by special assessments against certain
properties in the area of Blue Cypress Lake Fishing Club serviced by
wastewater, hereinafter referred to as Project No. UW-90-01-DC/CS/ED;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County does hereby determine that a wastewater line shall be
installed in 100 platted lots in Blue Cypress Lake Fishing Club and
the Indian River County park, and the cost thereof shall be
specially assessed in accordance with the provisions of Sections
11-41 through 11-47 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian
River County.
2. The total estimated project assessment
cost
of the
above-described
improvements is shown to be $0.379272
per
square
foot to be paid
by the property specially benefited as shown on the assessment
plat on file with the Department of Utility Services.
3. A special assessment in the amount of $0.379272 per square foot
shall , be assessed against each of the properties designated on the
assessment plat. This assessment may be raised or lowered by
action of the Board of County Commissioners after the public
hearing, at the same meeting, as required by the referenced
County Code.
4. The special assessments shall be due and payable and may be paid
in full within 90 days after the date of the resolution of the Board
r with respect to credits against the special assessments after
completion of the improvements (the "Credit Date") without
interest. 42
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 48
If not
paid
in full, the
special assessments may be paid in
ten
equal
yearly
installments
of principal plus interest. If not
paid
when
due,
there shall
be added a penalty of 1-1/2% of
the
principal not paid when due. The unpaid balance of the special
assessments shall bear interest at a rate of 9-3/4% from the Credit
Date until paid.
5. There is presently on file with the Department of Utility Services a
plat showing the area to be assessed, plans and specifications, and
an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements. All of these
are open to inspection by the public at the Department of Utility
Services.
6. An assessment roll with respect to the special assessments shall
promptly be prepared in connection with the special assessments.
7. Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Indian River County
Utility Services Department shall cause this resolution to be pub-
lished at least one time in the Vero Beach Press Journal before the
public hearing required by Section 11-46.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman ,
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
.Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 17 day of March , 1992.
Attest:
Jeffq Bart n, Clerk
a
43
MAR 17 1992
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By XC.
Ca#61yn K. E
CFfairman
LOOK
MAR 17 19192
Time and Place (Second Reso. )
RESOLUTION NO. 92-49
mom, 60
2/14/92 (legal) Vk/DC
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SETTING A TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH
THE. OWNERS OF PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE
AREA OF BLUE CYPRESS LAKE MAY APPEAR
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND BE HEARD AS TO THE PROPRIETY AND
ADVISABILITY OF CONSTRUCTING A WASTEWATER
LINE, AS TO THE COST THEREOF,- AS TO THE
MANNER OF PAYMENT THEREFOR, AND AS TO
THE AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE SPECIALLY
ASSESSED AGAINST EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED
THEREBY.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has, by Resolution No. 92-45_, determined that it is necessary
for the public welfare of the- citizens of the county, and particularly as
to those living, working, and owning property within the area
described that a waterline be installed in 100 platted lots in Blue
Cypress Lake Fishing Club and the Indian River County park; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the cost to be specially
assessed with respect thereto shall be $0.379272 per square foot; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has caused an
assessment roll to be completed and filed with the Clerk to the Board;
and
WHEREAS, Section 11-46, Indian River County Code, requires that
the Board of County Commissioners shall fix a time and place at which
the owners of the properties to be assessed or any other persons
interested ' therein may appear before the Board of County
Commissioners and be heard as to the propriety and advisability of
constructing such water main extension, as to the cost thereof, as to
the manner of payment therefor, and as to the amount thereof to be
assessed against each property benefited thereby,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County Commission shall meet at the County Commission
Chambers in the County Administration Building at the hour of
9:05 a.m. on Tuesday, April 7, 1992, at which time the owners of
44
=SOLUTION NO. 92- 4 9
the properties to be assessed and any other interested persons
may appear before said Commission and be heard in regard
thereto. The area to be improved and the properties to be
specially benefited are more particularly described upon the
assessment plat and the assessment roll with regard to the special
assessments.
2. All persons interested in the construction of said improvements and
the special assessments against the properties to be specially
benefited may review the assessment plat showing the area to be
assessed, the assessment roll, the plans and specifications for said
improvements, and an estimate of the cost thereof at, the office of
the Department of Utility Services any week day from 8:30 a.m.
until 5:00 p.m.
3. Notice of the time and place of this public hearing shall be given
by two publications in the Press Journal Newspaper one week
apart. The last publication shall be at least one week prior to the
date of the hearing. The Indian River County Department of
Utility Services shall give the owner of each property to be
specially assessed at least ten days notice in writing of such time
and place, which shall be served by mailing a copy of such notice
to each of such property owners at his last known address.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman ,
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 17 day of March , 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest:'''*
B
y
Car yn K. Egg
Jef :1i`Bdrt n, Cler Ch rman
-� % �-e--
�.
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLI,
ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
45
6410r 10 119
BOOK Sal
JUDGE SMITH'S RULING RE: CLEM POLACKWICH & VOCELLE / PRINCE
CONTRACTING CO.. INC
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 3/11/92:
45G, DISTRIBUTION LIST r
CLEM, POLACKWICH & VOCEJILEu::siuuers Li
ATTORNEYS AT LAW A:Imin.shator
•PaTN11-1,' N Atturney
Pao ONAL &ec( toN� s c.i Pei ..unnel Sur=r Ani
CiHE MJ N \ Public arks UNIVEST BymwNO
ALAN S OLACa CH. Sa. P. A.��� DIAN ltrYEa BDur•EVASD
Communit�'�°�.y.
Lours B. Ja ; P �. ! .: Eno BEAC, FLoarDA 32960.4278
Utilities
JAMES A. TAYLDa• Finutice
y
RoDEaT GOLDEN Other _ z�rri
Or CouNasL FAX (407) 562-2870 ^�
'B"ao CcennsD IN Cim Taut. Puma March 11, 1992
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County, Florida
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: Prince Contracting Company, Inc. v. Don C. Scurlock,
Jr., et al.
Dear Chairman Eggert and Commissioners:
As you undoubtedly know, a motion was filed in the above
lawsuit to disqualify the lawfirm of Clem, Polackwich & Vocelle
from representation of Prince Contracting Company, Inc. A copy of
the motion is attached for your easy reference.
The sole 'basis for the motion to disqualify this f
L.B. Vocelle represents the County in several unrelated
claims filed against the County. These are the typical
fall or automobile crash cases.
rm is that
accident
slip and
It should be apparent, there is no overlap or connection
between the cases being handled on a case by case contract basis by
Mr. Vocelle and the action to set aside a bid award in which I
represent Prince Contracting Company, Inc.
In cases of this type where there is no possibility of
exchange of privileged information within a firm that would
adversely affect a client (the County) the Bar rules permit
representation of other clients whose interests could be adverse.
A prerequisite for this firm to continue representation of Prince
Contracting Company, Inc. as determined by Judge Charles Smith in
a hearing, is to obtain the consent of the client (the County) to
the firm's representation.
From the inception of this firm's representation of Prince
Contracting Company, Inc., both Mr. Vocelle and I believed we had
taken all steps necessary to cover the consent issue through
discussions with the county attorney's office. Regardless of any
�rl
Commissioner Carolyn Eggert, Chairman
March 11, 1992
Page Two
understanding (oar lack of understanding) with the county attorney's
office, the judge believed it necessary to have action by the
County Commission itself on this issue.
The very nature of this case would strongly suggest that every
effort should be made by the County to determine the truth of the
allegations. Fairness -would say that a technical rule should not
be raised to hinder or slow the search for truth.
I would appreciate your agendaing this request for your next
meeting of the County Commission. I respectfully request that the
County Commission consent to this firm's representation of Prince
Contracting Company, Inc. A simple motion passed by a majority of
the Commission will suffice for Judge Smith's order. My reason for
requesting that this matter be addressed immediately is due to the
ten day time frame established by the judge. It seems that this is
a fair request and will not involve any prejudice •to the County
since there is absolutely no connection between the cases handled
by Mr. Vocelle and this case.
1.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Since ely yours,
1
i
ester
CCllfh
cc: Gary C. Wheeler
Margaret C. Bowman
Richard N. Bird
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Charles Vitunac, Esquire
Lyman Reynolds, Esquire
C974
47
_I
BOOK
Attorney Lyman Reynolds recounted that he was retained on
behalf of the five individual County Commissioners who are being
sued in their official capacity by Prince Contracting Company. He
explained that when you sue the Board members individually in their
official capacity, you are in effect suing Indian River County and,
in effect, affecting the taxpayers and the taxpayers' money. He
brought the Motion to disqualify the law firm of Clem, Polackwich
& Vocelle from representation of Prince Contracting Company on
behalf of IRC when he learned that Attorney Vocelle was presenting
the County in 5 or 6 automobile or slip and fall cases. Conflict
of Interest Rule 4-1.7 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar
states:
(a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the
representation of that client will be directly adverse to the
interests of another client, unless:
(1) The lawyer reasonably believes the representation
will not adversely affect the lawyers responsibilities
to and relationship with the other client and
(2) Each client consents after consultation.
Attorney Reynolds wished to make it absolutely clear that at
no point was there a belief on his part that Attorneys Clem and
Vocelle did not reasonably believe they have a position which
adversely affected the County, and he is not disputing their
beliefs or their thought that allowed them to continue in the
representation of Mr. Prince in this matter. The reason for his
motion is the fact that he believed that it is adverse to the
people of Indian River County and requires the Board's permission
to allow Attorney Clem to continue in his representation. In
essence, the judge accepted the position which was that he did not
disagree with Attorney Clem's reasonable belief in proceeding
through this point, but clearly the conflict of interest
regulations require the Board's permission. Each of the five
County Commissioners is being sued in his/her capacity as Board of
County Commission members as a group, so the judge ruled that it
would take a majority vote to allow Attorney Clem to continue in
his representation of Mr. Prince. As a majority, the Board is
speaking for the County, which is the official capacity in which
the Commissioners have been sued.
Attorney Reynolds stated that as he sees it, there is a direct
adverse position between Attorney Clem's representation of Mr.
Prince seeking a permanent injunction against the County which will
affect the taxpayers, the revenue bond, and the income that will be
brought into the county through the golf course. If the
48
injunction is permanently granted, and Mr. Prince is seeking
monetary damages against IRC through a suit against the five
Commissioners in their official capacity, IRC is self-insured and
the money that would be paid, if any, to Mr. Prince in this
proceeding would come directly out of the taxpayers' money and
directly affect revenues being brought into the county.
Attorney Reynolds next addressed Attorney Vocelle's duty in
his representation of the County in 5 or 6 accident or slip and
fall cases. Attorney Vocelle has the opposite duty from Attorney
Clem, and that is to keep the taxpayers' money from being paid out
to a plaintiff's attorney who is seeking monetary damages from
Indian River County. Monetary damages can be paid only out of the
taxpayers money because Indian River County is self-insured.
Additionally, with regard to the position that this puts the County
in, vis-a-vis Attorneys Clem and Vocelle, under Florida Statute S
768.28, the County's Risk Manager is provided certain work product
investigative protection. However, Attorney Vocelle presently
works through the Risk Manager in connection with the slip and fall
cases. Attorney Reynolds emphasized that he also works through the
County's Risk Manager as a conduit to each of the five
Commissioners in their official capacities. The Risk Manager is
given his confidences and he is privy to her confidences as well as
any confidential information involving any governmental matter for
Indian River County, which obviously puts the Risk Manager in a
very awkward situation as it relates to this case. Attorney
Reynolds could think of no reason to advise the Board to waive
their rights and privileges under the conflict of interest statute
not to have different attorneys taking different positions against
the County in different lawsuits.
Chairman Eggert advised that she discussed this matter at
length yesterday with Attorney -Reynolds and expressed her concern
regarding public perception and general view of how this law works.
Attorney Reynolds perceived the individual citizen on the
street would not readily accept such an acquiescence to the
continued representation of Mr. Prince by Attorney Clem.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he has talked to his
attorney, and he strongly objects to Attorney Clem continuing in
this case. He believed Attorney Clem was hired for an advantage
and that this is a verypolitical matter. It should be noted that in
the vote taken to award the contract to Guettler, Commissioner
Wheeler voted against staff's recommendation, as did Chairman
Eggert. In addition, Commissioner Wheeler has Attorney Clem as a
campaign fund raiser, an active participant in his campaign, and on
frequent occasions has lunch with him. In fact, they had lunch
49
MAR, � 1992 ����� "a F -I CJJ`i
together that week. He was not suggesting that Commissioner
Wheeler would or wouldn't do anything in terms of conveying or
whatever, but he felt there is a significant conflict.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that only two Commissioners
were lobbied on this issue, himself and Commissioner Wheeler, but
Chairman Eggert interjected that they tried to contact her but she
wasn't available.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that his personal feeling is that
there is a problem and, therefore, is supportive of Attorney
Reynolds who is representing us collectively, not individually. We
hire attorneys for advice, and he felt we should follow it.
Commissioner Wheeler wished to address the innuendo and point
out an inaccuracy. Neither Mr. Prince nor Attorney Clem visited
him, nor did they lobby him. He received the documentation on the
case in the same manner as the rest of the Commissioners did. It
simply was handed to him. Further, the only conference that he was
even present at was when Mr. Prince and Attorney Clem met with our
full staff and he simply sat in as an observer.
Commissioner Wheeler didn't see a conflict with two lawyers in
the same firm coming from different directions, but wished to hear
from our legal staff as to their opinion in this matter.
Attorney Vitunac advised that he would speak to the matter if
the Board wished.
Attorney Reynolds first pointed out Rule 4-1.10 under Rules
Regulating the Florida Bar regarding Imputed Disqualifications:
RULE 4-1.10 IMPUTED
DISQUALIFICATION;
• GENERAL RULE
(a) While lawyers are associated in a firm, none
of them shall knowingly represent a client when any
one of them practicing alone would be prohibited
from doing so by rule 4-1.7, 4-1.8(c), 4-1.9, or 4-2.2.
(b) When a lawyer becomes associated with a
firm, the firm may not knowingly represent a per-
son in the same or a substantially related matter in
which that lawyer, or a firm with which the lawyer
was associated, had previously represented a client
whose interests are materially adverse to that per-
son and about whom the lawyer had acquired infor-
mation protected by rules 4-1.6 and 4-1.9(b) that is
material to the matter.
(c) When a lawyer has terminated an association
with a firm, the firm is not prohibited from there-
after representing a person with interests material-
ly adverse to those of a client represented by the
formerly associated lawyer unless:
(1) The matter is the same or substantially relat-
ed to that in which the formerly associated lawyer
represented the client; and
(2) Any lawyer remaining in the firm has infor-
mation protected by rules 4-1.6 and 4-1.9(b) that is
material to the matter.
(d) A disqualification prescribed by this rule mi
be waived by the affected client under the con#
tions stated in rule 4-1.7.
50
Attorney Reynolds explained that this is the reason why you
cannot have one lawyer in one firm representing a client and
another lawyer in the same firm suing that client.
Commissioner Bowman noted that in past experience she has
approached several reputable attorneys in this county requesting
their services and was turned down for the sole reason that their
colleagues in that firm had represented the adversary previously.
Attorney Vitunac advised that as soon as he received the
complaint, he phoned Attorneys Clem and Vocelle about a potential
conflict of interest. Both lawyers individually called him back
and strongly suggested that they did not see a conflict since
Attorney Vocelle represented only slip and fall cases and nothing
he knew would have any effect whatsoever on Attorney Clem's
position with the County. Attorney Vitunac advised that he took
that opinion to both his assistants and they did not see a glaring
conflict such that we would fight it strongly one way or another,
but Deputy County Attorney Will Collins later pointed out the same
rule that has just been read. The decision is up to the Board of
County Commissioners and his office was initiating a letter to
Attorney Clem telling him he would have to come before the Board
today to get permission to represent Prince since we took our
entire office out of this case for other reasons. The County
Attorney's office would have brought this matter before the Board
in due course just as it is being brought today.
Attorney Clem stated that he would be brief because his reason
is stated in his letter. He felt that Attorney Reynolds has pretty
much laid out that there is no direct conflict here. What it boils
down to is that Attorney Vocelle represents the County in accident,
slip and fall cases, but he, himself, has never represented the
County. In cases of this type where there is no evidence of direct
conflict, the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar state that you can
have members of the same law firm either suing or being in an
adversarial standpoint with the consent of the client. Attorney
Clem felt that if there is no direct conflict, the Board should
grant them the consent to proceed with this. When Mr. Prince first
contacted him, he talked to Commissioners Scurlock, Bird and
Wheeler and talked to Commissioners Bowman and Eggert on the
telephone. From the very beginning of representation, they were
involved with Mr. Prince as they walked through the proceeding.
Since the filing of the lawsuit, there was no real conflict.
Attorney Clem noted that this is a technical vote, and if the Board
doesn't want them to continue, all they have to do is vote against
them. If the Board does vote to allow them to continue, he could
assure everyone that he would get to the truth of this.
51
MAR 17 199 G��r,e
K
L
Fr -
_I
BOOK 60 fnut Ut) b
Heated debate ensued between Attorney Clem and Commissioner
Scurlock regarding the reasons behind Commissioner Scurlock wanting
him off the case, and Chairman Eggert called for order and asked
that discussion return to the matter at hand.
Attorney Reynolds advised that Judge Smith has said that he
does not disagree with Attorney Clem's perception of his lack of
conflict and did not rule on that one way or another, but
unequivocally under the conflict of interest rule, Attorney Clem
has been required to obtain the Board's permission to proceed in
this case. Judge Smith has held his ruling in abeyance to allow
Attorney Clem the 10 days necessary to come before the Board and
ask for your permission in this regard. That is where we are, and
that is his advice to the Board. He emphasized that he brought his
motion directly on behalf of Indian River County, not any
individual commissioner, and not for any political reason. There
is a suit by Prince for monetary damages which may adversely affect
Indian River County.
Lengthy debate ensued and Commissioner Bird asked if the Board
voted today to disallow Attorney Clem's representation of Mr.
Prince in this lawsuit involving the County as a whole, would that
preclude Attorney Clem from representing Prince Contracting against
Commissioner Scurlock individually.
Attorney Reynolds honestly didn't know the answer to that, but
he didn't see any reason why it would so prohibit because it takes
his interest out of the case. His interest is in Indian River
County, and if Attorney Clem wants to represent Prince against
Commissioner Scurlock individually, that is up to their attorneys.
Attorney Clem felt that shows how ridiculous this whole thing
is, and reiterated there is no conflict here unless you want to
create one.
Attorney Reynolds further explained the adverse relationship
that he sees under the rule. In one case, Attorney Clem is seeking
money for Mr. Prince from the County against the taxpayers while
his partner is representing the County to keep money from going out
to a plaintiff attorney.
Commissioner Bird appreciated Attorney Reynolds giving the
recommendation that he has, but knowing Attorneys Clem and Vocelle
as we do, he felt they each have the professional ability to
represent their clients and still share the same office space and
do that in a proper manner, keeping things confidential that should
be kept confidential.
Commissioner Wheeler stated that he is interested in getting
at the truth and didn't believe the truth is going to change
regardless of who the attorney is. He wished to note that there
52
have been times when Attorney Clem has appeared before the Board
representing various clients when he has voted against him because
he didn't agree with that position as a Commissioner. Politically,
it probably would be wise to sit here and vote against him today
because of the innuendo and the politics of it. However, he
believed in his heart that the proper thing to do is allow them to
continue to serve in their capacity. That is his position.
Chairman Eggert was struggling over this matter, and while she
could not imagine Attorney Clem or Attorney Vocelle doing something
that is adverse to the County or doing something that is a conflict
of interest, she does see where Attorney Reynolds is coming from.
Commissioner Bowman felt that if there is the slightest
appearance of a conflict, especially in the eyes of the public, we
should not allow it to continue.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board voted 3-2, Commissioners
Bird and Wheeler dissenting, to accept Attorney Reynold's
recommendation to deny consent for the law firm of Clem,
Polackwich & Vocelle to continue representation of Prince
Contracting Company, Inc.
FAMILY DAY CARE REGULATIONS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/5/92:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Carolyn R. Eggert, Chairman CA
RE: Family Day Care Regulations
DATE: March 5, 1992
The attached is a letter from Dr. Donna Skinner
about the new voucher system to begin October 1st, and the
possible lack of regulations in family day care homes.
Do you wish staff to investigate ordinances from
Palm Beach, Broward and Pinellas on this matter with a
thought toward investigating some Indian River County
regulations?
53
RUGS. Frr�F. b
o
I
'i
BOOK 0 F1.0
Commissioner Eggert asked if the Board wished staff to look
further into this about whether we should have tougher regulations,
etc., and Commissioner Bowman especially wanted to know more about
the child care vouchers.
The Board directed staff to obtain clarification of the
regulations.
REPORT ON BOARD' S MOTION OF MARCH 10 1992 TO HAVE STATE ATTORNEY' S
OFFICE CONVENE A GRANT JURY TO INVESTIGATE THE COUNTY COMMISSION
AND STAFF
Chairman Eggert wished to note for the record that State
Attorney Bruce Colton has said it would be very difficult to do a
investigation -of the total Commission and that the moment any
specific evidence came forward on anyone it would be dealt with
through the Ethics Commission.and go forward from there.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to note for the record that the
temporary injunction wasn't granted and that Judge Smith ruled that
there wasn't any documented evidence that a conflict existed on the
day of the vote.
HOUSING AUTHORITY APPOINTMENTS
Chairman Eggert understood that Governor Chiles has appointed
Godfrey Gipson and Sheila Engle to the IRC Housing Authority and
that the Motion today would be to accept the Governor's
appointments.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner
Scurlock, the Board unanimously accepted Governor Chiles'
appointments of Godfrey Gipson and Shiela Engle to the
IRC Housing Authority.
REPORT FROM FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES - GOVERNOR'S REQUEST TO
COUNTY GOVERNMENT REGARDING IMPACT OF CURRENT BUDGET PASSED BY
LEGISLATURE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/13/92:
54
- J
FLOR'
ASSOCIATI�
WE COUNT! . -.
TO:
ri aft-
DATE:
SECT:
P.O. Box 549 /Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Phone# 904/224 3148 FAM 904/223 5939
County Commissioners and County Administrators
James Shipman, FAC Executive Director
Match 13, 1992
Governor's Request to County Government
Attached is a letter from Governor Chiles requesting that counties analyze the impact of
the current budget passed by the Legislature.
As you know, the Governor has pledged that he will veto the current budget early next
week after the Legislature adjourns sine die. The current budget passed by the Legislature does
not fund programs such as P2000, Medicaid medically needy, prescription drugs for individuals
in long term care, courts, jails and a list of smaller programs that have a fiscal consequence to
county government. These program costs will clearly shift to the counties. Florida. counties
need to inform the public of die local cost impact that will occur if dw currtut budget paced
by the Legislature becomes law.
FAC urges each county to respond to the Governor's request by analyzing the fiscal
impact of the current budget on your county. Please forward this analysis to FAC and the
Gtoveruor's ofBco as soon as possible. An addendum Including mWor programs arreewd by the
budget cuts is attached for your reference. If you should need fin then assistance in prepadng
this analysis, please contact FAC.
OMB Director Joe Baird felt we need more information before we
can determine specifically the areas where the budget will
detrimentally affect us.
Commissioner Bird noted that while we do need to respond to
this request, hopefully it will not take up too much of staff's
time.
Commissioner Scurlock suggested that the Board authorize the
Chairman and staff or the Administrator and staff to do this.
Administrator Chandler felt we could call FAC for further
clarification and probably provide a general response by the
deadline.
55
BOOK
a
I
_I
BOOK S5' ri'tUL`6' 1
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
Chairman Eggert announced that immediately upon adjournment
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 11:05 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
J.. Barton, Clerk
1< .
Carolyn K. Egg t, Chair"
56
MEMORANDUM - MINUTES OF
F-7
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SITTING AS THE CLAIMS REVIEW COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 1992
to consider the
LIABILITY CLAIM: PETERSON V. INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY
HAVE BEEN FILED UNDER DATE OF
AUGUST 18, 1998
(CASE WAS SETTLED MAY 119 1992/RECORDS HAD BEEN
UNDER CONFIDENTIAL SEAL)