HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/21/1992BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA
A G E N D A -
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1992
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman
-Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman
Richard N. Bird
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Gary C. Wheeler
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
�,jjj� 1111' ��
9: 00 A. M. 1.
CALL TO ORDER
2.
INVOCATION -
3.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - James E. Chandler
4.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/ EMERGENCY ITEMS
-
N -0 N E
5.
PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
Adoption and Presentation of Proclamation Designating the
Week of April 27 - May 1, 1992 as Treas. Coast Employer
Appreciation Week in Indian River County, Florida
6.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting of 3/10/92
7.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. -Proclamation Designating April 26 - May 3, 1992 as
Soil & Water Stewardship Week in I . R . C. , Florida
B. Resignation of Don C. Scurlock, Jr. as Chairman of
Land Acq. Adv. Comm. (LAAC ), Finance Adv. Comm.,
and SWDD. Appointment of Carolyn Eggert as Chairman
of LAAC & Fin. Adv. Comm; appointment of Gary Wheeler
as Chairman of SWDD
( memoranda dated April 15, 1992 )
C. Appointment of Frank Clavelin to Trans. PI. Comm.
( letter dated April 10, 1992 )
D. Budget Amendment 024.- F.E.M.A. Grant
(memorandum dated April 13, 1992)
�,jjj� 1111' ��
APR 21 M-
7.
8.
BOOK 6,6 rout lam`
CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd):
E. Release of Utility Liens
--(memorandum dated April 14, 1992)
F. Assumption of Utility Special Assessment Lien
St. Thomas/Fahey - Rockridge Sewer Project
(memorandum dated April 13, 1992)
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a. m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Request to Amend County Code Chapter 103, Creat-
ing Code Enforcement Citation Procedures
( memorandum dated April 13, 1992 )
2. Repealing Chapters of the Code that Reflect
Special Acts
(memorandum dated March 25, 1992)
3. Utilities - Bulk Rate Resolution
( memorandum dated April 15, 1992 )
4. Agreement for Provision of Utilities Service
by the City of Sebastian
( memorandum dated April 15, 1992 )
5. Charlotte Ave. /62nd Drive Water Service Project
Resolution III
( memorandum dated April 10, 1992 )
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
Winter Beach Cemetery Conversion Proposal
( memorandum dated April 13, 1992 )
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mangrove Trimming Violation - Edward 6 Christine
Branigan
( memorandum dated April 6, 1992 )
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
1. Purchase of Emergency Generator for Gifford Middle
7 School/Shelter - Utilizing Funding From Grand
Harbor Development Order for Off Site Shelter
( memorandum dated April 10, 1992 )
2. Approval of EMS ALS Certificate of Public Con-
venience and Necessity for Indian River Shores
Dept. of Public Safety to Provide Pre -Hospital
Emergency Medical Services
( memorandum dated April 14, 1992 )
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd):
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. - LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Felismere Sr. League Concession Stand -
Change Order # 1
(memorandum dated April 9, 1992)
2. Sandridge Golf Club Second 1118" Clearing and
Grubbing
( memorandum dated April 10, 1992 )
3. Ind. Riv. Blvd., Ph. III Change Order #6 E #7
( memorandum dated April 10, 1992 )
4. Partial List of 1992 Road Resurfacing Projects
( memorandum dated April 14, 1992 )
H. UTILITIES
1. Sewer Service to the S.W. Corner of 90th Ave. 8
St. Road 60, Assessment Project
( memorandum dated March 2, 1992 )
2. South County Wells Consumptive Use Permitting
Additional Services with Post, Buckley, Schuh
and Jernigan
( memorandum dated April 7, 1992 )
3. Developer's Agreement with EI Capitan Mobile
Home Park (Mr. Ed Potter)
(memorandum dated April 7, 1992)
4. Anita Park (38th Place) Water Line Extension
Change Order No. 1 and Final Pay Request
(memorandum dated April 13, 1992)
5. Glendale Lakes Water Distribution System
( memorandum dated April 10, 1992 )
6: Water Service in King's Hwy. S/D & Replat of
Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4, 39th & 40th Streets
East of Kings Highway 6 56th Ave.
( memorandum dated April 1, 1992 )
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Study of Chapter 207, Licensing and License Taxes
( memorandum dated February 20, 1992 )
BO(K
APR 211992
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
B. VICE CHAIRMAN MARGARET C. BOWMAN
C. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD
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
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
BOOK 86 SC
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.
m
42
T-
E
Tuesday, April 21, 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 21, 1992,
at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman;
Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Don C.
Scurlock, Jr.; and Gary C. Wheeler. Also present were James E.
Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County
Attorney; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
Chairman Eggert called the meeting to order, and County
Administrator Chandler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
Chairman Eggert read aloud the following presentation and
presented it to Dr. Douglas King, a member of the Treasure Coast
Private Industry Council:
BOOK t
APR 211992
BOOK E 3
APR 211992 0
P R 0 C L A M A T 1 0 N
DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF
APRIL 27 THROUGH MAY 1, 1992, AS
TREASURE COAST EMPLOYER APPRECIATION WEEK
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, quality training of the local work force is a
priority for the economic growth of the Treasure Coast; and
WHEREAS, Treasure Coast employers, private and public, at
considerable expense, provide training to thousands of workers;
and
WHEREAS, hundreds of Treasure Coast employers provide
training and employment to economically disadvantaged residents
through the Job Training Partnership Act (DTPA) administered by
the Treasure Coast Private Industry Council; and
WHEREAS, these employers increase and improve the
occupational skills of local residents by providing on-the-job
training and work experience in cooperation with the Private
Industry Council's Job Training Centers; and
WHEREAS, many employers believe that today's youth are
tomorrow's work force and provide surrimer employment for
economically disadvantaged youth giving them the opportunity to
learn what work is about while encouraging continued education
and career goal setting; and
WHEREAS, the Treasure Coast Private Industry Council wishes
to recognize the contribution these employers make to our local
work force and the prosperity of the Treasure Coast:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS of Indian River County, Florida that the week of
April 27 through May 1, 1992 be designated as
TREASURE COAST EMPLOYER APPRECIATION WEEK
in Indian River County Florida, and the Board urges all citizens
of Indian River County to thank an employer for improving the
quality of life on the Treasure Coast.
Adopted this 21st day of April, 1992.
2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Caro T yn. 1=ggerhairrrian
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 10, 1992. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 3/10/92, as
written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Proclamation Designating April 26 - May 3 1992 as Soil & Water
Stewardship Week in Indian River County, Florida
PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATING APRIL 26 - MAY 3, 1992
AS SOIL AND WATER STEWARDSHIP WEEK
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, our well-being depends on the production of ample
food, fiber and other products of the soil; and
WHEREAS, the quality and quantity of these products depend
on the conservation, wise use and proper management of the soil
and water resources; and
WHEREAS, protection of our water from pollution depends on
sound conservation practices; and
WHEREAS, conservation districts provide a practical and
democratic organization through which landowners take the
Initiative to conserve and make proper use of these resources;
and
WHEREAS, the conservation movement Is carrying forward a
program of soil and water conservation in cooperation with
numerous agencies and countless individuals:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the week of
April 26 - May 3, 1992 be designated as
SOIL AND WATER STEWARDSHIP WEEK
in Indian River County, and the Board further acknowledges the
value of our soil and water resources to the public welfare, and
desires to honor those who protect those resources.
Dated this 21 day of April, 1992
K
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CaK.- Egg Cha1 �in`an
F!00� �i�fF
APR 2 1 199 I
BOOK 86 PALE 9C
B. Resignation of Don C Scurlock Jr as Chairman of Land
Acguisition Committee Finance Advisory Committee and Solid Waste
Disposal District
The Board reviewed the following memo 4/15/92:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
DATE: April 15, 1992
I am resigning from the Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee (LAAC), the Finance Advisory Committee and the
Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD). I am requesting the
Chairman to take over the responsibility of the LAAC and the
Finance Advisory Committee. I also request that Commissioner
Wheeler, who is Vice Chairman of SWDD, take over as
Chairman.
DCS: lf-!1)GY
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.'s resignation as chairman of LAAO,
FAC and SWWD; appointed Carolyn Eggert as chairman of
LAAC and FAC; and appointed Gary Wheeler as Chairman of
SWDD.
C. Appointment of Frank Clavelin to Transportation Planning
Committee
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 4/10/92:
Qfttv of 3dismat
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
CITY CLERICS OFFICE POST OFFICE BOX 38
(407) 571-0116 FELLSMERE, FLORIDA 329450036
April 10, 1992
Alice E. White, Administrative Secretary
Indian River County Board of.Commissioners
1840 - 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
4
MAYOR'S OFFICE
(407) 571-1616
Dear Alice:
Just for the record, the City Council of the City of Fellsmere
during their Regular Council Meeting, April 9, 1992, appointed
Councilman Frank L. Clavelin as our representative to the Coun-
ty's Transportation Planning Committee.
In order to forward Councilman Clavelin's packages and notices
please be advised that hi's mailing address is Post Office Box
243, Fellsme=e, FL 32948-0438, his phone number is 407-571-0890.
Thank you for your patience and as always, should you have any
questions or require any additional information please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
C� -4A�
Deborah C. Rrages
City CAI er;c
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously appointed
Frank Clavelin to the TPC as the representative from
Fellsmere.
D. Budget Amendment 024 -- FEMA Grant
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/13/92:
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: April 13, 1992
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT 024
F.E.M.A. GRANT - CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Joyce Johnston, Director of Welfare, has obtained a F.E.M.A. grant totaling $64,432.00 for
the purpose of assisting welfare applicants with certain living expenses, such as utilities and
shelter. In addition, Ms. Johnston was able to obtain $1,293.00 for administrative costs
associated with the F.E.M.A. program, funding which will be used to defray certain
operating expenditures in the Welfare Department.
5
�ooK
APR � � 1992 FM,t �
APP 21 1992
BOOK c� FACE,
F.E.M.A. GRANT
F.E.M.A. FUNDS GRANTED:
Amount
Utilities
$6,112.00
Shelter
$57,026.00
Sub -Total
$63,138.00
Administrative Cost
$1,294.00
TOTAL
$64,432.00
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget
amendment 024.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment 024, as recommended by OMB Director
Baird.
TO: Members of the Board
if County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Bair `
OMB Director
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 024
DATE: April 13. 1992
;GENERAL FUND/Welfare
1F.E.M.A. Grant 1001-000-331-066.00!$64,432.001S 0
11 1 1
1! �.
i I
GENERAL FUND/Welfare
R
-L11"-ob4-
-211-564-
-71 1 -RAA-
E. Release of Liens
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/14/92:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
DATE: April 14, 1992
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - B.C.C. MEETING 4/21/92
RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS
I have prepared the following lien -related documents and request that
the Board authorize the Chairman to sign them:
1. Satisfaction of Impact Fee Extension
Lien in the name of
WOOLFORK
2. Release of Special Assessment Lien from
8TH STREET WATER PROJECT in the name of:
SHAMBORA
3. Release of Special Assessment Lien from
STATE ROAD 60 PROJECT in the name of:
HERON CAY (DALLEY)
4. Release of Special Assessment Lien from
ROYAL POINCIANA PROJECT in the name of:
SELZER
5. Releases of Special Assessment Liens from
12TH STREET WATER PROJECT in the names of:
WEBB
HUDDLESTON
RICE & DIME SAVINGS BANK
GOVER
6. Release of Special Assessment Lien from
MIRAFLORES WATER PROJECT in the name of:
FETZER
7. 'Release of Special Assessment Lien from-
SUMMERPLACE WATER PROJECT in the name of:
DAMICO
8. Releases of Special Assessment Liens from
-NORTH COUNTY SEWER PROJECT in the names of:
SANDRIFT (2) YOUNG (2)
SKOK VERO BEACH KAMP
STINSON (2) PANGBURN (3)
BEASLEY
7
aUrK
APR 211992
BOOK 86 PAGE 911
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the above lien -related documents, as requested by
staff.
COPIES OF RELEASES OF LIEN ARE ON ..FILE IN THE COUNTY ATTORNEY' S
OFFICE
F. Assumption of Utility Special Assessment Lien -
St. Thomas/Fahey - Rockridge Sewer Project
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/13/92:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: April 13, 1992
RE: ASSUMPTION OF UTILITY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIEN
ST. THOMAS/FAHEY - ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT
There is an outstanding sewer lien on a piece of property being
purchased in Rockridge. The purchasers of the property have agreed
to assume and pay the existing County sewer lien, and this
arrangement is agreeable with the County's Utility Services Department.
We have prepared the relevant assumption agreement and the
sellers and purchasers have executed it. We, therefore, request that
the Board authorize the Chairman to sign.
Thank you.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Assumption of Special Assessment Lien with Marcel G.
and Jacqueline G. St. Thomas and Michael and Rita
Fahey.
COPY OF ASSUMPTION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIEN IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
8
PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST TO AMEND COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 103 CREATING
CODE ENFORCEMENT CITATION PROCEDURES
The hour of 9:05 o'clock 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
in the matter of
In the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues o(T/_/_/i:'i' ✓ cl 4 i'rf,�''
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press.Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before of the d" A. A. D. f19 ; '
' (Business Manager)
(SEAL)
M�Irr � I'nr
(YaruniSE°H'n t.•yfres Jung 2➢, 109J
VMS
BOOK
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE
ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE
Notice Is hereby given that the Board of County
Cormmi wlers of Indian River County, Florida,
shall hold a public hearing at which parties in inter-
est and dtizerre shag have an opportunity to be
heard. in the Canty Carinilssion Chambers of the
Canty Administration Btildhglocated at 1840
25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday, April
21, 1992 at 8:05 A.M. to consider the adoption of
an ordinance entitled-
AN
ntitledAN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COON-.
TY, FLORIDA AMENDING CHAPTER 103,
COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS, OF THE
COUNTY CODE; CREATING • SECTION
103.07, CODE ENFORCEMENT CITATION
PROCEDURES — GENERAL: CREATING
SECTION 103.08, CODE ENFORCEMENT
CITATION PROCEDURES — CONTRACT-
ING; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICA-
TION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE
DATE.
A copy of the proposed ordinance is available at
the ,dn DWskbn office on the second floor of
the Cance ty Adrnbdstratiau Bugdng.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision
which may be made at this meeting wm creed to en-
sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made which Includes the= and evidence
upon which the appeal will be based.
Irdian Rimer County
Board of County CwnrtdssIbners
By -a- Carolyn K. Eggert
March 27,1992 888495
607
r
APR 21 N`92
"Or 6 E c,�iLl
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/13/92:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DE NT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
01
c
obeAM Z. I e i, IC
Community Develop�ment irector
FROM: Roland DeBlois;'1ICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcement Section
DATE: April 13, 1992
SUBJECT: Request to Amend County Code Chapter 103,
Creating Code Enforcement Citation Procedures
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of April 21, 1992.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
This is a request to amend Chapter 103 of the County Code, to
establish a citation process for the enforcement of county
ordinances and contractor licensing regulations. Just as with a
traffic ticket, a code enforcement citation would constitute a fine
imposed upon the respondent. The respondent could opt to pay the
fine or contest the charge.
Since 1983, Indian River County has conducted code enforcement
activities pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, which enables
local governments to establish code enforcement boards. Chapter
162, F.S. sets forth specific guidelines regarding code enforcement
board procedures.
Recently, the Florida Statutes were amended to allow another
enforcement option. Chapter 162, F.S. now allows local governments
to establish citation procedures for the enforcement of general
county codes. In addition, Chapter 489, F.S. enables local
governments to establish citation procedures specific to building
contractor violations.
At their regular meeting on March 10, 1992, the Board of County
Commissioners authorized staff to advertise for a public hearing at
which the Board would consider the adoption of a county citation
ordinance. Since the citation ordinance will be created by
amending Chapter 103 of the County Code, the Board must consider an
amendment to this chapter to establish citation authority for the
county's code enforcement staff.
As an amendment to a part of the County Code which is not a "land
development regulation" per se, this proposed amendment to Chapter
103 was not reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
staff, however, did hold a public workshop on the matter on March
27, 1992. In addition, staff presented the proposed ordinance to
the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) at their
meeting of April 9, 1992. The PSAC suggested several minor changes
(which have been incorporated in the present draft) and indicated
their support for the proposed ordinance.
W
we,
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Existing Code Enforcement Procedures
County code enforcement staff receive and process hundreds of
complaints a year regarding violations of county laws and
ordinances. In addition to complaint response, staff proactively
enforce codes, although the majority of code enforcement actions
are complaint based.
Under present enforcement procedures, if a violation is not
resolved on the staff level, the matter is taken before the County
Code Enforcement Board. Established in 1983, the Code Enforcement
Board functions in accordance with Chapter 162, Florida Statutes,
which sets forth guidelines for local government code enforcement.
The Code Enforcement Board serves an important function,
successfully resolving many violation cases. However, the average
case processing time frame ranges from 60 to 120 days between the
time a respondent is first notified and the time at which a daily
fine could be imposed. Consequently, an uncooperative respondent
could conceivably operate illegally for a number of months without
being subject to penalties, resulting in an unfair advantage to the
respondent compared to law-abiding citizens.
Therefore, although existing code enforcement procedures are
sufficient, the adoption of a citation ordinance would facilitate
timely resolution of straight forward, easily remedied violations,
thus improving the effectiveness of enforcement.
Proposed Citation Ordinance
The proposed ordinance consists of two main parts: general citation
procedures and contracting citation procedures. These two
procedures differ based on Florida statute requirements.
To enact citation procedures, local governments must adhere to
specific parameters set forth in Florida statutes. As such, there
is* little opportunity to vary from the State's pre -defined
procedures.
General Citation Procedures
The general citation procedures of the proposed ordinance are based
on Section 162.21, F.S. The proposed ordinance would enable a
designated code enforcement officer to issue a citation, similar to
a traffic ticket, to a respondent for violating a county code
requirement.
However, as set forth in Section 162.21, F.S.,'a code enforcement
officer is required to provide notice to a respondent and allow a
reasonable time frame for the respondent to comply prior to issuing
a citation. The notification time frame is not to exceed 30 days,
and no prior notification is required if the violation "presents a
serious threat to the public health, safety or welfare, or if the
violation is irreparable or irreversible".
Another provision of Section 162.21 enables a local government to
adopt a "schedule of penalties" which specifies the amount of fine
to be assessed for various types of violations. Consistent with the
provisions of Section 162.21, staff has drafted the attached
proposed resolution which contains recommended fine amounts and
notification time frames for different violation types.
11
BOOK.
APR 211992
APR 2,a
The types of violations in the schedule of penalties were selected
by staff based on the "black and white" nature of the violations,
where it is straight -forward that a specific violation exists; and
the ability of a respondent to remedy the violation with simple
action, in a relatively short time frame.
If a respondent challenges the issuance of a general citation or
refuses to pay the assessed fine, the matter is taken directly to
county court and is handled similar to a traffic ticket court
appearance.
Contracting Citation Procedures
The proposed contracting citation procedures were drafted in
accordance with Section 489.127, F.S. Different from general
citation procedures, no prior notification is required for
citations relating to unlicensed contractors. Another major
difference is that a contested contracting citation is heard by
the Code Enforcement Board rather than by county court. A Code
Board decision, however, could subsequently be appealed to circuit
court.
The proposed schedule of penalties includes recommended fines to be
assessed for different types of contracting violations. Based on
input from Building Division staff, the General Contractors
Association, and other workshop participants, maximum fines of $500
are recommended in an effort to battle the unfair''economic
advantage often gained by unlicensed contractors.
Alternatives
The Board's alternatives in considering the proposed amendment
include:
1. Leave the county's code enforcement procedures as they are,
limiting county code enforcement options to present
procedures;
2. Adopt staff's proposed amendment to County Code Chapter 103,
creating code enforcement citation procedures as an
additional enforcement option; or
3. Adopt staff's proposed amendment with modifications (within
the parameters of Florida Statutes).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners amend
Chapter 103 of the County Code by adopting the proposed citation
ordinance and accompanying resolution, including the establishment
of a schedule of penalties and notification time frames.
0V
GENERAL CITATIONS
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE
FLOWCHART
Violation
Identified
Code Officer
Issues Compliance
�f Notice
11,00,
Respondent Respondent Complies
Does Not Comply
Citation Case
Issued Closed
�espondenRt Respondent
Appeals Pays Fine
County Court
Hearing Scheduled Case Closed
]
Court Issues
Verdict
u\r\r\flow.chart
13
PC)�K 'f� Ft:uC
APR 2 11992
L
Fr -
APR 2 11992
CONTRACTING CITATIONS
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE
FLOWCHART
Violation
Identified
I Code Officer/Inspector I
Issues Citation
BOOKS
Respondent Respondent Ceases Illegal
Contests Citation Activity and Pays Fine
Code Enforcement Board Case
Hearing Scheduled Closed
Code Enforcement Board CodeEnforcement Board
Upholds Citation Invalidates Citation
Code Enforcement Board Case Closed
Verdict Appealed to
Circuit Court
Respondent
Pays Fine
Circuit Court Case Closed
Hearing Scheduled
Court Issues -
Verdict
u\r\r\flow.con
14
Chairman Eggert asked at what point repairs become so great
that they must be done by a licensed contractor, because a lady
from her church called just before Easter to ask why church members
were told by the County that they could not replace some damaged
irrigation pipe and sprinkler heads and that the work would have to
be done by a licensed contractor. She didn't understand at what
point repairs become so great that churches fall into this
category, nor did she understand the situation with maintenance
people employed by large multi -family residential developments such
as Grand Harbor or the Moorings.
Building Director Ester Rymer explained that any activity
requiring a license in this county must have licensed people
conducting those activities. When you talk about owner/builders
and what they are allowed to do, that pertains strictly to single-
family residences and what they- are allowed to do on their own
property. When it gets to commercial and multi -family, there must
be a contract. When you talk about churches, it becomes a question
of how much maintenance can be done on plumbing, electrical,
structural, roads, etc.
Chairman Eggert had a problem with somebody not being able to
replace a sprinkler head by themselves because that could be
applied to anything.
Director Rymer explained that a maintenance person could do
the work, but they should get a license.
Chairman Eggert was. very supportive of people being licensed,
but she just wanted to see some rationalness for churches.
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that there are a multitude of
churches in the community, some of which are better off financially
than others, and it seemed to him that our laws should not be so
restrictive that they preclude church members from coming out on a
volunteer work day and doing a job.
Director Rymer stated that volunteers could do general
maintenance work, but any activity that requires a license must be
done by a licensed contractor. Often times there is a licensed
contractor among the volunteer church members who covers the work
and supervises it.
Chairman Eggert could appreciate the frustration in the church
situation where -they had members who, she assumed, knew what they
are doing.
Returning to staff's recommendation on violation procedures,
Mr. DeBlois explained that after holding a workshop with the
Building Department staff and the general contractors, staff is
recommending a maximum fine of $500. In the type of violation
where someone is operating illegally, it tends to have an undue
economical advantage over those people who are licensed, and it was
15
r �
APP 2 11992 s00K F'A.E 4..0;-;
felt a $500 fine was a necessary amount to deter the illegal
activity. According to State Statute, the Code Enforcement Board
could not set a lower fine. They would either dismiss it or uphold
the fine.
Community Development Director Robert Keating stressed that we
are trying to have some consistency here so the same type of
violation gets the same amount of fine regardless of circumstances.
Chairman Eggert asked if in the case where someone builds a
commercial building without proper permits, would they be given a
$500 fine for each job that should have been done by a licensed
contractor, and Director Keating confirmed that each one would be
a separate violation.
Commissioner Bird asked if there was an ability to shorten the
time frame in the violation procedures but still stay within the
present system, and Director Keating advised that we have done that
to some extent by having a special master. The procedure always is
going to be strung out to some degree. The process could be
condensed and probably could get down to 60 days, but it would be
hard to get it any less than that. This ordinance provides the
ability to get it down to 2 or 3 days and we have identified the
need to come up with a pretty strict set of policies for this. We
don't think every violation needs to be addressed through the
citation process. We want to take only the most egregious
violations, the most straight forward cases, through the citation
process. We always have the alternative of going through the
normal Code Enforcement process if we think it is controversial or
if there are extenuating circumstances.
Attorney Vitunac clarified that only the contractors' fines
cannot be reduced. The normal Code Enforcement fine can be reduced
by the Code Enforcement Board if they feel it is justified.
Commissioner Scurlock was concerned about monitoring all of
this and wondered if we are getting to the point where we are
trying to say grace over too many things.
Chairman Eggert didn't think that people in this county should
be victimized by unscrupulous people coming in and doing work when
we have a licensing procedure.
Commissioner Scurlock stressed that we have a law on the books
right now that one must have a license to do work in this county,
and if we are having difficulty catching all these jacklegs, it
might be better to hire more Code Enforcement officers.
Administrator Chandler pointed out that we are not expanding
what is being enforced; we are offering an alternative for handling
it once the citation has been issued.
Director Keating stated that we don't have a good way of
enforcing the unlicensed contractors now, and Director Rymer agreed
16
that we don't have any teeth in our ordinances at this time. It
seems to be a joke that you can get away with not getting a license
in Indian River County, which is why we are hoping this $500 fine
will work.
Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Steve Hall, representing the northeast chapter of the
Associated General Contractors of America, wished to thank Roland
DeBlois and Attorney O'Brien for allowing them to help in the
preparation of the proposed ordinance. This ordinance is needed
because this county has a very serious problem with unlicensed
contractors. The present system does not work; it has no teeth in
it to keep unlicensed contractors from continuing to violate the
law, giving them an unfair advantage over the licensed contractors
who have proven they are competent to practice their ',-particular
trade. The people who hire unlicensed contractors need to be
aware that the money they are saving is not worth the safety and
liability risks that are created by using someone that has not
proven his competency. Mr. Hall stated that their association
realizes we can't catch all of the unlicensed contractors, but they
feel this will be a start in curtailing the unlicensed, illegal
activities that are happening in this county. The northeast
chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America,
represents over 550 contractors and receives daily phone calls
complaining about unlicensed activity and the effect that has on
the licensed contractor. Mr. Hall emphasized that in order to
obtain a license, a contractor must present proof of his Workers'
Compensation and liability insurance to the County. The advantages
of not obtaining a license is dollars. Their recommendation is
that the Board establish a maximum fine of $500, because anything
less would be just a slap on the hand in terms of the profits made
by unlicensed contractors• Licensed contractors are very
frustrated with what is going on out there because they cannot
compete with the prices offered by the unlicensed contractors.
Commissioner Wheeler felt that Sheriff Deputies would be a
great help in .enforcing these violations, especially over the
weekend when many unlicensed contractors from out of the county are
operating.
Administrator Chandler noted that we do have Code Enforcement
officers out on the weekend, but not on a regularly scheduled
basis.
Commissioner Scurlock stressed that we have the option of
putting on more code enforcement officers.
17
bonK
APR 2 �9�2
APR 211992 BOOK P�I,E 10
Commissioner Bird was in full support of the proposed
ordinance if it addresses everything that Mr. Hall has said it
would. He was concerned about individual home owners being able to
work on their own homes, however.
Director Rymer stated that owners of single-family residences
can do anything they want on their own homes, but they need to
obtain a permit for any repairs or improvements over $500.
However, home owners do not have the right to hire -an unlicensed
contractor to do that work for them after they have pulled a
permit. That is under the present system and there is no change to
that.
Chairman Eggert understood then that multi -family residential,
commercial and churches still cannot do anything without a licensed
person being there, and Director Rymer confirmed that to be the
case. Condominium association maintenance people should be
licensed or show competency to do that particular job. We don't
have a handyman's license in this county.
Chairman Eggert felt there is a lack of information out there
on what people can or cannot do, and Commissioner Scurlock
suggested that contractors get the message out to the people on the
advantages of using licensed contractors.
Mr. Hall noted that their association ran a informational
program last year covering three counties which ran $10,000. They
can do some of it, but they cannot do it all.
Jim Parks, representing Treasure Coast Roofers Association,
wished to point out that a home owner can work only on his place of
residency without a license. On any other houses he owns, he is
required to have a licensed contractor for any activity that calls
for a license. He felt that most contractors are willing to work
with the people who are truly ignorant of what they can or cannot
do, but pointed out that there are people out there who plead
ignorance while knowing they are breaking the law. Licensed
roofers already police the situation, but they feel we need to get
a law on the books that has some teeth in it. With regard to the
collection of fines, he advised that Palm Beach County has a
program similar to the one being proposed here that has proved to
be very successful. He urged the Board to adopt the proposed
ordinance.
Chuck Garris, local attorney, wished to speak to the general
citations because he was concerned philosophically about the
direction that he sees this Board taking if they pass the first
portion of this proposed ordinance. He felt the alternative of
appealing a violation to County Court would put more burden on a
system which is already experiencing incredible delays. He
strongly recommended having an alternative procedure to resolve -the
18
M W . M
disputes before going to the court system because he believed there
will be cases where there are extenuating circumstances and people
who cannot a€f ord to pay an attorney to f ight it. He f elt a better
approach would be to cut down the delay time and stay with the
present system. There would be far greater delays by going to the
County Court system.
Chairman Eggert understood that a general violation citation
could go either through the procedure that it goes through now with
the Code Enforcement Board or go through County Court, but wanted
it made clearer on how that is decided.
Mr. DeBlois explained that the resolution of fines does not
include all types of violations of county codes. Staff has honed
it down to 70 violations that are considered straight forward, such
as an illegal banner. Every effort was made to have a type of
resolution that can be resolved by simple action. on a short-term
basis.
Director Keating stressed that every day they are faced with
making interpretations and administrative judgments and what is
being proposed here is just to formalize as much as possible in a
set of internal policies that we intend to be used by field
personnel as a differential aide.
Attorney Garris felt that instead of it being included in some
administrative procedure in the county, the ordinance should be
worded so that the people will know their rights.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac pointed out that the proposed
ordinance is copied from a State law already in effect which has
worked well in other counties. He understood from Director Keating
that we will not put it into effect, policy -wise, until all the
rules are in effect. If the Board wishes, that could come before
them for approval.
Commissioner Scurlock felt we should have the whole package in
order to make the best decision.
Chairman Eggert assumed that things can continue the way they
are unless someone specifically says they want to take the
alternative of going to County Court. As it stands now, the
violator has the right to appeal to Circuit Court after the Code
Enforcement Board.
Commissioner Bowman suggested that the Code Enforcement Board
meet twice a month rather than once in order to cut down the 60-120
day process, but Director Keating explained that we have instituted
a special master now who can individually hold a hearing on a case
if it needs to be moved up sooner. Right now we use him primarily
on notices to appear.
Commissioner Bird didn't believe there is anything wrong with
the system down to the point where the citation is issued, but he
19
Ur.
APR 2J 1992
APR 2 11992 ,orK r.,,t "x.06°
felt Attorney Garris' point is whether it is necessary to go
directly to County Court at that time or have an alternate hearing
body that could intervene at that point.
Attorney Vitunac clarified that the law puts this as an
alternate and does not forbid additional ways of enforcing this.
He didn't think it would be illegal to put a step between the
citation and County Court.
Attorney Garris suggested putting in a special -master -to serve
as a trial jury.
Mr. DeBlois explained that staff got this directly from the
State Statutes and if there is that discretion of putting in a
special master, they certainly would have no objection.
Attorney Vitunac wanted more time to research this further,
but he didn't anticipate a problem.
Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien noted there are a lot
of "shalls" in the proposed ordinance, and agreed that we certainly
could take a look at putting in a special master as an intermediate
step.
Attorney Vitunac believed that would be legal if the alleged
violator and the County agreed to step aside for awhile and have a
special master look at it, but if the violator wants to go to his
appeal rights, he would go to the County Court. He didn't see any
problem in making it a voluntary step to go before a special master
where the findings would be binding on both parties. If the Board
so directs, staff will insert that special master step.
Leroy Hiers of United Irrigation felt the Board would be
jeopardizing the contractors' trades by not adopting the proposed
ordinance. He felt he probably complains more to the Building
Department than anyone else about contractors who do not obtain a
license or comply with all the requirements. He believed this all
boils down to using common sense and he urged the Board to adopt
the proposed ordinance.
There being no others who wished to be heard in this matter,
the Chairman closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board adopt Ordinance
92-09, amending Chapter 103 of the County Code, with the
modification to insert between Citation Issued and County
Court the ability for binding arbitration before a
special master.
Under discussion; Mr. DeBlois advised that subsequent to the
drafting of Attachment A, Resolution of Rates, staff found that the
County had adopted a resolution last October that set forth fines
20
specific to right-of-way violations. Staff is requesting the
Board's authorization to align those fine schedules with those
already adopted with regard to right-of-way violations.
COMMISSIONERS SCURLOCK AND WHEELER AMENDED THEIR
MOTION to include the adoption of Resolution 92-59,
adopting a schedule of penalties for County Code
Violations cited in accordance with the citation
provisions of County Code Chapter 103, with the
inclusion of the fine schedules for right-of-way
violations adopted last October.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously .
21
APR216,911
J BOOK�l.d' `�aa�
�� FHUt
ORDINANCE NO. 92- 09
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING
CHAPTER 103, COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS, OF THE COUNTY CODE;
CREATING SECTION 103.07, CODE ENFORCEMENT CITATION
PROCEDURES - GENERAL; CREATING SECTION 103.08, CODE
ENFORCEMENT CITATION PROCEDURES - CONTRACTING; AND
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS,
CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Be it ordained by the Board of County Commissioners -of Indian River
County that:
SECTION 1:
Chapter 103, Commissions and Boards, of the Code of Indian River
County is hereby amended by creating Sections 103.07 and 103.08, to
read as follows:
Section 103.07. Code Enforcement Citation Procedures - General.
(1) These procedures are enacted pursuant to Section 162.21,
Florida Statutes.
(2) Citation authorization; application.
A code enforcement officer so designated by the county is
authorized to issue a citation to a person when, based upon
personal investigation, the officer has reasonable cause to believe
that the person has committed a civil infraction in violation of a
duly enacted county code or ordinance; the county court will hear
the charge. Designation as a code enforcement officer does not
provide the code enforcement officer with the power of arrest or
subject the code officer to the provisions of ss. 943.085-943.255,
F.S.
(3) Notification prior to citation issuance; procedures.
(a) Prior to issuing a citation, a code enforcement officer shall
provide notice to the person that the person has committed a
violation of a code or ordinance and shall establish a reasonable
time period within which the person must correct the violation.
Such time period shall be no more than 30 days. If, upon personal
investigation, a code enforcement officer finds that the person has
not corrected the violation within the time period, the code
enforcement officer may issue a citation to the person who has
committed the violation. A code enforcement officer does not have
to provide the person with a reasonable time period to correct the
violation prior to issuing a citation and may immediately issue a
citation if the code enforcement officer has reason to believe that
the violation presents a serious threat to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or if the violation is irreparable or
irreversible.'
'For purposes of this section, "irreparable or irreversible"
violations shall include (but not be limited to) violations that
result in apparent financial advantage for the violator in
comparison to law-abiding citizens.
1
22
_ ORDINANMO. 92- 09
Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph (103.07(3)(a)), the Board
of County Commissioners shall adopt, by resolution, a schedule of
violations and penalties to be assessed by code enforcement
officers, including standard notification time periods for specific
types of violations, said time periods not exceeding 30 days.
(b) A citation issued by a code enforcement officer shall be in a
form prescribed by the county and shall contain:
1. The date and time of issuance.
2. The name and address of the person to whom the citation is
issued.
3. The date and time the civil infraction was committed.
4. The facts constituting reasonable cause.
5. The number of the section of the code or ordinance violated.
6. The name and authority of the code enforcement officer.
7. The procedure for the person to follow in order to pay the
civil penalty or to contest the citation.
8. The applicable civil penalty if the person elects to contest
the citation.
9. The applicable civil penalty if the person. elects not to
contest the citation.
10. A conspicuous statement that if the person fails to pay the
civil penalty within the time allowed, or fails to appear in
court to contest the citation, he shall be deemed to have
waived his right to contest the citation and that, in such
case, judgement may be entered against the person for an
amount up to the maximum civil penalty.
11. A statement to read as follows: I hereby elect to waive my
right to a court hearing and in lieu thereof select to have my
case heard by the Indian River County Code Enforcement Board
or designated special master. I understand that the decision
of the code enforcement board or designated special master
shall be final and binding on me. (signature).
(4) After issuing a citation to an alleged violator, a code
enforcement officer shall deposit the original citation and one
copy of the citation with the county court, unless the alleged
violator elects to appear before the code enforcement board or
designated special master in which case the citation and copy shall
be deposited with the secretary of the code enforcement board.
(5 ) Any person who willfully refuses to sign and accept a citation
issued by a code enforcement officer shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082 s. 775.083., F.S.
(6) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the
enforcement of -building codes adopted pursuant.to s. 553.73, F.S.,
as they apply to construction, provided that a building permit is
either not required or has been issued by the county.
(7) The provisions of this section are an additional and
supplemental means of enforcing county codes and ordinances;
nothing contained in this section shall prohibit the county from
enforcing its codes or ordinances by any other means.
23
APR 2 11992 BOOK FA;_L y ��
r
ORDINANCE NO. 92 - 09MOK
Section 103.08 Code Enforcement Citation Procedures - Contracting.
(1) These procedures are enacted pursuant to Section 489.127,
Florida Statues.
(2) A code enforcement officer so designated by the county may
issue a citation for any violation of ss. 489.127(1) or s.
489.132(1), F.S. (relating to unlicensed, uncertified or
unregistered contractors), or for any violation of County Code
Chapter 400, "Regulation of Contractors", whenever, based upon
personal investigation, the code enforcement officer -has reasonable
and probable grounds to believe that such a violation has occurred.
(3) A contracting citation issued by a code enforcement officer
shall be in a form prescribed by the county and shall contain the
information outlined in subsection 103.07(3)(b), items 1-9.
(4) Penalties. The Board of County Commissioners shall adopt, by
resolution, a schedule of penalties to be assessed by the code
enforcement officer, for each prohibited contracting activity as
set forth in ss. 489.127(1) and 489.132(1), F.S., and Chapter 400
of the County Code. The maximum civil penalty which may be levied
shall not exceed $500. Each day a willful, knowing violation
continues shall constitute a separate offense.
(5) Cessation of violations; hearing procedures.
(a) The act for which the citation is issued shall be ceased upon
receipt of the citation. The person charged with the violation
shall elect either to correct the violation and pay the civil
penalty in the manner indicated on the citation or, within 10 days
of receipt of the citation, exclusive of weekends and legal
holidays, request an administrative hearing to appeal the issuance
of the citation by the code enforcement officer.Said
administrative hearing shall be held before the count code
enforcement board or designated special master. Any person who
willfully refuses to sign and accept a citation issued by a code
enforcement officer commits a misdemeanor of the second degree,
punishable as provided for in s. 775.082 or 775.083, F.S.
(b) Failure of a violator to appeal the decision of the code
enforcement officer within the time period set forth in the
preceding paragraph shall constitute a waiver of the violator's
right to an administrative hearing. A waiver of the right to an
administrative hearing shall be deemed an admission of the
violation and penalties may be imposed accordingly.
(c) If the person receiving the citation, --or his designated
representative, shows that the citation is invalid or that the
violation has been corrected prior to appearing before the county
enforcement board or designated special master, the enforcement
board or designated special master shall dismiss the citation
unless, with regard to a corrected violation, the violation is
irreparable or irreversible.2
2For purposes of this section, "irreparable or irreversible"
violations shall include (but not be limited to) violations that
result in apparent financial advantage for the violator in
comparison with law-abiding contractors.
3
24
_ . M
ORDINANCE NO. 92- 09
(d) If the enforcement board or designated special master finds
that a violation exists, the enforcement board or designated
special master may order the violator to pay a civil penalty of not
less than the amount set forth on the citation but not more than
$500 per day for each violation. In determining the amount of the
penalty, the enforcement board or designated special master shall
consider the following factors:
1.
The
gravity
of the violation.
2.
Any
actions
taken by the violator to correct the violation.
3.
Any
previous
violations committed by the violator.
(e) Upon written notification by the code enforcement officer that
a violator has not contested the citation and has not paid the
civil penalty within the time frame allowed on the citation, or if
a violation has not been corrected within the timeframe set forth
on the citation (as applicable), the enforcement board or
designated special master shall enter an order ordering the
violator to pay the civil penalty set forth on the citation, and a
hearing shall not be necessary for the issuance of such order.
(f) A certified copy of any order imposing penalty against an
uncertified contractor may be recorded in the public records and
thereafter shall constitute a lien against any real or personal
property owned by the violator. The lien may be foreclosed upon
after 3 months from the filing of any such lien which remains
unpaid, in accordance with the provisions of ss. 487.127(3)(h),
F.S.
(6) Appeal to circuit court. An aggrieved party, including the
local governing body, may appeal a final administrative" order of
the enforcement board or designated special master to the circuit
court. Such an appeal shall not be a hearing de novo but shall be
limited to appellate review of the record created before the
enforcement board or designated special master. An appeal shall be
filed within 30 days of the execution of the order to be
appealed.
(7) Serving of notices. All notices required by this section
shall be provided to the alleged violator by certified mail, return
receipt requested; by hand delivery by the sheriff or other law
enforcement officer or code enforcement officer; by leaving the
notice at the violator's usual place of residence with some person
of his family above 15 years of age and informing such person of
the contents of the notice; or by including a hearing date within
the citation.
(8) Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit the county
from enforcing its codes or ordinances by any other means.
SECTION 2:
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the
legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian
River County and which conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
4
25
APR M Boor F 6t
APR 2 11992
ORDINANCE NO. 92-09
SECTION 3:
CODIFICATION
BOOK V Fr.uL 1..�(+
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "Ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered_ to accomplish
such intentions.
SECTION 4:
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word
of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional,
inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining
portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the
legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such
unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 5:
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon
receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official
acknowledgement that this ordinance has been filed with the
Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida on this 21 day of April
1992.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on
the 27 day of March , 1992, for a public hearing held on the
21 day of April , 1992, at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Scurlock , seconded by Commissioner
Wheeler , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn R. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Ave
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Ave
W.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
Carol#n R.
ATTEST BY J(�,
- Jef rey R. Barton,--,
-4j',04
RESOLUTION NO. 92-59
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING A
SCHEDULE OF PENALTIES FOR COUNTY CODE VIOLATIONS CITED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITATION PROVISIONS OF COUNTY CODE CHAPTER
103; ESTABLISHING NOTIFICATION TIME FRAMES FOR DIFFERENT TYPES
OF CODE VIOLATIONS; AND DESIGNATING CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
FOR PURPOSES OF IMPLEMENTING THE CITATION PROVISIONS OF COUNTY
CODE CHAPTER 103.
WHEREAS, Indian River County has adopted codes and ordinances
in the interest of public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, enforcement of county codes and ordinances in a
timely, efficient, and equitable manner is of fundamental
importance in the successful implementation of such codes and
ordinances; and
WHEREAS, Florida Statute Chapters 162 and 489 enable local
governments to adopt citation procedures relating to general code
violations and unlicensed contractor violations; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting of April 21, 1992, the Board
of County Commissioners held a public hearing and adopted County
Ordinance 92-09 , which establishes county citation procedures in
accordance with Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 92- 09 provides that the Board of County
Commissioners shall adopt, by resolution, a schedule of violations
and penalties to be assessed by county designated code enforcement
officers in implementing the ordinance, with said schedule
including notification time periods for specific types of
violations; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate for the County to designate certain
county personnel as code enforcement officers for purposes of
implementing citation procedures;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1) DESIGNATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
The following county personnel are hereby designated code
enforcement officers for purposes of enforcing county codes in
accordance with the citation provisions of County Code Chapter 103,
for the violation categories as herein described:
County Personnel
Code Enforcement Officers
Environmental Planners
Building Division Inspectors
Fire Safety Inspectors
27
APR 211992
Violation Category
General Code Enforcement
Land Development Code
Environmental Violations
Unlicensed Contractors;
Building Code Violations
Fire Safety Codes;
Debris Burning Violations
APR 211992
2)
BOOK -� FH.ut 114
RESOLUTION NO. 92-59
SCHEDULE OF PENALTIES AND NOTIFICATION TIME FRAMES
A Schedule of Penalties and Notification Time Frames, attached
hereto as "Attachment A", is hereby adopted to be used in
conjunction with the implementation of the citation provisions of
Chapter 103 of the County Code.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Wheeler
follows:
, and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
Chairman Carolyn R. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. - Ayp
Commissioner Richard N. Bird - Age
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler -j[P
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this ,421 day of , 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
e�Z 1 ae-2 &z:z=t-
CarolyAR. Egg
hairman
ttest:
K
e,f f rey, K. Bar
lero f Q e
�O
u\rol\cit.res
2
28
Indian Riva Ca Aforoved Date
Admirt
Legal
Budget AIIA
Dept.
Risk Mgr.
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 59
Attachment A
CITATION ORDmANCE
SCHEDULE OF PENALT33 S & NOTIFICATION TINE FRAMs
(Page 1 of 2)
VIOLATION TYPE
Contractiaq
Unlicensed contracting
Contractor advertisement
violation
Licensed contractor or
owner -builder hiring
unlicensed contractor(s)
Uninsured contractor
violation
Fraudulent license
Deliberate disregard of
county contracting ord.
Other contracting vio-
lations specified in
F.S. Chapter 489
General
Debris burning w/o
permit
Violation of issued
burn permit
Boat/trailer storage
Commercial veh. storage
Occupancy w/o C.O.
Building Code violation
(w/o required permit)
Industrial waste dumping
Junk vehicle
Noise/vibration violation
R.O.W. violations:
- Vehicle
- Sign.
- Illegal Business
- Obstruction
- Illegal (non -
waste) fluid dis-
charge
- Work without
proper traffic
controls
- Parade without
permit
- Other R.O.W.
violations
APR 211992
SECTION FINN
400.01(1)
$500
400.01(5)
$500
400.01(6)
$500
400.05 $500
400.07(lj $500
400.07(6) $500
489.127(F.S.) $500
489.132(F.S.)
925 $450
925 $300
911.15(7)
$50
911.15(3)
$50
914/401
$450
401.06
$450
973
$450
911.15(4)
$50
974
$50
312.06(2)
$50
312.06(1)(g)
$100
312.06(1)(m)
$250
312.06(1)(c)
$100
312.06(1)(e)
$100
312.06(1)(k) $250
312.06(1)(n) $250
312.06 -- $100
W
M
NOTICB _1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
24 hrs.
48 hrs.
48 hrs.
24 hrs.
24 hrs.
24 hrs.
10 days
24 hrs.
48 hrs.
24 hrs.
24 hrs.
48 hrs.
48 hrs.
N/A
N/A
48 hrs.
OOK. ft:uc „L
BOOK. 6 Pact 1-
RBSOLUTION NO. 92- 59
Attaci:meat A
CITATION ORDINANCE
SCHEDULE OF PBNALTIBS & NOTIFICATION TIM FRAMS
(Page 2 of 2)
u\r\r\violation.cit
04\23\92
1The notification time frame established herein may be waived
if the violation presents a serious threat to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or if the violation is irreparable or
irreversible.
30
W
NOTICE
VIOLATION TYPE
SECTION
FINE
TIM
FRAM
Illegal sign:
956.12
$100
24
hrs.
- Banner
- Snipe sign
- A -frame sign
- other portable sign
Stormwater violation
930
$100
48
hrs.
Vehicle parking & storage
911.15(4)
$50
48
hrs.
Sea turtle lighting vio.
932.09
$50
24
hrs.
u\r\r\violation.cit
04\23\92
1The notification time frame established herein may be waived
if the violation presents a serious threat to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or if the violation is irreparable or
irreversible.
30
W
PUBLIC HEARING - REPEALING CHAPTERS OF THE CODE THAT REFLECT
SPECIAL ACTS
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
v.�•,r
in the matter
in the Court, was pub.
lished in said newspaper in the issues
Affiant further says that the said Verb Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this i. day of `%�r • A.D. 19y�
+ i(Buslness Manager)
(SEAL) P
31
BOOK
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, hereby provides notice of a
Public Hearing scheduled for 9:05 a.m. on Tuesday,
April 21, 1992, to discuss the following proposed
ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUN-
TY, FLORIDA, REPEALING THOSE CHAP-
TERS IN THE COUNTY CODE (1974 EDI-
TION) THAT REFLECT SPECIAL ACTS
AND TRANSFERRING THOSE SPECIAL
ACTS TO AN APPENDIX TO THE NEW
EDITION OF THE COUNTY CODE.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which
may be made at the Public Hearing on April 21,
1992, will need to ensure that a verbatim record of
the proceedings Is made, which includes testimony
and evidence uon wrich tqe appeal Is based.
March 28, 1992 888940
807
APR 211992 11E
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/25/92:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: March 25, 1992
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING 4/21/92 - REPEALING CHAPTERS OF
THE CODE THAT REFLECT SPECIAL ACTS
A number of chapters in the Indian River County (1974 edition) merely
reflect Special Acts of the Florida Legislature and, therefore, are not
County Codes that can be amended or repealed by the County. These
Special Acts are better placed in an appendix to the new code.
Accordingly, the attached ordinance removes these Special Acts from
the Code (1974 edition) and places them in an appendix to the new
code.
Staff recommends the Board adopt this Ordinance and -authorize the
Chairman to sign.
TPO/sb
Attachment
32
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 92-10, repealing those chapters in the
County Code (1974 Edition) that reflect special
acts and transferring those special acts to an
appendix to the new edition of the County Code.
ORDINANCE 92-, in
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, REPEALING THOSE CHAPTERS IN -THE
COUNTY CODE (1974 EDITION) THAT REFLECT
SPECIAL ACTS AND TRANSFERRING THOSE
SPECIAL ACTS TO AN APPENDIX TO THE NEW
EDITION OF THE COUNTY CODE.
WHEREAS, a number of Chapters in the Indian River Code
are Special Acts of the Florida Legislature and not County Codes and
therefore cannot be amended or repealed by the County, and
WHEREAS, these Special Acts should appear in an Appendix
to the Code rather than in the body of the Code,
WHEREAS, orderly administration dictates that those
Chapters in the the Code (1974 edition) which reflect Special Acts be
repealed,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
33
mnKo
APR 211992
Fr-
'1
t` I ,i 's G C- 0
BOOK ['A' E .
APR 2 11992
ORDINANCE NO. 92 -_LQ_
SECTION I. REPEAL
Special Acts of the Florida Legislature which appear as
chapters of the Indian River Code (1974) edition) shall be set forth
in full text in an appendix to the new code and said chapters in the
Indian River Code (1974 edition) are hereby repealed as follows:
Chapter 5
Citrus Industry
Chapter
9
Fish and Game
Chapter
10
Hospitals
Chapter
11
Article II Improvement Districts
Chapter
14
Law Library
Chapter
18
Road and Bridges
Chapter
19
Schools
Chapter
23
Traffic
Chapter
25
Water and Air Pollution Control
Chapter
26
Welfare
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall become effective on becoming law.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 21 day of
A p r i l , 1992.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -
Journal on the 2 8 day of M a r c h , 1992, for a public hearing to
be held on the 21 day of Apr i 1 , 1992, at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Wheeler and the motion
was seconded by Commissioner B i r d and, adopted by
the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By 1�
Carolyw Eggert
Chairm
Attest by
Jeff Bar on:
Clerk
34
PUBLIC HEARING — UTILITIES — BULK RATE RESOLUTION
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 Coutity, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a / /a� &
L
In the matter of
in the Court, was pub-
/ ,
lished in said newspaper in the issues of 4(/
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount; rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this �j�_ day of ' UI A.D. 19 el
(SEAL)
V w f taus Ness Manager)
PUBLIC NOTICE
On the 21st day of Apro, 1992, at 9:05 a.m., the
Board of County ConvNssiarers will conduct a
PUBLIC HEARINLi to adopt a resolution amending
the utility rate resolution and to
tion carr eDa-
Uon of agreement between Irdien River County
and the City of Sebastian for ttre exclusive fran-
d ise for water and sewer swvke with the City.
i AnM* who may wish to appeal any dedslon which
may be made at tivs meeting w@ need to ensure
that a verbatim recall of the Proceedings is made
and ev
which includes the testimony idence upon,
whch the appeal will be based.
April15,1992 893888
soy
35
APR 211992 r, , t
�� ��� BOOKS FAGS �.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/15/92:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: April 15, 1992
RE: UTILITIES - BULK RATE RESOLUTION
The Department of Utility Services engaged the firm of CH2M Hill to
develop a bulk rate for the provision of wastewater services. This rate
would be available for customers, such as the City of Sebastian, who
wish to provide utilities services other than the treatment of
wastewater.
The attached resolution would adopt the bulk rate suggested by the
rate consultants, to be effective immediately. The resolution also
deletes two words, i.e., "ratio of," which were added inadvertently to
one line of the existing rate schedule.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of this resolution.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that this resolution
represents the establishment of a bulk rate for our uti'l'ity system
in regard to wastewater service. The City of Sebastian wishes to
go on to its own utility system, and while they are doing that,
they would offer services that the County would not have to offer
in the future. We were asked to enter into an agreement with them.
In doing so, we had our rate consultant establish a bulk rate for
sewer service that would be effective county -wide should the
municipalities wish to establish the same -type of service. The
rate consultants are here today to answer any questions.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that in negotiating this
particular rate, the prime emphasis was that whatever we did would
not negatively impact our existing customers, and he understood
that was borne out in this rate.
Director Pinto confirmed that it was. He explained that when
the special rate was requested, we instructed the consultants to go
back in and look at our rates and extract those types of services
that we would not be offering. We also instructed them that at no
time could the rate be reduced where it would negatively affect -any
36
M
of the existing customers on the county system. That is the policy
that we followed in establishing this rate.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that part of our ordinance has
always maintained that our rates would be non-discriminatory in
nature, and Director Pinto confirmed that is still the current
situation with this rate.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we feel comfortable, from a
cash flow perspective, with this entire rate structure for the
remainder of the year, and Director Pinto stated that we do.
Administrator Chandler advised that in the last few months we
have finally reached a -positive situation.
The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Robb McClary, Sebastian city manager, wished to address this
item and the next public hearing item. First of all, he wished to
extend their appreciation to the County's negotiation team for
extending every courtesy during the negotiating process and
affording them every opportunity to sit down at the table and come
to what they believe is a fair agreement. He advised that the
Sebastian negotiating team is recommending the interlocal agreement
to the City Council and they will be acting on that tomorrow night.
As to the rate, of course they feel it is too high, but they are
willing to settle for it anyway. The one concern he has is that
the rate is not based entirely on cost of service because the rate
does incorporate the wholesale customer assets that are not being
used. Although they believe there are some flaws in the rate
structure, they encourage its adoption. The City of Sebastian
endorses both the bulk rate and the interlocal agreement that is
the subject of the next public hearing. They do want to express
their appreciation for the County's continued cooperation, be it
for boat ramps, youth sport complexes or county roads.
Commissioner Bowman pointed out a gap in the rates set out in
the retail and bulk sewer rates in Resolution 91-31, and staff
agreed the Excess Volume Surcharge should read, "Greater Than
10,000 Gallons Per Month Per ERU" rather than "greater than 11,000
gallons".
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the Public Hearing.
37
BOOK
APR 11992 �� F„at ���
APR 21199
BOOK 86 F'A.U'F l"
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-60, amending Resolution 91-31, which
adopted rates, fees, and charges for the Department
Of Utility Services pursuant to the authority of
Ordinance 91-9, by adopting a new rate for bulk
purchases of wastewater service and by removing the
words "ratio of" added inadvertently to -one line of
the rate study.
4/6/H2(legal) RF_SC_)/ Vla
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 60
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 91-31,
WHICH ADOPTED RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES
FOR. THE DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY 'SERVICES
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF ORDINANCE --,
NO. 91-9, BY ADOPTING A NEW RATE FOR BULK
PURCHASES OF WASTEWATER SERVICE AND BY
REMOVING THE WORDS "RATIO OF" ADDED
INADVERTENTLY TO ONE LINE OF THE RATE
STUDY.
WHEREAS, it is. necessary that the Indian River County Department of
Utility Services enact a rate for the bulk purchase of wastewater services so
that the City of Sebastian and others will have that utility service option
available; and
WHEREAS, the Department has recommended that the words "ratio of"
be removed from the description of "Excess Sewage Strength Charge" of the
rate study adopted by Resolution No. 91-31;
38
M
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The schedule of rates, fees, and charges adopted for use by the
Department by Resolution No. 91-31 is amended by removing the words
"ratio of" from the description of the sewer charge under "Excess
Sewage Strength Charge" for the years 1991, 1992, and 1993. See
attached Exhibit "A-."
2. The schedule of rates, fees, and charges for the bulk purchase of
wastewater service from the Department of Utility Services, attached as
Exhibit "B," is adopted as an additional rate to be added to the rates
already adopted by Resolution No: 91-31.
3. These changes shall go into effect on adoption of this resolution.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Bowman , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
h
adopted this 21 _ day of 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
.-? tt st : By
Caro yn K. E'620rt
Jeff-,rX Barton- Clerk Chi ;man
7. -Q
RESOLUTION 92-60 IS ON FILE IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
01p,
APS
r
APPR 211992
BOOK1�
PUBLIC HEARING — INTERLOCAL UTILITIES AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
SEBASTIAN
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 /- Z'
in. the matter of
In the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of /C,' f�•'/''� f�',-,
cY
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of 4:Ee
(SEAL)
A. D. 19 e5?
PUBLIC NOTICE
On the 21st day of April, 1992, at 9:05 a.m., the
Board of County Commissioners will conduct a
PUBUC HEARING to adopt a resolution amending
the utility rate resolution and to approve cancella-
tion of the agreement between Indian River County
and the City of Sebastian for the exclusive Iran-
chbe for water and sewer service with the City.
Anyone ay made at this wish tr eeaUng willnny e dto ensclire
that a verbatim record of the procaedinga la made
which includes the testimony and evfdgAce upon
Which the appeal wN be based.
April 15, 1892 893898
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/15/92:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: April 15, 1992
RE: AGREEMENT FOR PROVISION OF UTILITIES
SERVICE BY THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN
The attached agreement between the County and the City of Sebastian
would relinquish the authority that the County now has to provide
40
water and wastewater service within the Sebastian city limits . This
agreement has been prepared at the direction of the County Commission
to accede to the request of the City that the City be able to provide its
own utilities system for its residents.
Effective May 1, 1992, the City would become the utilities authority
and, for one year, by contract would have the County provide all
utility services at the County's retail rates. After one year the
responsibility for all utilities services, including wastewater treatment
and water production, would be the responsibility of the City. Their
staff hopes to have acquired General Development Utilities' facilities or
to have constructed a new City -owned facility. If the City is not ready
to provide all the necessary services at the end of this first year, the
County would be in -a position to provide wastewater service at the
recently adopted bulk rate. The bulk rate service could continue for
an indefinite time until the City is ready to totally separate itself from
the County system.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends execution of the attached
agreement.
Attorney Vitunac advised that this is the interlocal agreement
that has been the subject of negotiations for over a year, ever
since the City of Sebastian indicated they wanted to get into the
utility business on their own. The County Commission indicated
that we would accede to whatever wishes of the City, and the City
has made it clear through their consultants that they are ready,
willing and able to undertake the provision of water and sewer
services in the City limits. Their consulting team, including
lawyers and engineers, have worked with our negotiating team for a
full year and have arrived at the proposed utilities agreement
between the City and County. Staff recommends its approval. He
noted that today's public hearing is just a matter of courtesy to
the citizens. A public hearing will be held tomorrow in the City
of Sebastian to cancel the franchise that the County has had with
the City for some years.
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 Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Interlocal Utilities Agreement with the City of
Sebastian, as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
41
APR r2i 199 L`��K FAUr
F_
AER 21`92
2E
PUBLIC HEARING — WATER SERVICE PROJECT — CHARLOTTE AVE. /62ND DRIVE
— RESOLUTION III
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
in the matter of
In the _ Court, was pub.
lished in said newspaper in the issues of C
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this G
day o
s A.D. 196r'r
�
(Buginess.Mdnager)
(SEAL) i
42
TheNOTICE
Board of County mars ofRim Indian
PURCO0 f (xo ea notice of
.05
TUESDAY. APRIL 21, 1892, to discus. a A.M. on
098011AM relating to a SPECIAL ==T
PROJECT
Of WATTERRIVESERVICE IN O �o� AVEinstallaNUE
"�li� d. be of record ai op
ro be wed.
ertim� who
e y isto appeal any decision whiff
meeting wie need to ensure
the a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made,
whid incudes tealmony:and evidence upon which
1119111313061is based:
h4wcK30. April S. 1992 889043-
807
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/10/92:
DATE: APRIL 10, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT
FROM: TERRANCE G. PI
DIRECTOR OF UTI I SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAST
221
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASSN�PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: CHARLOTTE AVENUE/62ND DRIVE WATER SERVICE PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -91 -06 -DS
RESOLUTION III
BACKGROUND
On March 24, 1992, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved Resolution I (92-51) and Resolution II
(92-52). Resolution I contained the preliminary assessment roll
describing the project and cost. Resolution II set the date of the
public hearing for the subject project. Property owners have been
notified of the public hearing by certified mail. Resolution I
(92-51) was published in the Vero Beach PRESS JOURNAL on March 30,
1992. (See attached agenda item and minutes of the above meeting.)
ANALYSIS
Design of the water distribution system is complete. An
informational meeting was held with the property owners on March 31,
1992. The cost per square foot is $0.07652476678, and the project
will serve the thirteen properties on 62nd Drive. Approval of the
attached Resolution III will confirm and approve the preliminary
assessment.
Seven of the thirteen lots in this project are substandard or
"undersized," according to Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan
and the County Public Health Unit, Division of Environmental Health,
which require that new lots utilizing well and septic systems be a
minimum of one-half acre. If served by a public water system, the
lot may be reduced to one-quarter acre in size. Lots not meeting
these minimum standards are called "undersized lots."
The total estimated construction cost, including engineering and
administration of the project is $46,966.50, less $17,845.00 for a
non -assessed Master Plan water transmission main. The total
estimated cost to be assessed is $29,121.50. The attached map
displays the area to benefit from the assessment project.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve Resolution III, which affirms
the preliminary assessment on the subject project.
43
APR 21492
[BOOK �'< ,, - �
r
APR 211992
BOOK r , is
The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the
Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-61, confirming the special assessments in
connection with a water line extension -to Charlotte
Avenue (62nd Drive) and providing for special assessment
liens to be made of record.
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 61
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CONFIRMING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN
CONNECTION WITH A WATER LINE EXTENSION TO
CHARLOTTE AVENUE (62ND DRIVE) AND PROVIDING
FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIENS TO BE MADE OF
RECORD.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has, by Resolution No. 92-51, adopted March 24, 1992,
determined to make special assessments against certain properties to be
serviced a water line extension of the County located in Charlotte
Avenue ( 62nd Drive) ; and
WHEREAS, said resolution described the manner in which said
special assessments shall be made and how said special assessments are
to .be paid; and
WHEREAS, the resolution was published on March 30, 1992, as
required by Section 11-52, Indian River County Code; and
WHEREAS,
the Board of
County Commissioners of
Indian
River
County passed
Resolution No.
92-52, on March 24, 1992,
which
set a
time and place for a public hearing at which the owners of the
properties to be assessed and other. interested persons would have the
chance to be heard as to any and all complaints as to said project and
said special assessments, and for the Board to act as required by
Section 11-53, Indian River County Code; and
44
� —7
WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of the public hearing was
published in the Press Journal Newspaper on Monday, March 30, 1992,
and Monday, April 6, 1992, (twice one week apart; the last being at
least one week prior to the hearing), as required by Section 11-52,
Indian River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the land owners of record were mailed notices at least
ten days prior to the hearing, as required by Section 11-52, Indian
River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County on Tuesday, April 21, 1992, at 9:05 a.m. conducted the public
hearing with regard to the special assessments,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The special assessments shown on the attached assessment roll are
hereby confirmed and approved, and shall remain legal, valid, and
binding first liens against the properties assessed until paid in
full.
2. The County will
record the special assessments
and
this resolution,
which describes
the properties assessed and
the
amounts of the
special assessments, on the public records, which shall constitute
prima facie evidence of the validity of the special assessments.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird ,
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert A y e
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman A y e
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 21 S t day of A p r i l , 1992.
Attest:'
y
45
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN VER COUNTY, FLORIDA
d
By
Caro K. Egge
ChaWman
MOO F�.,r
APR 211992
WINTER BEACH CEMETERY CONVERSION PROPOSAL
. j
BOOK 8 F, UL P
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/13/92:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: April 13, 1992 FILE:
THRU:
FROM:
James E. Chandler f'o
County Administrator lV
t
Randy Dowling
Asst. to Co. Admin.
SUBJECT: Winter Beach Cemetery
Conversion Proposal
REFERENCES:
The Winter Beach Cemetery Association, a non-profit corporation, asked the
Board during March 1976 for approximately 19 acres of adjacent Hobart Park for
cemetery expansion. The Board, during its August 27, 1980 meeting, formally
dedicated the acreage to the Cemetery Association for cemetery expansion.
However, that dedication was voided since a portion of Hobart Park was acquired
by federal funds and the entire park was placed under a perpetual public
recreational deed restriction. The Cemetery Association has been asking for the
land ever since.
During the April 5, 1988 Commission meeting, the Board directed staff to pursue
a conversion proposal whereby the County would give the Hobart Park acreage
to the Cemetery Association and, in turn, convert another piece of
non -recreational property (i.e. the old county -owned landfill site near Old Dixie
Highway) to recreational property that has equal value, location, and utility.
On October 18, 1989, county staff sent a completed conversion proposal to the
Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR) for their approval. The FDNR
replied on September 13, 1990 recommending minor changes to the proposal.
During the October 23, 1990 Commission meeting, county staff %requested from
the Board authorization to make the recommended changes and submit an
amended conversion proposal to the state. The Board tabled the item. On May
14, 1991, the Board approved making the state recommended changes and
submitting an amended proposal to the FDNR. County staff sent an amended
proposal to FDNR on Auqust 5, 1991.
After FDNR reviewed the amended proposal, that department forwarded the
materials to the National Park Service (NPS) for ultimate approval. The NPS
verbally rejected the proposal during late November 1991 on the basis that the
old landfill is not an appropriate site for recreation because of, in their opinion,
the potential liability of methane gas and other harmful by-products of closed
landfills. Based upon that verbal rejection of the county's landfill site, county
staff offered four alternative sites to FDNR (South County Regional Park,
Treasure Shores Park, Oslo Road property, and the recently acquired Gifford
Park) but all four sites were rejected. During the January 14, 1992 Commission
meeting, county staff suggested a 20 acre undeveloped tract of county -owned
land located on .58th Avenue be used in place of the old landfill, that would
Potentially meet all FDNR requirements. The Board rejected that idea and
unanimously voted to pursue the old landfill site with NPS.
Subsequently, county staff received the formal written response from NPS and
FDNR in early February, 1992. In that letter, both the NPS and FDNR
recommended that the county consider an alternative site. County staff advised
46
FDNR_ that the County would pursue the landfill site. As indicated in the letter
from FDNR dated March 19, 1992, NPS does not currently have a policy
concerning using old landfills in the conversion process. Therefore, the NPS
Washington, D.C. headquarters and the U.S. Solicitors General Office are
considering this matter. If these two organizations determine that landfills are
appropriate as conversion sites, environmental standards would have to be
prepared by NPS. The NPS determination and the environmental standards
would take, at a minimum, several months. These federal environmental
standards combined with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
requirements could be extremely expensive for the County. County staff
believes that the potential expense associated with the landfill site is not cost
effective just to meet the expansion needs of the non-profit Cemetery
Association. Therefore, staff -does not' recommend that the landfill site be
pursued further.
If the conversion process -is to be pursued further, an alternative piece of
property not in the current parks inventory and that has equal value, location,
and utility as the Hobart Park site would have to be acquired. The 18 acres at
Hobart Park is appraised at $200,000. Staff recommends that the alternative
property be acquired with other proposed programs such as the Jungle Trail or
comprehensive plan acquisitions. The new property acquisition and associated
conversion process would be quite lengthy and timing is becoming critical for the
Cemetery Association's expansion plans. Staff believes that if the conversion
process is to be pursued further, acquiring an alternative site to the landfill
would be in the county's best interest.
RD/mg
Commissioner Bird reluctantly agreed with not pursuing the
landfill site as a trade for the Winter Beach Cemetery property.
Administrator Chandler advised that we are trying to keep all
possible options open. We already have too many doors closed to
us, and the State will not say specifically whether they will
accept the areas along Jungle Trail.
Commissioner Bowman didn't feel it is right to acquire
wetlands just to park cars along Jungle Trail, and strongly
preferred the acquisition of upland for that purpose.
Administrator Chandler explained that when we talked with the
State about Jungle Trail, we made it quite clear to them that we
were acquiring those properties for parking purposes and they had
no problem with that from the standpoint that it would provide
access to the river and all its benefits.
Commissioner Bird felt that if it met their criteria, it would
meet the -criteria under our Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Commissioner Scurlock felt their goal is to expand public land
and not to delete or have less. Personally, he believed they are
going to be very cautious about allowing us to reduce acreage by
doing this Winter Beach trade.
. Commissioner Bird felt that in answer to the request from the
people in Winter Beach, it looks like the quickest approach would
be to pursue the acquisition of the properties along Jungle Trail.
47
APR 2 11992 CtOOk
J
Fpp,- -7
APR 21 N92
300K C� PA.�E13 4
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
directed staff to pursue the acquisition of
upland property along Jungle Trail as an
appropriate trade for the Winter Beach Cemetery
property.
MANGROVE TRIMMING VIOLATION - EDWARD & CHRISTINA BRANIGAN
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/6/92:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. lWitirp, A
Community Developmen Director
THROUGH: Roland DeBlois;'"`AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM: Christine Panico c?
Senior Environmental Planner
DATE: April 6, 1992
SUBJECT: Mangrove Trimming Violation
Edward & Christine Branigan
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of April 21, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On February 11, 1992, county staff observed that mangroves along
the Indian River lagoon shoreline of parcel number 16-33-40-00017-
0000-00001.0 had been recently hedged without issuance of a county
mangrove alteration permit. The linear footage of shoreline
containing altered mangroves is approximately seventy-five (75)
feet. The parcel, Lot 1, Little Harbour Subdivision, 1250 Little
Harbour Lane, contains a single-family residence and is owned by
Edward S. III & Christina Branigan.
During a site inspection.by county staff on. March 10, 1992, the
height of the altered mangroves was measured throughout the
shoreline. Mangrove height varied from four (4) feet in the area
adjacent to the pool to six (6) feet along the dock access
structure. The average height of the mangroves throughout the
shoreline was 5± feet. Staff observed that the tips of all
branches had been cut across the top of the mangrove trees, giving
the trees a flat, hedged appearance.
A county mangrove alteration permit (MA 89-016) was issued to
Jimmy's Tree Service a number of years ago (on March 28, 1989) for
mangrove alteration on the subject property. This permit expired
on September 28, 1989. County records show no subsequent permit
extension or renewal. The 1989 permit allowed the trimming of
mangroves in accordance with county trimming criteria (Section'23
48
1/2-9) in effect at that time; these criteria required that red
mangroves not be- trimmed below a height of six (6) feet, and
required that at least fifty (50) percent of the canopy of any
mangrove tree must be retained. Permit MA 89-016 was specifically
issued for the removal of lower branches of the existing mangroves;
no hedging was permitted under the permit.
The Florida Department of Environmental of Regulation (FDER),
Central District Permitting Office has no record of a mangrove
alteration permit being issued for mangrove trimming on the subject
property. It is also probable that some of the altered mangroves
are below the Mean High Water Line'of the lagoon, where trimming is
prohibited by Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNB)
Aquatic Preserve regulations.
ALTERNATIVE & ANALYSIS:
Section 927.05(1) of the Tree Protection and Land Clearing Chapter
of the county Land Development Regulations (LDRs) prohibits the
performance of any mangrove alteration unless a county mangrove
alteration permit has first been issued. In addition, county LDRs
state that no permit shall be issued for mangrove alteration unless
the applicant has obtained approval from the FDER and if necessary
the FDNR. Present county and state mangrove trimming regulations
prohibit the trimming of any mangroves under seven (7) feet in
height.
Section 927.17 of the LDRs further specifies that a violation shall
be punishable upon conviction by a fine not to exceed five hundred
dollars ($500), or by imprisonment in the county jail up to sixty
(60) days, or both. The destruction or alteration of each tree
shall be considered a separate offense, and the destruction of an
historic or specimen tree, mangroves or -any dune vegetation shall
receive the maximum penalty provided by law.
The number of individual mangrove trees altered on the subject
property is estimated to be at least 30 mangroves. The subject
mangroves are young, and therefore are present in a high density.
Based on a fine of $500 per tree, the resultant fine would be
calculated at fifteen thousand dollars ($15400). However, staff
has recommended a $500 land clearing violation to address the
trimming violation since no permanent destruction of individual
mangroves occurred.
Based on the height and method of mangrove alteration which took
place, an after -the -fact permit cannot be issued to remedy the
violation, because the mangrove trimming activity was not performed
in accordance with permit issuance criteria in Section 927.08.
Based on the illegal mangrove trimming activity and the fact that
no individual mangrove trees were destroyed, staff on March 13,
1992, requested that Dr. & Mrs. Branigan submit a voluntary payment
of five hundred dollars ($500) and cease all further mangrove
alteration unless permitted by the county. Voluntary payment as
requested by staff has not been submitted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners request
that the respondent pay a voluntary fine of five hundred dollars
($500). In the event that any said agreement is not forth -coming,
staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant staff
the authorization to pursue available remedies in County Court.
-U
APR 2 11992MK F �r P
Fr- -7
APR 2 11992 BOOKS
Commissioner Bird asked how the 7 -ft. height requirement was
determined, and Roland DeBlois, Chief of Environmental Planning,
advised that it was adopted late last year to bring it within State
requirements. However, the County and the State allow another
avenue for view, which is a thinning of the mangroves below the 7 -
ft. height, up to 25 percent. So, there could be some strategic
windows trimmed within the mangroves to allow for a view even below
the 7 -ft. height. He circulated photographs taken'by staff of the
alleged violation.
Commissioner Bowman felt there was another violation here
because it says that some of the altered mangroves were below mean
high water line, which is absolutely prohibited.
Christine Panico, Senior Environmental Planner, advised that
we don't have an exact survey of where the mean high water line is
in order to determine what was actually prohibited in our
regulations. This matter came up when she was investigating dock
violations in that area with the Department of Natural Resources
and they noticed the hedging of these mangroves.
Commissioner Bowman felt she could eyeball a mean high water
line.
Attorney Chuck Garris, representing Dr. and Mrs. Branigan,
wished to make it clear that his clients did not cut the mangroves.
In his opinion, staff is bringing this before the Board with
absolutely zero proof that anyone has trimmed any mangroves. Staff
has no witnesses to say that anyone trimmed any mangroves. Staff
has not found any cut mangroves nor have they found any cuts on the
mangroves. They have cited their opinion, and as far as he knew,
no one on staff is a horticultural specialist. They are taking a
position without any basis in fact. Staff has taken an arbitrary
and capricious position that mangroves were cut. When his client
went to them and said he had pictures to show that the mangroves
were not cut, they responded by saying they didn't care, that they
are saying that they were cut. Period. End of discussion.
Secondly, Attorney Garris wished to announce that he is here
on consent today because it is his opinion that there is no
provision in the ordinance to attend this meeting. When you look
at the penalties and enforcement provision, it doesn't contain any
ability to have an appeal to this County Commission. He notified
the County Attorney's office and informed them he would attend
because he would love to address this and would love for the
Commission to make a decision on this and find his client not in
violation of cutting mangroves. However, he will not waive any
rights that he has as to the defects that he finds in the
ordinance. If you compare Section 928 of the LDRs to Section 927,
Section 928 specifically states that you do have remedies to -the
50
W M
County Commission. Under Section 927.17, it only provides that the
County or any aggrieved party having a substantial interest in the
protection provided by the chapter may apply to a court. It gives
no remedy to someone who has been accused. Attorney Garris felt it
is a great wonder of due process. His point is that he is here on
consent that he said he would attend. As far as he is concerned,
the ordinance is defective in its very existence.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac explained that the County's
position is that we always try to work these cases out at the
County Commission level in order to keep them out of County Court.
If Attorney Garris prefers that we do this in County Court, we have
ways to do that. We believe this is more or less a voluntary
special master. Staff has made allegations against Attorney
Garris' clients and has certain proof, and we are providing the
opportunity to explain to the Board of County Commissioners whether
the staff has reached too far or something.
Attorney Garris said he was more than happy to have the County
Commission hear this matter today and hopefully resolve it. He was
just bringing this out as a point of law that he thinks the County
Attorney's Office should address themselves to the ordinance,
perhaps in keeping with what was passed in a public hearing earlier
today.
Discussion ensued on whether the ordinance needed to be
changed, and Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien felt it should
be clarified.
Attorney Vitunac agreed that the ordinance could be clarified,
but wished to emphasize that we are not stepping on. Attorney
Garris' rights here today.
Chairman Eggert announced that she already has asked the
County Attorney to clarify that.
Attorney Garris circulated photographs of the mangroves taken
after the freeze in 1989 and recent photographs showing the
mangroves to be uneven, not hedged. He noted that the pictures
show how healthy these mangroves are and how much they have
expanded from where they were after the freeze in 1989.
Commission Scurlock noted that staff's pictures of March,
1992, show two little branches that perhaps were cut and a little
leaf that was -cut.
Attorney Garris maintained that the mangroves were not cut and
that what is being called hedging is merely an uneven line. He
didn't believe that constitutes cutting.
Mr. DeBlois admitted that the pictures of two little cuts and
the. cut leaf is the only evidence staff has other than what they
have observed.
51
APR 21199
L
FF_
APPR 211992 a
aooK
Commissioner Scurlock asked if the BraniganIs had a lawn
service, and Miss Panico said that when she called Dr. Branigan
about the violation, he said that when he discussed it with his
landscaper, the landscaper told him he had evened out the tops of
the mangroves. That is what she based her recommendation on.
Commissioner Scurlock felt there is a big difference between
someone going out there with a chain saw and zipping things off and
a gardener who shows up once a week and trims off a -little -shooter.
Commissioner Bird asked what the purpose is of a specific
height if the mangroves are thick and hardy and doing what they do
best for the environment.
Mr. DeBlois advised that biologists feel that the ultimate
picture is to leave the mangroves alone, to let them grow out and
do what they do best. As with many regulations, there is a
compromise, and the 7 -ft. height requirement was a compromise.
Commissioner Bowman detailed the purpose of mangroves in the
environment. While she felt the thicker the leaves the better, she
didn't believe that trimming results in thicker mangroves.
Miss Panico explained that the height of the tree also affects
their sexual maturity. Trimming the trees can affect their
development and their ability to produce pods. Mangroves that are
thick and bushy are really in distress because they have to work
harder to put out more leaves.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that because we are marshalling our
resources in this county in trying to maintain the health of the
river, we had better things to do than to pinpoint this particular
kind of case. In looking at the pictures provided by Attorney
Garris and those of staff, he didn't see any major attempt to
damage the mangroves. To him, they look healthier.
Chairman Eggert explained that according to Miss Panico the
healthy, lush trees are actually -unhealthy.
Attorney Garris pointed out that Miss Panico is not an expert.
He has been at DNR hearings where the DNR biologists have been
turned around by taxpayers' biologists. This is not a settled
issue. Everybody here is for the protection of mangroves. His
clients are for the protection of mangroves. This is not an
egregious situation. As far as he was concerned, there is not one
bit of proof that any trimming was done.
Attorney Garris objected again to being here today under the
provisions of the present code enforcement process, and as far as
he was concerned, staff does not have an egregious case.
Community Development Director Robert Keating admitted that
several good points have been made today for the State and the
County to change their rules, but he emphasized that we are here
today under the present enforcement process. Miss Panico _has
52
testified that she has seen some minor trimming and that the
respondent actually admitted they were trimmed even though he
didn't do it himself. Right now, our position is just to deal with
the enforcement issue. If the ordinance needs to be changed and if
thee is scientific evidence, then he felt we should do it, but if
it is not, he felt we have to be consistent and not arbitrary in
the enforcement.
Commissioner Scurlock asked what burden of proof we are faced
with here, and Attorney Vitunac advised that it is a civil penalty
at this stage and would be a preponderance of evidence. He felt it
would be proper to ask -Mrs. Branigan some questions.
Christina Branigan, 1250 Little Harbour Lane, recalled that
before they ever moved into their new home, you could see the
damage on the mangroves. Jimmy's Tree Service came to them and
said there was a lot of dead mangroves and it would be better to
have them trimmed because they will come back better and it would
be better for the environment. He obtained the permit, they paid
for it, and he leveled all the dead mangroves in 1989. They moved
into their home in 1990 and have been proud to see the healthy
progress of the mangroves. Mrs. Branigan stressed that they are
not people who are insensitive to the environment, they are people
who collect signatures on petitions or write letters of support
whenever an environmental issue comes up, such as saving Prang
Island, the lagoon, the eagle, the dolphin, the manatee. They are
the people who are out there working in support of the environment.
They really resent being accused of this, because their names are
on the citation, not the landscaper's. She did not want it to go
on record that they have been cutting mangroves when they have not.
If their landscaper inadvertently cut something, he did it on his
own. If the County needs to fine every landscaper, then that is
what they should do. Mrs. Branigan stressed that they did not
authorize any cutting of the mangroves and that they were not aware
of any cutting. As far as they are concerned, their conscience is
clear, because they have not done any cutting. They have had their
current landscaper for one and a half years, but because she and
her husband both work, they cannot watch or supervise the yard
work. She repeated that they did not authorize any cutting. The
reason they took the pictures of the dead mangroves back in 1989
was so there would never be any question that they were cutting
anything illegally. They play by the books and they have always
done that. They have lived in this community for 15 years and they
are straight arrows, which is why they took this personally. Mrs.
Branigan stressed that it is the principle of the matter, which is
why they hired Attorney Garris to represent them. They don't do
things arbitrarily or capriciously.
53
POGK.
P� 9
�,
,.
Attorney Vitunac felt we have a controverted testimony with
Dr. Branigan saying that the landscaper did it. If the landscaper
did the cutting on instructions from Dr. Branigan, then Dr.
Branigan would be responsible. If the landscaper did it on his
own, that is another thing. He believed in that case, the Board
could find the Branigans not in violation.
Commissioner Bird believed that the owners of waterfront
property have the responsibility to instruct their landscapers not
to cut mangroves under 7 -feet in height.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously found the
Branigans not in violation of the mangrove trimming
provisions, but requested them to write a formal letter
to their landscaper indicating that they do not condone
the cutting, that they do not want this activity to occur
again.
PURCHASE OF EMERGENCY GENERATOR FOR GIFFORD MIDDLE 7 SCHOOL
FUNDING FROM GRAND HARBOR DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR OFF-SITE SHELTER
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/10/92:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: Doug Wright, Director`
Emergency Services
FROM: John Ring, Emergency Management Coordinator
Division of Emergency Management
DATE: April 10, 1992
SUBJECT: Purchase of Emergency Generator For Gifford Middle
Seven (7) School/Shelter - Utilizing Funding From
Grand Harbor Development Order For Off Site Shelter
-Lu JL5 respecmiully 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 Board of County Commissioners approved a development for Grand
Harbor, now River Harbor, in Resolution No. 85-128. Paragraph 44 of
the development order provided a limit of 300 units to the issuance
of Certificates of Occupancy until such time as the developer
provided adequate emergency shelter space to accommodate existing
needs or an equivalent cash contribution to retrofit and upgrade an
existing shelter off site.
54
In. November 1989, Grand Harbor representatives met with county
staff to negotiate an equivalent cash contribution to upgrade an
off-site shelter for use by Grand Harbor residents. County staff
then took their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners
who approved the final agreement on the date referenced above. The
development order provided for a total of $90,000.00 with a
$50,000.00 installment payable before issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy No. 301 and the $40,000.00 balance is due before
Certificate of Occupancy No. 1,201 is issued unless the Director of
Emergency Services determines the off site shelter capacity is
inadequate. The Development Order also provided for Grand Harbor
to donate 1.1 acres of land at the northwest corner of the
intersection of Indian River Boulevard and 45th Street for an
Emergency Services station. The County has received the $50,000.00
installment and the property has been conveyed to the County.
County staff has met with representatives from the American Red
Cross and the IRC School District to determine which facility would
best serve the public and citizens from the Grand Harbor
development as an emergency shelter. It has been determined that
upgrading Gifford Middle Seven School would provide needed
additional shelter space for the off site shelter.
Authority is now being sought to expend $19,009.00 to purchase an
emergency generator, $6,880.00 to modify the referenced structure
and $3,000.00 in engineering fees using funds prior approved in the
development order to upgrade the building for utilization in the
event of an emergency or disaster.
To expedite the purchase of the generator so that it can be placed
in service prior to the start of hurricane season, staff is
proposing to purchase the emergency generator from the same vendor
who was recently awarded the bid for the Vero Beach High School
generator. On March 3, 1992, the Board approved the award of Bid
No. 92-67 for an emergency generator to All Power Services, Inc.,
for $19,009.00 The company has agreed to sell the County a second
generator meeting the same specifications at the same price. The
Purchasing Manager has approved this proposed purchasing process
per the recent prior bid.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Indian River County and School District have recently completed and
finalized the retofitting and upgrading of the Vero Beach High
School with an emergency electrical generator. This mutual endeavor
benefits both agencies in that the School District receives an
available emergency electrical source and the County receives an
enhanced emergency shelter for use in the event of a natural or
manmade disaster. Given the benefit to both agencies, the School
District funded the necessary electrical wiring alterations and
incorporated the generator into their maintenance schedule.
The School District has agreed to a similar arrangement with the
requested electrical generator for Gifford Middle Seven School. The
School District is aware of the County's need for additional
emergency shelter space and has agreed to fund modifications to the
existing_ electrical wiring and expenses related to the installation
of the generator. The addition of the generator will make available
much of the usable shelter space within the school for the 1992
hurricane season.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board approve purchase of the emergency
generator from All Power Services for $19,909.00 as well as funding
in the amount of $9,880 for installation and engineering expenses
from the $50,000-00 installment already paid to the County from the
Grand Harbor Development Order.
55
oK . 0— rt,t6L jj-_L
r APR 211,992 �
eP 1992
300K 86F' ,E1 c,
Commissioner Scurlock asked what percentage of the residents
of Grand Harbor could be housed in the shelter at Gifford Middle 7
School, and Director of Emergency Services Doug Wright estimated it
would be 19% of the total population at build out. While the
shelter could provide shelter for 500-600 people, those people
could come from anywhere in the county. This cannot be limited to
just those from Grand Harbor.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we have a county -wide program
for checking out emergency generators, and Director Wright advised
that we have a maintenance program where they are serviced twice a
year.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
authorized the purchase of the emergency generator
from All Power Services for $19,909, as set out in
the above staff recommendation.
APPROVAL OF EMS ALS CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
FOR INDIAN RIVER SHORES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/14/92:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Doug Wright, Director`
Emergency Services
DATE: April 14, 1992
SUBJECT: Approval of EMS ALS Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity for Indian River Shores Department of Public
Safety to Provide Pre -Hospital Emergency Medical Services
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
at the next scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On June 12, 1990, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved an EMS Advanced Life Support Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity for the Town of Indian River
Shores. This certificate was necessary in order to comply with
Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances as specified in
Chapter 6.50 as an EMS ALS provider. The certificate provided for
Indian River Shores to operate an EMS ALS service under the SRS
Advanced Life Support EMS license issued to Indian River County.
The Town of Indian River Shores determined in 1990 that the
municipality would continue with the public safety concept for
emergency services and opted not to participate in the emergency
services referendum which established an Emergency Services Special
District. As a result of this action, the Town must apply to the
County and HRS for an Advanced Life Support license as a separate
entity prior to October 1, 1992, when the new district will be
created.
56
M
An application for the certificate has been submitted by the Town.
Staff has reviewed the application and certifies that all
requirements of Chapter 6:50 of the County Code has been met which
would justify the issuance of the referenced certificate.
The service area for this EMS ALS provider would be confined to the
municipal limits of the Town of Indian River Shores, except when
assistance is requested in a mutual aid situation.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The County Code provides for routine renewal of the EMS Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity on application by -a current
certificate holder. This can be accomplished without a public
hearing if the board has no reason to believe that the public
health, safety, and welfare would be at risk. Staff submits that
there is no reason to hold a public hearing and absent that
requirement, staff requests the Board renew and issue the new
certificate for the Town routinely.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff respectfully recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve and renew the EMS ALS Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity for the Town of Indian River Shores
Department of Public Safety to be effective for a period of two
years.
This provider, as with all others, will continue to be subject to
the authority of the state statutes, administrative rules, and
County EMS Director as provided by Chapter 6.50 of the Indian River
County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
In answer to Chairman Eggert's question, Director of Emergency
Services Doug Wright confirmed that Indian River Shores would
remain subject to our ordinances. They would not be under our
control, but they would have to adhere to our ordinances in terms
of response time, etc.
Chairman Eggert had a problem with somebody running under
their own control when the County could be liable for what they do.
Attorney Vitunac explained that we are liable to see that
anyone having a certificate in our county lives up to the County
ordinances and State regulations. Director Wright just will not do
the day to day oversight of their operations.
Director Wright added that the State will do the inspections.
We will pull from the 911 data base from time to time to check on
their average response time and other things.
57
�.t !"
APR T �ooK U F„,� o
P 2 1 19 92, BOOK 86 F 6E 14
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the renewal of the EMS ALS Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity for Indian River Shores Dept.
of Public Safety to provide pre -hospital emergency
medical services.
CERTIFICATE .IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
FELLSMERE SENIOR LEAGUE CONCESSION STAND - CHANGE ORDER NO 1
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/9/92:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Roger D. Cain, P.E. e
J
County Engineer D
SUBJECT: Fellsmere Senior League Concession Stand
IRC Project No. 9007 - Change Order No. 1
DATE: April 9, 1992
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The permit required from the Health Department for the above
project, which was required to be obtained by the Contractor,required the septic to be elevated higher than was shown on the
plans. This change required 147 cubic yards more of fill, a total
increase of $734.00, which was not included in the contract price.
The Contractor is requesting compensation. The new contract amount
is $36,360.00.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative
No.
1
- Approve
the change order.
Alternative
No.
2
- Deny the
change order.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
As the Contractor's bid was predicated on the lesser amount of
fill, staff recommends approval of the change order, and execution
of the change order by the Chairman. Funding to be from Account
No. 004-108-572-066.39.
58
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
approved Change Order #1 with P.A.V.C.O.
Construction, Inc. in the amount of $734 as
set out in the above staff recommendation.
CHANGE ORDER #1 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
SANDRIDGE GOLF CLUB SECOND 18 - CLEARING AND GRUBBING
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/10/92:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
TOUGH:' James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.,C�11K
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Sandridge Golf Club Second "18"
Clearing and Grubbing
DATE: April 10, 1992 FILE: clrgrb.ang
---------------
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Clearing and Grubbing of the Sandridge Golf Club Second 1118"
is now complete. Guettler and Sons, Inc. is requesting
final payment consisting of the 108 retainage in the amount
of $8,270.00
The Notice to Proceed for this project was issued on
November 25, 1991. The contract called for completion of
work within 90 consecutive calendar days, making the
completion date February 23, 1992.
The clearing and grubbing was actually completed on March
13, 1992, 19 days after the completion date. Per the
attached letter from Bob Komarinetz to Chris Nelson *dated
March 12, 1992, staff recommends a time extension of 10
calendar days. The contract provides for extending the
contract for days that burning is not permitted.
The total number of days the contract was overdue, allowing
the above 10 days, was 9 calendar days. The contract calls
for liquidated damages to be applied at the rate of $50.00
per day, resulting total damages of $450 the. 9 day
delay. for
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternate No.l
Approve the final pay request in the amount of $8,270
and withhold $450 as liquidated damages for failure to
complete within 100 calendar days.
Alternate No. 2
Approve t e final pay request and withhold no liquidated
damages.
RECOMMELTIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1.
#418-000-169-018.00.
59
Funding is from Account
OR 21 Jon
� I
APR 211992 BOOK 66
Commissioner Scurlock announced that he has talked to the
County Attorney's office and he has no conflict of interest in this
matter and plans to vote on the issue.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation of Alternate No. 1 to approve
Guettler & Sons' final pay request in the amount of
$8,270 and withhold $450 as liquidated damages for
failure to complete within 100 calendar days.
COPY OF CHANGE ORDER #4 (FINAL PAY REQUEST) IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD PHASE III - CHANGE ORDERS NO. 6 AND 7
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/10/92:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P
.E., .ti
Public Works Director
�'!�
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Indian River Boulevard, Phase III
Change Order No. 6 and No. 7
DATE: April 10, 1992
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
FILE: irb3co6/7.agn
During the construction of - Indian River Boulevard,
unsuitable soils and limerock have been encountered. Since
these materials were not shown on the original drawings,
change orders have been necessary during the earthwork and
pile driving phases.
The pre -design geotechnical firm, Universal Engineering
Services, is of the opinion that the soil borings they
Provided to Boyle Engineering adequately reflect subsurface
areas of consolidated materials and unsuitable soils. The
attached letter from Ron Barnett of Boyle Engineering dated
Jan. 29, 1992 explains why the contract documents did not
reflect the conditions that have been encountered.
The attached Change Order No. 6 includes increases in the
amount of $45,706.25 for pre -drilling pile holes through
rock, removing rock under structures, and excavation,
hauling and disposal of unsuitable material. Various other
incidental items bring the total increase amount to
$53,729.69.
C:i]
Change Order No. 6 also includes deductions in the amount of
$45,097.10 for bridge piling. Due to the presence of rock,
shorter piling lengths were required than what was included
in the original contract. The net change in contract price
for Change Order No. 6 is an increase in the amount of
$8,632.59.
All the items on Change Order No. 7 are for modifications
that will facilitate the future construction of the
intersection 'at Indian River Boulevard and the proposed
realignment of the Merrill Barber Bridge. _These
modifications were requested by the Florida Department of
Transportation. The net change in contract price for Change
Order No. 7 is an increase in the amount of $6,009.76.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative No. 1
Authorize Change Order No. _6 and Change Order No. 7.
This would result in a revised contract amount of
$2,891,530.90.
Alternative No. 2
Deny authorization
re -negotiate.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
of the Change Orders and
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby Change Orders No.
6 and No. -7 are approved. Funding is from Account
309-214-541-066.51 Indian River Boulevard Phase III,
Construction in Progress.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Change Orders No. 6 and 7 with Sheltra & Son
Construction Co., as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
CHANGE ORDERS NO. 6 AND 7 ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
61
A P R 2 11992
APR 2 11992
BOOK 6 FAA, E W
PARTIAL LIST OF 1992 ROAD RESURFACING PROJECTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/14/92:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Partial List of 1992 Road Resurfacing Projects
Ref. Memo: Albert VanAuken to James Davis
dated March 18, 1992
DATE: April 14, 1992 FILE: resurf2.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
During the Feb. 25, 1992 meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners, the widening and/or resurfacing of
approximately 5 miles of paved roads was approved at -a cost
of approximately $173,660. Those projects are almost
complete and there remains approximately $270,000 in Road
and Bridge Fund 111-214-541-035.31 (Paving Materials). AT
this time, the attached list of five residential streets
need resurfacing at an estimated cost of $31,000. In June,
staff will. recommend a final list of resurfacing projects
for 1992. `
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the attached list of roads be approved
for resurfacing. Funding to be from Account' No.
111-214-541-035.31.
TO: James W. Davis, Director March 18, 1992
Public Works Department
FROM:. Albert L. Van Auken, Supt./,•
Road & Bridge Division
Subject: Resurfacing
Following is a list of roads and the subdivisions they are
located in that are in need of resurfacing:
ROAD FROM -TO LENGTH
47th Ave 26th St. - 22nd St. 1328'
Redstone Manor
10th Ct.
Colonial Terr.
lot P1. SW
Ixora Park
24th St.
Rivera Est.
23rd St.
Rivera Est.
8th St.- Dead End 1323' -
2nd St. SW -3rd ST SW 1646'
58th Ave. - Dead End 1306'
58th Ave. - Dead End 1265'
TOTAL
APPRX.COST
$6,000.
$6,000.
$7,400.
$5,900.
$5,700.
$31,000.
As of the February Detail Budget report we have
$442,318.00 in account 111-214-541-035.31
62
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
approved the partial list of 1992 road resurfacing
projects, as recommended by staff.
ASSESSMENT PROJECT - SEWER SERVICE TO THE S.W. CORNER OF
90TH AVE. -AND SR -60
The Boara reviewed the following memo dated 3/2/92:
DATE: MARCH 2,-1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. McCAIN rt
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECTSE IA E
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY S RVICES
SUBJECT: SEWER SERVICE TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 90TH AVENUE
AND STATE ROAD 60, ASSESSMENT PROJECT
BACKGROUND
Three properties (see attached location map) are located on the
aforementioned intersection that we are proposing- to service with
sewer. The immediate corner property "Hale" was originally due to
connect via a developers agreement and failed to follow through with
the execution of said agreement. The westernmost property wishes to
participate in an assessment program to connect, thus initiating this
project. Subsequent follow-up with the Environmental Health Department
has added additional motivation for this project as well. (See
attached letter dated February 5, 1991 from the Department of Health
and Rehabilitative Services (HRS)). The Department of Utility Services
wishes to proceed with the design, permitting and construction of this
project to expand our existing collection system, as well as for the
reasons stated previously here and in the HRS letter.
ANALYSIS
At the time of construction of
and a manhole were installed
these properties with gravity
properties can be accomplished
estimated project cost is $.21
funding for this project will
benefited properties; however,
RECOMMENDATION
the Rexton Inn, additional gravity sewer
for the specific purpose of servicing
sewers. Staff feels service to these
at a reasonable cost. The preliminary
per square foot of property served. All
come from the assessment of the three
impact fees will fund the cost up -front.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners authorize this Department to proceed with
the necessary surveys, in-house design and assessment of this project.
63
APR 211992
APR 21 �,99 BOOK �;� F,g;EG y
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to proceed with the necessary surveys, in-house
design and assessment of this project to provide sewer
service to the S.W. corner of 90th Avenue and SR -60.
SOUTH COUNTY WELLS CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMITTING ADDITIONAL SERVICES
WITH POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH AND JERNIGAN
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/7/92:
DATE: APRIL 7, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PIN
DIRECTOR F UTILIT SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. AIN
ANND STAFFED CAPITAL J TS ENGINEER
BY: DEPAR SERVICES
SUBJECT: SOUTH COUNTY WELLS CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMITTING
ADDITIONAL SERVICES WITH POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH &
JERNIGAN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -90 -30 -WC
BACKGROUND
On May 21, 1991, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a Work Authorization with PBS&J for well
design and consumptive use permit modification and renewal at the
South County Water Plant. As the permitting process 'for this
project evolved, the St. John's River Water Management District
informed the County that a mitigation plan for the wells on the
Hoskins' property directly to the east be submitted prior to the
issuance of the new CUP. Subsequently, we approached the Board of
County Commissioners for approval to negotiate the purchase of this
property and were granted authority to do so (see attached agenda
and minutes dated October 15, 1991). On January 28, 1992, we went
back to the Board of County Commissioners to purchase this property,
and the purchase was rejected (see attached agenda and minutes dated
January 28, 1992).
To satisfy the requirements of St. John's, we must now proceed with
an alternative mitigation plan.
ANALYSIS
The staff of the Department of Utility Services has negotiated an
additional service agreement with PBS&J in the amount of $13,000.00.
The services are outlined in detail in the attached contract
amendment with PBS&J. Mitigation costs are estimated between
$8,000.00 and $10,000.00 (see attached letter from PBS&J on the
subject). Funding for these additional services will come from the
impact fee fund.
RECOMMENDATION -
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County -Commissioners approve the attached agreement with
PBS&J in the amount of $13,000.00.
64
� � i
Chairman Eggert announced that she no longer has a conflict of
interest on this matter since the land next door on which she held
a second mortgage has been sold.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved Addendum No. 1 in the amount of $13,000
for additional permitting service, as recommended by
staf f .
ADDENDUM NO. 1 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH EL CAPITAN MOBILE HOME PARK (MR ED
POTTER)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/7/92:
DATE: APRIL 7, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLI F. McCAIN
AND STAFFED CAPIT NGINEER
BY: DEP OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH EL CAPITAN MOBILE HOME
PARK (MR. ED POTTER)
BACKGRODND
The staff of the Department of Utility Services has completed
negotiations for the construction of a subregional lift station on
Indian River Drive, north of the Sebastian city limits. The lift
station has been designed to accommodate future flows from the
surrounding area as laid out in the preliminary engineering study
dated February 1991 by Kimball/Lloyd. The Department of Utilities
Services would now like to enter into a developer's agreement with
E1 Capitan (Mr. Ed Potter) for the construction of a subregional
lift station.
ANALYSIS
The construction cost is to be split on
split of the lift station is as follows:
Parcels served, -owned by Mr. Potter
E1 Capitan 38 units @ 250 GPD
Potter Home 18 units @ 350 GPD
Potter (daughter) 4 units @ 350 GPD
County service area, Property 1
Total Flow
65
ON 1
a usage basis. The usage
Flow
9500
6300
1400
63,050
80,250 GPD
JC
BOOK
APR 211992
P00K
U ft�uE.�c�
This equates to a 78.6% share by the County and a 21.4% share by Mr.
Potter. Please see the attached developer's agreement for specifics
of the cost share split. (For an estimated cost breakdown, see
attached exhibit of the attached agreement.) The cost sharing only
covers the cost of the lift station and engineering connected to the
lift station. Funding for this project will come from the impact
fee fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County- Commissioners approve the attached developer's
agreement with Mr. Ed Potter for the construction of a subregional
lift station.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Developer's Agreement with Mr. Ed Potter for the
construction of a subregional lift station.
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD
ANITA PARK (38th PLACE) WATER LINE EXTENSION - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/13/92:
DATE: APRIL 13, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR IL ERVICES
PREPARED H. D.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: ANITA PARK (38TH PLACE) WATER LINE EXTENSION
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -91 -05 -DS
BACKGROUND
Construction of the subject project has been completed, and the
Contractor, G. E. French Construction, Inc., of Okeechobee, Florida,
has made application for final payment. This payment request
includes an increase of $525.00 in the initial contract price as
shown in Change Order No. 1 (attached).
W
ANALYSIS
All Indian River County requirements have been met; the final
certification has been submitted to the Department of Environmental
Regulation, and DER clearance has been received.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the
following:
1) The attached change order.
2) Final rendereday request as payment in full for services
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 1 and Final Pay Request by G.E.
French Construction, Inc. as set out in the above
staff recommendation.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
GLENDALE LAKES WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM - WORK AUTHORIZATION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/10/92:
DATE: APRIL 10, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR IL S
STAFFED AND H. D. " STER,�?.E.
PREPARED BY: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: GLENDALE LAKES WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -92 -11 -DS
BACKGROUND:
On February _11, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners authorized
the Department of Utility Services to negotiate a new work
authorization with Masteller and Moler Associates, Inc., for the
design of the subject water distribution system and for preparation
of the accompanying assessment roll (see attached).
67
APR 211992
PR 01 1992
ANALYSIS:
Boor F-,'
A E ek
Negotiations with Masteller and Moler Associates, Inc., have been
completed, and the attached work authorization contains the scope of
services and proposed fees, estimated to be 8.3 percent of the
construction cost, and shall be adjusted to actual costs. The
project will be paid for through assessment of the benefitted
property owners. In the interim, funds will be from impact fee
funds.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the
attached work authorization for design and resident inspection of
the subject project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the authorization for design and resident inspection of
the subject project, as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
RESOLUTIONS I AND II - WATER SERVICE IN KINGS HIGHWAY SUBDIVISION
AND REPLAT OF BLOCKS 1 2. 3, AND 4 39TH & 40TH STREETS EAST OF
KINGS HIGHWAY AND 56TH AVENUE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/1/92:
68
DATE: APRIL 1, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL T SER ICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTAIN
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASSESSMENT PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: WATER SERVICE IN KINGS HIGHWAY S/D AND
REPLAT OF BLOCKS 1, 21 3 AND ,4, 39TH & 40TH STREETS
EAST OF KINGS HIGHWAY AND 56TH AVENUE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -92 -13 -DS
RESOLUTIONS I AND II
BACKGROUND
On March 3, 1992, The Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved the petition for water service for Kings
Highway Subdivision and replat of blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4, 39th Street,
40th Street and 56th Avenue, to supply potable water to its
residents. Design service has been completed by the Department of
Utility Services staff. We are now ready to begin the assessment
process associated with this project. (See attached agenda item.)
ANALYSIS
Attached are Resolutions I and II for the assessment project. The
cost per square foot is $0.07247489057. The project will serve 2
nonplatted parcels on the north side of 40th Street, together with
the 33 platted lots in the petition.
There are 23 lots in this project that are substandard or
"undersized," according to Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan.
The County Public Health Unit, Division of Environmental Health,
requires that new lots utilizing well and septic systems be a
minimum of 1/2 acre. If served by a public -water system, the lot
may be reduced to 1/4 acre in size. Lots not meeting these minimum
standards are called "undersized lots."
The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment
project. The total estimated cost to be assessed is $48,729.00.
This project is to be paid through the assessment of property owners
along the proposed water line route. In the interim, financing will
be through the use of impact fee funds. Design services will be
provided by the Department of Utility Services.
RECOMMENDATION -
The staff of the_ Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Resolutions and
set the assessment hearing date.
69
APR 21 Q92
PR 21 992
800K
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-62, providing for water service to Kings
Highway Subdivision and replat of Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4,
39th and 40th Streets east of Kings Highway and 56th
Avenue, providing the total estimated cost, method of
payment of assessments, number of annual installments,
and legal description of the area specifically served.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-63, setting a time and place at which the
owners of properties located in Kings Highway Subdivision
and replat of Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4, 39th and 40th Sts.
east of Kings Highway and 56th Ave. may appear before the
Board of County Commissions and be heard.
70
Providing (First Reso.) 3/31/92(legal)Vk/DC
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 62
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR WATER SERVICE TO
KINGS HIGHWAY SUBDIVISION AND REPLAT OF
BLOCKS 1, 2, 3, AND 4, 39TH AND 40TH STREETS
EAST OF KINGS HIGHWAY AND 56TH AVENUE;
PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST,
METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS; NUMBER
OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIFICALLY
SERVED.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has determined that the improvements herein described are
necessary to promote the public welfare of the county and has deter-
mined to defray the cost thereof by special assessments against certain
properties located in the area of Kings Highway Subdivision and Replat
of Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4, 39th and 40th Streets east of Kings Highways
and 56th Avenue, to be serviced by a waterline of Indian River County
in a project hereinafter referred to as Project No. UW -92 -13 -DS;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County does hereby determine that a waterline shall be
installed to serve 2 nonplatted parcels on the north side of 40th
Street together with 33 platted lots, which are located in Kings
Highway Subdivision and Replat of Block 1, 2, 3, and 4, 39th and
40th Street east of Kings Highway and 56th Avenue, and the cost
thereof shall be specially assessed in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 11-41 through 11-47 of the Code of Laws
and Ordinances of Indian River County.
2. The total estimated project assessment cost of the above-described
improvements is shown to be $0.07247489057 per square foot to be
paid by the property specially benefited as shown on the
assessment plat on file with the Department of Utility Services.
3. A special assessment in the amount of $0.07247489057 per square
foot shall be assessed against each of the properties designated on
the assessment plat. This assessment may be raised or lowered by
action of the Board of County Commissioners after the public
hearing, at the same meeting, as required by the referenced
County Code.
71
APR 211992
(APR 211992
J i"s
BOOK Ci J F,A, E ,
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 62
4. The special assessments shall be due and payable and may be paid
in full within 90 days after the date of the resolution of the Board
with, respect to credits against the special assessments after
completion of the improvements (the "Credit Date") without
interest.
If not
paid
in full, the
special assessments may be
paid in
ten
equal
yearly
installments
of principal plus interest.
If not
paid
when due,
there
shall
be
added
a penalty of
1-1/2%
of the
principal not
paid
when
due.
The
unpaid balance
of the
special
assessments shall bear interest at a rate of 9-3/4% from the Credit
Date until paid.
5. There is presently on file with the Department of Utility Services a
plat showing the area to be assessed, plans and specifications, and
an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements. All of .these
are open to inspection by the public at the Department of `''Utility
Services.
6. An assessment roll with respect to the special assessments shall
promptly be prepared in connection with the special assessments.
7. Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Indian River County
Utility Services Department shall cause this resolution to be pub-
lished at least one time in the Vero Beach Press Journal before the
public hearing required by Section 11-46.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Bowman , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. - Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 21 day of A n r i 1 , 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Car lyn K.
C 'rman
72
Time and Place (Second Reso.) 3/31/92(legal)Vk/DC
RESOLUTION NO. 92-63
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SETTING A TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH
THE . OWNERS OF PROPERTIES LOCATED IN KINGS
HIGHWAY SUBDIVISION AND REPLAT OF BLOCKS
1, 2, 3, AND 4, 39TH AND 40TH STREETS EAST
bF KINGS HIGHWAY AND 56TH AVENIVE MAY
APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND BE HEARD AS TO THE
PROPRIETY AND ADVISABILITY OF
CONSTRUCTING A WATERLINE EXTENSION, AS TO
-THE COST THEREOF, AS TO THE MANNER OF
PAYMENT THEREFOR, AND AS TO THE AMOUNT
THEREOF TO BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED AGAINST'
EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED THEREBY.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has, by Resolution No. 92-62, determined that it is necessary
for the public welfare of the citizens of the county, and particularly as
to those living, working, and owning property within the area
described hereafter, that a waterline be installed to serve 2 nonplatted
parcels on the north side of 40th Street together with the 33 platted
lots hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the cost to be specially
assessed with respect thereto shall be $0.07247489057 per square foot;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has caused an
assessment roll to be completed and filed with the Clerk to the Board;
and
WHEREAS, Section 11-46, Indian River County Code, requires that
the Board of County Commissioners shall fix a time and place at which
the owners of the properties to be assessed or any other persons
interested therein may appear before the Board of County
Commissioners and be heard as to the propriety and advisability of
constructing such water main extension, as to the cost thereof, as to
the manner of payment therefor, and as to the amount thereof to be
assessed against each property benefited thereby,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. Ther County Commission shall meet at the County Commission
Chambers in the County Administration Building at the hour of
9:05 a.m. on Tuesday, May 19, 1992, at which time the owners of
73
APR 211992
C
,MK E
r
APR 2 119
BOOK U' P u
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 6 3
the properties to be assessed and any other interested
persons
may appear before
said Commission and
be heard in
regard
thereto. The area
to be improved and
the properties
to be
specially benefited
are more particularly
described upon
the
assessment plat and
the assessment roll with
regard to the
special
assessments.
2. All persons interested in the construction of said improvements and
the special assessments against the properties to be specially
benefited may review the assessment plat showing the area to be
assessed, the assessment roll, the plans and specifications for said
Improvements, and an estimate of the cost thereof at the office of
the Department of Utility Services any week day from 8:30 a.m.
until 5:00 p.m.
3. Notice of the time and place of this public hearing shall be given
by two publications in the Press Journal Newspaper one week
apart. The last publication shall be at least one-week prior to the
date of the hearing. The Indian River County Department of
Utility Services shall give the owner of each property to be
specially assessed at least ten days notice in writing of such time
and place, which shall be served by mailing a copy of such notice
to each of such property owners at his last known address.
The resolution was moved . for adoption by Commissioner
Bowman , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird ,
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert A y e
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 21 day of April , 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest:
} Aid B A
't.� •, . . _ Carolyh K. Egger
Jeft,�� (/K.dartoA, 1 k Chairffiian
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL
74
Indian Rivet Co
Approved Dec
Admin.S-
Legel
Budget
Utilities
Rlrk Mgr.
Im
a
M
STUDY OF CHAPTER 207 - LICENSING AND LICENSE TAXES
M
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/20/92:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorneyl�Cl
DATE: February 20, 1992
RE: STUDY OF CHAPTER 2079 LICENSING AND LICENSE TAXES
At the regular meeting on December 10, 1991 the Board, after public
hearing, adopted new chapter 207 which was a recodificaiton of Chapter
15 of the old Indian River County Code (1974 edition) . The Board
directed the staff to look into the _ following areas of concern:
I. Professional Associations and members - dual tax
II. Exemptions for non-profit charitable organizations
III. Stricter enforcement
I. Professional Associations and Members - Dual Tax
Professional Associations e.g., attorneys and doctors, are taxed under
the current ordinance as follows:
Professional Association - occupational license tax - $30.00
Each professional in the association - $30.00
The rationale behind this is that there are two entities: one the
association and two the professional that is a member of the association.
Stated another way, if persons want to form an association then they
must pay for that privilege and they must also pay for the privilege of
practicing as a professional. This logic is not carried through with
respect to other organizations. For example, a licensed active real
estate broker pays one occupational license tax of $30.00 to the County.
The real estate salespersons or salespersons/brokers working for the
licensed active real estate broker are not required to pay any
occupational license tax . even though they are professionals licensed by
the state. A distinction may be that these real estate salespersons are
independent contractors. However, this distinction is more compelling
for the real estate salesperson to pay the tax than the doctor or lawyer
who is not independent but is a member of the association. It should
be noted that the City of Vero Beach requires an occupational licences
tax for each real estate broker and salesperson. In view of the
foregoing, there appears to be no basis in law or logic for the
disparate treatment now in effect between real estate professionals and
other. professionals.
75
BOOK 6 J PAA .�O-L
r
21199
:-ROOK p� }
I•J hap
The following solutions would appear to have consistency:
1 • a) require a licence tax of each association, and
b) require a license tax of each individual professional including
real estate salespersons.
or
2. a) require a license tax of each professional including real estate
salespersons, and
b) not require a license tax of an association made up of
professionals who pay an individual license tax.
Analysis:
Solution #1. Would be reflective of what is essentially required now
except it would remove the anomaly of not having professional licensed
real estate salespersons exempt from the tax.
Solution #2.. Would ignore the covering organization or shell and would
only look to all professionals. In the case of an active real estate
broker, the broker as an individual professional would pay the tax and
all of the independent salespersons would pay as would all doctors and
lawyers.
Either choice is fair. The first option places a tax on `an association
which is usually formed for legal and tax benefits and it may be better
not to tax this entity but concentrate on taxing the professionals no
matter how they are constituted. The first option becomes a little
onerous when you have a single member P.A. who is required to pay
both taxes just to gain the legal benefit of the P.A.
II. Exemptions for Non-profit Charitable Organizations
Under Section 207.24 carnivals are required to pay a license tax of $225
for each day. Concern was expressed that this fee could have a
chilling effect on charitable organizations that staged a small carnival to
raise . funds. Under Section 207.12 there is an exemption for
charitable organizations that stage fund-raising projects when "the
projects are performed exclusively by the members . " This exemption is
not broad enough to cover small carnivals that are hired by the
organization. It is suggested that Section 207.12 be amended to read
as follows:
Section 207.12 Charitable, organizations; occasional sales;
fundraising exemption
M
No occupational licneses shall be required of any charitable,
religious, fraternal, youth, civic service or other such
organization when the organization makes occasional sales or
engages in fund-raising projects and when the proceeds from
the activities are use exclusively in the charitable, religious,
fraternal, youth, civic and service activities of the
organization.
76
M
III. Stricter Enforcement
r
Citation procedures for code enforcement officers should enhance
enforcement. This is currently under preparation by CEB staff. In
addition, it may be of value to have a code enforcement officer review
occupational licenses against ads in the newspaper, telephone yellow
pages, and similar sources to see if persons are complying.
Recommendation:
1. Require licensing of all professionals including real estate
salespersons • on an individual basis.
2. Do not require. the licensing of any professional association
made up of licensed professionals.
3. Amend the charitable exceptions as set forth herein.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, -the Board unanimously -
approved the three items listed under the above
staff's recommendation.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:10 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
J. Barton, Clerk
r&r
e
Carol K. Egg Chairman
300
1