HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/14/1992BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN- RIVER- COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1992
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman
Richard N. Bird
Don C. Scurlock,
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jr.
Gary C. Wheeler
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:0_ I.
CALL TO ORDER
2.
INVOCATION - None
3.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Charles P. Vitunac
4.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
1. Proclamation of HurricaneWeek
2. Martin Luther King, Jr., observe. his birthday as
a county holiday or name a street or park in his honor.
3. Discussion regarding Heron Cay
4. Delete ll.G.1.
5.
Add 13.D. Com. Scurlock regnest re LAAC
PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of Second Quarter Safety Award - 1992
6.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting of 2/25/92
B. Regular Meeting of 3/3/92
7.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received and placed on file in the Office of Clerk
to the Board:
Annual Financial Report of the St. John's Water
Control District for FY Ended 9/30/91
B. Occupational License Taxes Collected During Month
of March, 1992
( memorandum dated April 2, 1992 )
C. Final Plat Approval for the Peterson Country Estates
Subdivision, Unit 2
( memorandum dated April 7, 1992 )
D. Final Plat Approval for the Walker's Glen S/D, Unit 2
( memorandum dated April 6, 1992
)
E. Bid Award #92-81 / Ambulance Remount - Emerg. Serv.
( memorandum dated April 6, 1992) -
Atl ®014 ��7 rd
CIO 91
1 _/f b [' UE 41
APR 14 J2
9:05 a. m.
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd) :
F. Bid Award #92-86 / North County Schools, Wabasso
Exceptional School Sewer Force Main, Gravity
Collection and Associated Lift Station - Util. Dept.
( memorandum dated April 6,-1992)
G. Additional R -O -W Purchase / 33rd St. / Williams
(memorandum dated April 7, 1992)
H. Additional R -O -W Purchase / 1st St. SW / Montanez
(memorandum dated April 5, 1992)
I. Agreement - IRC 6 Harriet E Harry W. Fersch, III
Temporary Water Service
(memorandum dated April 1, 1992)
J. Resolution - County Land Acquisition Advisory Comm.
( memorandum dated April 8, 1992 )
K. Release of Utility Liens
( memorandum dated April 7, 1992 )
L. Sale of Two County Residential Lots
( memorandum dated March 30, 1992 )
M. Criteria for Evaluating Agencies Requesting
Tourist Tax Funds
( memorandum dated April 8, 1992 )
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
I. Visions for the Future Steering Committee
Request for Partial Funding,
( memorandum dated April 1, 1992 )
2. Designation of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s
Birthday as a County Holiday
( letter dated February 24, 1992 )
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
George F. Hamner, Jr. Request to Rezone Approx. 26.5
Acres from RS -3 to A-1
( memorandum dated March 19, 1992 )
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd):
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
Approval of Capital Equip. Expenditures for
Emerg. Mgmt. Immediate Notification System From
Existing Funds - Budget Amendment 023
( memorandum dated April 2, 1992 )
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Request by United Artists Cable to Plant Trees
in SR60 Median
( memorandum dated April 6, 1992 )
2. Property Acquisition for Public Parking Along
Jungle Trail
( memorandum dated April 6, 1992 )
3. Engineering Services for Various Projects
( memorandum dated March 25, 1992 )
H. UTILITIES
Surplus Property - Removal of Storage Tank
( memorandum dated March 9, 1992 )
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
B. VICE CHAIRMAN MARGARET C. BOWMAN
C. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD
,APR 14 1992 KOK
APR 914 1992
noK, 86 mbE 24
11. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd. ):
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
Sole Source Purchase - 826C Caterpillar Compactor
( memorandum dated April 6, 1992 )
1S. 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, April 14, 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, April 14, 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; and Patricia Held, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney, led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Eggert requested the following additions:
1) Proclamation of Hurricane Week
2) Discussion of Martin Luther King, Jr.,;
Item 9.A.2., his birthday as a county holiday
Item 9.A.3., naming a street or park in his honor
3) Item 11.H.2., an Emergency Item regarding Heron Cay
Chairman Eggert requested that Item 11.G.1. be deleted because
it was approved last week and she apologized for not coordinating
with Public Works Director Jim Davis.
Commissioner Scurlock requested the addition of Item 13.D., a
request regarding the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added and
deleted the above items on the Agenda.
w
HOC 86i F—
APR
,APR 14 1992 BOOKS F;:UC 6
PRESENTATION OF SECOND QUARTER SAFETY AWARD — 1992
Chairman Eggert presented and Emergency Management Services
Chief Jim Judge graciously accepted the Second Quarter Safety Award
on behalf of the EMS staff, both paid and volunteer.
ICAI n�•r �.i �.ie�� �� mss` y, _> _ k' ,E w ;'t
�f
,i'a�(it,'rVl. ��: •ly
'ir r ,'tl,: t G r,+t '�hi't �` tir .� '.t. }� ... k•. %� , + , t t•. . , C�j' 7'. �• w d 1
;� r•. i 7 a . 'i14 . '` i i1 r t- .y " : 4 trt:
qp aEAr,� � v - yY {�. ,� r1 `_ ri i'lt'a .�•'r Z, •t .; ` •.€, 7i d}
ftlY � t:it � t.i :� 'b�;fi r i 4�•r''�`;l a i � .~A ''t P ,y;. 'r _� •'4„�� d f a*.i`.
r 1`*'�a '�F i$'.•E E„yl ,,�� } ` ,',a;•. •' � _ `t ' 1'i titV��l :Pa •
!..
a- - ;..4. t •tai <. < i? -! r a•. �1',1'r •+ i ...t` { f r . t
a 4�s r � e t • . , i� ,i �¢� .
.:.t�.. NDL4N.,, R"
G CO
rt _ / • .., fr tl , f.' i.'� 1' .!'a,`L, p 'il' -.k' i• ,a�,(•(:
°t.`i•�.t•' �.+�. ` 't :•!�6 i••' �..,.. �, i . t y, ct vir`i ttE
�, '���:�k ,. 1. .A., t,} iw�- zK 4�i. , r �Fa r ti ; � t' c ..• �[,. { � f+ ,� *:
.r •• s Y, 'L .'E ,- �'c: � t ? i r i T f r t, t
r i. �'" ;i S • r . t 1' - t' K .� !•fin 'trf, � - � 7 �i � • a' '.��� >,.
VERO. BEACH , F.LORIDA
i� ,Ii. •, 3 it + 'ae$,i� ;, l� .`.. .`� '' ..541 �.`•I+ti ;.t'rra�t�Ji
i�;�.l' � � ' a w� �•a'tt• a 'i • r .?' k.. : r . � r t t'�
`1E
k+ "�• i i•cp �• 4j�• j }�.r��./.j •} �,! Ti•K rl ;a +Lori .
K _ r 1 ,h < ,•. + 'y'�r, +,y _. .,� V'hiii to W cerfifqp¢t l i,Z}
4 .Y '�� • ♦ • t. a'•r• r
`.4, ! d! 4. •j f yFa<• :p� w ?• , r'ti .n .,7.,nt �'' E.'
�•.
t ����' !.#. '`,>t L.• ': .•'a> .. t_ :',� ' a. ,i . . �f�'�
Em erency'Medical Services
iu
to herebu prena*a ttltn
Ir~'# i�� r L��•'i t .r. j.t_r r,S r�{'
aflet W rb
,j
XZIA
+ /`�i%� : �� ►�f ,.a t. :ti r,! '�(s� `� ,, iK� � f . rt ,i. r.- �• sr•.it y a 'f�.
` ; !f ' for nufu#ttnblug ueruice unb safe perforumttnce
�: y; �• . ° r fir, f.. "' �i �.
Quarten .., 92 -
Second;
/Jjlr; 1. /, s q ,.r '• _ i � f •� . .. �' .. e•:t � �.y• . ,t Ir 'i
IL
Ills r£,`N , ..r r �� 92 ` a tt, tt p '. •�
y b r+` an #ljin 15th �ttU of april e , ,u t
i ��Lj�� �' � t .b +?4j `! •ttr. �ir.�'t'i }� L'' ' a J. t•�,it': . Y i' t �•r�t
^t;'•�".. i r•• •• t?•! 2�. a .► •� rat} t v!f � }
'..f;..•` J�'• n' '. ,�`•i. .r• ,Si tr T ` f1t c .1. �y fr. b;•,iyr�ft
' y.V.ji�. t�. t'. 8 � 'V� }'• Y%'I� p� Erb �.
l r o'er C' q' i' `'s' .� •t -o
rrt �/ ,a "F. .t�, , - rT
it ;. ; i' sora c rmen •'' •: •;� ? F f>; . Nek Menage
f, `;�. :. Ir.. �!�;. - ''. ' ,,'F� 1' •' '.�.': 'ti =•'' tl� pt"YI,i a.f S±
C � �;. �-r5 t° P ,.• ?g � 1 �'' � Vii,• `� t•'•)•• �Yi �,} w� 7 r ty'I (•Y. '•��. r ii}P�
a� � �•. r ;,R t, s. { ,7•:.r 'qty'.;• '^i" .. .a . a. :,,: v .iii �r•4 >.',f •�,
�h '• a �� � a1� 1. t.��i � t 4
3 'fir'.. •Yz.�f� Y,. SR i� .�.ttk. % �`"?., /%. �w'.y�! -�4':: .. _4 /Ii"t?!'� /7'-f4r, •iB fT:•. n. Pi•r�.... ..•ia. .Hal9>r.� ..rd
I
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 20 TO APRIL 25, 1992 AS HURRICANE
WEEK IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously proclaimed
April 20 to April 25, 1992 as Hurricane Week in
Indian River County.
P R O C L A M A T I O N
DESIGNATING APRIL 20 TO APRIL 25, 1992
AS HIJRRICANE WEEK IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
WHEREAS, Hurricane season begins June 1, 1992 and Indian
River County is extremely vulnerable to tropical disturbances
because of our coastal location; and
WHEREAS, hurricane experts state that Florida is well
overdue for a large scale hurricane; and
WHEREAS, over 50% of the residents in Florida have never
experienced any type of tropical disturbance; and
WHEREAS, 'there is a need for education, planning, response
and recovery when dealing with tropical disturbances; and
11
WHEREAS, educating the public on necessary preparedness
during tropical disturbances will allow the public a chance to
learn procedures followed by government when a storm is
approaching Indian River County; and
WIiEREAS, in an effort to better educate the public and
overcome apathy of residents when preparing for tropical
disturbances, the Division of Emergency Management is beginning
an all out campaign to disseminate preparedness information to
all residents:
NOW, THEREFORE, RF IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COItN7'Y, FLORIDA that the week of
April 20 to April 25, 1992 be designated as
HURRICANE WEEK
in Indian River County, and the Board urges all citizens in this
County to avail themselves of the opportunity to become educated
on proper tropical disturbance preparedness.
Adopted this 14th day of April, 1992.
3
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Caroly K. Egg rChairman
-- - -
��1
e 00K- U 9 r,, 6. d
APR 14 A 2 BOOK 8 F FA6E 2S
Emergency Services Director Doug Wright appreciated the
Board's action and invited the members to see the new system which
places the Emergency Services Department in a better position to
keep our residents informed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 25, 1992. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board approved the Minutes of
the Regular Meeting of February 25, 1992 as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 3, 1992. There were
none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board approved the Minutes of
the Regular Meeting of March 3, 1992 as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Eggert requested the removal of Items J. and M. from
the Consent Agenda.
A. Reports
The following report has been received and placed on file in
the office of Clerk to the Board:
Annual Financial Report of St. Johns Water Control District
for Fiscal Year ended 9-30-91
B. Occupational License Taxes Collected - Month of March 1992
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted
the following report from Tax Collector Gene Morris
summarizing Occupational License Taxes collected
during the month of March, 1992.
4
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
UI-FICE (1)f T11C TAX C(1)LI 110.1
GENE E. MORRIS, C.F.C. P. o. Box 1509
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA - 32961
TAX COLLECTOR TELEPHONE: (407) 367.8180
SUNCON r 424-1338
Board of County Commissioners
Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
Occupational Licenses
April 2, 1992
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please
be informed that $6,306.37 was collected in occupational
license taxes during the month of March, representing the
issuance of 232 licenses.
C. Final Plat Approval for Peterson Country Estates Subdivision
Unit 2
The Board reviewed memo from Current Development Staff Planner
Christopher Rison dated April 7, 1992:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIV ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
J
t
ober M. Kea i, AI
Community Dee pmen, irector
THROUGH: Stan Boling,, A,ICP
Planning Director
FROM: Christopher D. Rison
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: April 7, 1992
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE PETERSON COUNTRY ESTATES
SUBDIVISION, UNIT 2
SD -86-09-98
#92020157
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of April 14, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Peterson Country Estates Subdivision, Unit 2 is a proposed 4
lot residential subdivision of a 1.14 acre parcel of land located
on the southeast corner of 8th Avenue and 2nd Street. The subject
property is zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential (up to 6 units
per acre) and has an L-21 Low Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units
per acre) land use designation. The proposed density for the
subdivision is 3.5 units per acre.
5
APR 14 '1992
DOAK S U PAGE 4
APR °. 1992
LOOK b�F
A' E
On September 10, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted
preliminary plat approval for Peterson Country Estates. The first
phase of the subdivision was completed and platted August 16, 1988.
The developers, Dr. and Mrs. Albert Mowery, have effectively
completed construction of the second and final phase of the project
and are now requesting final plat approval, including submission of
the following:
1. A plat in conformance with the originally approved preliminary
plat;
2. An Engineer's Certified Cost Statement for Construction of the
Completed Subdivision Improvements;
3. A Warranty/Maintenance Agreement for the Required Subdivision
Improvements; and
4. A security agreement, acceptable to the County Attorney's
Office, to guarantee the submitted Warranty/Maintenance
Agreement.
ANALYSIS:
The developer has not been responsible for the paving of 8th Avenue
or installation of the water line system to serve the project.
Eighth Avenue was paved via a petition paving project, in which the
developers have completed payment of their share of _the paving
assessment. Additionally, the County will be installing the water
line system. The County is currently expanding water service to
serve the Indian River Heights Subdivision. The expansion will -
also include the Peterson County Estates Subdivision, Unit 2 area
which lies directly east, across 8th Avenue, from the Indian River
Heights Subdivision. To facilitate the County's installation of
the water line system, the developers have paid in full the
preliminary assessment lien for the subject property to be platted.
It should be noted that no Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) will be
issued for a residence on any lot in the subdivision until the
water line is installed and operational. A note indicating this
"C.O. condition" has been provided on the final plat.
The other required subdivision improvements (e.g. lot grading,
drainage swale construction, etc.) have been completed by the
developers and a Certificate of Completion for these improvements
has been issued by the Public Works Department. To guarantee the
performance of the required improvements provided by the
developers, the developers have submitted a Warranty/Maintenance
Agreement and suitable security, approved by the County Attorney's
Office, to guarantee the Warranty/Maintenance Agreement. With the
listed documents and the paid assessments, the developers have
complied with the appropriate requirements to obtain final plat
approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final
plat approval for the Peterson Country Estates Subdivision, Unit 2
and accept the submitted Warranty/Maintenance Agreement and
authorize the Chairman to execute the Cash Deposit and Escrow
Agreement for the cash security payment guaranteeing the
Warranty/Maintenance Agreement.
C1
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously granted
final plat approval, accepted the Warranty -
Maintenance Agreement and authorized the Chairman to
execute the Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement for
Peterson Country Estates Subdivision, Unit 2 as
recommended by staff.
SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
D. Final Plat Approval for Walker's Glen Subdivision Unit 2
The Board reviewed memo from Current Development Chief Planner
Christopher Rison dated April 6, 1992:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Kea i , AnT
Community Devel pmen Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling''AICP
Planning Director
rr ,,te�l/
FROM: Christopher D. Rison VIS'
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: April 6, 1992
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE WALKER'S GLEN SUBDIVISION,
UNIT 2
SD -88-06-008
#92020119
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of April 14, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Walker's Glen Subdivision, Unit 2 is a proposed 25 lot
residential subdivision of a 7.8 acre parcel of land located
immediately south of, and connecting to, the Walker's Glen
Subdivision, Unit 1. Walker's Glen Units 1 and 2 are located west
of the Healthland Subdivision, south of 26th Street. The subject
property is zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential (up to 6 units
per acre) and has an L-2, Low Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units
per acre) land use designation. The proposed density for the
subdivision is 3.2 units per acre.
On May 25, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted phased
preliminary plat approval for The Walker's Glen Subdivision. The
first phase of the subdivision was completed and platted March 20,
1990. The developer, Vista Properties of Vero Beach, Inc., has
effectively completed the second and final phase and is now
requesting final plat approval, and has submitted the following:
7
E 6
APR i 4l: N92 ob
APR ] 4 19-972
1. A plat in conformance with the originally approved preliminary
plat;
2. An Engineer's Certified Cost Statement for Construction of the
Completed Subdivision Improvements;
_ 3. A Warranty/Maintenance Agreement for the Required Subdivision
Improvements;
4. A security agreement, acceptable to the County Attorney's
Office, to guarantee the submitted Warranty/Maintenance
Agreement, and Bill of Sale;
5. An Engineer's Certified Cost Estimate for Construction of
Required Sidewalk Improvements;
6. A Contract for Construction of Required Sidewalk Improvements;
and
7. A security agreement, acceptable to the County Attorneys
Office, to guarantee_ the subdivision Contract for
Construction.
ANALYSIS:
The required improvements, except the subdivision's internal
sidewalk system, have been completed by the developer., and a
corresponding Certificate of Completion for the subdivision has
been issued by the Public Works Department. To guarantee the
performance of the required improvements, the developer has
submitted a Warranty/Maintenance Agreement and suitable security,
approved by the County Attorney's Office, to guarantee the
Warranty/Maintenance Agreement. The developer has submitted a
Contract for Construction for Required Sidewalk Improvements, to
provide for completion of the internal sidewalk system, pursuant to
the provisions of LDR Section 913.09(5)(D), and posted suitable
security, approved by the County Attorney's Office, to guarantee
the Contract. With these documents, the developer has complied
with the appropriate requirements to obtain final plat approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final
plat approval for The Walker's Glen Subdivision, Unit 2 and accept
the submitted Warranty/Maintenance Agreement, authorize the
Chairman to execute the Contract for Construction and accept the
posted securities to guarantee the Warranty/Maintenance Agreement
and the Contract for Construction.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously granted
final plat approval, accepted the Warranty -
Maintenance Agreement, authorized the Chairman to
execute the Contract for Construction, and accepted
the posted securities to guarantee the Warranty -
Maintenance Agreement and the Contract for
Construction as recommended by staff.
e SAID DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
8
IN
E. Bid Award 92-81 - Ambulance Remount - Emergency Services
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
dated April 6, 1992:
DATE: April 6, 1992
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servi
4lq-
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Bid Award #92-81/Ambulance Remount
Emergency Services
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
March
11,
1992
Specifications mailed to:
Seven
(7)
Vendors
Replies:
Five
(5)
Vendors
BID TAB BASE BID
American Ambulance $32,339.00
Tampa, FL
National Ambulance $35,973.00
Orlando, FL -
Southern Ambulance Bldrs $38,000.00
LaGrange, GA
First Response $39,886.00
Ellenwood, GA
Aero Products $42,878.00
Longwood, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $35,973.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Advanced Life Support Automotive Account
BUDGETED AMOUNT: $40,000.00
RECO MENDATION:
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to the second low bidder,
National Ambulance. whose bid is the most responsive and re-
sponsible as per the specifications set forth in the Invitation to
Bid. Justification of this award is herein referenced as Exhibit
"A",
BUGK Cid Ft uc+
APP 14 1992
I
APR 141 M2
BOOK C)6 FHGE 3
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid
92-81 in the amount of $35,973.00 to National
Ambulance to remount and refurbish an ambulance, as
recommended by staff.
F. Bid Award 92-86 - North County Schools Wabasso Exceptional
School Sewer Force Main Gravity Collection and Associated Lift
Station - Utilities Department
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
dated April 6, 1992:
DATE: April 6,.1992
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Admin trator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servic
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manage
SUBJECT: Bid Award #92-86/North County Schools
Wabasso Exceptional School Sewer Force Main,
Gravity Collection and Associated Lift Station
Utilities Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date: March 25, 1992
Specifications mailed to: Twenty -One (21) Vendors
Replies: Seven (7) Vendors
VENDOR BASE BID
Kahn Builders $48,950.00
Wabasso, FL
AOB Underground $55,530.00
Indiantown, FL
Driveways, Inc $61,211.40
Belvedere Construction $63,070.00
West Palm Beach, FL
JoBear $63,347.80
Palm Bay, FL
G.E. French Construction $66,508.00
Okeechobee, FL
GBS Excavating $68,000.00
Ft Pierce, FL
10
TOTAL, AMOUNT OF BID:
$48,950.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Utilities General - Impact Fees
BUDGETED AMOUNT:
RECOMMENDATION:
$70,000.00
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to _Kahn Builders as
the the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder meeting
specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid.
In addition, staff requests the Board's approval of the attached
agreement when all requirements are met and approved as to form
by the County Attorney.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid
92-86 to Kahn Builders in the amount of $48,950.00
for Wabasso Exceptional School sewer force main,
gravity collection and associated lift station as
recommended by staff.
SAID AGREEMENT WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO
THE BOARD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
( NOW FULLY RX . .i1 Fn A R .CEIVED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD),
G. Additional Right -of -Way Purchase - 33rd Street (Between 58th
Avenue and 66th Avenue)
The Board reviewed memo from County Right -of -Way Agent Donald
Finney dated April 7, 1992:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
and
Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer 7!
�_�
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA :)"qr
County Right of Way Agent
BUWZCT: Additional Right -of -Way Purchase / 33rd Street / Williams
(Between 58th Ave & 66th Ave.)
DATE: April 7, 1992
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
CONSENT AGENDA
Indian River County is needing an additional 25 feet of right -of -
way -for the petition paving project on 33rd Street. The Board of
County Commissioners previously approved the purchase of the right-
of-way along this corridor on January 21, 1992.
The property owner has signed a sale/purchase contract at the lands
appraised value of $2,156.00 ($.45 per square foot).
11
L_ SPR 14 1992
9
RECOMMENDATION
`4 C
BOOK FH VC c;11
Staff requests the Board accept the contract and authorize the
Chairman's signature thereon.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the purchase of additional right-of-way for the
petition paving project on 33rd Street between 58th
Avenue and 66th Avenue and authorized the Chairman
to execute the contract for sale and purchase with
Bracy Lynn Williams and Evelyn E. Williams in the
amount of $2,156.00 as recommended by staff.
COPY OF CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
H. Additional Right -of -Way Purchase - First Street S.W.
The Board reviewed memo from County Right -of -Way Agent Donald
Finney dated April 5, 1992:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.' J
Public Works Director
and
Roger D. Cain, P.E
County Engineer
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA 4-1
County Right of Way Agent
SUBJECT: Additional Right -of -Way Purchase / 1st Street SW /
Montanez
DATE: April 5, 1992 CONSENT AGENDA
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County is needing an additional 30' of right-of-way
for the petition paving project on 1st Street SW. The Board of
County Commissioners previously approved the purchase of the right-
of-way along this corridor.
The property owner has signed a sale/purchase contract at the lands
appraised value of $1,916.64.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Board accept the contract and authorize the
Chairman's authorization signature thereon.
12
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the purchase of additional right-of-way for the
petition paving project on 1st Street S.W. and
authorized the Chairman to execute the contract for
sale and purchase with Gloria M. Montanez and
Franklin Guzman in the amount of $1,916.64, as
recommended by staff.
COPY OF CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
I. Agreement with Harriet and Harry W. Fersch III for Temporary
Water Service
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated April 1, 1992:
DATE: APRIL 1, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTq '2
DIRECTOR OF UTILI'Y SERVICES
SUBJECT: T
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND HARRIET & HARRY W. FERSCH, III
TE4PORARY WATER SERVICE
PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTWNYT
AND MANAGER OF ASSPROJECTS
STAFFED BY: DEPARTMENT OFSERVICES
Harriet and Harry W. Fersch, III have requested that temporary
service be installed from the water line on 4th Street to 'service
their property at 415 45th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32968, prior
to the installation of a water main on 45th Avenue.
ANALYSIS
The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of
Utility Services (IRCDUS) shall provide temporary water service to
Mr. and Mrs. Fersch until such time that a water line is constructed
on 45th Avenue by assessment. They agree to pay all fees required
to make this connection. They further agree to participate in the
assessment and to reconnect to this water line as required by
IRCDUS.
13
APR 14 N92
BOOK FADE
RECOMMENDATION
The'Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached Agreement with Mr. and
Mrs. Harry W. Fersch, III on the Consent Agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the agreement
with Mr. and Mrs. Harry Fersch III for temporary
water service and participation in future special
assessment program, as recommended by staff.
COPY OF SAID AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
J. Resolution Re: County Land Acquisition Advisory Committee
The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Charles P.
Vitunac dated April 8, 1992:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
eQ,9.,�-
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: April 8, 1992
RE: COUNTY LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Attached is a resolution which incorporates the changes suggested by
the County Commission to the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee;
i.e., adding a 15th member and clarifying the duties of the Board.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval and adoption of this
resolution and for the Board to authorize the Chairman to sign it.
Chairman Eggert pointed out that the minor corrections had
been made and the Resolution as presented is correct. The main
purpose of the Resolution is to add the 15th member representing
the development community.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-58 amending Resolution 90-104, which
established a Land Acquisition Advisory Committee
(LAAC), revising LAAC membership, and clarifying
LAAC purpose. ,
14
Commissioner Bowman asked about the wording in the resolution
in Section 3, Purpose of the Committee, Paragraph 5, "Develop
funding mechanisms for the acquisition of land." She felt the
committee's purpose was to make the selections and arrange the
ranking, then the Finance Advisory Committee would deal with
funding because they are better qualified to handle that.
County Administrator Chandler explained, and OMB Director Joe
Baird concurred, that staff develops and looks at figures, the Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee looks at the general picture in
terms of impact on the community, and those final recommendations
from staff and LAAC go to the Finance Advisory Committee and a
recommendation is presented to the Board.
Commissioner Bowman thought the wording should indicate that
it is a joint effort of the finance committee and staff.
Chairman Eggert suggested, "Review staff and financial
Committee recommendations for funding for the acquisition of land."
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously reopened
discussion regarding Resolution 92-58.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously amended
Resolution 92-58, ' Section 3), Purpose of the
Committee, 5., to read: "Review staff and financial
committee recommendations for funding for the
acquisition of land. (If a referendum is decided
upon, date and amount should be determined.)"
Later in the meeting, Chairman Eggert mentioned the Board had
hoped to receive applications from any developers who might be
interested in being a member of LAAO. She realized there had been
a notice in the newspaper asking for resumes and thought we should
repeat the notice with a final date of May 1 for sending in
applications.
Commissioner Scurlock related a long conversation he had with
Steve Pate who indicated he was interested in joining that
committee and he suggested that Executive Aide Liz Forlani should
contact Mr. Pate as a followup.
15
APR 14 199 22
GOOK Si
r 'ba
F,9 1J,
RESOLUTION NO. 92-58
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
COUNTY RESOLUTION 90-104, WHICH ESTABLISHED A LAND ACQUISITION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE (LAAC); REVISING LAAC MEMBERSHIP; AND
CLARIFYING LAAC PURPOSE.
WHEREAS, Indian River County has adopted policies in its
Comprehensive Plan which encourage the acquisition of tracts of
valuable native land, environmentally sensitive land, or lands
which have great recreational worth; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has decided that
the decision of which lands to buy should be made after input from
a large group of varied and informed interests so that the decision
will have the support of the majority of the population of Indian
River County; and
WHEREAS, on September 4, 1990, the Board of County
Commissioners adopted Resolution 90-104 which established a Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee (LAAC) to advise the Board on land
acquisition matters; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting of March 10, 1992 and as
requested by LAAC, the Board of County Commissioners held a public
discussion concerning clarification of the purpose of LAAC; and
WHEREAS, at their March 10, 1992 meeting, the Board voted to
add a 15th member to LAAC to represent the development community;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1) ESTABLISHMENT AND MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEE
The Land Acquisition Advisory Committee as established by
County Resolution 90-104 is hereby expanded to -be composed of 15
members with membership as follows:
I
1. County Commissioner as Chairman, Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
2. Representative of Vero Beach City Council, Mayor Jay
Smith
3. Representative of Sebastian City Council, Carolyn Corum
4. Representative of Fellsmere City Council, Mayor Jos.
Brooks
5. Representative of Indian River Shore Town Council, Mayor
Fritz Gierhart
6. Representative of Orchid Town Council, Ernie Polverari
7. Member of Indian River Land Trust, Pat Brown
8. Member of Sierra Club Conservation Committee, Ruth
Stanbridge
9. Member of Pelican Island Audubon Society, Richard Baker
10. Member of Board of Realtors, Herndon Williams
11. Member. of Chamber of Commerce or Council of 100, Talmage
Rogers
12. Member of Taxpayers' Association, Robert Schoen
13. Member of Civic Association, John Orcutt
14. Member from agricultural interests, John J. Morrison
15. Member of development community
RIP
2) TERM OF OFFICE
The term of office of each member shall be two years with the
initial appointments staggered so that as near as possible one-half
of the committee will serve terms of one year and one-half terms of
two years, with each member thereafter serving terms of two years.
3) PURPOSE OF THE COMMITTEE
The purpose of the committee shall be to:
1. Carry out the policies of the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan, primarily fulfilling the specific
upland acreage acquisition commitments of the policies of
Conservation Element Objective 6, but including the
longer term acquisition of environmentally significant
lands (beyond the minimum specified acreage of Objective
6), including environmentally sensitive"wetlands as well
as native upland plant communities;
2. Work with the County and all municipalities to make
priorities for future land acquisition;
3. Work with private groups and landholders in addition to
state and federal agencies for the acquisition of land;
4. Work with current developments and golf courses to place
currently preserved land into conservation easements for
permanent preservations; and
5. Review staff and financial committee recommendations for
funding for the acquisition of land. (If a referendum is
decided upon, date and amount should be determined.)
4.) ADVISORY STATUS
The Land Acquisition Advisory Committee shall be advisory only
and the members shall serve without compensation.
5) GENERAL PROVISIONS
The provisions of Title 1, Chapter 103, relating to advisory
boards and committees shall apply to this board.
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. A
Commissioner Richard N. Bird ye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this' 14 day of April , 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By � f�
Caro K. Eg j_
Chairman
17
APR 141992 �OoK 6 FAi E 41
APR 14
K. Release of Utility Lien
The Board reviewed memo from Lea R. Keller, CLA, dated April
7, 1992:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
DATE: April 7, 1992
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - B.C.C. MEETING 4/14/92
RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS
I have prepared the following lien -related document and request that
the Board authorize the Chairman to sign
Release of Special Assessment Lien from
PHASE I WATER PROJECT in the name of:
MOWERY
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
and authorized the Chairman to execute the Release
of Special Assessment Lien as recommended by staff.
RELEASE OF LIEN
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
L. Sale of Two County Residential Lots
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant County Attorney Terry
O'Brien dated March 30, 1992:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney >> _C1
DATE: March 30, 1992
SUBJECT: SALE OF TWO COUNTY RESIDENTIAL LOTS
As a result of a title clearing process with the City of Vero Beach the
County obtained several central beach lots. Two of the lots have no
encumbrances and are buildable. During the past year, the County
has put these lots up for sale by bid. A minimum bid for each lot was
established at $45,000.00 for one lot and $45,500.00 for the other lot.
18
The first effort resulted in no bids. It was felt that this was a result
of the times. The second effort resulted in no bids and it appears that
the minimum bid requirement may be the cause.
In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the lots be offered for
sale by bid but without specifying a minimum bid. If bids are
received, under these conditions, and the bids appear to be below
market, the County would have the option of rejecting the bids.
COUNTY PROPERTY FOR SALE
TWO RESIDENTIAL UNIMPROVED LOTS
1. `Lot 11, Block 8, Vero Beach Estates
a. Location: Eagle Drive (Trail) south side of
Uypsess Road
b. Description: Lot 11, Block 8, Vero Beach Estates
accord nTng Eo the plat filed in the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, In
Plat Book 5, at Page 8; said land lying in the
City of Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida.
C. Easement: The easement over the south 5 feet of
THT ToT shall be retained.
d. A�ppproximate size: 50' X 140'
e. Coive aancce: Florida Statutory Deed for Counties
TSec.—TFS.411.F.S.), subject to al•1 valid and
existing easements of record.
f. Minimum bid $45,000.00.
2. Lot 28, Block 7, Vero Beach Estates
a. Location: Eagle Drive (Trail) north side of Acacia
b. 6escrT—eTion: Lot 28, Block 7, Vero Beach Estates
accor g to the plat filed In the office of the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, In
Plat Book 5, at Page 8; said land lying in the
City of Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida.
C. Easement: The easement over the north 5 feet of
THTs TOT shall.be retained.
d. A eroxi.mate size: 50' X 140'
e. onve aance:Flrlda Statutory Deed for Counties
c.�
Ts e.Z5.411.F.5.), subject to all valid and
existing easements of record.
f. Minimum bid $45,500.00
Qewr,{.Iwad
BOULEVARD
='%
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation that the two lots be offered
for sale by bid without specifying a minimum bid.
19
APR i 4 1992
BOOK
MCC
M. Criteria for Evaluating Agencies Requesting Tourist Tax Funds
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Joe Baird dated
April 8, 1992:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: April 8, 1992
SUBJECT: CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING AGENCIES REQUESTING
TOURIST TAX FUNDS - CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Board of County Commissioners had requested the Tourist Development Council
develop criteria for evaluating whether agencies should receive funding from Tourist Tax
monies. To assist the committee in creating the criteria, Will Collins Deputy County
Attorney, developed a checklist outlining the authorized uses of Tourist Tax revenue under
F.S. 125.0104(5). The committee reviewed the checklist and felt it was sufficient.
RECOMMENDATION
Board of County Commissioners approve the checklist of authorized uses of Tourist Tax
Revenue as the criteria to be used in evaluating the agencies.
Chairman Eggert led discussion regarding the authorized uses
of tourist tax funds and the forms that are supplied to applicants.
She recalled the workshop when there was discussion about which
items could be paid for with these funds and the decision was made
that administrative salaries could not be included, other than the
designated tourist bureau. She wanted to be sure applicants are
aware of what they can and cannot include in their applications.
OMB Director Baird stated that the Tourist Development Council
discouraged using funds for administrative salaries and have turned
down some requests because we do not want an organization relying
on tourist tax funds for administrative salaries. Problems arise
because it could be argued that salaries are promotional costs and
because sometimes the direct labor involved in an event, such as
stuffing envelopes, can be considered a promotional cost.
Chairman Eggert was concerned that when people are applying
for tourist tax funds, if there is something that we will never
give money for, we should make that clear so they are not wasting
their time setting up an application which will be rejected. In
order to be fair to applicants, we must give them the rules. She
20
recalled that the feeling at the workshop was that as much of the
money as possible should be put into advertising that will attract
people from outside the county. That would exclude direct
administrative salaries but would include workers for a specific
project.
Director Baird explained the difficulty in specifying the
items to be excluded and gave the example of paying for a big name
band because that will attract people from outside the county, but
renting the stage and paying for the electricity and other gray
areas must be considered on an individual basis. The problem is
that "promotional cost" is a very broad term.
Chairman Eggert emphasized that whatever it is that we
traditionally have excluded should be disclosed so they will not
send an application which included that item.
Commissioner Wheeler felt we could not list all the exclusions
because there are a lot of things in the tourist law that are vague
and can be interpreted to various degrees.
Commissioner Bird suggested that even with a certain amount of
volunteerism, there might be a situation where an event might be
exactly what we need to attract tourists but in order,to promote,
coordinate and make that event happen, it would be necessary to
have a paid professional to handle it.,
Chairman Eggert pointed out that the Tourist Bureau is
designed to do that.
Director Baird said the council feels if an organization
requests funds to cover 20 percent of their administrative costs,
that indicates they are relying on tourist funds, and we discourage
that. If the administrative salary were for a particular event, it
could be considered a direct cost of that event but we have to look
at each one of the events individually and evaluate them. That is
why at the workshop the Tourist Development Council did not want to
develop any other criteria which may limit creativity.
Commissioner Wheeler enumerated three large events which
occurred in the preceding weeks which were done by volunteers, and
he felt as long as we have active civic organizations in this
community who sponsor large, well -coordinated events without paid
staff, that is what we should fund.
Commissioner Scurlock felt from the beginning that the
criteria for use of the tourist tax funds should be very limited.
He realized other communities have more liberal views, but he felt
we should continue with our restrictions unless there is a lack of
agencies applying for funding, at which time we can readdress the
issue.
21
APR 141992
FF_
APR i A 1992
Director Baird also cautioned against a policy of allowing
administrative salaries to be funded because at some future time we
may have to cut back and that places the Board in the position of
"the bad guy" for cutting back, and the Board members agreed.
Chairman Eggert concluded that everyone agreed applicants
should be told that these funds cannot be used for administrative
salaries.
Director Baird agreed to contact everyone who received an
application packet by telephone immediately, because the
applications are due back on April 20.
Chairman Eggert asked what will be done about the check lists,
and Director Baird explained that the check list is a basic outline
so that everyone understands the legal uses for the funds. The
Tourist Development Council did not want to restrain creativity by
setting strict criteria in the check lists.
Chairman Eggert argued that everyone agrees that we exclude
administrative salaries but that point is not included in the
informational packet which is sent to potential applicants.
Commissioner Scurlock thought the language must be consistent
with the law and should not be set down to a minimum.
Chairman Eggert was concerned that the application should
contain all the information to prevent embarrassment when an
application is completely rejected simply because they were not
given the proper rules.
Commissioner Wheeler assured her that would not happen. He
detailed the three standards used in evaluating an application: 1)
to attract people to use hotel rooms; 2) to attract people from
outside the county even if it is only for the day; and 3) to
promote off-season events from April to Thanksgiving. In following
these three standards each event is evaluated and a judgment must
be made.
Director Baird pointed out that the council decided billboards
would not be funded. The law allows billboard advertising but the
council felt billboards were not good for Indian River County and
decided not to allow that type of expenditure.
Chairman Eggert stressed that if these standards and
restrictions are used by the council in evaluating applications,
they should be in writing and given as part of the informational
packet, and if other traditional or unwritten policies evolve, they
should also be in writing.
Director Baird advised that these details were explained to
everyone who picked up a packet, but he offered to draft a letter
with a statement that in the past the Tourist Development Council
has found these items to be unacceptable.
22
7_-_7
i
Chairman Eggert asked if a copy of the law was included with
the check lists, and Director Baird was certain most applicants
understood the law as well as the fact that the objective is to put
heads on beds in Indian River County.
Commissioners Bowman agreed that the informational packet
should include the primary purpose, the standards and restrictions,
and would like to see a statement prepared. The other Board
members concurred.
Commissioner Scurlock suggested that the council assist Mr.
Baird to draft a letter that would state those details.
Director Baird explained there is a time constraint because
the letter would have to be sent before the next Board meeting.
Commissioner Bird suggested the Board could authorize Mr.
Baird to make telephone calls to convey the Board's statement to
the applicants.
Commissioner Wheeler felt Director Baird has already conveyed
that information to the applicants.
Chairman Eggert requested, and the other Board membersagreed,
that in the future this should be done on a more formal basis, and
Director Baird said he understood the Board's direction.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the checklist of authorized uses of Tourist Tax
Revenue as the criteria to be used in evaluating the
agencies, with additional clarification on standards
and restrictions to be included in the future.
AUTHORIZED USES OF TOURIST TAX REVENUE
(F.S. 125.0104(5))
(Check one and proceed to form checked)
Form
❑ 1. Convention Center, Sports Stadium, etc.
❑ 2. Promote and Advertise Tourism
❑ 3. County Tourist Bureau
❑ 4. Beach Improvement, River. Restoration, etc.
❑ 5. Museums, Zoos, Fishing Piers, Nature Centers
23
APR 14 1992 x001
BooK. 86 F,,u 48
FORM 1 — AUTHORIZED USE — (Check as applicable) '
EL ❑ DISTRICT I — CITY OF VERO BEACH
OR
❑ DISTRICT 2 — ELSEWHERE IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
C. ❑ PUBLICLY OWNED AND OPERATED
OR
❑ SERVICE CONTRACTAND LEASE WITH EXISTING FACILITY OPERATOR
FORM 2 — AUTHORIZED USE — (Check as applicable)
t
N
T
. E .
R
N
F A
L T
O I
R O
I U. N
D S. A
A A. L
A. TOURIST PROMOTION AND ADVERTISEMENT
B. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TOURIST PROMOTION AND ADVERTISING
PROPOSAL (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY?)
FORM 3 — AUTHORIZED USE — (Check as applicable)
C
A. TO RIND. C G S
C A H M I
O G A M M A
U E M E I S
N N B R L S
T C E C A O
B. ❑ CONTRACT WITH COUNTY?
C. GENERAL DESCRIPTION FUIJDS UTILIZATION.
24
O
M
A
N
E
R
I
A
O P
C
S
E
N
E
R
M
I
P R
Q
T
X
L
M
E
P
N
E O
U
R
T
A
O.
P
R
T
R M
I
U
E
R
D
A
O
A
A O
R
C
N
G
E
I
V
'I
T T
A. E
T
D
E
L
R
E
N
E E
EL ❑ DISTRICT I — CITY OF VERO BEACH
OR
❑ DISTRICT 2 — ELSEWHERE IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
C. ❑ PUBLICLY OWNED AND OPERATED
OR
❑ SERVICE CONTRACTAND LEASE WITH EXISTING FACILITY OPERATOR
FORM 2 — AUTHORIZED USE — (Check as applicable)
t
N
T
. E .
R
N
F A
L T
O I
R O
I U. N
D S. A
A A. L
A. TOURIST PROMOTION AND ADVERTISEMENT
B. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TOURIST PROMOTION AND ADVERTISING
PROPOSAL (WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY?)
FORM 3 — AUTHORIZED USE — (Check as applicable)
C
A. TO RIND. C G S
C A H M I
O G A M M A
U E M E I S
N N B R L S
T C E C A O
B. ❑ CONTRACT WITH COUNTY?
C. GENERAL DESCRIPTION FUIJDS UTILIZATION.
24
FORM 4 — AUTHORIZED USE — (Check as applicable)
A. TO FINANCE:
❑ BEACH IMPROVEMENT
M
❑ BEACH MAINTENANCE
A N
❑ BEACH RENOURISHMENT
R
I
❑ BEACH RESTORATION
O P
C S
❑ BEACH EROSION CONTROL
N
E
B. TO FINANCE: (IF THERE IS PUBLIC ACCESS)
I
P R
I I
X
N
N R
E P
L L
L I
U R
A A
A V
O
N K
N E
R M
D E
D R
C. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT.'
O
M
A N
E
R
I
A
O P
C S
E
N
E
R M
I
P R
Q T
X
L
M
E P
N
E O
U R
T
A
O
P R
T
R M
I U
E
R
D
A •O
A
A O
R C
N
G
E
I. V
I
T T
A.
B. M PUBLICLY OWNED AND OPERATED
OR
❑ OWNED AND OPERATED BY NOT—FOR—PROFIT ORGANIZATION,
AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
G GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL.
25
APR 1x:1992 Q 0 0 K
APR _1 -
Boa 4 F ,E 50,
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
VISIONS FOR THE FUTURE STEERING COMMITTEE - REQUEST FOR PARTIAL
FUNDING
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant to County Administrator
Randy Dowling dated April 1, 1992:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
-Iz�
FROM: Randy Dowling
Asst. to County Admin.
DATE: April 1, 1992 FILE:
SUBJECT: Visions for the Future Steering
Committee Request for Partial
Funding
REFERENCES:
The County Administrator's office received a letter and informational packet
dated March 25, 1992 from the Visions for the Future Steering Committee
requesting to appear before the Board and ask for partial funding of their
Visions for the Future program. The Steering Committee is requesting $6,000
from the County or 47% of their total program budget and is targeting the
County and its five municipalities for funding.
Mr. Eric Wetzig, representing the Visions' Steering Committee, will be present at
the April 14, 1992 Commission meeting to give the Board a 3-5 minute
presentation.
The Board reviewed a letter from Alan Campbell dated April 14,
1992 and an informational letter from the Visions Steering
Committee dated March 13, 1992:
26
J S
I 0 N
WORK
S H O P
F O C U S
O N T H E
F U T U R E
Owen Bagley
Jose Blanco
Tom Buchanan
Alan Campbell
Kevin Carpenter
Randy Cecil
Holly Dill
Tom Dooley
David Fisher
Budd Gibbs
Victor Hart, Sr.
Mary Beth Herzog
Debbie Howard
Bill Hypes
Peter W. Jones
Virginia King
Gerald Koziel
Arthur Manning
Jeff Meyer
Dr. Gary Norris
Terri O'Hare
Father Don Redden
David Risinger
Judy Roberts
Talmage G. Rogers, Jr.
George Schuster
Jane Schwiering
Richard Speck
Earl Spytek
Rose Spytek
Dr. Susan Taggart
Henk Toussaint
Robert N. Walsh
Eric K. Wetzi
Warren Winchester
April 14, 1992
Dear County Commissioners:
On behalf of the "Visions For the Future" steering committee, I would like
to take this opportunity to thank you for your consideration of this matter.
On October 9-10, 1992, representatives of our community will have an
opportunity to share their views at an event that can have a lasting impact
on the future of Indian River County.
A
The two day workshop, "Visions For The Future," will be conducted at
Indian River Community College. The budgeted cost to ensure a success-
ful program is $13,000.00.
We are requesting $6,000.00 as Indian River County's contribution to this
project.
Your support of this program will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Alan mpbell
Visions Steering Committee
27
I
APR 14 `3U
DATE: MARCH 12, 1992
TO: COUNCIL, AND COMMISSION MEMBERS
FROM: THE VISIONS STEERING COMMITTEE
BOOK PSE 2
SUBj ZCT: INFORMATION PACKAGES ON THE VISION WORKSHOP
I S
I O N
WORK
S H O P
F O C U S
O N T H E
The enclosed information is being given to you in ordjarF to T II R E
expand your knowledge and understanding of the VISION
WORKSHOP process and history. This will provide backgro
information which may be useful in expanding on the
discussion you have recently had with one or more of our
Steering Committee members.
We particularly want to emphasize the broad diversity and
representative nat-are whits is required for this pracess to
acsieve a meaningful consensus of all interest within the
County. To that end, we will be looking for support from
all cities in the County as well as the County itself.
The budget for this project is $13,000 and is projected to
be allocated as follows:
** p_omotion and salicitation $1,800
of participants
** Data collect -ion and printing $ 800
of workshop books
** Professional Facilitator $3,500
** Lunches and beverages $1,200
** Final report family picnic $1,500
** Final report production $2,2oa
and distribution
$13, 000
These figures include an allowance for unseen cont.1agencies.
Indian River Community College has agreed to provide the
facilities of the Mueller Center at no charge as part of its
community involvement and educational commitment to the
County. In addition, it has agreed to provide all required
financial cont+ols, assuring that any funds provided for the
Workshop will be used solely for that purpose under proper
accounting controls.
Eric K. Wetzig, representative of the Vision Workshop Focus On
The Future steering committee, presented to the Board the
background and plan for a workshop along with a request for funds.
He stated that the plan evolved from a meeting of a number of
community residents held in the Library last July. After that
initial meeting a steering committee held innumerable meetings, and
while the voluntary membership has changed, there is a core of 35
to 40 people on the steering committee from 11 different interests
28
r
in the community and they have formulated a plan to present to the
Commission and to the various local governments within the county.
The proposed workshop is a format which has been successfully
completed in a number of other communities including Tallahassee,
Jacksonville and Culver City, California. In West Palm Beach,a
workshop resulted in a report which led to a change in their form
of city government. The workshop which the committee is asking to
be funded is a process for dialogue. It is not to set an agenda
nor to discuss particular issues. It is to recognize that there
are general areas of community interest on which honorable people
disagree and this workshop is a vehicle that can be put in place to
have those people meet for open dialogue to discuss those issues
without the pressures of trying to address a particular bill or a
particular opinion. It is a process to find out where the
disagreeing parties may reach a consensus on a number of issues
which are important to the County.
In addition to financial support Mr. Wetzig requested that the
Board add their personal involvement in two ways: first, to have
someone be a liaison with the steering committee and, secondly, but
more important in the long run, each Commissioner spend some time
at the two-day workshop to observe, to move around among the
different working groups and hear the different discussions and
listen and glean personally from the process, and in that way be
able to determine whether the process makes sense to do again.
These processes, once started, do repeat because they raise issues
that participants want to talk about "next year."
The budget itself has been constructed to allow for a number
of issues. The amount budgeted for the professional facilitator is
an outside number. We sent formal requests for written proposals
to three professional facilitators and two responded. One was
substantially higher, that is, $30,000 to $40,000 higher and really
wanted to change the entire process from a community meeting and
get together into a questionnaire and a totally different kind of
format. The budgeted amount is consistent with what a facilitator
has cost in other communities. The professional fee for the
facilitator, as with most consultants, is a $1,000 a day. That
does not include time that is spent in preparation but does include
those days when the facilitator physically comes here plus the
preparation of the final report, so this is an outside budget
number.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if the steering committee
anticipates future workshops each year or two, and Mr. Wetzig
responded that in his experience once a community has gone through
these workshops they have found enough value in it to want to do it
29
ARR 41992 3or� 61�F,t
i.b
Poor �9 FACE
again. The proposal is to do one, with no future commitment, to
see what it does, to see if it makes sense and if the participants
realize the value and if governmental agencies benefit from it. A
determination can then be made whether to do it again.
Chairman Eggert recounted that when this project was
originally discussed at the Council of 100 a budget was set at
$8,000 to $10,000 and Committee Member David Risinger felt that
budget could be reduced even further.
Mr. Wetzig responded that there is a distinct possibility the
budget could be reduced. For instance, the $5,000 is an outside
number and could go as low as $4,000.
Chairman Eggert described an activity involving every area of
the county and involving two committees, the Economics Development
Council and the Overall Economic Development Plan Committee, for a
review and massive rewriting of the plan where the staff served as
facilitators, and they were good facilitators. While it involved
government and involved paying staff to do their jobs, which they
would be doing anyway, it did not cost outside money.
Chairman Eggert was concerned with multi events because
education and substance abuse is planning an event which involves
all aspects of the community, the Overall Economics Development
Plan has their activity, and now we have this possible activity.
She asked what we will accomplish with this workshop that is worth
contributing the taxpayers' money.
Mr. Wetzig thought the value is that the workshop involves a
number of issues. He felt each of the activities enumerated by
Chairman Eggert is a valuable process but involves a specific
issue. The workshop is the opposite. The workshop is to focus on
the interests of the community at large and part of that process is
to see, within all these choices of specialized areas, what are the
areas the community feels are most important to discuss. This is
purported to be a broader view and dialogue of all the issues of
the county rather than addressing a specific issue, although this
workshop format can also be utilized to address a specific issue.
Chairman Eggert clarified that the education or substance
abuse topics were not specific issue formats. Her real concern is
"community burnout" in having so many workshops or conferences or
meetings, because the first activity gets enthusiastic response and
the next one gets moderate response and the next one gets less and
she does not want that to happen.
Commissioner Scurlock asked about the process for selection of
participants.
Mr. Wetzig stated that the selection process was an issue
which was wrestled with about six months before the steering
30
n
committee reached their present position. He knew the Board is
familiar with the public hearing process where typically people who
are the most vociferous about the issues that are being discussed
show up. This proposed process is the reverse. The participants
will include these people who would show up at a public hearing and
that is good because that provides diversity of opinion. The
steering committee is trying to reach the elements of the community
that do not usually surface at public hearings. The community
college has agreed to co-sponsor a project to put together a
statistical model based on available county data to determine what
a workshop of 150 participants might be if it were truly
representative of the whole county citizenry and we will attempt to
use that as a guide in looking at applicants. The real answer to
a true representation requires the combined efforts of steering
committee members and members of the Commission and councils of the
various towns to seek out areas that may be under -represented to be
certain that those people sign up to be participants. The aim is
representation from all the different aspects. The process works
if people who honestly disagree sit down at a table and begin to
talk.
Chairman Eggert asked if her understanding was correct that
the participants would be chosen simply because they answered an
advertisement and received an invitation.
Mr. Wetzig felt we will have to seek out participants which is
why the steering committee is being urged to go to service clubs to
talk about this process. He also said he has directed the steering
committee members to consider a particular person they most
disagree with and that person is a potential participant, because
it is to everyone's benefit to have that diversity. The community
college will assist by putting together the questionnaire which
will be used to get some statistical profiles and validation to the
questions. The solicitation is handled one on one and as the names
come in we see whether those people fit the cross section that we
are looking for, but it is not an exact science. This activity
will be done by the steering committee with input from the
community college and assistance from the facilitator.
Discussion ensued regarding the questionnaire, solicitation,
promotion and determination of participants. In answer to a
question by Commissioner Scurlock, Mr. Wetzig stated that there is
a standard basic methodology in a questionnaire, but he emphasized
that the final questionnaire must reflect this community and that
is why liaison involvement from the Board of County Commissioners
is needed as the questionnaire develops. Demographics will do some
of it but there is no absolute method to obtain a perfect mix of
31
P'
BOOK fN.GE PJ
APR 1411TWIL .
mor.. 6 1 6L 56
participants which exactly profiles the county. Even if you had
it, you could not prove it. The workshop will be the ultimate
test. Mr. Wetzig also commented that for the first workshop the
greatest challenge is to get 150 seats filled; the second year
there are too many applicants.
Commissioner Bird believed this project has considerable merit
and benefit to the Commission for future planning and to better
guide this county in the future.
Commissioner Wheeler questioned government funding of this
project. He was impressed with the makeup of the steering
committee and described them as the movers and shakers of our
community who represent various organizations and interests in the
county. He felt the workshop could produce some positive things
but does not feel government should fund it.
Chairman Eggert was aware that the County does many things for
economic development which the community does not see or
appreciate. However, there are many facets to economic development
and it involves much more than bringing industry to Indian River
County. We need to know how to approach it. She has concerns
about the proposed workshop, including the requested budget, but
supports it because no matter how many civic meetings a
Commissioner attends there is not a room large enough to include
all interested parties. She admitted she wished she had more
accurate information about how constituents feel and how the entire
county feels. Even though there are a lot of other meetings, she
feels this project is worth supporting, one time, with no
commitment and no promises for the future, with the hope it
accomplishes what the steering committee is looking for.
Commissioner Bowman was concerned that this may be an
expensive learning process and wished there were more experienced
people involved. She asked if we do get a good cross section and
a reasonable consensus is reached, what happens with the results,
who carries the ball.
Chairman Eggert assumed it would be the responsibility of
whoever can most effectively carry that ball.
Mr. Wetzig confirmed Chairman Eggert's comment and said that
unlike a town meeting where citizens take that responsibility, this
process is to give information to those representatives who
actually make decisions. Whether the Board of County Commissioners
hears and believes what the groups says, at least it gives them
information and input we might not otherwise have. This process
will provide a distilled vehicle which provides honest information
to the elected officials who will determine whether that
information should be acted upon.
32
Commissioner Scurlock asked how many of the municipalities
have agreed to participate, and Mr. Wetzig responded that he made
his presentation to the County Commission first because if the
County Commissions is supportive then we can go to the towns and
cities and show them how this type information will be of value to
them and ask them to fund a portion of the total budget.
Chairman Eggert cautioned that two of our municipalities might
not be capable of financially supporting this activity.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that although his knowledge of this
type of project was limited, he supported the concept of the
workshop.
Chairman Eggert noted the steering committee is trying very
hard to do it right and are proceeding slowly.
Commissioner Bird felt comfortable supporting the project
because the select group of people on the steering committee would
come up with a good cross section of participants and he expected
excellent feedback from this process.
Commissioner Scurlock related his confusion with the phrase
"cross section" because it can relate to economics, neighborhoods,
population, or location within the county. He illustrated by
citing Vero Lakes Estates, Sebastian and Indian River Shores as
having completely different views.
Mr. Wetzig assured him that in this proposed process,
Sebastian, Vero Lake Estates and Indian River Shores will have an
opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns and to hear the
opinions and concerns of the others. They will have to defend
their positions and recognize that, while problems in other areas
are not of concern to them, sometimes they are similar concerns,
and that is the intent of the process.
Commissioner Bowman voiced concern about the budget, and Mr.
Wetzig emphasized it was computed to cover all expenses. Once the
steering committee is assured of funding, they will negotiate for
either contributions or for the best deal.
Chairman Eggert asked whether they will return a proportionate
share of the saving if they come in under budget, and Mr. Wetzig
suggested that the County could authorize funds to the extent of
$6,000 with the understanding that some of the cities may not be
able to support their share. The $6,000 is approximately 45
percent of the total budget.
33
_I
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board (4-1, Commissioner
Wheeler voting in opposition) authorized $6,000 to
be budgeted from MSTU to be used to financially
support a workshop, as described by Vision Workshop
Focus On The Future steering committee.
The Chairman recessed the meeting briefly at 10:05 A. M. and
the Board reconvened at 10:15 A. M. with all members present.
DISCUSSION REGARDING DESIGNATING DR. MARTIN LUTHER ICING JR. J'S
BIRTHDAY AS A COUNTY HOLIDAY
The Board reviewed letter from Fred Plair dated February 24,
1992:
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Birthday Committee
P.O. Boz 1614
Vero Beach, FL 32961-1614 Fred Plair, President
Shirley Lambert, Secretary
Debra Walker, Treasurer
TO: The Honorable Members of the
Board.of County Commissioners
THROUGH: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Fred Plair, President
Martin Luther King Jr. Committee
DATE: February 24, 1992
' OFFICE
RE: Designation of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s
birthday as a county holiday
Dear County Commissioners:
The Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Committee respectfully requests that
the Board of County Commissioners consider designating Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr. Is birthday as a county holiday. Dr. King's
birthday is a federal and state holiday.
Designation of Dr. King's birthday as a county holiday would show
recognition of his work as well as the committment of the Indian
River County Board of County Commissioners toward creating a
peaceful and united community in which everyone can live, work, and
enjoy life regardless of their race, color, or creed.
Your time and consideration in this matter is highly appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Plair, President
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Committee
34
County Administrator Jim Chandler reported that he reviewed
the request and from an administrative standpoint could not justify
recommending observance of an additional holiday. We currently
have 10 holidays, which he believes is sufficient, and an
additional holiday would be one less day of productivity. Mr.
Chandler clarified that he is not addressing the issue of
recognition of Dr. King's birthday, only the issue of adding a
holiday from an administrative standpoint.
Commissioner Scurlock thought we could attempt to get the
reaction of the employees in terms of trading one existing holiday
for a day designated in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr., but he
would not be in favor of adding another holiday.
Administrator Chandler felt that is a possibility and noted
that St. Lucie County has dropped observance of one other holiday
and added Martin Luther King Day.
Commissioner Bird was not in favor of adding a holiday and
suggested the day after Thanksgiving as a possible holiday to
exchange for a day in observance of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Commissioner Bird reported he has had complaints, particularly from
the building community, that it is inconvenient to have the County
offices closed two consecutive working days. It almost shuts down
their constructions jobs because they cannot get inspections and
pull permits and so forth.
Chairman Eggert and Commissioner Bowman suggested the Good
Friday holiday as a possible exchange, and Commissioner Bird
preferred substituting the holiday that causes the County offices
to be closed two consecutive days during the week.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized a survey of County employees to see how
they feel about replacing an existing holiday with a
holiday to observe the birthday of Martin Luther
King., Jr.
RENAME NORTH GIFFORD ROAD AS MARTIN LUTHER KING JR., BOULEVARD
Chairman Eggert led discussion regarding a request from
William Holt to rename North Gifford Road as Martin Luther King,
Jr., Boulevard. She reported that she discussed the request with
Public Works Director Jim Davis as well as with the Post Office and
several other people and the consensus was that to rename a road is
very difficult. She suggested that since we are coming into
ownership of Gifford Park land we may want to consider renaming
Gifford Park in Dr. King's honor, but she wanted to hear from the
35
APR '.41 J
APR 14 1992
Board members to get their comments before reporting back to Mr.
Holt.
Commissioner Bird suggested it would be better to name
something newly created in honor of somebody rather than trying to
rename something.
Commissioner Bowman suggested the Community Center could be
named in his honor.
Commissioner Bird would prefer to get the opinions and
feelings from the Gifford community because there is a lot of
history and a lot of pride with those people. They are the ones
who raised the money to help build the center and it is possible
they would be in favor of renaming it.
Chairman Eggert stated she would report the Board's comments
to Mr. Holt.
PUBLIC HEARING
GEORGE F. HAMNER, JR REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 26.5 ACRES
FROM RS -3 TO A-1.
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 -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a Wx Xzil
In the matter of L if
in the Court, was pub-
L-A
lished in said newspaper in the issues of &Ya4irl '
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.
L
Sworn to and subscribed before me this �4 day of
(Business Manager)
(SEAL)
' iahhRy F,6fic., State of F{. 4;-
P ly Comsmisdcn Empbas A"?*
M
�..RS-3
Subject
N
Property
LO RD
me -3 : '
a
A-1
CO)
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a
qty adhance rewdi landfrormRS-3,Single-
Family Residential Diable to A-1, Agricultural 1 Ols-
Geo qty rust entrytte 1c .
Geoge F. Hamby
, u as Trustee. eub
property Is located on the south side of 9th Street -
5 W. (Oslo Road). west of 43rd Avenue, and can -
tains approximately +-28.5 acres. The stfi�ct
property
gas In the Northeast Vi section of settler
28, Tiwru h =,, Range 39E, lying and being In
Indian RWer Cour , Florida.
A public hearing at which parties In Wares and
eereshag have an hi'of
Conmissbnersofiw the o
Indian River
Florida in the
slat hambos�M County,
Camty Administration Build-
Ing,
tmdd-
Vero Beach, Flor-
loch, an Tted at 1840 25th uesday, April 14, 1992 Street, t 9:05
The Board of County Commissioners mmaayy adopt
another zonhg district. onax than the district re-
quested, provided it Is witidn the same genual use
category.
Anyone who ppeal any decision
which may made at this wish prig will need
to an -
we that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is
made, which Includes the testimony and evidence
upon which Raphael is based.
IndiaWrer County
BCommissioners
of County CCo issionas
qMarch 21992 K. Eggert, Chairman
887895
607
-1
Community Development Director Bob Keating commented from the
following memo dated March 19, 1992:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
Obert M.a ti g, P
THRU: Sasan Rohani �'k
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Cheryl A. Tworekg�l
Senior Planner, Long4Range Planning
DATE: March 19, 1992
RE: GEORGE F. HAMNER, JR. REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY
26.5 ACRES FROM RS -3 TO A-1 (RZON-91-12-119)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of April 14, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to rezone approximately 26.5 acres from RS -3,
Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre) to A-1,
Agricultural -1 District (up to 1 unit/5 acres). The property is
located on the south side of 9th Street S.W. (Oslo Road), west of
43rd Avenue. The subject property is owned by George F. Hamner,
Jr., as Trustee.
On Thursday, February 27, 1992,
voted unanimously to recommend
rezone the entire parcel to A-1.
Existing Land Use Pattern
the Planning and Zoning Commission
the approval of this request to
The property is presently an old, partially cleared citrus grove
zoned RS -3. Land to the north and west of the subject property
consists of large parcels containing active citrus operations and
zoned RS -3. The Green Acres Estate Subdivision, which is partially
developed with single family residences, lies to the east of the
subject property and is zoned RS -3. Properties to the northwest,
south and southwest of the subject property all 'contain active
citrus operations and are zoned A-1.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and all adjacent properties are located in the
L-1, Low -Density Residential. - 1 land use designation. This
designation permits low'density residential zoning categories up to
3 units/acre.
37
APR 14 19U
J
A� � 092
F46E 6�
Environment
Although the property was once cleared for citrus production,
native vegetation has re-established itself on the property.
Environmental planning staff have identified approximately 5.5
- acres of native upland plant community on the north half of the
site, consisting of cabbage palm/oak hammock.
Also, a pond has been excavated on the southeast quadrant of the
site, a portion of which is parallel and proximate to the east
property boundary. The remainder of the site is dominated by
brush, including wax _myrtles (Myrica sp.), groundsel bush
*(Baccharis sp.) and vines (Rubus sp.), with citrus trees scattered
throughout.
A land clearing permit was recently issued by staff for
underbrushing only, outside of the hammock areas.
The subject property and all adjacent properties are located in
Flood Zone AE, as identified by the Flood Insurance Rating Maps
(FIRM).
Utilities and Services
The site is located within the Urban Service Area; water service is
available within J mile of the site; wastewater lines, however, do
not currently extend to the site.
Transportation System
The property abuts 9th Street S.W. (Oslo Road) to the north. Oslo
Road is classified as an urban principal arterial road on the
future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of Oslo Road is
a two lane paved road with approximately sixty (60) feet of public
road right-of-way.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
C concurrency of public facilities
C compatibility with the surrounding area
C consistency with the comprehensive plan
C potential impact on environmental quality
This section will also consider alternatives for development of the
site.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is located within the County Urban Service Area (USA), an
area deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive
plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use
Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary
to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community.
The comprehensive plan also requires that new development be
reviewed to ensure that the minimum level of service standards for
these services and facilities are maintained. For rezoning
requests, this review is undertaken as part of the conditional
concurrency application process.
38
As per Section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations,
conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since rezoning
requests are not projects, county regulations call for the
concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the
subject property based upon the requested zoning district or land
use designation. For residential rezoning requests, the most
intense use (according to the county's LDR's) is the maximum number
of units that could be built on the site, given the size of the
property and the maximum density under the proposed zoning
district. The site information used for the concurrency analysis
is as follows:
1.
Size
of
Property:
126.5 acres
2.
Size
of
Area to be
Rezoned: ±26.5 acres
-3.
4.
5.
6.
Existing Zoning'Classification:
Existing Land Use Designation:
Proposed Zoning Classification:
RS -3, Single -Family
Residential District (up
to 3 units/acre)
L-1, Low -Density
Residential - 1 (up to 3
units/acre)
A-1, Agricultural
District (up to 1 unit/5
acres)
Maximum Number of Units with Proposed Zoning: ±5 units
As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of
the County's Land Development Regulations, projects which do not
increase density or intensity of use are exempt from concurrency
requirements. This rezoning request is exempt from concurrency
review because the requested agricultural zoning would decrease the
total number of potential units that the site could accommodate
from 79 units to 5 units.
It is important to note that there will be no effect on service
levels for any public facility as a result of the rezoning. The
overall density would decrease substantially under the proposed
agricultural zoning, and the potential impact on the county's
services and facilities would be less than what it could be under
the present RS -3 zoning.
In this case, as in all cases, a detailed concurrency analysis will
need to be done at the time of site development or redevelopment.
That concurrency analysis will address facility service levels and
project demand.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of
the comprehensive plan. Rezonings must also show consistency with
the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land
Use Map, which include agricultural, residential, recreation,
conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their
densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in
nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of.Indian River County.
39
BOOK �5J f', ,t
ASR �� ��
kPR i 4 1992 64
BOOK 86 N06E
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions. While all comprehensive plan
policies are important, some have more applicability than others in
reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this
request are Future Land Use Policies 1.12 and 6.3.
- Future Land Use Policy 1.12
Future Land Use Policy 1.12 states that the Low -Density Residential
land use designations are intended for residential uses (not to
exceed 3 units/acre for L-1), recreational uses, public facilities,
institutional uses and agricultural uses as permitted in Future
Land Use Policy 6.3. In order to determine whether this request is
consistent with Policy 1.12, it is necessary to first determine the
request's consistency with Future Land Use Policy 6.3.
- Future Land Use Policy 6.3
Future Land Use Policy. 6.3 .states that Indian River County shall
permit the continuation of agricultural uses east of I-95 where
they serve to enhance open space and green belt areas of the
county. The subject property, when developed with agricultural
uses consistent with the A-1 zoning district, will serve as an
expansion of the existing active citrus adjacent to the north,
west, and south. Therefore, the agricultural zoning of the
property would be consistent with the intent of Future Land Use
Policy 6.3. Based upon the determination that this request is
consistent with Policy 6.3, it is staff's opinion that the
requested A-1 zoning would also meet the intent of Future Land Use
Policy 1.12.
The staff also assessed this request
policies in the
assessment, staff
the plan.
comprehensive plan.
determined that the
with respect to the other
As a result of this
request is consistent with
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
Agricultural operations are exempt from county native upland plant
community set-aside requirements. As such, the proposed rezoning
could result in a loss of approximately .8 acres (15% R 5.5 acres)
of cabbage palm/oak hammock that would otherwise be required to be
preserved under requirements applicable to the present RS -3 zoning
of the subject property. While this loss of native upland
vegetation will occur, there are corresponding and offsetting
benefits associated with the proposed rezoning. Foremost among
these benefits is the open space that will be provided by the
agricultural use of the subject property.
Because of these trade-offs as well as the limited amount of upland
habitat that will not be preserved, staff feels that the rezoning
will not result in any significant impact on environmental quality.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
Compatibility is not a major concern for this property. Being
located in an area dominated by active citrus development, the site
is surrounded on three sides by grove operations. With
agricultural uses on adjacent properties, conversion of the subject
tract to citrus production would represent a use compatible with
surrounding property on three sides.
CI7
M M M
On the fourth side, however, there is a compatibility concern.
That concern relates to the potential impact which an active
agricultural operation could have on the Green Acres Estates
Subdivision, which lies directly to the east of the subject
property. Ranging in size from .52 acres to .62 acres, the ten
Green Acres Estates subdivision lots which abut the subject
property all are 191.3 feet in depth. With a minimum RS -3 setback
of twenty-five feet, these lots will eventually have houses and
yard areas bordering the subject property and the proposed
agricultural uses.
Currently, Indian River County has land development regulation
guidelines in Section 911.04(3)(c)5 which require new residential
development which is established adjacent to active agricultural
operations to provide a buffer between the agricultural operations
and the proposed residential uses. The intent is to make the
intruding residential uses protect themselves from the adverse
effects of active agricultural operations - particularly effects
associated with pesticide use and aerial spraying.
However, there are no regulations which require a proposed
agricultural development to provide the same type of buffer to
adjacent residential uses. No such requirements were established
because it was thought that agricultural intrusion into residential
areas would seldom occur. In this case, however, the rezoning
would allow the agricultural conversion to occur with no additional
county development approval required. Since the conversion would
result in an agricultural/residential interface, the issue of
protecting the existing and future residents of the adjacent
subdivision from the adverse impacts of grove operations becomes a
concern.
To address that concern, the staff had recommended to the Planning
and Zoning Commission that the easternmost 50 feet of the subject
property not be rezoned from RS -3 to A-1. It was staff's position
that retention of RS -3 zoning over the 50 feet of property
immediately adjacent to the Green Acres Estates Subdivision would
preclude conversion of that portion of the property to agricultural
use. With an agricultural use restriction, the 50 foot strip would
then serve as a buffer from the active agricultural uses to the
residential subdivision.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, however, disagreed with staff.
At its February 17,,1992 meeting, the Commission voted to recommend
that the entire parcel be rezoned to A-1, rather than following
staff's recommendation to retain RS -3 zoning on the easternmost
fifty feet of the subject property as a buffer between the proposed
citrus grove and the adjacent Green Acres Estates Subdivision. The
Commission's concern focused on whether or not the buffer adjacent
to the subdivision was necessary. The Commission felt that general
citrus grove design, including a fifteen (15) foot perimeter
stormwater/irrigation ditch and a twenty-five (25) foot perimeter
access road, would separate grove operations from the adjacent
subdivision sufficiently to eliminate any nuisance effects on the
Green Acres Estates Subdivision.
Notwithstanding the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision, the
staff has concerns regarding the -establishment of a grove without
a buffer to protect existing, adjacent platted lots. Since the
need for a buffer between active agricultural operations and
intruding residential development was recognized with the recent
adoption of the county's land development regulations, this
recognition seems to indicate that there is a compatibility problem
between active citrus groves and adjacent single-family
subdivisions. However, this recognition also indicates that the
compatibility issue can be resolved with installation of a buffer.
41
MOK
APR 1. 1
APR 1 �,i2
It seems reasonable that, if subdivisions proposed adjacent to
existing active agricultural areas must provide a buffer to reduce
the incompatibility, then active agricultural operations proposed
adjacent to existing single-family subdivisions should also provide
a buffer. This is based on two assumptions. The first is that an
agricultural/residential incompatibility exists, while the second
is that the intruding use, whether it be the agriculture or the
residential, should provide the buffer.
If these assumptions are incorrect and buffers are not needed
between agricultural and residential uses, then the buffer
requirement applicable to subdivisions proposed adjacent to
agricultural operations should be eliminated. Since groves
generally have perimeter roads and ditches and because intruding
residential uses must provide a buffer from these groves, it seems
that the ditch/road separation does not constitute a sufficient
buffer. Therefore, when an active agricultural operation is
proposed adjacent to already platted lots, the only way that an
adequate buffer can be provided is for the agricultural operation
to provide it.
The major difference between applying the buffer requirement to
agricultural and residential uses is procedural. While buff eryards
for residential developments are established at the time of site
plan or subdivision approval, at present that cannot be done with
agricultural uses because such uses are not subject to development
review. Similarly, a buffer requirement cannot be imposed on a
rezoning approval because that would constitute conditional zoning,
a practice not allowed.
While planning staff felt that retaining the existing RS -3 zoning
on the easternmost 50 feet of the subject property would create an
adequate buffer to reduce the agricultural/residential
incompatibility, the attorney's office has ruled that unacceptable.
It is the attorney's position that retaining the 50 foot strip as
RS -3 would contitute inverse condemnation.
Given the attorney's position, planning staff acknowledges that the
proposed 50 foot RS -3 buffer would not be allowable. With the RS -3
buffer alternative not allowable, there is only one way by which
the rezoning can be approved and the adjacent residential lots be
protected. That would involve changing the county's land
development regulations to require groves proposed adjacent to
existing residential subdivisions in the urban service area to
provide buffers.
With more interest being shown in establishing citrus groves on
vacant tracts within the urban service area, staff feels that it
would be appropriate to create an LDR provision to require buffers
for groves proposed adjacent to existing residential subdivisions.
With such a regulation, agricultural rezonings could be approved
and adjacent, existing residential subdivisions could be protected.
42
M M M
Alternatives
The Board of County Commissioners has several alternatives to
consider regarding the subject property.
c The Board of County Commissioners could approve the
request and rezone the subject property to A-1. This
would allow the applicant to develop the entire ±26.5
acre parcel with agricultural uses and would not require
any buffer for the Green Acres Estates Subdivision.
c The Board of County Commissioners could deny the
requested rezoning, thereby retaining the property's
existing RS -3 designation.
Conclusion
The rezoning is generally compatible with the surrounding area, is
consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
comprehensive plan, and is exempt from concurrency review. The
subject property is located in an area deemed suitable for low
density residential and continued agricultural uses and has met all
applicable criteria. Staff support the subject request with the
recommendation that the Board direct the staff to initiate an
amendment to the LDR's to require that groves proposed on vacant
land within the urban service area and adjacent to existing
residential subdivisions provide a buffer to protect the
subdivision.
RECONNENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
this request to rezone the subject property from RS -3 to A-1.
Staff further recommends that the Board direct the staff to
initiate an LDR amendment to require groves proposed within the
urban service area and adjacent to a residential subdivision to
provide a buffer between the existing subdivision and the proposed
- agricultural operation.
Commissioner Scurlock asked what the buffer is for, and
Director Keating explained it is to protect the subdivision from
the potential adverse effects of agriculture operations, such as
ground level and aerial spraying and the general noise and activity
associated with grove operations.
Discussion ensued regarding the effectiveness of a 50 -foot
buffer between a subdivision and an active grove. Commissioner
Scurlock felt it does not protect the subdivision from the aerial
spraying. Commissioners Wheeler and Bird agreed and added that
with strong winds the buffer does not protect from ground level
spraying either.
Commissioner Bowman asked about the impact on shallow wells,
and Director Keating responded that they did not particularly study
that point, but Commissioner Scurlock assured her that pesticides
and chemicals do not cause the problems they once did.
Commissioner Wheeler cited some existing situations where
groves are adjacent to subdivisions and cause no problems.
43
mnK
APR 14 1992
APS a`' 9
Commissioner Scurlock noted that a 50 -foot buffer could cause
a significant financial impact to the grove in terms of an extra
row of trees.
Commissioner Wheeler asked if this rezoning would allow a
packing house on this property, and Director Keating said it would
not allow a packing house, only general farming or pasture land.
Director Keating pointed out that a 50 -foot buffer is required
when a subdivision is built next to an existing agriculture use but
this is the opposite situation and staff is recommending initiation
of an LDR amendment to require groves proposed within the urban
service area and adjacent to a residential subdivision to provide
a buffer. Commissioner Scurlock felt the 50 -foot buffer does not
make any difference.
Commissioner Bowman asked if there have been any complaints
from the residents of the subdivision, and Director Keating
responded that there have been some comments, but not many, because
all but one of the existing houses are on the east side of the
road.
Chairman Eggert noted this was an old citrus grove which had
been partially cleared.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 92-08 amending the zoning ordinance and
accompanying zoning map from RS -3 to A-1 for the
property generally located on the south side of 9th
Street S.W. (Oslo Road), west of 43rd Avenue as
recommended by staff.
Chairman Eggert clarified, and the Board members confirmed,
that no action be taken to initiate an LDR amendment to require
groves proposed within the urban service area and adjacent to a
residential subdivision to provide a buffer.
44
ORDINANCE NO. 92-08
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RS -3 TO
A-1, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
9TH STREET S.W., (OSLO ROAD), WEST OF .43RD AVENUE, AND
DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning -
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
A PORTION OF TRACT 2, SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39
EAST ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS
COMPANY SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GREEN ACRES ESTATES
SUBDIVISION, PLAT #1, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 11, PAGE 48, OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR THE
POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID POINT BEING ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
TRACT 2;
THENCE, RUN N 89040'47" W ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
TRACT 2, A DISTANCE OF 885.18 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID TRACT 2;
THENCE, RUN S 0012'30" W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT
2, A DISTANCE OF 1,330.15 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID TRACT 2;
THENCE, RUN S 89041'45" E ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
TRACT 2, A DISTANCE OF 885.33 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED GREEN ACRES ESTATES
' SUBDIVISION, PLAT #1;
THENCE, RUN N 0012'07" E ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID GREEN
ACRES ESTATES SUBDIVISION, PLAT #1, A DISTANCE OF
1,329.90 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
45
APR '1'4 199
APR 14, 199
ion FF ;E 7
LESS AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 30.00 FEET THEREOF FOR INDIAN RIVER
FARMS COMPANY SUB -LATERAL DITCH B-7 AS RECORDED IN DEED BOOK
48, PAGE 25 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS .OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 26.42 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND LYING
WHOLLY IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. SAID PARCEL ALSO
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD,
IF ANY.
Be changed from RS -3 to A-1.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 14 day of April , 1992.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 25 day of March , 1992 for a public hearing to be
held on the 14th day of April , 1992 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Wheeler , seconded by
Commissioner Bird , and adopted by the following
vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Ave
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Nye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: ./ .eu:i�;
Caroly 'K. Egger Chairman
APPROVAL OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT EXPENDITURES FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION SYSTEM FROM EXISTING FUNDS BUDGET
AMENDMENT 023
Emergency Services Director Doug Wright commented from his
memo dated April 2, 1992:
46
I
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: James Chandler
County Admi�tor
FROM: Doug Wright,IDirector
Emergency Services
DATE: April 2, 1992
SUBJECT: Approval of Capital Equipment Expenditures
for Emergency Management Immediate Notification
System From Existing Funds - BUDGET AMENDMENT 023
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be
given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
the next regular scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Department of Emergency Services, Division of Emergency
Management is continually striving to provide adequate and timely
notification to the public and private sectors prior to emergency
situations or conditions. Currently, the equipment and procedures
used by staff do not provide an immediate notification of throating
conditions within the county.
Although Indian River County is vulnerable to many disaster events,
a hazard analysis of our county demonstrates that weather conditions
is the most constant threat to lives and property. Being a coastal
county, tropical disturbance preparedness is extremely important.
History tells us that the "late afternoon thunderstorms" pose a
constant day to day threat to the entire county. These thunderstorms
move into our area quickly and usually bring copious amounts of
precipitation and strong winds. Unfortunately, on many occasions
these thunderstorms spawn tornadoes which can produce winds over 300
miles per hour.
In an effort to issue weather warning information, staff is proposing
the creation of a notification system that will allow the Division of
Emergency Management to announce this imminent weather information to
designated locations immediately after a warning is received.
The proposed system is actually very simple. From the Emergency
Management Office, an encoder would be activated to send a message to
a decoder or plectron of which seventeen (17) would be disseminated
at designated locations throughout the county. Using this process,
messages can be thorough, complete, and repeated as necessary. All
seventeen (17) of the designated locations could and would be
notified at the same time, at least within two minutes after
Emergency Management received the weather or other important
bulletin. The decoders would be located at municipal offices,
hospitals, volunteer agencies, media centers, school board offices,
law enforcement agencies, and the local emergency broadcast radio
station.
The Division of Emergency Management has $15,666 in reserve account
#001-000-247-008.00 and staff proposes using $4,874 from this
existing account to purchase and modify the necessary equipment. The
account originally had $40,000.00 in it which was obtained in 1983 as
a result of a development order. Resolution No. 81-59 notes the
funds were to be used for emergency management purposes. The only
prior approved expenditure from this reserve account was in late 1991
when the Board approved funding for the receipt of weather
information from ZEPHYR WEATHER SYSTEMS after CONTEL WEATHER SYSTEMS
ceased providing data services.
47
��M
[4 ri
I
M OK
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
d
8 b i,,9. �y E r 2
Funding some systemsof this type in the State of Florida have
reached as high as $50,000.00. However, because we are a small
county and have some existing equipment, the cost is much lower. The
Division of Emergency Management has an older General Electric
Master
II radio transmitter which can be modified to serve as the encoder
rather than purchasing a new one. The frequency will have to be
changed through the Federal Communications Commission in order to
utilize the Emergency Management frequency repeater at Hobart Tower.
The following equipment or equipment modification is recommended for
funding:
ITEM COST TOTAL
Tone Decoder $264 (17 decoders) $4,474
License Update 200 200
Frequency Crystal 200 200
GRAND TOTAL $4,874
Staff cannot emphasize enough the need for this type of immediate
notification system. Since summer thunderstorms approach quickly,
create damage, and leave the area within a very few minutes,
sufficient time for notification is not available using our present
notification and call down system. The goal is to notify residents
and visitors before the storm arrives rather than after the storm has
departed the area.
RECOMUNDATION
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve funding
and a budget amendment from the referenced reserve account in the
amount of $4,874 to purchase the above capital equipment and make the
equipment modifications necessary to implement the proposed immediate
notification system.
Staff also recommends that the Board waive bids and authorize
Communications of Vero Beach as the sole source provider for the
equipment since the. county owned GE transmitter is being modified,
the FCC license has to be changed, and the decoders must interface
with county owned existing equipment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
funding in the amount of $4,874.00 to purchase the
capital equipment and authorized staff to waive bids
and designate Communications of Vero Beach as the
sole source provider, and approved Budget Amendment
023, as set out in staff recommendation.
48
� r �
TO: Members of the Board SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
of County Commissioners
NUMBER: 023
FROM: Joseph A. Baird C DATE: April 8. 1992
OMB Director
'REVENUES
1_ !GENERAL FUND/Cash Fnrwarrl !nni-nn(v-iao-ndn nnIc w 0*7Ait .,
GENERAL FUND/EMS
REQUEST BY UNITED ARTISTS CABLE TO PLANT TREES IN SR 60 MEDIAN
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis
dated April 6, 1992:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Request by United Artists Cable to Plant Trees
in SR60 Median
REF. LETTER: James Foody to Board of County Commissioners
dated April 2, 1992
DATE: April 6, 1992
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
FILE: uatrees.agn
Last year, the Board considered the request by United
Artists Cable to install Crepe Myrtle trees in the SR60
median west of 43rd Avenue. At that time, the Board
requested staff to contact the Urban Forester and select an
alternate tree species since Crepe Myrtles have a tendency
to drop foliage during the winter season. The Urban
Forester has recommended Washingtonia Palms. United Artists
Cable and the Florida DOT have no objection to this
substitution.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that United Artists Cable be notified that
the County has no objection to Washingtonia Palms being
planted within the SR60 median west of 43rd Avenue.
Chairman Eggert explained that this item was approved at the
Regular Board meeting on April 7, 1992 and needed no action.
E, P11
APR 14 199
BOOK l �' 13
APR 14 1 92
BOOK 86 i,AU, E 74 -
PROPERTY ACQUISITION FOR PUBLIC PARKING ALONG JUNGLE TRAIL
Public Works Director Jim Davis made the following
presentation:
TO:
FROM:
James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
W. Davis, P.E.,
Works Director
James
Public
SUBJECT: Property Acquisition for Public Parking
Along Jungle Trail
DATE: April 6, 1992 FILE: jung.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County staff has been searching for undeveloped property
along Jungle Trail south of CR510 which could be- purchased
at a reasonable cost to provide parking for the general
public. Recently, several letters have been received from
County residents requesting parking along this area. In
addition, the Jungle Trail Management Plan recommends land
acquisition for Public Use.
Two parcels have potential as follows:
Site 1 Location - Western Parcel of Moon River Project
(see attached map)
Owner - Current receiver of Moon River Project -
is RTC - Management by BEI Ritz Property
Management
Size - 3.8 Acres, much of which is Environmentally
Sensitive
Dimensions 700' x 125' irregular
Number of Potential Parking - 10-20 spaces with
some environmental mitigation necessary
Zoning RM -6
Appraised Value $ 160,500
Parking would occur on north 40' of property and
south portion along the river be preserved
Site 2 Location - immediately west of site 1 (see
attached map)
Owner - Dan Pruess (representative)
Size - 1.93 Acres
Dimensions 712' x 125' x 44' irregular, much of
which is environmentally sensitive
Number of Potential Parking Spaces - 15
Zoning RS -1
Appraised Value - $153,000
Parking would be provided on existing upland
areas. A .80 acre conservation easement
encumbers the property.
50
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Communication with both property owners has occurred. The
management company handling Site #1 for the Resolution Trust
Fund is trying to sell the entire Moon River Project which
includes Site #1. It has been communicated to staff that a
contract to purchase the property is pending and may be
executed by buyer and seller prior to June 1, 1992. There
- does not appear to be interest by the RTC to sell just the
3.8 acre site west of Jungle Trail at this time due to the
pending contract. If the contract is not executed, BEI Ritz
Property Management will contact the Public Works Dept. and
investigate selling the parcel to the County. The proposed
buyer of the property has met with County staff and is
interested in selling the property --to the County for
monetary compensation or possibly in exchange for the County
stabilizing the Moon River projects river frontage. The
developer has commitments to stabilize the shoreline under
the County's Development Order.
Dan Pruess, one of the owners of Site #2, is of the opinion
that the appraised value of $153,000 does not consider
additional access to the property that has been acquired.
The property owners of Site #2 have offered to sell the
parcel to the County at $235,000.
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Since Site # 1 has better access to Jungle Trail due to
it's greater frontage, staff recommends acquisition by
negotiation, if possible, with the potential new owners
if the contract is closed. Since the RTC has taken
control of the property, there does not appear to be
any motivation at this time by the RTC to sell to the
County Site No. 1. At this time, the recommended
procedure would be for the County to extend a formal
offer to the new buyer to purchase the property for
$160,500, (appraised value) or in exchange for the
County stabilizing the Moon River shoreline. Counter
offers would be brought to the Board for consideration.
If no interest to sell is communicated, staff would
recommend acquisition by Eminent Domain. If additional
acreage is desirable to provide approximately 15
additional spaces, Site No. 2 is recommended for
purchase.
Alternative No. 2
If either property does not agree to sell for the
appraised value, cease negotiations and search for
suitable property elsewhere along Jungle Trail.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Alternative No. 1 is recommended. Funding in the amount of
$150,000 to be from Fund 004-214 (Road & Bridge MSTU) and
the Park Development Fund 113 (current balance is
approximately $200,000) or MSTU Contingencies.
51
APR 141
000K �'r�,
_I
APR i4l, M1,2
MOK 86 FAA
Commissioner Bowman asked how this public parking fits in with
the master plan for Jungle Trail.
Director Davis advised that the Jungle Trail Management Plan
has been approved. There are some policy statements in the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan which affect that management plan
indicating that we need public parking and public -owned property
along Jungle Trail. We have a problem with people who enjoy using
the frontage of the river along Jungle Trail who park their
vehicles on the side of the road, which encumbers the road for
through traffic. This plan for a parking area is in harmony with
the Jungle Trail Management Plan.
Commissioner Bowman asked, and Commissioner Bird clarified
that there were designated parking areas at the two northern
extremes of the trail. Commissioner Bowman would prefer to see the
subject area used for access for waders and would hate to see
wetland filled in just to park cars. She felt there must be some
upland parcels for that purpose.
Commissioner Bird stated these sites do have uplands, and
staff does not intend to do much filling to create parking areas.
Director Davis advised that Environmental Planning Chief
Roland DeBlois looked at this site and found there is some upland
area that could accommodate parking. He assured the Board it will
not be an aggressive plan.
Chairman Eggert inquired about the extent of environmental
mitigation, and Director Davis responded that it involved removing
Brazilian pepper trees and some other exotic plants along the
shoreline.
Commissioner Bird thought Director Davis' recommendation was
well thought out and made sense as far as priority of Sites #1 and
12. He felt we need to pursue acquisition of lands along Jungle
Trail aggressively if we are going to implement the plan and if the
public is going to continue to have access to enjoy that area.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved the plan to pursue acquisition of lands
along Jungle Trail for public parking as set out in
Alternative No. 1 in staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Bowman suggested using the grounds of the County -
owned water plant in that general area for parking purposes.
Utility Services Director Terry Pinto explained that would not
be possible because the water plant is located within the Sea Oaks
condominium development and we have only an easement for access.
52
t
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR VARIOUS PROJECTS
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis
dated March 25, 1992:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator CY
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director CT
SUBJECT: Engineering Services for
Various Projects
DATE: March 25, 1992
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The following Public Works Department projects have been
funded in the FY 1991/92 County Budget:
1) Indian River County Fairgrounds
Restrooms - Budgeted $80,000 in Parks Fund
004-210.
2) Kiwanis Hobart Park South Ball Field
Lighting - Budgeted $30,000 in Recreation Fund
004-108.
Sprinklers - Budgeted $3,000 in Recreation'Fund
004-108.
3) Gifford Park Improvements - Budgeted in Fund 101-154
Paving and Parking $15,310
Basketball Improvements $ 8,125
Tennis Court Improvements $ 8,100
4) Hobart Road (77th Street) from US 1 to Kings Highway
Paving - Budgeted $185,000 in Traffic Impact Fee
Fund 101-154. Estimated project cost is $100,000.
5) Bike Path Construction - Budgeted in Fund 109-141
23rd Street S.W. (Highland Drive) $ 75,000
27th Avenue (South Relief Canal to
5th Street S.W.) $ 75,000
4th Street (Old Dixie Highway to
43rd Avenue) $100,000
6) Barber Avenue (37th Street) — Left Turn Lane
improvement between 17th Avenue and Indian River
Boulevard budgeted in Fund 111-214. Estimated cost is
$100,000.
53
F_
Fra;E 7S
The Public Works Department's staff would have difficulty
designing all 6 projects prior to September 1992, unless
Petition Paving Design is temporarily suspended.
Currently, there is $20,000 budgeted and available in Fund
001-210 (Parks Division's Budget) for professional services
to design projects 1, 2, and 3. Funds for design services
for projects 4, 5, and 6 would come from the Capital
Projects Fund for those specific projects.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative #1
Develop a scope of work for the 6 projects and
request proposals from local consultants including
a design fee. Since the projects are generally
below the CCNA thresholds of $10,000 for
planning/design fee and $120,000 for construction
cost, the County could seek competitive proposals.
CCNA procedures would not be required for these
projects.
Alternative #2
Authorize staff to proceed through the Competitive
Consultant Negotiation Act Procedures to recommend
an Architectural Consultant for project #1 and a
Civil Engineering Consultant for projects 2, 3, 4,
5, and 6. A prioritized short list of recommended
consultants would be prepared for Board approval.
Alternative No. 1 is recommended. Funding shall be as
previously described.
Commissioner Bird asked what the procedure will be for
choosing consultants.
Director Davis explained that staff has developed a scope of
work for each of the projects. The purchasing department has a
list of local consultants who have indicated an interest and staff
will seek proposals from these local firms for engineering
services.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
funding for design services as set out in
Alternative #1 in staff's recommendation.
54
i
E
SURPLUS PROPERTY - REMOVAL OF STORAGE TANK
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated March 9, 1992:
DATE: MARCH 9, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITYRVICES
PREPARED NOEL J. MCMAHON
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL SPE ALIST
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SURPLUS PROPERTY
REMOVAL OF STORAGE TANK
On December 18, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners declared the
0.63 acres of property in Gifford to be surplus, which included a
surplus 200,000 -gallon steel storage tank (see attached minutes).
This property with the storage tank has little value, and the
removal of the tank would increase the value of the property.
ANALYSIS
The staff of the Department of Utility Services has contacted
several contractors to obtain bids for the removal of the steel
storage tank. Only one contractor was willing to submit a bid.
With the low price of scrap steel in today's market, the cost of
dismantling and removing the tank exceeds the money that would be
received from the sale of the scrap steel. The cost to the County
to remove this tank is $2,000.00. This price was submitted by Allen
E. Whitney and Sons.
RECOMMEMATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the awarding of the bid to
remove the steel storage tank to Allen E. Whitney and Sons in the
amount of $2,000.00.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the award of bid to Allen E. Whitney and Sons in the
amount of $2,000.00 for removal of a storage tank
from surplus property, as recommended by staff.
55
APR 14 092
r���E
APR 1 1992
HERON CAY - WATER IMPACT PAYMENTS
Utility Services Director Terry
attention to the memo dated April 9,
POOK 86 FHGE
Pinto directed the Board's
1992:
DATE: APRIL 9, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIgW SERVICES
FROM: HARRY E. ASHER
ASSISTANT DIREC OR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: HERON CAY - WATER IMPACT FEE PAYMENTS
On March 19, 1992, the Department of Utility Services billed Heron
Cay for its first annual installment under the Impact Fee Lien
Agreement executed March 29, 1991.
On March 24, 1992, the Department received five (5) checks totaling
$1,277.85 from homeowners within the park made payable to Indian
River County for payment toward the first annual installment. The
Department advised Heron Cay by telephone that we would be returning
the five checks due to the fact that they were from the homeowners.
On April 3, 1992, the Department confirmed this in the writing to
Heron Cay and returned the checks.
On April 8, 1992, a Heron Cay representative delivered 81 checks
totaling $22,774.80 from homeowners within the park made payable to
Indian River County for payment toward the first annual installment.
I reiterated to their representative Indian River County's policy
against receiving checks from the homeowners. The representative
then walked out, leaving the checks and refusing to return them to
Heron Cay.
After discussion of this situation internally, considering the delay
and attitude of the homeowners against payments directly to the park
owner, the Department would recommend accepting the checks for
payment toward the first annual installment, but with certified
notice both to Heron Cay and each owner involved that further
payments would only be accepted from the park owner.
Please call if I can be of further assistance.
Director Pinto stated that after the memo was written staff
had further discussions and reached the conclusion that if we deny
the receipt of these checks there may be some legal problem as to
whether we can then charge penalties or turn off someone's water.
Commissioner Scurlock felt we should formulate a release
stating we will accept the check with the understanding that this
is for the developer's obligation to pay impact fees.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac felt that was not necessary
since we have a written agreement that the developer must pay the
107
56
County and even though the developer is paying in a form which
happens to be checks from somebody else, the developer is
responsible for any shortage.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the residents may feel they have a
right to reimbursement at a future time when they sell their units
and he wanted to be sure there will be no difficulty on this point.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that we have enough
documentation with our original agreement.
Director Pinto suggested that when we receive the checks we
can list the checks on the receipt and specify that these checks
were received on behalf of the developer. Then the developer can
take that receipt and copy it for the individuals if he so chooses,
but we will not deal with individual residents.
Commissioner Bird was in favor of that procedure to create a
paper trail because he felt the residents have some plan in mind,
otherwise they would not pay individually.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, to approve staff's
recommendation and develop the appropriate paper
trail.
Chairman Eggert recognized Attorney Bruce Barkett, who asked
for clarification of the motion. He thought staff's recommendation
was to accept the 80 checks and send out a certified letter to say
the County will not accept them anymore.
Chairman Eggert clarified that the motion was for the modified
recommendation, and Commissioner Bowman asked to have the motion
restated.
Commissioner Scurlock withdrew his motion.
Director Pinto stated that his modified recommendation is what
he understood the motion to be, that we accept checks and establish
the paper trail with the receipt and continue to accept checks in
that manner.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation to accept checks and
establish a paper trail by listing the individual
payors on the receipt, specifying that these checks
were received on behalf of the developer, and
continue to accept checks in this manner from
individuals for payment of impact fees due from
Heron Cay.
57
APR 14 1992
�[iK FN�E
r
NPR 14 111
booK � F'r1i�c
REQUEST BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK REGARDING LAND ACQUISITION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIRMANSHIP
Commissioner Scurlock explained that since he injured his foot
and would be on crutches for a while he was requesting, that
Chairman Eggert serve on the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee
for the next few meetings.
Chairman Eggert agreed to do so, and commented that she
intended to add an item to next week's agenda to discuss those
chairmanships.
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 11:30 o'clock A. M.
ATTEST:
58
I