HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/23/1993� MINUTErATTACHEdw
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1993
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Richard N. Bird, Chairman (Dist. 5)
John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman ( Dist. 4)
Fran B. Adams (Dist. 1)
Carolyn K. Eggert ( Dist. 2 )
Kenneth R. Macht (Dist. 3)
9: 00 A. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION - None
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Carolyn Eggert
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/ EMERGENCY ITEMS
Item 9.A. Defer Formal Presentation of Master Plan by
Progressive Civic League
Item 11.G.3 Street Lights for Martin Luther King, Jr., Blvd.
Item 13.B. Legislative Conference
Item 13.C. Public Lands Research
Item 13.E. Comment on Legislative Delegations
5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting of October 26, 1993
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received 6 Placed on File in Office of Clerk:
Schedule of Bi -monthly Meetings of Fellsmere
Water Control District for 1993
B. Proclamation Designating December, 1993 as Drunk
6 Drugged Driving Prevention Month in IRC, FL
C. Proclamation Designating Dec. 1, 1993 as World
Aids Day in IRC, FL
D. 1993 State Aid "Certification of Credentials"
(memorandum dated Nov. 12, 1993)
E. Release of Utility Liens
( memorandum dated November 16, 1993 )
F. Cancellation of Outstanding Taxes
( memorandum dated November 16, 1993 )
NOV 23199,5 BOOK 91 Pv�E ��3
r NOV 231993
BOOK 91 PnF. .34 -1
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.):
G. Appraisal Authorization; Project #8823;
25 Parcels, 58th Ave. (SR 60 to Oslo Road)
( memorandum dated November 17, 1993 )
S. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
A. 1. Sheriff Gary Wheeler: Request for Main-
tenance Equipment to Support Prisoner Work
on County Property
( memorandum dated November 16, 1993 )
2. Sheriff Gary Wheeler: Consideration of
the Police Hiring Supplement Grant
(memorandum dated Oct. 25, 1993)
(re -scheduled from meetings of Nov. 2 and
Nov. 16, 1993)
B. HRS -Indian River County Public Health:
Pollution Recovery Trust Fund, Use to Assist
Environmental Learning Center
( memorandum dated November 2, 1993 )
9:05 a. m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Formal Presentation of Master Plan by the Pro-
gressive Civic League of Gifford
( memorandum dated November 8, 1993 )
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
County Initiated Request to Amend the Traffic
Circulation Element, Future Land Use Element,
Potable Water Sub -Element, Sanitary Sewer Sub -
Element, Capital Improvements Element, and Ports,
Aviation and Related Facilities Element of the
Comprehensive Plan
( memorandum dated Nov. 17, 1993 )
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Approval of Hearing Dates for Two Evening
Board Hearings to Consider LDR Amendments
( memorandum dated November 15, 1993 )
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
None
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.) :
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
Unemployment Compensation Claims Payment
Summary
( memorandum dated November 17, 1993 )
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Partial Payment to American Coastal
Engineering, Inc. for the 1,500 Feet of
Additional Jet Probe and Sediment Sampling
for the PEP Reef Project
( memorandum dated November 16, 1993 )
2. Round Island Park Improvements, C.O. #2
( memorandum dated November 16, 1993 )
H. UTILITIES
1. Petition Water Service in Green Acres
Estates ( 47th Ave., ' SW - South of 9th St.
SW), Resolutions I and II
( memorandum dated November 1, 1993 )
2. Petition for Water Service at 10th Court,
SW ( South off 9th St., SW / Oslo Road)
( memorandum dated November 5, 1993 )
3. North County Effluent Force Main
Final Pay Request and Change Order
( memorandum dated November 9, 1993 )
4. County Grove Fruit Harvest
( memorandum dated November 15, 1993 )
5. S.W. D. D. Grove Harvest
( memorandum dated November 16, 1993 )
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD
B. VICE CHAIRMAN JOHN W. TIPPIN
NOV 231993 �ooK
91 FAGF 35
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd. ):
C. COMMISSIONER FRAN B. ADAMS
D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT
E. COMMISSIONER KENNETH R. MACHT
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
None
B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
BOOK 91 Far,E 36
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.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MAY
CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X 408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF
MEETING.
Tuesday, November 23, 1993
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, November 23,
1993, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; John W.
Tippin, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Carolyn K. Eggert; and
Kenneth R. Macht. Also present were James E. Chandler, County
Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia
Held, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Carolyn K. Eggert led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDAJEMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Bird announced that the Progressive Civic League of
Gifford requested deferral of Item 9.A., a Formal Presentation of
Master Plan, to December 7, 1993.
County Administrator Jim Chandler requested the addition of
11.G.3., Street Lights for Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard.
Commissioner Adams requested the addition of 13.C., Public
Lands Research.
Commissioner Tippin requested the addition of Item 13.B.,
Legislative Conference in Tallahassee.
Commissioner Macht requested the addition of Item 13.E.,
Comment on Legislative Delegation.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, to delete and add the items on
the Agenda.
Under discussion, Commissioner Macht questioned the emergency
nature of street lights for Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard
because he was concerned that it would not give the citizens an
opportunity to voice their opinions.
Commissioner Eggert explained that this increased lighting was
originally requested by Community Oriented Police Enforcement
�NOV 231993
BOOK 91 PAGE 37
r NOV 23 1993 9 c
BOOK �. P,ti;F. ►�8
(COPE) and the citizens in that neighborhood because it is quite
dark along there. She further explained that the additional
lighting be proposed for the Gifford Street Lighting District for
next fiscal year, and the citizens will have an opportunity to
comment at that time.
County Administrator Jim Chandler explained that the item was
added to this agenda because there will not be a meeting next week,
and staff needs time to notify FP&L and City of Vero Beach about
upgrading the lighting.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 26, 1993. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board approved the Minutes
of the Regular Meeting of October 26, 1993, as
written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Reports
The Schedule of Bi -monthly Meetings of Fellsmere Water Control
District for 1993 was received and placed on file in the office of
Clerk to the Board.
B. Proclamation Designating December 1993 as Drunk and Drugged
Driving Prevention Month in Indian River County
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
the following proclamation:
2
P R O C L A M A T I O N
DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 1993
AS DRUNK AND DRUGGED DRIVING PREVENTION
MONTH IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS,. Florida recorded 1,012 alcohol-related traffic
fatalities and 22,595 alcohol-related traffic injuries in 1992;
and
WHEREAS, law enforcement officers from the Indian River
County Sheriff's Office, Florida Highway Patrol, Florida Marine
Patrol, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Florida
Office of Motor Carrier Compliance, and local police departments
throughout the county have exhibited leadership in protecting the
public from the DUI problem; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Transportation, State
Safety Office, and the Florida- Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services, Injury Control Program, are providing
assistance in the. development of community-based traffic safety
programs with DUI emphasis; and
WHEREAS, citizen advocacy groups are continuing their
efforts to reduce the incidence of driving under the influence in
Florida; and '
WHEREAS, the use of alcohol and drugs while operating motor
vehicles and boats can best be combatted by local communities and
an informed citizenry that understands the perils of operating
motor vehicles and boats while impaired and the penalties that
are imposed by Florida's DUI Statutes:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the month of
December, 1993 be designated as
DRUNK AND DRUGGED DRIVING PREVENTION MONTH
in Indian River County, and the Board urges all citizens of this
county to become more cognizant of the dangers associated with
intoxicated drivers and to support the fight against driving
while under the influence of alcohol and other drugs on Florida's
highways and waterways.
Adopted this 23 day of November, 1993.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
���
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
C. Proclamation Designating December 1. 1993. as World Aids Day in
Indian River County
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
the following proclamation:
3
L_ NOV 2 31993
BOOK 91 uuc .39
NOV 2 31993 BOOK 91, ME 40
. -7
P R O C L A M A T I O N
DESIGNATING DECEMBER 1, 1993 AS
WORLD AIDS DAY
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, the World Health Organization has designated
December 1 of each year as World AIDS Day, a day to expand and
strengthen the worldwide effort to stop AIDS; and
WHEREAS, the global spread of HIV infection and AIDS
necessitates a worldwide effort to increased communication,
education and preventive action to stop the transmission of HIV
and the spread of AIDS; and
WHEREAS, World AIDS Day provided the community with Treasure
Coast Community AIDS Network (TCCAN), serving Indian River
County, the opportunity to focus on HIV infection and AIDS,
caring for people of the County of Indian River with HIV and
AIDS, and learning about AIDS; and
WHEREAS, the World Health Organization now estimates that 14
million people are currently infected with HIV and that over 2.5
million have gone on to develop AIDS; and
WHEREAS, the American Association for World Health is
encouraging a better understanding of the challenge of HIV and
the spread of AIDS nationally as it recognizes that the number of
people diagnosed with HIV and AIDS in the United States continues
to increase with an estimated 1 to 1.5 million Americans
currently HIV positive and over 315,000 AIDS cases reported as of
June, 1993; and
WHEREAS, World AIDS Day 1993, "Time to Act" will focus on
taking action and expressing the urgent need for the Citizens of
Indian River County to realize that it is time to face the
challenge of HIV and Aids:
NOW,'. THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, that December 1, 1993 be
designated as
WORLD AIDS DAY
in Indian River County, and the Board urges all citizens to take
part in activities and observances designed to increase the
awareness and understanding of AIDS as a global challenge, to
take part in AIDS prevention activities and programs, and to join
the global effort to prevent transmission of HIV and the further
spread of AIDS.
Adopted this 23 day of November, 1993..
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
4
M M
D. 1993 State Aid "Certification of Credentials"
The Board reviewed memo from Main Library Director Mary Powell
dated November 12, 1993:
DATE: 11-12-93
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT w*
GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: 1993 STATE AID "CERTIFICATION OF CREDENTIALS"
FROM: MARY D. POWELL, DIRECTOR, MAIN LIBRARYjJ14,
BACKGROUND:
CHANGES IN THE STATE AID LAW REQUIRE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO SIGN THE "CERTIFICATION
OF CREDENTIALS --SINGLE ADMINISTRATIVE HEAD" DOCUMENT
(ATTACHED). IN THE PAST, THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR OR COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR COULD SIGN THIS FORM.
ANALYSIS:
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'
SIGNATURE IS REQUIRED ON THIS DOCUMENT AND MUST BE
SUBMITTED WITH OTHER STATE AID INFORMATION DUE BY DECEMBER
1, 1993.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
STAFF RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD AUTHORIZE ITS
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN TO THE MAIN
LIBRARY DIRECTOR TO BE FORWARDED TO THE APPROPRIATE STATE
LIBRARY STAFF.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to execute the Certification of
Credentials and return the document to the Main
Library Director, as recommended by staff.
COPY OF CERTIFICATION DOCUMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
5
NOV 2 31993 BOOK S PnE. 41
NOV 2 3 1993
sooK91 p , 4? -1
E. Release of Utility Liens
The Board reviewed memo from Lea R. Keller, CLA, dated
November 16, 1993:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
*#— R. *�C�
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
DATE: November 16, 1993
RE: RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS
The attached lien releases are in proper form for the Board of County
Commissioners to authorize the Chairman to sign so that they can be
recorded. The names and projects are:
1. North County Sewer Project:
DIMAURO
2. Breezewood Park, Little Portion & Sunnydale Acres:
LANEY
3. Flora Lane Water Project:
ANSCHUETZ/LIIVAK
4. Phase I Water Project:
BALSAMO NICHOLS
SCHWARTZ SEERAM (2)
4. Phase II Water Project:
BUZZE CASSARA
LYNN YOUNG
5. Phase III Water Project:
CASSINARI WELLS
WILSON
6. Rousseau River Shores Sewer Project:
MATTISON
7. Pinewood Lane Water Project:
ROSELLEN
8. Royal Poinciana Water Project:
CIPRIANO MARCHACOS
9. 12th Street Water Project:
STAWARA
10. Glendale Lakes Water (2nd) Project:
EARNAN 6
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the lien releases as listed in staff's memorandum.
LIEN RELATED DOCUMENTS
ARE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
F. Cancellation of Outstanding Taxes
The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Charles Vitunac
dated November 16, 1993:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
THRU: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: November 16, 1993
RE: CANCELLATION OF OUTSTANDING TABES
PROPERTIES PURCHASED FOR COUNTY USE
The County recently acquired some rights-of-way, and, pursuant to
Section 196.28, Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners is
allowed to cancel and discharge any taxes owed on the portion of the
property acquired for public purposes. Such cancellation must be done
by resolution of the Board with a certified copy being forwarded to the
Tax Collector.
REQUESTED ACTION: Board authorize the Chairman to sign the
attached resolutions cancelling taxes upon lands the County recently
acquired.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 93-201 and Resolution 93-202, cancelling
certain delinquent taxes upon publicly -owned lands,
as recommended by staff.
7
Boor. 91 F,AA,E 43
NOV 2 3 1493
BOOK
Re: R/W - Oslo Road & Dixie Hwy.
Parcel #103
HELSETH et al.
RESOLUTION NO. 93- LJ
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON
PUBLICLY -OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO' SECTION 196.28,
FLORIDA STATUTES,
91 PeuF 44
WHEREAS, section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County
Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for
taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state,
upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency,
governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States,
for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other
public use; and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly
describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are
or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper
officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and
directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such
cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of
section 196.28, F.S.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that any and all
liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property described in
O.R. Book 994, Page 2954 which was recently acquired by Indian River County
for right of way purposes on Oslo Road & Dixie Hwy., are hereby cancelled,
pursuant to the authority of section 196.28, F.S.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner F99ert
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Adams , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 23 day of November , 1993.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Richard N. Bird
Chairman
8
1s.�16�9a(reao�be..aa>vx
Re: R/W - Oslo Road & Dixie Hwy. .112
Parcel #104
HELSETH st al.
RESOLUTION NO. 93- 2n 2
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON
PUBLICLY -OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28,
FLORIDA STATUTES.
WHEREAS, section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County
Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for
taxes, delinquent or current, held or 'owned by the county or the state,
upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency,
governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States,
for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other
public use; and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly
describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are
or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS,. upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper
officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and
directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such
cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of
section 196.28, F.S.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that any and all
liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property described in
O.R. Book 994, Page 2956 which was recently acquired by Indian River County
for right of way purposes on Oslo Road & Dixie Hwy., are hereby cancelled,
pursuant to the authority of section 196.28, F.S.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Adams , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this . 2 3 day of Nnvpmhar , 1993.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Richard N. Bird
9 Chairman
BOOK 91 PAr;F 4
B00K 91 FacF 46
G. Appraisal Authorization. Project #8823 25 Parcels 58th Avenue
(SR 60 to Oslo Road)
The Board reviewed memos from County Right -of -Way Agent Don
Finney dated October 28 and November 17, 1993:
DATE: October 28, 1993
TO: Roger D. Cain, P.E., County Engineer
FROM:_ „Donald G. Finney, SRA, Right -of -Way Acquisition Agent
RE: �� 58TH AVENUE - APPRAISAL OF 25 PARCELS
Five Appraisal Fee Quotes (in order received):
Date Received Appraiser age
1. Oct. 13, 1993 Napier, SRPA $1,750
2. Oct. 25, 1993 Armfield, MAI $16,800
3. Oct. 25, 1993
4. Oct. 26, 1993
5. Oct. 27, 1993
Tom Jones, MAI $15,000
Harry Gray, MAI $19,500
Delivery Date
90 days
45 days
60-90 days
60 days
Rmetz, CAS $19,700 120 days
I recommend William Napier (1.) who has previously completed
satisfactory work for Indian River County.
I have confirmed his fee of $9,750 with a completion date no later
than 90 days after authorization to proceed.
I recommend Tom Jones (3.) as a second choice. He has worked for
Indian River County on the Indian River Boulevard project along
with Harry Gray.
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
AND �(
Terry B. Thompson, P.E.o46
Capital Projects Manager
FROMO>.- Donald G. Finney, SRA
County Right of Way Agent CONSENT AGENDA
SUBJECT: Appraisal Authorization; Project 08823; 25 Parcels, 58th
Avenue (SR 60 to Oslo Road)
DATE: November 17, 1993
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County has received five appraisal fee quotes for a 30' to 60'
right-of-way for widening on the west side of 58th Avenue.
10
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests approval and authorization to proceed with Napier
Appraisal Services (low bid) at a cost not to exceed $9,750.00 for
the 25 parcel appraisals with delivery date 90 days from
authorization to proceed.
FUNDING
Funding is from Account 101-158-541-067.48.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to proceed with Napier Appraisal Services at a
cost not to exceed $9,750.00 for appraisal of 25
parcels on the west side of 58th Avenue, as
recommended by staff.
SHERIFF GARY WHEELER: REOUEST FOR MAINTENANCE EOUIPMENT TO SUPPORT
PRISONER WORK ON COUNTY PROPERTY
The Board reviewed memo from Sheriff Gary Wheeler dated
November 16, 1993:
041m,taf
°FFIQ,- GARY C. WHEELER - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
4055 418t AVENUE VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-1808 PHONE 407-569-6700
November 16, 1993 '3D'" - - -''o
ctio� 00000 4
� a3A13O3a
The Honorable Richard N. Bird, Chairman, �66t y�4N
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street c'cl��Z
Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3394 Sl 96
Dear Commissioner Bird:
This letter is to clarify my correspondence to you dated November 4, 1993,
relating to the purchase of lawn maintenance equipment totaling $17,000.
Attached are copies of the "work projects" accomplished using inmate labor
since January 1992. As you will note, the vast majority of the work has been
performed for the County.
I am requesting the equipment listed in my letter of November 4, 1993, be
furnished by the County and not be added as an amendment to my current
operating budget.
I appreciate your consideration in this matter.
11
Npv 231993 BOOK 91 PAGE 47
NOV 231993
BOOK 91 PA
cE 48 -7
A�ort:ey
GARY C. WHEELER
W
R • !
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIAT40
NI �
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSCiLti�ISN A-11 Div.
�9�tW0551st AV E VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-180FInance ?ema PHONE 407
�oEnarv►lzbe, 1993 R;Sit
n..�ef,Qt`► Other
Honorable Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3394
Dear Commissioner Bird:
In 1989, the Indian River County Sheriff's Office started a prisoner work
Program. At that time, the county commissioners made available a truck,
funded two positions and approximately $10,000 worth of lawnmowers, edgers,
etc., for use in the operation of the work squad.
Since the start of the work squad, the number of hours that we have
accumulated doing various labor intensive tasks for county agencies - and other
non-profit organizations has accumulated to approximately 90,000 man hours.
This is a savings of $810,900, ($6.03 per hour, $2.98 per hour benefits = $9.01
x 90,000 hours), to the county taxpayers.
The machinery that we originally received is almost beyond repair. We have
maintained most of the repairs through various individuals who are inmates
with a background in small engine repair. I feel we have saved the county,
i.e., Sheriff's Office, approximately $16,000 a year in repairs alone if we had
to take the equipment to the lawnmower shop. The cost of labor alone is.
$30.00 per machine per shop hour. The two inmates spend about ten hours a
week sharpening equipment and doing preventative maintenance on all of our
equipment which helps us to control cost. I only have $5,000 budgeted for
this operation. This is a bare bone minimum to operate for one year.
If we are to continue to provide this type of service to the taxpayers of
Indian River County, I must replace the equipment, lawnmowers, edgers,
weedeaters, etc., every couple of years to enable us to accomplish these
tasks. This year alone we have taken to the land fill approximately 116 tons
of debris.
This is a very worthwhile cause. This is 'one method of punishment for the
Inmates and a benefit to the taxpayers in that the county does not have to
budget additional funds for the Road and Bridge Department.
Since I took office in January and up to and including September, I have
generated from Federal Prisoners $155,000 in funds payable to Indian River
County. I'm requesting to use approximately $17,000 of this money to
refurbish the necessary equipment to maintain this operation.
Enclosed is a list of articles I have checked for purchasing. We have checked
several companies and attachment "A" Is the best value.
I appreciate your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
A,, e .cjk,
Garyr. Wheeler, Sheriff
12
Sheriff Wheeler further explained that the amount of work
performed by prisoners has doubled in the last year and is close to
4,000 hours a month. The equipment is over 4 years old and is
difficult to maintain and repair. A $17,000 investment for new
equipment would allow continuation of the work by prisoners. The
great majority of this work is Board -related and would be performed
by County personnel or paid for by the Board.
Chairman Bird agreed that the prisoners are productive and
accomplish projects involving hard work, and he supported the
Sheriff's request.
Commissioner Adams realized that the inmate crews work hard
and do a good job, and she asked who controls where they work.
Sheriff Wheeler explained that certain maintenance projects
are done on a regular schedule, such as clearing ditches and
thinning out the underbrush around the greens at the golf course,
as well as work at the Environmental Learning Center. There are
requests from citizens who complain that their ditches were not
cleared by the County or the City of Sebastian, and other non-
profit organizations make requests from time to time. Those
requests are filled when inmate laborers are available.
Commissioner Adams was concerned that this program might grow
to a point where the Sheriff would not have enough prisoners to do
all the work. She also did not want to see this program reach a
point where it would affect the private sector. Commissioner Adams
stated that she has a responsibility to the taxpayers and she was
particularly concerned that this expense was not addressed during
the budget hearings, because the Sheriff had a year to analyze his
equipment needs and he knew that this equipment was getting old.
The Board's policy is that expenses should be addressed during the
regular budget process unless it is an emergency, and this does not
appear to be an emergency. Commissioner Adams asked what is the
estimated life of this type of equipment and whether the
maintenance for the equipment would be another expense.
Sheriff Wheeler agreed that the Board is responsible to the
taxpayers. He maintained that he is frugal and justifies all
expenditures. His budget was cut substantially and this equipment
was one of the items cut from his budget. He asked the Commission
for support because this is a legitimate need.
Commissioner Adams realized that the Sheriff's budget was cut,
but all departments cut their budgets and the Board may have to
answer other requests for support. She did not consider this
project more important than children's needs or drug programs or
some of the other programs that were cut, and she could not support
the Sheriff's request.
ow
Nov �ooK 9� 49
2 31993
F,",_
NOV 23 1993
BOOK Ni GE 50
Sheriff Wheeler contended that his request was based on the
fact that $17,000 invested in equipment would provide the County
36,000 hours of labor. The equipment allows the prisoners to work
more efficiently for the County.
Commissioner Macht asked OMB Director Joe Baird whether we
have the money for this request.
Director Baird stressed that this is an extremely tight budget
year. The General Fund contingency balance started out at
approximately $700,000. We have had budget amendments and the
current contingency balance in the General Fund is $643,632.
However, the taxable value dropped $236,958. If the Sheriff's
requests for equipment and the supplemental hiring grant, which is
the next item on the agenda, are approved, that would bring the
General Fund contingency down to $356,459; and we must have
$259,000 to close out the books at the end of the fiscal year.
Chairman Bird admitted that he preferred not to spend $17,000
on equipment. However, he considered this a prudent and worthwhile
investment of $17,000 to accomplish several hundred thousand
dollars' worth of free labor.
Commissioner Tippin saw good points in the arguments of both
Commissioner Adams and Chairman Bird. He suggested the Sheriff
coordinate with the new Director of Parks and Highway Maintenance
to eliminate duplication of work and to see whether that department
has a lawn mower or other equipment available for use in the
Sheriff's program.
Sheriff Wheeler acknowledged he has not been in touch with the
new Director of Parks and Highway Maintenance, but his jail
administrator coordinates with the Road & Bridge Department and
other County personnel in relation to clearing out ditches and
scheduling the work. He viewed it as a responsibility of the Board
of County Commissioners to supply this equipment because the
Sheriff's Department supplies supervision of the prisoners while
they are working on these projects. He simply was requesting
equipment from the Board to assist in doing a more efficient job.
Commissioner Macht asked if the Sheriff could do with less
equipment, or possibly trade in old equipment, and whether some of
the present equipment could last until the next budget cycle.
Sheriff Wheeler responded that there was not much trade-in
value in the old equipment, and they did not plan to dispose of the
old equipment and purchase all new equipment. His goal is to get
more equipment, and if it can be done through the County's
purchasing department at a lower cost, obviously that is better.
He did not want the discussion to become adversarial when he was
simply asking for support from the Board for a positive program.
14
Commissioner Macht agreed it is a positive program.
Commissioner Eggert agreed it is a good and worthwhile program
but was concerned about the money. She asked whether some of the
present equipment is good enough to be used for a while longer and
purchase fewer pieces of equipment.
Sheriff Wheeler explained that this is not a request to throw
out the old equipment and buy all new equipment. There are more
inmates available, there is a need, and equipment which is not
totally worn out will continue to be used, and then used for parts.
Commissioner Macht asked whether it would be acceptable to
Sheriff Wheeler if the Commission passed a resolution to authorize
the County Administrator or his designee to negotiate with the
Sheriff or his designee for a reduced list that would satisfy the
Sheriff's needs.
Sheriff Wheeler stated that he wanted to cooperate. He would
direct his jail administrator to meet with the County administrator
and present the list of equipment needs which can be purchased
through the County's purchasing department under the direction of
the budget department.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to approve the Sheriff's
request in concept and to direct the County
Administrator to negotiate with Sheriff Wheeler to
acquire mowing and ditch maintenance equipment to
satisfy his needs for significantly less than the
proposed $17,000.
Under discussion, Commissioner Tippin- asked whether the
expenditure would be up to $17,000, and Commissioner Macht
clarified that it would be a lesser figure than requested. Staff
can negotiate to a point that will satisfy the Sheriff's needs and
give the Board some relief. Commissioner Macht cautioned that the
status of the contingency fund is a very serious consideration.
Sheriff Wheeler accepted the proposal.
Commissioner Eggert was concerned about no limit on the
amount, and Commissioner Macht clarified that his motion calls for
significantly less than the proposal before the Board.
Commissioner Adams thought Sheriff Wheeler should have
researched availability of excess equipment from other departments
before addressing the Board. She pointed out that there was only
one bid from True Value at $16,900. Commissioner Adams agreed that
this is a good project but the funds should come from the Sheriff's
budget. She argued that we must decide at what point to deny
15
NOV 2 3 1993
BOOK 91 F -ma 51
r NOV 231993
BOOK 91 PACE 52
requests and respond to our taxpayers by stating that we do not
have any more money for these programs.
Chairman Bird thought that requests must be analyzed on a case
by case basis. He viewed this request as a $17,000 investment.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that this program responds to
complaints from constituents about clearing out ditches and mowing
and maintaining the surrounding areas and things of that sort. At
the same time she totally understood Commissioner Adams' concerns.
Attorney Vitunac asked if the Board wanted to review the
amended list of equipment needs.
Commissioner Macht clarified that we are directing our
Administrator to work with the Sheriff's department to satisfy his
needs at the lowest possible cost; that is the motion and this item
need not come back to the Board.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4-1, Commissioner Adams
voting in opposition.
SHERIFF GARY WHEELER: CONSIDERATION OF THE POLICE HIRING
SUPPLEMENT GRANT
The Board reviewed memo from Sheriff Gary Wheeler dated
October 25 and November 19, 1993:
October 25, 1998
Honorable Richard N. B14 C2udrman
Board of County Cauca stoners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 82960
Dear Chairman Bird: o73
By way of this letter I am requesting to be added to the November 2F 1998
agenda. The intent of my request 1s for consideration of the Police Hirlog
Supplement Grant.
Sincerely,
16
Cay C. Wheeler, Sheriff - -
CHARY C. WHEELER 0 RWL41V RIVER CC)MY
MEMBER nAM0Y19"E1 NTS A11OOM7M
MEMBER of MATMNAL 6HBE074 AleogAT1oM
4055 4I W AVENUE
VERO BEACH. FDA UND-1eft PHONE 407. V,I
October 25, 1998
Honorable Richard N. B14 C2udrman
Board of County Cauca stoners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 82960
Dear Chairman Bird: o73
By way of this letter I am requesting to be added to the November 2F 1998
agenda. The intent of my request 1s for consideration of the Police Hirlog
Supplement Grant.
Sincerely,
16
Cay C. Wheeler, Sheriff - -
) RIVER COUNTY
GARY C. WHEELER INDIAN R
,-,�4 er ff
MEMBER FLOIIIDASIIEHIFFS ASSOCIATION
r MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
4055 418t AVENUE VERO BEACH FLORIDA 32960-1808 PHONE 407-569-6700
November 19, 1993
Mr. Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Mr. Baird:
Attached are four pages of financial work sheets concerning the proposed
Police Hiring Supplement Grant. In response to your letter concerning the
current and long term financial impact of the Police Hiring Supplement Grant,
the following information is provided to your specific questions, as noted:
1. Is the Police Hiring Supplemental Grant a 100% grant or does it
require a County match?
No; requires a 25% match from the County.
2. If there is a match where will the match come from?
Board of County Commissioners
3. Does the grant cover capital costs or start-up costs affiliated
with a new police officer?
No, capital costs are not covered. As outlined in the grant
application package, the grant funding is strictly for salaries and
benefits.
4. Can you pay for existing officers under the grant or are you
considering adding additional officers?
No; Our program anticipates the hiring of three (3) additional
deputies.
5. How many years is the grant for? After the grant is over, are
you obligated to fund the supplemental police officers for any
additional period of time?
Three (3) years; after that the program is picked up through the
normal budget process, additional grants, or alternative funding.
6. What is the total cost of adding each officer (including capital,
start-up and operating)?
The grant runs on a calendar year. For 1994, the cost for each
officer is $54,100.
7. What is the cost of each officer to the County in 1993/94 after
the grant match?
$27,680
17
NOV 2 3 1993 BOOK 9.1 FAr,F 53
J
NOV 2 31993 BOOK 91: PAW 54
8. What is the total cost of all deputies you plan to hire in 1993/94
after the grant match?
$83,040
9. What will the cost be over a five year period to the County?
$389,132
Should you have any further questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Gary'rWheeler, Sheriff
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Page 1 of 4
POLICE HIRING SUPPLEMENTAL GRANT
YEAR 1, 1994
Calender
Federal
County
Cost Per Deputy
Year
75%
25%
Salary
$18,976
$14,232
$4,744
Benefits
12,708
9,531 '
3,177
Qualified Equipment
903
677
226
Non -Qualified Equipment
17,825
17,825
Miscellaneous Equipment
3,688
3,688
$54,100
$24,440
$29,660
Grant Totals Year 1
$162,301
$73,321
$88,979
Fiscal Year Impact To County
F/Y 1993-94
Salary
$3,558
Benefits
2,383
Qualified Equipment
226
Non -Qualified Equipment
17,825
Miscellaneous Equipment
3,688
Cost Per Deputy
$27,680
Three (3) Deputies =$83,040
Page 2 of 4•
YEAR 2, 1995
Calander
Federal
County
Cost Pdr Deputy
Year
75%
25%
Salary
$19,545
$14,659
$4,886
Benefits
12,947
9,711
3,237
Qualified Equipment
547
410
137
Non -Qualified Equipment
0
Miscellaneous Equipment
3,200
3,200
$36,239
$24,780
$11,460
Grant Totals Year 2
$108,718
$74,339
$34,380
Fiscal Year I;i ipact To County
FN 1994-95
Salary
$3,665
Benefits
2,428
Qualified Equipment
137
Non -Qualified' Equipment
Miscellaneous Equipment
3,200
Fourth Quarter, 1994
1,980
Cost Per Deputy
$11,409
Three (3) Deputies =$34,227
18
-
L.-NOV 2 31993
BOOK 91 pnr. 55
Page 3 of 4
YEAR 3, 1996
Calander
Federal
County
Cost Per Deputy
Year
75%
25%
Salary
$20,131
$15,099
$5,033
Benefits
13,194
9,895
3,298
Qualified Equipment
547
410
137
Non -Qualified Equipment
0
Miscellaneous Equipment
3,150
3,150
$37,022
$25,404
$11,618
Grant Totals Year 3
$111,066
$76,212
$34,854
Fiscal Year Impact To County
F/Y 1995-96
Salary
$3,775
Benefits
2,474
Qualified Equipment
137
- Non -Qualified Equipment
Miscellaneous Equipment
3,150
Fourth Quarter , 1995
2,031
Cost Per Deputy
$11,566
Three (3) Deputies =$34,698
Calander
Federal
County
Year
75%
25%
Grant Totals
$382,085
$223,872
$158,213
Page 4 of 4
Year 4
Fiscal Year Impact To County
FN 1996-97
Salary
$20,735
- Benefits
13,589
Qualified Equipment
547
Non -Qualified Equipment
Miscellaneous Equipment
3,100
37,972
Fourth Quarter, 1996
6,248
Three (3) Deputies
Plus 4th Quarter, 1996=$120,164
Year 5
Fiscal Year Impact To County
FN 1997-98
Salary
$21,357
Benefits
13,997
r
Qualified Equipment
547
Non -Qualified Equipment
Miscellaneous Equipment
3,100
39,001
Recap:
Year 1, 1993-94
$83,040
Year 2, 1994-95
34,227
Year 3, 1995-96
34,698
4th Qtr.+ 1996-97
120,164
1997-98
117,003
$389,132
Three
(3) Deputies =$117,003
19
L.-NOV 2 31993
BOOK 91 pnr. 55
r NOV
23 1993
BOOK 91 PA -GE 56 -7
Sheriff Wheeler further explained that the Community Oriented
Police Enforcement (COPE) program is very successful and the
Gifford community has responded with enthusiastic involvement. The
philosophy behind the program is old-fashioned policing with modern
technology along with promoting and enhancing quality of life.
Sheriff Wheeler stated that crime is not viewed as a problem but as
the result of problems and in an effort to identify the problems,
we must bridge the gap between the police officer and the public.
We accomplish that by putting police officers on bicycles and on
foot as well as in cars in order to get in touch with the people..
As a result, the police officer becomes familiar with the community
he serves and the community becomes familiar with the police
officer. COPE has been operating in Gifford for about 8 months,
and Sheriff Wheeler anticipated continuing favorable results.
Sheriff Wheeler realized that this is a tight budget year, but this
is an important program. He emphasized that the problems we have
in Gifford affect not only Gifford residents but the whole county.
He explained that his department is operating with 9 fewer -
employees than last year and this grant will provide the means to
hire three more officers. We will be able to expand the COPE
program into Wabasso and Oslo and place a school resource officer
back in Sebastian Middle School.
Commissioner Eggert was proud of our three COPE officers, the
job they are doing, their interaction with the community and the
enthusiasm within the community. She asked if there are deputies
currently in the department who could be put into an expanded COPE
project and act as school resource officers.
Sheriff Wheeler responded that current employees would be
assigned to the COPE program but those current employees must be
replaced. Road patrol is the prime responsibility of any sheriff's
office and when a new program is implemented and personnel for that
program are transferred out of the patrol division, the size of the
patrol division is reduced. Sheriff Wheeler reported that since he
took office he decreased the size of patrol areas and reduced
response time by about a minute and a half overall, county -wide.
That was accomplished with the very minimum number of people. More
officers on patrol could reduce response time even more.
There was further discussion about the number of officers
employed by the Sheriff's department.
Chairman Bird asked for an explanation of how this
supplemental hiring grant would affect the County's budget in this
year and in subsequent years.
OMB Director Joe Baird responded that if we receive the grant,
the program would commence in January 1994. He then explained the
20
sequence of costs to the County for the three years of the grant,
after which the County would fund the entire cost. He pointed out
that the higher cost in the first year is for start-up costs,
uniforms, guns, equipment and vehicles.
The Chairman opened the meeting for comments.
Bill Roolage, 11 Vista Garden Trail, was upset because the
major problems are not being addressed. He thought that the change
in our lifestyle, with single parent homes, or homes where both
parents work outside the home, places children in situations
without supervision. Perhaps the police force could be cut back if
we had a better home situation, a longer school day and year-round
classes, but in the meantime government must give their full
attention to these problems. He was concerned about the resource
officers being removed from the schools because he understood that
they filled a very important need. He urged the School Board and
the Board of County Commissioners to give attention to the after
school program. He did not want to see the COPE program or school
resource officers programs cut back. Mr. Koolage pointed out that
this is a community problem and he urged the Board to use good
sense and support the people who are working on the problem right
now. Every level of government along with PTA and individual
parents and citizens must cooperate and become involved in the
total situation.
Sergeant Leroy Smith, COPE Officer, came before the Board and
reported that various programs were started in the Gifford area
with the cooperation of the Recreation Department. The citizens
also have been successful in removing dilapidated buildings which
were used by drug dealers and prostitutes. He would like to see
this effort expanded to South County and North County because it
works and is well worth the money.
Victor Hart, 4659 34th Avenue, compared the crime areas of
Oslo, Wabasso and Gifford to infection in a human body which finds
the weakest spot and causes a lump or boil. By working with the
Sheriff we are trying to prevent that "boil" from forming in the
crime areas. He thought the Board would be surprised to see the
people going in and out of these crime areas who are not black and
who obviously do not live in these areas. He believed that the
COPE program will help stop crime not only in Gifford but also in
Johns Island, Sea Cove, Moorings, City of Vero Beach, Sebastian and
Fellsmere: He stressed that the way to stop the use of illegal
drugs is not to cut off a limb here and there, but to cut out the
root, meaning the illegal drug user, so there will be no need for
21 il
L_NOV 2 31993
BOOK F'A..GE �
BOOK 91 PAGE 58-1
drug dealers. He supported the Sheriff's request and asked the
Commissioners to consider it a request for the entire County. He
realized that Indian River County is a beautiful place, but these
three areas could cause a bad reflection on the whole county.
Freddie Woolfork, 3425 49th Street, agreed with the comments
made by Bill Koolage. The problems of uneducated 'youth,
joblessness, single parent homes and teenage mothers result in kids
selling drugs and other crime. Sheriff Wheeler is using a bandage
which is not large enough to cover the wound, but it will slow up
the bleeding. Mr. Woolfork confirmed Mr. Hart's contention that
the problem is not only in Gifford, Oslo and Wabasso but throughout
the County, and this is a worthwhile project to begin to eliminate
some of the problems.
Reverend Henry Holmes, from the Indian River Ministerial
Alliance, spoke in support of Sheriff Wheeler's request because the
Sheriff is building a bridge between the community and the police.
The Sheriff works with the School Board and the community. The
three individuals in the COPE program are doing a wonderful job and
present role models for young black men. It is more cost effective
to take young men who are breaking into homes and steer them in the
right direction than to pay $19,000 a year to incarcerate a
criminal.
The Chairman determined that no one else from the audience
wished to be heard.
Commissioner Macht realized that this is a wonderful program
but questioned where the money would come from.
Discussion ensued regarding the amounts needed in each year of
the program, and the balances in the General Fund and MSTU
contingency funds.
Commissioner Adams preferred to see the COPE program work with
existing personnel. She suggested taking someone from road patrol
who also could respond to emergency situations when necessary. She
pointed out that the greater expense for the first year is due to
equipment and vehicles.
Sheriff Wheeler pointed out that the school resource officers
and COPE personnel are funded by the Sheriff's budget. The
Sheriff's first duty is to patrol the community, and every time a
deputy is needed elsewhere, that deputy is taken from road patrol.
They have recently been given the responsibility of investigating
criminal activity with juveniles and have had an increase from one
to three officers for that duty. He pointed out that they have
added road patrols to the South Beach area which did not exist
22
before. They have spent a considerable amount of manpower to
assist Fellsmere. He did not enjoy asking for help but his
resources are exhausted and he invited anyone who so desired to
audit his books.
Commissioner Macht asked whether the Sheriff is understaffed,
and Sheriff Wheeler responded that there are counties with a
greater ratio of sworn officers to population and some with a
lesser ratio, but he did not think we are understaffed.
Commissioner Adams understood why he did not want to take
officers from road patrol for specialty programs, and she did not
oppose the program. However, she could not support giving the
Sheriff these funds because that would leave the contingency fund
too low, and there may be other emergencies that come up.
Sheriff Wheeler understood, but he maintained that if we
always use that argument, we would never use the contingency funds.
Chairman Bird asked, and Sheriff Wheeler responded that
receipt of the grant is not definite.
Commissioner Macht asked whether the Sheriff could replace the
two school resource officers if the Commissioners vote in favor of
this request.
Discussion ensued, and Sheriff Wheeler explained that the
captain in charge of road patrol was not happy about pulling
someone else out of patrol division but everyone realized that the
school resource officers are very important. Sheriff Wheeler
intended to replace the school resource officer in north county.
The reason that officer was removed recently was because there were
fewer problems there. Sheriff Wheeler felt the funding for school
resource officers should come from the School Board budget and he
is working with School Superintendent Dr. Gary Norris and School
Board Member Stan Mayfield in this regard.
Commissioner Macht proposed, if the Board approved the
request, the Sheriff restore the school resource officers and use
existing cars instead of purchasing new vehicles.
Commissioner Adams supported that proposal, pointing out that
it requires the Sheriff to stretch a little bit because the reality
is we just do not have the money.
Sheriff Wheeler agreed to try to locate vehicles within the
department and to share vehicles within the COPE program itself
since we have some COPE officers on bicycles.
Discussion ensued regarding time constraints and Sheriff
Wheeler explained that the application for the grant must be
submitted within the next week. The Board members were concerned
about approving something without knowing the final figures.
Chairman Bird suggested that we approve the request if Sheriff
23
NOV
BOOK 91 FnF 59
9
BOOK 91 PAGE 60
Wheeler agrees to the delete the cars, which will reduce the
request by about $40,000.
Commissioner Macht stressed that the other condition is that
the resource officers will be replaced.
Sheriff Wheeler agreed to replace one school resource
officer. He further explained that he will continue to work to get
the funding for next fiscal year for the school resource officers
from the School Board and the Commission.
Commissioner Eggert was in favor of getting at least one
school resource officer back and the COPE program expanded.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, to approve the Sherifffs
request for funds to match the grant for
supplemental hiring of officers, with the deletion
of new vehicles from the request and restoration of
one school resource officer.
Under discussion, Commissioner Tippin acknowledged that the
COPE program is a phenomenal success and was glad to hear that
there is dialogue between the Sheriff and the School Board, but he
pointed out that the funds all come from the same pocket. There is
no reason to find fault and he did not want to get involved in a
discussion about whether we have too many road patrol officers. He
did not want to oppose this request, but he pointed out that OMB
Director Baird quoted figures and said the funds are minimal in the
contingency funds. He also did not like to commit funds for
several years ahead for this grant. He could not support the
request.
Sheriff Wheeler contended that for purposes of accounting,
funds should come from the budget where the resources are used.
The school resource officers should be paid for by the School
Board. When deputies are sent to a movie theater or football game
or other business, that movie theater or business pays for the
deputies' time. The schools need the resource officers to make a
safer environment for learning and the School Board should provide
the funds to pay for the officers.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 3-2, Commissioners Adams
and Tippin voting in opposition.
COPY OF APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
24
POLLUTION RECOVERY TRUST FUND - TO ASSIST ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING
CENTER
The Board reviewed memos from Environmental Health Director
Mike Galanis dated November 2, 1993, and from Deputy County
Attorney William G. Collins II dated November 15, 1993:
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: November;,� 1993
•J
TO: Jim Chandler
Administrator
India fiver County
FROM: anis, M. P. H.
En i nmental Health Director
ndian River County Public Health
SUBJECT: Pollution Recovery Trust Fund, Use to Assist
Environmental Learning Center
When this department was given local program status by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), it
required the establishment of a "pollution recovery trust
fund" where fines are deposited when collected by the
department as ordered by the Environmental Control Board.
These fines are to be used to restore or enhance the
environment in Indian River County. The use of these
fines is by the Board of County Commissioners from
recommendations made by the Environmental Control Officer,
County Administrator, and County Health Officer. The
current balance in that account is over $20,000.
Recently we have been working with the Environmental Learning
Center, proposing they develop an innovative sewage treatment
system to serve the center so that students could be educated
as to how pollution from human waste may be prevented. To
this end, I have agreed to propose to the Board that $20,000
dollars of the fund be authorized to assist in design and
construction of this project.
Therefore with this memo, I'request your concurrence for the
use of these funds in this manner and that an item be placed
upon the Board of County Commissioners' agenda to finalize
the contribution of funds to the center for this purpose.
These funds could be used in either or both the design and
construction phase.
Thank you in advance for your consideration. If there are
any questions, please contact me at your convenience.
25
NOV 2 31993 80°K 91 f•A'E 61
NOVOOK 91 D E 62
� 2 � 1993 .
TO: James E. Chandler - County Administrator
FROM: ��� William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: November 15, 1993
SUBJECT: Use of Local Pollution Recovery Trust Fund to Assist in
Design and Construction of an Innovative Sewage Treatment
System at the Environmental Learning Center
Resolution No. 91-85 which created the Local Pollution Recovery Trust Fund
requires that the money be applied to:
1. Enhancement of Indian River County's environmental resources; or
2. Pollution control activities.'
The Resolution prohibits the use of the funds for operation and maintenance.
The Resolution further requires) any disbursement of trust fund monies to be
by resolution of the County Commission.
Under the general operating agreement between the State and the County,
the intent of the program is "for the attainment and maintenance of the
highest levels of natural resource conservation, public health and
environmental quality." (Sectio$ 1.02. )
Had the Commission not set up a Local Pollution Recovery Trust Fund
through Resolution 91-85, then the use of the funds would be controlled by
Florida Statute 403.165, essentially limiting the use to cleaning up of existing
pollution problems.
It is my opinion that the Board ! could, by resolution, find that the proposed
use of trust fund monies to assist in the design and construction of an
innovative sewage treatment system to serve the Environmental Learning
Center so that students could be educated as to how pollution from human
waste may be prevented would be a legally proper use of the trust fund in
that it would enhance Indian River County's environmental resources and
would be applied to a pollution control activity which did not involve
operations and maintenance.
Commissioner Adams asked what will happen if these funds are
not used for this purpose.
Mr. Galanis responded that the money will remain in the
Pollution Recovery Trust Fund until we find a purpose for it. The
language of the resolution allows the funds to be used for
environmental purposes.
County Administrator aim Chandler clarified that since this
Fund was created in July 19$1 we received funds from fines on three
occasions and the current balance in this Fund is $25,500. We have
spent none of it because the uses are very specific.
Deputy County Attorney Collins advised that the agreement
between DER and the Countylauthorizes.three uses for these funds:
enhancement of Indian River County's environmental resources,
pollution control enforcement and pollution control activity.
26
Commissioner Macht cautioned that if we suffer some sort bf
spill the day after we designate these funds for this purpose, we
would have to go to the taxpayers to fund the cleanup, and
Administrator Chandler confirmed that.
Commissioner Eggert was worried that we have no other source
of funds for cleanup
Commissioner Adams asked how this project would fit into the
overall goals and plans of the Environmental Learning Center.
Mr. Galanis saw this as an educational tool to demonstrate
ways to avoid pollution from human waste.
George Bunnell, speaking for the Environmental Learning
Center, thought the funds. were intended to be used to deal with
environmental pollution. When Mr. Galanis suggested this project
as an educational tool to demonstrate the optimum, state of the art
pollution -handling facility, Mr. Bunnell saw it as one of the
intended uses of the funds. Currently, the Center has a septic
system, and when the auditorium and classroom facility are created,
the proposed project would treat waste and be an educational tool.
Discussion ensued regarding the wastewater treatment currently
available in the general vicinity of the Environmental Learning
Center. Assistant Director of Utilities Services Harry Asher
advised that the current plan is to utilize the treatment plant at
Marsh Island when we take over that franchise.
Commissioner Adams led discussion regarding the type of system
planned for this project, and Mr. Galanis stated that they will use
environmental engineers to design an innovative plan. There is not
a specific plan at the moment, and the project is planned for two
or three years from now when the Environmental Learning Center will
be nearer to completion.
Holly Dill, executive director of the Environmental Learning
Center, explained that they expect to approach private foundations
for help. They approached the Board first because it will be
easier to sell the project with the County's backing.
Commissioner Adams thought the request was too vague, and she
could not support a project with no plan.
Commissioner Macht thought that this was an inappropriate use
of the funds. The primary use for the funds is environmental
cleanup, and if we use the funds for a project such as this, we
would have to go to the taxpayers if we have a pollution problem.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously denied the
request.
27
�noK %C
NOV 2 3 1993
r
NOV 2 31993 600K 91 P"U.
FORMAL PRESENTATION OF MASTER PLAN BY THE PROGRESSIVE CIVIC LEAGUE
OF GIFFORD
Deferred.
PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE TRAFFIC
CIRCULATION ELEMENT, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT. POTABLE WATER SUB -
ELEMENT. SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT,
AND PORTS, AVIATION AND RELATED FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as
follows:
— __•I;r�j' is-_' ��'��?�� � ! �� i. ����,I, i a'
- Box 1268Vero Beach, Florldo32961 562-2315—
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER mq 30UCf1 at
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 newspaper published at Vero Beach in
Indian River County, Florida; that
a display ad measuring 33 column inches
at 11.35 per column inch
billed to Indian River County Planning
was published in said newspaper in the issue(s)
Of November 16, 1993 on page 8A
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
22 day or
November A.D 1993
-�W.nr•rry4V.,,
'. Wi=t
t
a - tATC _. &phe3 ; L
"MARA C. SPRAGUE, NOTARY PI I j9
SAID d RmNs, uT Opmme.km E.µ Juw34't tel;S Manager
Jung 29.1997
COWm6si-t11-Ift :CC3=?2
No. CC300572
'•,, lc O
.,,, OFA ,,,••''-.
Nalary:9AREAM G 10"JO 6
NOTICE:,OF.,,.CHANGE OF COMPREHENSIVE
P F: IV .1•q.•. ;.• PLAN TEXT 1:.•;:Y;d
t,, r
1 } ,
t•: !t t
t 1 1. 1 •t i nk •1 _
.. '. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY- UNINCORPORATED AREA '
t .4
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will
:" consider a proposal to change the text of the Comprehensive Plan. A public
!• hearing on the proposal will be held on Tuesday, November 23, 1993, at
9105 a.m. In the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration i
Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hear- •.
Ing the Board of County Commissioners will make a final decision to amend'
the County's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments are included in
the proposed ordinance entillede . • , Y. t L . Y•
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
ya THE TEXT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE TRAFFIC CIRCULA- I+�Y•
TION ELEMENT, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT, THE POTA- • '
•-;, BLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT, THE SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT, AND +c ,
r ' P.;/ THE PORTS, AVIATION, AND RELATED FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABIL-
ITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regard-'
Ing the approval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.,
•
The plan amendment application may be inspected by the public at the ,
Community Development Department located on the second floor of the
14 County Administration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Flow,
11 Ida, between the hours of 8s30 a.m. and 5e00 p.m. an weekdays.. ,
1' Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made of 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. r Y
Anyone who needs a
the county's Americans with Disabilities accommodation
Dis bl
itiesAct (ADA) Coordinator of 567-8000
extension 408 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
Indian River County q
Board of County Commissioners Y Y'1'
Bye -s- Richard N. Bird, Chairman
28
� ® s
Community Development Director Bob Keating commented from the
following:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DE TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Obert M. Keat ng, AICP
Community Development D actor
THRU: Sasan Rohani, AICP 5
,e
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel;
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: November 17, 1993
RE: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
ELEMENT, THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE POTABLE WATER
SUB -ELEMENT, THE SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT, THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT, AND THE PORTS, AVIATION AND RELATED
FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(CPTA 93-01-0101)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of November 23, 1993.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On February 13, 1990, Indian River County adopted its comprehensive
plan. As required by state law, all development activities must be
consistent with the comprehensive plan, and all county activities
must conform to plan policies. Occasionally, the plan must be
updated to reflect the latest and best available information and to
address changed conditions. Additionally, the plan must
periodically be reviewed and revised in order to reflect the
community's changing needs and desires. For those reasons, the
county has initiated this amendment.
After reviewing the plan, staff determined that several elements
need to be revised. The affected elements are the Traffic
Circulation Element, the Future Land Use Element, the Sanitary
Sewer Sub -Element, the Potable Water Sub -Element, the Capital
Improvements Element, and the Ports, Aviation and Related
Facilities Element.
The proposed additions and deletions to the plan are shown on
attachment 4. In this attachment, deletions are indicated by
strike throughs, while additions are shown as underlined. Maps and
figures are labeled as either existing or proposed.
On April 22, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the
proposed amendment to the state Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) for their review.
At its meeting of June 22, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners
considered the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation and
29
L-NOV 2 31993
BOOK 91 F,�r5
r NOV 231993
BOOK
91 wF 66
voted 5-0 to transmit the proposed amendment to DCA for their
review.
Consistent with state regulations, the Department of Community
Affairs reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an Objections.
Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. The county received
this report on October 11, 1993.
DESCRIPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS BY ELEMENT
In this section, the proposed amendments to each plan element will
be discussed. The purpose is to identify the various portions of
the plan needing amendment and to present justification for the
amendment requests.
Traffic Circulation Element
The proposed amendment to the Traffic Circulation Element is to:
• incorporate the proposed Citrus Highway (County Road 609) on
the County Future Traffic Circulation Map and in the
Recommended Roadway Needs Plan;
• revise the Recommended Roadway Needs Plan to reflect the
widening of S.R. 60 west of I-95 to four lanes; and
• change the functional classification of Roseland Road, from
U.S. 1 to Indian River Drive,'from subdivision -collector to
collector.
- Citrus Highway (County Road 609)
The Citrus Highway is a proposed FDOT funded four -lane roadway to
be located within a corridor traversing Martin, St. Lucie, and
Indian River Counties (see attachment 2). Beginning at S.R. 710
(the Beeline Highway) in Martin County and extending north through
St. Lucie County to C.R. 510 (Wabasso Road) in Indian River County,
the highway is to provide a roadway to serve large citrus hauling
trucks traveling from groves to packinghouses and from
packinghouses -to markets. It is anticipated that the diversion of
this heavy truck traffic will relieve present and projected
congestion on U.S. 1 and several east -west corridors (e.g. S.R. 60,
S.R. 68, and S.R. 70). St. Lucie County, acting as the lead
agency, has hired a consultant to complete a Corridor Planning and
Design Report (CPDR) which will assess the need for and impacts of
the highway. This consultant will also recommend a specific
alignment for the highway.
One purpose of the county's proposed amendment is to incorporate
the Citrus Highway on the Indian River County Traffic Circulation
Map. In a May 3, 1993 letter, FDOT District 4 staff requested that
the county amend its plan to incorporate the Citrus Highway
Corridor. According to FDOT, the Citrus Highway must be included
in the county's comprehensive plan to resolve an inconsistency
between a proposed state project and the applicable local plan.
The fact that the Citrus Highway was included in FDOT's Florida
Transportation Plan, but not in the county's comprehensive plan,
was first identified by DCA, which reviews the plans of state
agencies as well as local governments. In a letter, a copy of
which was sent to county planning staff (see attachment 3), DCA
notified FDOT that the Citrus Highway was not included in Indian
River County's Comprehensive Plan. In response, the county
initiated this amendment to update its comprehensive plan to
include the Citrus Highway.
30
_ M M
In Indian River County, FDOT has identified 66th Avenue, 74th
Avenue, and 82nd Avenue as possible routes for the Citrus Highway.
Of these routes, staff determined that 82nd Avenue is the best
alternative for the county. Presently, 82nd Avenue is a two-lane
road classified as an urban minor arterial on the future roadway
thoroughfare plan map. It is paved from its southern terminus, 9th
Street S.W. (Oslo Road), to 26th Street, and unpaved north of 26th
Street. South of S.R. 60, 82nd Avenue has approximately 80 feet of
public road right-of-way. This segment of 82nd Avenue is
programmed for expansion to 110 feet of public road right-of-way by
2010. North of S.R. 60, 82nd Avenue has no public road right-of-
way, although there is some canal right-of-way that is .used for
public access. This segment of 82nd Avenue is programmed for
expansion to 80 feet of public road right-of-way by 1995.
Land uses surrounding 82nd Avenue consist mostly of agriculturally
zoned citrus groves and vacant land. However, 82nd Avenue runs
through, or along the border of, some residentially designated
areas in the southern part of the county. Additionally, 82nd
Avenue passes through commercial/ industrial nodes on 9th Street
S.W. (Oslo Road) and S.R. 60. A small percentage of the vacant
land bordering 82nd Avenue may contain environmentally valuable
scrub or pine forest. The CPDR will include a detailed
environmental assessment.
- S.R. 60 west of I-95
Since the 1990 adoption of the Indian River County Comprehensive
Plan, FDOT's classification of S.R. 60 has changed. Because of
S.R. 60's function as a major east -west road connecting the east
and west coasts of the state, FDOT designated S.R. 60 as part of
the Intrastate Highway System. With its designation as a component
of the Intrastate Highway System, the four laning of S.R. 60 became
a requirement.
In its Fiscal Year 1994-1998 Tentative Work Program, the FDOT has
included projects to facilitate the widening of S.R. 60, from two
lanes to four lanes from I-95 to the Osceola County line.
Presently, the county's comprehensive plan indicates that this
segment of S.R. 60 will remain two lanes. The purpose of this
amendment is to change the county's Traffic Circulation Element to
make the county's plan consistent with the Florida Intrastate
Highway System requirements relative to S.R. 60 (see tables 4.7.2
and 4.7.3, and figures 4.11 and 4.13 of attachment 4).
S.R. 60 is a major road that crosses the state from the Atlantic
Ocean to Tampa Bay. It is Indian River County's primary east -west
corridor, providing the only direct access to Osceola County and
the Florida Turnpike. It is also the county's only road with an
interchange on both I-95 and the Florida Turnpike.
East of I-95, S.R. 60 is either four or six lanes and is classified
as an urban principal arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare
plan map. From I-95 west to the Osceola County line, S.R. 60 is a
two-lane paved road with 100 feet of existing public road right-of-
way and is classified as a rural principal arterial on the future
roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of S.R. 60 is
programmed for expansion to 200 feet of public road right-of-way by
1995.
Generally, the land along this part of S.R. 60 is zoned and used
for citrus groves, cattle grazing, and other agriculture uses.
Much of the land remains uncleared. However, a largely undeveloped
section of the I-95/S.R. 60 commercial/ industrial node extends west
of I-95 for approximately one mile.
31
II
BOOK , Fhur 67
NOV 2 3 1993
NOV 2 3 1993
BOOK 91 PAGE 68 -1
S.R. 60 passes through the environmentally sensitive St. John's
Marsh in the western part of the county. Since most of that land
is owned by the St. John's River Water Management District and is
zoned Con -1, Public Lands Conservation District (C-1, Conservation -
1 land use designation), that area will not experience urban
development.
- Roseland Road between U.S. 1 and Indian River Drive
This proposed amendment would change the functional classification
of Roseland Road, between U.S. 1 and Indian River Drive, from a
subdivision collector to a collector (see figures 4.13.2 and 4.13.3
of attachment 4). Roseland Road extends from C.R. 512 to Indian
River Drive, but only the easternmost segment of the road is the
subject of this amendment. To the west of the subject segment,
Roseland Road is a two-lane paved roadway with 80 feet of public
road right-of-way and is classified as an urban minor arterial on
the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. The eastern 0.6 miles of
this segment of Roseland Road is programmed for expansion to four
lanes by 2010.
The segment of Roseland Road between U.S. 1 and Indian River Drive
is approximately 1700 feet long and is classified as a subdivision
collector on the subdivision collector map. The public road right-
of-way of this segment of Roseland Road varies from approximately
18 feet to approximately 70 feet.
The subject roadway segment begins at the intersection of Roseland
Road and U.S. 1; this area is within a commercial/industrial node.
Two corners of this intersection accommodate shopping centers,
while a third corner contains a convenience store and a fast food
restaurant; the other corner is vacant. Between this node and
Indian River Drive are residential areas.
Future Land Use Element
Recently, the research needed to revise the county's Data Source
for Commercial & Industrial Development was completed. This
research provided staff with accurate land use information where
previously only estimates were available. The revision of the data
source has also allowed staff to re-examine the system of labeling
nodes. This amendment is a result of information gathered during
this process.
- Table 2.30
Future Land Use Element Table 2.30 lists each commercial/ industrial
node in Indian River County. This table shows the type, location,
and size of each node. Much of this information is based on
estimates. However, as a result of the research completed to
revise the county's Data Source for Commercial & Industrial
Development, exact information for this table is now available.
The proposed amendment updates Future Land Use Element Table 2.30
using the best available data (see attachment 4).
- Policy 1.25
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.25 designates all nodes as either,
commercial, industrial, commercial/ industrial, tourist commercial,
or hospital commercial. This amendment proposes to eliminate these
labels (see attachment 4). As a- consequence, all nodes will be
known as commercial/industrial nodes.
32
I
Ports, Aviation, and Related Facilities Figures 6.2, and 6.3
The purpose of this amendment is to update the maps of the Vero
Beach Municipal Airport and the New Hibiscus Airport. Several
changes have recently occurred, including a change in a clear zone
at Vero Beach Municipal Airport, and these changes should be
reflected in the comprehensive plan (see attachment 4).
Water Sub -Element Policy 1.3, Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element
Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 1.3, Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element
Policy 1.3, and Capital Improvements Element Policy 3.5 set the
utilities Level of Service (LOS) standards for the county. Each of
these policies refers to county ordinance 84-18 which was replaced
by ordinance 91-9. Consequently, 84-18 is no longer current. The
purpose of this amendment is to update these policies so that the
County Utilities Ordinance is no longer referenced (see attachment
4). This change will ensure that the policies are and remain
accurate.
DESCRIPTION OF DCA OBJECTIONS AND COMMENTS
In its ORC report, DCA raised two objections to the proposed
amendment. One objection related to the proposed Citrus Highway,
while the other related to policies 1.3 of the Potable Water Sub -
Element, 1.3 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element, and •3.5 of the
Capital Improvements Element.
With reference to its objections regarding the proposed Citrus
Highway, DCA stated that the proposed amendment is inconsistent
with the requirements of Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. Specifically, DCA's
position is that because a Corridor Planning and Design Report
(CPDR) funded by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
has not been completed, the proposed amendment is not supported by
adequate data and analysis, and lacks intergovernmental
coordination required by both the County and State Comprehensive
Plans.
DCA's second objection is related to the proposed revisions to
policies 1.3 of the Potable Water Sub -Element, 1.3 of the Sanitary
Sewer Sub -Element and 3.5 of the Capital Improvements Element.
These policies currently reference Utilities Ordinance 84-18, which
has been replaced by Ordinance 91-9. The proposed revisions amend
the policies to reference "the County Utilities Ordinance, as
amended." The basis of DCA's objection is that the proposed
amendment is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan amendment
procedural requirements of 5.163.3187, F.S. DCA's position is that
under the proposed amendment, future changes to the County
Utilities Ordinance would, in effect, change the comprehensive plan
without undergoing the required comprehensive plan amendment
process.
In addition to the referenced objections, the ORC report included
one comment on another portion of the proposed amendment. The DCA
comment related to the county's proposed amendment to Future Land
Use Element Policy 1.25.
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.25
of commercial/industrial nodes.
eliminate these designations; in
simply as commercial/industrial
sentence of the policy is necessary
of commercial/industrial nodes. To
recommends that the first sentence
33
NOV 2 3 1993
currently designates five types
The proposed amendment would
effect, identifying all nodes
nodes. Deleting the second
to eliminate the five sub -types
add clarity to the policy, DCA
of the policy also be deleted.
NOV 2 31993
n ry
BOOK 91 PAGE t 0
In contrast to objections, comments cannot form the basis of a non-
compliance determination. However, the comment_ does indicate a
DCA finding that should be addressed.
ANALYSIS
This section includes a summary of proposed changes to address
DCA's objections and comment. It also includes an analysis of the
reasonableness of each of the proposed amendments. Finally, this
section includes a discussion of the consistency of the proposed
amendments with the comprehensive plan.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO ADDRESS DCA'S OBJECTIONS AND COMMENT
In order to address DCA's objections and comment, planning staff
coordinated with DCA staff. As a result, staff identified various
revisions which will resolve DCA's concerns. These revisions
include changes to proposed policies and to the staff report.
Staff's position is that these changes will resolve DCA's
objections and retain the intent of the proposed amendments.
• DCA's principal objection to this proposed amendment focused
on the Citrus Highway. In its ORC report, DCA noted that the
CPDR (corridor plan for the proposed road) has not been
completed. The CPDR will analyze the need for and impacts of
the Citrus Highway, and recommend a specific route. DCA's
position is that the results of the CPDR are needed to support
the justification for the Citrus Highway as well as the
selection of a particular route.
Previously, DCA expressed concern that, since the Citrus
Highway is not identified in the county's comprehensive plan,
FDOT's plans to do a corridor study for the Citrus Highway
were inconsistent with the county plan (see attachment 3).
DCA warned FDOT that the expenditure of state funds for road
projects (even for feasibility studies) not identified on the
local government's comprehensive plan conflicts with
provisions of Chapter 163 Part III, F.S. DCA then asked FDOT
to cooperate with the affected local governments to resolve
the noted concern by requesting that the affected local
governments amend their plans. One reason that this amendment
was initiated was to address that concern.
After the county initiated this comprehensive plan amendment
and transmitted it to DCA, DCA revised its position by stating
that any comprehensive plan amendment related to the proposed
Citrus Highway must be consistent with the results of the
CPDR. After coordinating with FDOT, DCA's current position
is:
• a CPDR is necessary to determine the need for and the
best route of the proposed Citrus highway;
FDOT can fund the CPDR;
based on the results of the CPDR, the county may initiate
an amendment incorporating the Citrus Highway into the
comprehensive plan.
Based on DCA's position, staff has revised the proposed
amendment to eliminate any references to the Citrus Highway.
After completion of the CPDR, the County will amend its plan,
as necessary.
34
M
M M
Staff feels that the deletion of the Citrus Highway portion of
the proposed amendment is appropriate. In fact, county staff
has always felt that there was no reason to incorporate the
Citrus Highway in the county's plan until MOT's corridor plan
has been completed, the need for the road justified, and a
specific alignment determined. While county staff
acknowledged that the county's plan would need to be amended
to incorporate the Citrus Highway before any physical
improvements for the roadway could be programmed by FDOT,
staff never saw the need to amend the plan to reflect a state
funded study for the road.
Apparently, the DCA now agrees that there will not be a
comprehensive plan inconsistency if a state agency undertakes
a study in a local government jurisdiction and that study is
not reflected in the applicable local government's
comprehensive plan. For those reasons, the Citrus Road
portion of the proposed amendment has been deleted.
DCA's other objection concerned the proposed changes to
policies 1.3 of the Potable Water Sub -Element, 1.3 of the
Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element, and 3.5 of the Capital
Improvements Element. In its ORC report, DCA noted that the
language of the proposed amendment would cause any subsequent
change made to the County Utilities Ordinance to result in
changes to the comprehensive plan, thus improperly amending
the comprehensive plan.
To address this objection, staff has revised the language of
the proposed amendment to delete the phrase "based on County
Ordinance 84-18".
DCA's comment concerned Future Land Use Element Policy 1.25.
This policy divides commercial/industrial nodes into five
types. The proposed amendment eliminates these designations;
in effect, identifying all nodes simply as commercial/
industrial nodes. To add clarity to the policy, staff has, as
recommended by DCA, also deleted the first sentence of the
policy.
Staff's position is that the referenced changes satisfy DCA's
concerns and adequately address the issues identified in the ORC
report.
ANALYSIS OF REASONABLENESS, AND CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
As part of the staff analysis, comprehensive plan amendment
requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the
comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the county code,
the "comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to
preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section
163.3177(2) F.S."
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify the action which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions --including plan amendment decisions.
While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more
applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of
particular applicability to these requests are Future Land Use
Element Policy 13.3, Traffic Circulation Element Policy 3.1,
M1
NOV 23 1993 soak 9i f.sl 71
BOOK 91 Fa,r, 72 -1
Economic Development Element Policy 1.1, and Capital Improvements
Element Policy 1.6.
Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
In evaluating any comprehensive plan amendment request, the most
important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
This policy requires that at least one of three criteria be met in
order to approve a comprehensive plan amendment. These criteria
are:
• a mistake in the approved plan;
• an oversight in the approved plan; or
• a substantial change in circumstances.
While some policies are particularly applicable to certain
comprehensive plan amendments, Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
is applicable to all comprehensive plan amendments.
The following table shows how these comprehensive plan amendments
relate to Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
CORRECT A CORRECT AN CHANGE IN
AMENDMENT MISTAKE OVERSIGHT CIRCUMSTANCE
S.R. 60 X
Roseland Road X
Aviation X
FLUE Table 2.30 X
FLUE Policy 1.25 X
Utilities X
CIE X
FLUE: Future Land Use Element CIE: Capital Improvement Element
- S.R. 60 west of I-95
In the period since adoption of the comprehensive plan, there has
been a change in circumstances regarding S.R. 60 west of I-95. As
a major east -west corridor, S.R. 60 has been designated part of the
recently established Intrastate Highway System. State law requires
that roads which are part of this system be four -lane facilities.
This, therefore, constitutes a substantial change in circumstances
affecting S.R. 60 and meets the third criterion of Future Land Use
Element Policy 13.3.
- Roseland Road between U.S. 1 and Indian River Drive
The segment of Roseland Road between U.S. 1 and Indian River Drive
was mistakenly designated as a subdivision collector instead of a
collector in the adopted comprehensive plan. Since this segment
acts as a transition roadway, connecting an urban minor arterial
(programmed for expansion to four -lanes) to a two-lane subdivision
collector, the road should have been given the intermediate
"collector" designation.
Additionally, the characteristics of the U.S. 1/Roseland Road
intersection indicate that this segment of Roseland Road should
have been designated as a collector road when the comprehensive
plan was adopted. This intersection of two major roads is located
within a commercial/industrial node. Since each corner of this
intersection has commercial zoning which attracts a significant
volume of traffic, this segment of Roseland Road should have been
designated as a collector road in the comprehensive plan.
36
Therefore, because there was a mistake in the original
comprehensive plan with respect to this road, the first criterion
of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 has been met.
- Future Land Use Element Table 2.30
When the comprehensive plan was adopted, the best available data
regarding the amount of commercially and industrially designated
land in the county were not completely accurate. Recently, staff
revised the county's Data Source for Commercial & Industrial
Development. Research for this project provided staff with more
accurate and up-to-date information for Future Land Use Element
Table 2.30. The availability of these data constitutes a
substantial change in circumstances affecting Future Land Use
Element Table 2.30 and meets the third criterion of Future Land Use
Element Policy 13.3.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.25
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.25 designates all nodes as either
commercial, industrial, commercial/ industrial, tourist commercial,
or hospital commercial. This policy does not include any criteria
for designating or changing types of nodes, and these designations
have no regulatory purpose since any commercial or industrial
zoning is permitted within any node. In practice, the existence of
various types of nodes confuses the public without providing
specific benefits. For these reasons, designating five different
types of nodes was a mistake in the original plan. Therefore, this
amendment meets the first criterion of Future Land Use Element
Policy 13.3.
- Ports, Aviation, and Related Facilities
Since the adoption of the comprehensive plan, several changes have
been made to the layouts of Vero Beach Municipal Airport and New
Hibiscus Airpark. These changes include moving a runway and
changing a clear zone. Together, these actions constitute a
substantial change in circumstances affecting both airports and
meet the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
- Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 1.3, Sanitary Sewer Sub -
Element Policy 1.3, and Capital Improvements Element Policy 3.5
Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 1.3, Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element
Policy 1.3, and Capital Improvements Element Policy 3.5 all refer
to a county ordinance which was current when the comprehensive plan
was adopted but has since been amended. The amendment of the
county ordinance constitutes a change in circumstances. Therefore,
this comprehensive plan amendment meets the third criterion of
Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
At least one of the Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 criteria is
met by each proposed amendment. Therefore, all proposed amendments
are consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
Traffic Circulation Element
- S.R. 60 west of I-95
The current traffic volumes on S.R. 60 from I-95 to Osceola County
do not justify additional lanes. However, several factors indicate
that, despite existing traffic volumes, there is a need for
additional lanes. Evidence indicates that this portion of S.R. 60
is so dangerous that drivers who would otherwise use it to reach
37
BOOK 91 F'AGE I J
L2NOV 231993
r NOV � �� ,q �
®V 2 99 BOOK 91 FnUF 74
the Florida Turnpike or the Tampa Bay area instead use much longer
alternate routes.
Several factors combine to make this portion of S.R. 60 dangerous.
It is a long, narrow road, covering a distance of approximately
22.5 miles from I-95 to the Osceola County line. Even though the
comprehensive plan indicates that this portion of S.R. 60 currently
has 100 feet of public road right-of-way, the paved portion of the
road is actually only 28 feet wide. Deep ditches run along each
side of this road. Additionally, this portion of S.R. 60 has no
median and, until recently, had no shoulders or guardrails.
In the last five years, there have been at least 123 accidents and
seven fatalities on this portion of S.R. 60. This is despite the
fact that many drivers are using alternate routes. This statistic
demonstrates the hazards of this road in its current condition.
In August, 1991, a petition requesting that S.R. 60 be
substantially improved from I-95 to the Osceola County line was
presented to the Board of County Commissioners. The petition, one
of the largest ever received by the commission, was signed by more
than 14,000 people.
Other important benefits of four-laning this section of S.R. 60
would be the increased speed and efficiency of evacuations for
hurricanes and other emergencies, and the economic benefits of
more efficient transportation of goods and services. --
In addition to being dangerous in its current condition, S.R. 60,
as part of the Intrastate Highway System, must be widened to at
least four lanes to meet FDOT's minimum standards for this system.
A preliminary estimate of the cost of this project is approximately
$33.6 million.
Policies of the comprehensive plan which are particularly
applicable to this amendment are Traffic Circulation Element Policy
3.1, and Capital Improvements Element 1.6.
Traffic Circulation Element Policy 3.1 states that the county will
collect, maintain and review data on all accidents in the county,
and that the county will identify above average accident locations
as well as safety projects to reduce accidents at these locations.
Based on accident data, staff has identified this portion of S.R.
60 as an above average accident location. Further, staff has
identified the widening of this portion of S.R. 60 as a needed
safety project. For these reasons, this amendment is consistent
with Traffic Circulation Element Policy 3.1.
Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.6 states that the county
shall encourage the FDOT to reallocate budgeted appropriations for
traffic facilities in Indian River County. Since this amendment
facilitates the construction of an FDOT funded traffic facility by
incorporating it into the county's comprehensive plan, the
amendment is consistent with Capital Improvements Element Policy
1.6.
- Roseland Road between U.S. 1 and Indian River Drive
The portion of Roseland Road between U.S. 1 and Indian River Drive
should be designated as a collector road rather than a subdivision
collector road for several reasons. First, this segment provides
a transition from a road with a higher functional classification to
a road with a lower functional classification. This segment
connects an urban minor arterial to a subdivision collector. Since
collector roads are designed to accommodate traffic volumes at
38
levels between those of arterials and subdivision collectors, this
segment of Roseland Road should be designated as a collector road.
The land uses in the area also indicate that this segment of
Roseland Road should be designated a collector road. This segment
begins in a commercial/industrial node, at the intersection of two
major roads (U.S. 1 and Roseland Road). All four corners of this
intersection are zoned CG, General Commercial. Uses located at
this intersection include major shopping centers, a grocery store,
a convenience store, a fast food restaurant, and a drug store.
Traffic Circulation Element Policies 1.1 and 3.2, and Objective 5
are particularly applicable to this amendment. These parts of the
comprehensive plan relate to the regulation and monitoring of the
thoroughfare roadway system.
Despite high volumes, this segment of Roseland Road is not part of
the thoroughfare roadway system and, therefore, is not monitored
for LOS. In reality, this segment performs the same functions as
other thoroughfare roads. If designated a collector road, this
segment would become part of the thoroughfare roadway system and
would have to meet minimum LOS standards. Therefore, this
amendment is consistent with Traffic Circulation Element Policies
1.1 and 3.2, and Objective 5.
Staff also reviewed potential environmental impacts of this
amendment. Since the areas surrounding this segment -of Roseland
Road are already disturbed, this amendment is not anticipated to
have any significant adverse environmental impacts.
Future Land Use Element
- Table 2.30
As a result of the county staff's revision of the county's Data
Source for Commercial & Industrial Development, the county has
produced better, more accurate maps of nodes. These revised maps
reflect minor differences from the previous node maps. When the
comprehensive plan was adopted, the node sizes were estimated for
Future Land Use Element Table 2.30. This amendment will update
Future Land Use Element Table 2.30 using the best available data.
The minor increase in total acres is due to the increase in
accuracy of information, not due to node expansion.
Staff has also found that the boundaries separating adjacent nodes
were in some cases inappropriately located. An important task
associated with revising. the data source was to use the best
available data to determine appropriate "break points" between
adjacent nodes. Changes associated with this task also have been
incorporated into Future Land Use Element Table 2.30.
- Policy 1.25
When the comprehensive plan was adopted, nodes were labeled either
commercial, industrial, commercial/ industrial,, hospital commercial,
or tourist commercial. These labels were unnecessary, vague, and
confusing. The labels described basically the same type of land,
commercial/industrial land. Therefore, with the adoption of this
amendment, there will be only one type of commercial or industrial
land use, the commercial/industrial node.
Ports, Aviation, & Related Facilities Element Figures 6.2, and 6.3
The Ports, Aviation, and Related Facilities Element contains maps
depicting the general layout of each airport in the county, the
39
NOV
23199-1
BOOK 91 PrJE 75
Fr
BOOK 9.1 F,1u 76
clear zones associated with each airport, and pertinent surrounding
features such as trees or towers relating to each airport. These
maps need to be updated as changes occur. In this case, the end of
a runway and its clear zone have changed. These amendments reflect
the changes at Vero Beach Municipal Airport and New Hibiscus
Airpark.
Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 1. 3, Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element
Policy 1.3, and Capital Improvements Element Policy 3.5
Presently, these policies are not accurate. The policies refer to
an ordinance that has since been amended. Since the methodology
for determining Equivalent Residential Units is adequately
described elsewhere in the Infrastructure Element, there is no need
to mention the county ordinance in these policies. Therefore, this
amendment will update these policies by deleting references to
county ordinances. This change will ensure that the policies are
and remain accurate.
CONCLUSION
Staff's position is that these proposed amendments will enhance the
plan by facilitating needed projects within the county, and by
adding accuracy and clarity to the comprehensive plan.' Also, it
has been demonstrated that these amendments maintain the plan's
internal consistency. For these reasons, staff supports the
adoption of the proposed amendments.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve these comprehensive plan amendments as
identified in attachment 4.
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 Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 93-35 amending the text of the future land
use element, the traffic circulation element, the
capital improvements element, the potable water sub -
element, the sanitary sewer sub -element and the
ports, aviation and related facilities element of
the Comrehensive Plan, as recommended by staff.
40
ORDINANCE NO. 93- 35
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
TEXT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
ELEMENT, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT, THE POTABLE WATER
SUB -ELEMENT, THE SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT, AND THE PORTS,
AVIATION, AND RELATED FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its January, 1993 amendment submittal window,
and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on April 22, 1993 after
due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended approval of
this comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County
Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on June 22, 1993, after
advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment,
and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received
this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on June 28, 1993, for the State
review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on October 11, 1993, and
41
BOOK 91 FADE 77
'NOV 231993.. _. J
i
Boot( 91 FACE 78
ORDINANCE NO. 93-35
WHEREAS, Indian River County revised this comprehensive plan
amendment in response to the ORC Report and pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(7), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing
on November 23, 1993, after advertising pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and
Transmittal
The amendments to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
identified in section 2 are hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are
directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
c Revision to Tables 4.7.2 and 4.7.3 of the Traffic
Circulation Element, as shown on Attachment A.
0 Revision to Figures 4.11, 4.13, 4.13.2 and 4.13.3 of the
Traffic Circulation Element, as shown on Attachment A.
o Revision to Table 2.30 of the Future Land Use Element, as
shown on Attachment A.
c Revision to Policy 1.25 of the Future Land Use Element,
as shown on Attachment A.
c Revision to Page 121 of the Future Land Use Element, as
shown on Attachment A.
o Revision to Figures 6.2 and 6.3 of the Ports, Aviation
and Related Facilities Element, as shown on Attachment A.
c Revision to Policy 1.3 of the Potable Water Sub -Element,
as shown on Attachment A.
o Revision to Policy 1.3 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element,
as shown on Attachment A.
c Revision to Policy 3.5 of the Capital Improvements
Element, as shown on Attachment A. .
SECTION 3. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance may be incorporated into the
County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section",
"article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of the
ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to. accomplish such
intentions.
42
ORDINANCE NO. 93-35
SECTION 4. 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.
SECTION 5. Severability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is
for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
SECTION 6. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective upon issuance by the
State Department of Community Affairs of a Notice of Intent to find
the adopted amendment in compliance in accordance with s.
163.3184(9) or the issuance of a final order by the Administration
Commission finding the adopted amendment in compliance with s.
163.3184(10).
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 23rd day of November, 1993.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 16th day of November, 1993 for a public hearing to be held
on the 23rd day of November, 1993 at which time*it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Eggert I seconded by
Commissioner Adams , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aje
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
ATTEST BY:
,�"•,.,��.,.�, •":,�.r�•:..^+...•�"•a�;s�
•�'
Jef ey K. Barton, Clerk
b1 16 /4(�,_ 4. �
43
6. 0510V 23 1993
BOOK 91 U* GF 79 .
r NOV 231993
ORDINANCE NO. 93-
60010 91 PAGE O®
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 3rd day of December , 1993.
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 8th
day of December , 1993, at 10:00 A. M. A.M./M. and filed in
the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
.0 -
Will
Will G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney
c
R ert M.-Keating,.A CP
Community Development Dir/tor
APPROVAL OF DATES FOR TWO EVENING BOARD HEARINGS TO CONSIDER LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENTS
The Board reviewed memo from Planning Director Stan Boling
dated November 15, 1993:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIV ON HEAD CONCURRENCE:
r Robert M. Re n , AICP
Community Dev{elopm nt Di ctor
FROM: Stan Boling" ,ICP
Planning Director
DATE: November 15, 1993
SUBJECT: Approval of Hearing Dates for Two Evening Board Hearings
to Consider LDR Amendments
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of November 23, 1993.
BACKGROUND:
Since October 1, 1990, the Florida Statutes has required two
evening meetings of the Board of County Commissioners whenever
amendments to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) are to be
considered and adopted. To minimize the number of required evening
meetings, staff has limited the number of times the LDR's are
amended. This'has been done by holding proposed LDR amendments
until a sufficient number of amendments exist.
44
At this time, there are several proposed LDR amendments which now
require consideration and action by the Board of County
Commissioners. These LDR changes have been initiated by
applicants, county staff, and the Board of County Commissioners.
This set of LDR amendments relates to many issues, including but
not limited to the following:
-Section
1:
Land Clearing Debris Burning
-Section
2:
Communications Transmission Towers
-Section
3:
Fishing -related Commercial Sales & .Services
(Richard Green, applicant)
-Section
4:
Options 'to Golf Course Building Setback (Moorings
Club, applicant)
-Section
5:
Group Homes in Mobile Home Districts
-Section
6:
Clarification of Lot Widths & Setbacks on Flag Lots
& Cul-de-sac Lots
-Section
7:
Clarification of Single Family/Duplex Development
on Single Lots
-Section
8:
Walls & Fences
-Section
9:
Coastal Development
-Section
10:
Limited & Heavy Utilities Uses in Single Family
Zoning Districts
The PSAC has reviewed the proposed amendments. The Planning and
Zoning Commission is in the process of considering and making
recommendations to the Board regarding the proposed LDR amendments.
To proceed with the review and approval process for the amendments,
the Board must now set dates and times for the required two evening
public hearings.
ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES:
The proposed amendments were considered by the PSAC at its July,
August, September, and October 1993 meetings. The Planning and
Zoning Commission is scheduled to consider the proposed amendments
at its November 18, 1993 meeting. The Board of County
Commissioners must hold its meetings after receiving the Planning
and Zoning Commission's recommendations. Some of the proposed
amendments are controversial and will require significant
discussion.
State requirements mandate seven day notice (newspaper
advertisement) prior to the first meeting, five day notice prior to
the second meeting, and at least two weeks between the two
meetings. The meetings must be held after 5:00 p.m. Planning
staff has coordinated with the Board office staff regarding
potential hearing dates in December and early January. One set of
hearing dates which would comply with all the state requirements
and appears to accommodate Commissioners' schedules is as follows:
MEETING DATE TIME
1. Tuesday, December 14, 1993 5:01 p.m.
2• Wednesday, January 5, 1994 5:01 p.m.
Staff has tentatively reserved use of the Commission Chambers for
these proposed dates. The Board may establish any other dates that
meet state requirements and during which the Chambers may be used.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board establish meeting dates for the two
evening public hearings required to consider and adopt the proposed
LDR amendments.
45
BOOK 91 FAIF
NOV 2 3 1993
��ov
2 3 1993
BOOK 91 PAGE 82
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously scheduled
public hearings to consider amendments to the Land
Development Regulations at 5:01 p.m. on December 14,
1993, and at 5:01 p.m. on January 4, 1994, as
recommended by staff.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CLAIMS PAYMENT SUMMARY
The Board reviewed memo from Personnel Director Jack Price
dated November 23, 1993:
. . . • • • . • • • • • • . . • • . • • • • • . • • . . . • . • . . . . • . . . • . . . . • • • . • • . . . . . • . . . • . . • .
To: Board of County Commissioners Date: November 17, 1993
Sub: Unemployment Compensation Claims Payment Summary
From: Jack Price, Personnel44,,t,�r.�
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Board of County Commissioners approved a budget amendment.
November 16, 1993 for the payment of Unemployment Compensation to
two former employees and asked for a summary explanation of the
claims. In the future a summary for each claim will be included
with the budget amendment backup. The other claimants listed were
employed by Constitutional Officers and their unemployment programs
are not administered by this Personnel Department.
Claimant: Linda L. Reisman
Termination: Effective 10-8-92 Voluntary Resignation
Initial Unemployment Benefits claim challenged: 7-7-93
Determination: Eligible for benefits : Decision 7-16-93
Justification: Although employee voluntarily resigned from Indian
River County, she became reemployed and earned seventeen times the
weekly benefit amount of. her claim ($158). This rendered the
earlier separation from Indian River County as ineffective and the
employee received benefits which are partially chargeable (65.28%)
to Indian River County to the extent that the county was a base
period employer (employer of record during the first four of the
last five completed calendar quarters).
Claimant: Michael W. Duprey
Termination: Effective 2-12-93 Personal injury 11-92
Initial Unemployment Benefits claim challenged: 2-17-93
Determination: Eligible for benefits : Decision 4-16-93
Justification: Employee's personal injury prohibited return to
work. Employer did not establish that the employee violated any of
his duties and obligations to the employer, and therefore, the
separation was not for misconduct connect with the work.
46
- M M
Director Price made the following presentation:
To: John Tippin
County Commissioner
Date: November 23, 1993
Through: James Chandler,-��
County Administ ator
From: Jack Pricee",_ Sub: Unemployment Compensation
Chapter 443 of the state statutes, Unemployment Compensation, is
pro -claimant to the extent that effective employer cost control is
difficult. Some of the more troublesome provisions for employers
are noted below.
443.036 Definitions
(5) Base Period
This period places an employer in jeopardy of being charged for
benefits as long as 17 months after an employee leaves a position
regardless of the conditions under which the separation occurred.
443.101 Disqualification for benefits
(1)(a) 1. Disqualification for voluntarily quitting is
ineffective if the employee becomes reemployed and then leaves that
position under non -disqualifying conditions.
(1)(c) (2) The state is obligated to insure that the
claimant seeks and accepts suitable employment. Failure to do so
will result in disqualification for unemployment benefits. The
state has not been diligent in verifying the actions are being
taken. Consequently claimants who should be disqualified for not
seeking or accepting suitable employment, are receiving benefits.
0
443.151 Procedure concerning claims
(4)(c) Review by commission
This appeal step is historically a "rubber stamp" endorsement of
the Appeals Referees' decisions. If the referees are so completely
correct, the appeal step to the commission should be eliminated.
Otherwise an employer appeal to the commission is an exercise which
is costly and nonproductive.
(6) Recovery and Recoupment
This section obligates the state to seek recovery of benefits paid
to a claimant who was first determined eligible for benefits but
subsequently, perhaps as a result of an employer appeal, is
redetermined to be ineligible. The state appears not to be
diligent in pursuing this money and if it should be recovered the
process for returning it to the "reimbursable" employer is not
clear if it exists at all.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Chairman Bird asked if there is any way to avoid paying
benefits to employees who leave voluntarily.
County Attorney Vitunac responded that the County should
contact the Florida Association of Counties to try to get a state-
wide initiative to protect counties from this procedure.
47
BOOK 91 Fnur-. j
NUV2�1993
NOV 231993
BOOK 91 FACE
Commissioner Macht asked Director Price to organize the
information in a presentable form to be carried to Tallahassee for
the meeting of the Florida Association. of Counties. The Board
members concurred in that request.
PARTIAL PAYMENT TO AMERICAN COASTAL ENGINEERING INC. a FOR THE
1.500 FEET OF ADDITIONAL JET PROBE AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING FOR THE
PREFABRICATED EROSION PREVENTION (PEP) REEF PROJECT
The Board reviewed memo from Coastal Engineer Don Donaldson
dated November 16, 1993:
TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director
FROM: Don G. Donaldson, P.E.
Coastal Engineer
SUBJECT: Partial Payment to American Coastal Engineering,
Inc. for the 1,500 Feet of Additional Jet Probe and
Sediment Sampling for the PEP Reef Project
DATE: November 16, 1993
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
MME -2 ANHRC=.a=
The Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory.Committee voted on Oct.
13, 1993 to instruct American Coastal Engineering, Inc. to jet
probe 6,000 feet, permit 4,000 feet and build a 3,000 feet reef.
The County's Contract with American Coastal Engineering dated Sept.
28, 1993 authorized American Coastal Engineering to design and
permit a 3,000 feet reef. The Beach and Shore Preservation
Advisory Committee authorized expanding the survey to 6,000 feet so
that we would have the necessary information to expand the project
if additional funding is available. After reviewing proposed cost
estimates for the additional 3,000 feet of survey, staff authorized
American Coastal Engineering investigate only additional 1,000
feet. However, due to the uncertainty of the exact placement of
the proposed PEP Reef American Coastal Engineers jet probed a total
of 4,500 feet which is 1,500 feet greater than our original
contract and is 500 feet greater than what was authorized by staff.
After reviewing the data, staff concurs with American Coastal
Engineering that the additional 500 feet was necessary to ensure
proper coverage for the proposed 4,000 feet of PEP Reef.
The county's contract with American Coastal Engineering provided
that 50% of Task I would be paid at the signing of the contract.
The remainder of Task I would be paid upon completion of Task I.
The jet probes and sediment analysis are included in Task I.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Board authorize a 50% payment to American
Coastal Engineering in the amount of $2,870 for the additional
services they have provided. The remaining $2,870 will be included
in the final payment for Task I when it is complete.
48
77
M
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
payment of $2,870 to American Coastal Engineering
representing 50 percent of payment for Task 1, as
recommended by staff.
ROUND ISLAND PARR IMPROVEMENTS - CHANGE ORDER #2
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Manager Terry
Thompson dated November 16, 1993:
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
a SUBJECT:
DATE:
James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director + ell
Terry B. Thompson, P.E.�j
Capital Projects Manager
Round Island Park Improvements
Change Order No. 2
November 16, 1993 FILE: RICO2.AQN
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Contractor for Round Island Park Improvements, Speegle
Construction, has encountered muck while excavating for the boat
ramps. This material must be removed in order to achieve proper
compaction of the subgrade under the boat ramps. Staff has
negotiated a price of $5 per cubic yard to remove 180 cubic yards
for a total of $900.
During the installation of the drainfield for the septic tank, the
Environmental Health Department required the Contractor to install
an additional 156 square feet of drainfield. Using the contract
unit price of $2 per square foot for drainfield the amount due the
Contractor for this work is $312. In addition, the Contractor
incurred an expense of $45 to place sand around the septic tank and
drainfield.
In order to deter vandalism in the new restrooms, staff would like
to install flush valves that are concealed behind the walls. The
additional cost of a concealed flush valve for the urinal is
$353.09.
The total increase in the contract amount for the attached Change
Order No. 2 is $1,610.09. This Change Order also provides for an
18 day time extension due to rain delays and delays in the delivery
of fill that was provided by the County.
3:1
qq�
BOOK 91 u 85
r Nov31
2 993
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
BOOK 91 PAGE 86
Alternative No. 1
Authorize Change Order No.2 in the amount of $1,610.09,
this would result in a revised Contract amount of
$343,723.74.
Alternative No. 2
Deny authorization of Change Order No. 2- and re-
negotiate.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 authorizing Change Order No. 2
be approved. Funding is from the Florida Inland Navigation
District and the Florida Boating Improvements Program.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized
Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $1,610.09 with
Speegle Construction, as recommended in staff's
Alternative No. 1.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., BOULEVARD STREET LIGHTING
The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis
dated November 19, 1993:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard
Street Lighting Enhancements
DATE: November 19, 1993
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Due to public safety concerns, the Gifford Progressive League has
requested brighter street lights along Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.
In communications with Frank Call, City of Vero Beach Electrical
Engineering Department, it is possible to increase the wattage of the
existing seven seventy watt street lights between 28th Court (the road
west of Gifford Middle 7) and 32nd Avenue in the City service area. The
cost increase will.be $6.06 per light per month. For the seven lights in
the city service area, the total yearly cost increase will be $509.04.
50
West of 32nd Avenue, the Florida Power Light franchise area begins.• There
are eleven existing street lights between 32nd Avenue and 40th Avenue.
The cost to increase the wattage to 250 watts is; 11 lights x
$7.43/light/month x 12 months = $980.76/year.
The yearly cost to increase lighting in the service area (28th Court to
40th Avenue) is $1,489.80. Staff recommends that the request be approved.
The first year cost can be funded by the MSTU Contingency Fund. The cost
for future years should be charged to the Gifford Street Light District.
If the lights are modified on or about January 1, 1994, the cost for FY
93/94 will be approximately $1,120.
Commissioner Adams noted that this increase will be presented
at the budget hearings for public comment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized
expenditure of $1,120 from the MSTU Contingency Fund
for increased lighting on Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Boulevard, as set out in staff's memorandum.
PETITION WATER SERVICE IN GREEN ACRES ESTATES (47TH AVENUE S.W.,
SOUTH OF 9TH STREET S.W.. RESOLUTIONS I AND II
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated November 1, 1993:
DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTI Y VICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAST
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASS S PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: PETITION WATER SERVICE IN GREEN ACRES ESTATES
(47TH AVENUE, SW - SOUTH OF 9TH STREET, SW)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -93 -24 -DS
RESOLUTIONS I AND II
BACKGROUND
On September 14, 1993, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved the petition for water service for Green
Acres Estates to supply potable water to its residents. Design 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 and minutes of the above meeting).
51
Nov
aooK 91 F,NU . 87
r NOV
23 1993 BOOK 91 PAGE 88
ANALYSIS
The subdivision contains 20 lots with 10 existing homes and 10
vacant lots. Seven owners of the existing homes and one vacant lot
owner have signed the attached petition. This represents 70% of the
homeowners, plus an owner of one vacant lot. These homeowners
describe their water as below drinking water quality. The lots in
this project are typically one-half acre, or slightly more. The
attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment
project.
Attached are Resolutions I and II for the assessment project. The
total estimated cost to be assessed is $34,059.48. The cost per
square foot is $0.07167776082.
This project is to be funded 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.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Resolutions which
approve the preliminary assessment roll and establish the public
hearing date.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 93-203, providing for water main
extension to Green Acres Estates (47th Avenue S.W.
south off 9th Street S.W., as recommended by staff.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 93-204, setting 9:05 a.m. on Tuesday,
January 11, 1994, in the County Commission Chambers
as the time and place at which the owners of
properties located generally in the area of Green
Acres Estates (47th Avenue S.W., south off 9th
Street S.W.) may appear before the Board and be
heard regarding the contruction of a water main, as
recommended by staff.
52 -
� � r
RESOLUTION NO. 93-.20.'3_
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
PROVIDING FOR WATER MAIN EXTENSION TO GREEN ACRES
ESTATES (47TH AVENUE, SW, SOUTH OFF 9TH STREET, SW);
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 determined to defray
the cost thereof by special assessments against certain properties to be
serviced by a water main extension to Green Acres Estates (47th Avenue,
SW, south off 9th Street, SW) hereinafter referred to as Project No.
UW -93 -24 -DS;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County does hereby determine that a water main extension shall
be installed to provide service for 20 lots, which are located
generally as described above, and the cost thereof shall be
specially assessed in accordance with the provisions of Sections
206.01 through 206.09 of the Code of Indian River County.
2. The total estimated project assessment cost of the above-described
improvements is shown to be $34,059.48 or $0.07167776082 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 $0.07167776082 per square
foot shall be assessed against each of the properties designated on
the assessment plat. This assessment may be raised or lowered'by
action of the Board of County Commissioners after the public
hearing, at the same meeting, as required by the referenced County
Code.
4. The special assessments shall be due and payable and may be paid in
full within 90 days after the date of the resolution of the Board
with respect to credits against the special assessments after
completion of the improvements (the "Credit Date") without
interest.
53
L_ NOV 231993
BOOK 91 PA^E 8
NOV 2 31999
5.
6.
BOOK 91 WF. 90
RESOLUTION NO. 93-203
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 8% from the Credit Date until.
paid.
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.
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 (along with
a map showing the areas to be served) to be published at least one
time in the Vero Beach Press Journal before the public hearing
required by Section 206.04.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams 11
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Mach t , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 9_ day of November, 1993.
Attest:
f• ` ' Mme.,-�;�•..,_, ' ..^.,•,.•,....�
Jeffr K. Barton, Clerk
Lw
54
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By�
Richard N. Bird
Chairman
� � r
RESOLUTION NO. 93- x(14
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
SETTING A TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH THE OWNERS OF
PROPERTIES LOCATED GENERALLY IN THE AREA OF GREEN
ACRES ESTATES (47TH AVENUE, SW, SOUTH OFF 9TH
STREET, SW) AND OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS, MAY APPEAR
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND BE
HEARD AS TO THE PROPRIETY AND ADVISABILITY OF
CONSTRUCTING A WATER MAIN, 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. 203 , 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 2.0 lots hereinafter
described; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the cost, to be specially
assessed with respect thereto shall be $0.07167776082 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 206.06, Indian River County Code, requires that
the Board of County Commissioners shall fix a time and place at which
the owners of the properties to be assessed or any other persons
interested therein may appear before the Board of County Commissioners
and be heard as to the propriety and advisability of constructing such
water main extension, as to the cost thereof, as to the manner of
payment therefor, and as to the amount thereof to be assessed against
each property benefited thereby,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; as follows:
1. The County Commission shall meet at the County Commission Chambers
in the County Administration Building at the hour of 9:05 a.m. on
Tuesday, January 11, 1994, at which time the owners of the
55
BOOK U
23 IM
NOV 2 31993 BOOK
RESOLUTION NO. 93-204
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 Adams 01
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Macht , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 23 day of November, 1993.
Attest:
JeffrK. Bar on, Clerk
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Richard N. Bird
Chairman
56
PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE AT 10TH COURT S.W. (SOUTH OFF 9TH STREET
S.W. / OSLO ROAD)
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated November 5, 1993:
DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTIL SERVICES
PREPARED ' JAMES D. CHASTA�;C
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASS PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE AT 10TH COURT, SW
(SOUTH OFF 9TH STREET, SW/OSLO ROAD)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -93 -29 -DS
BACKGROUND
A petition has been received for a water main extension for 10th Court,
SW, to supply potable water to its residents. We are now coming to the
Board of County Commissioners to seek approval to begin design of the
above-mentioned project. (See attached petition and plat map.)
ANALYSIS
This nonplatted street contains 19 lots with 12 existing homes. There
are 10 owners (83% of the 12 homeowners) that have demonstrated a
request for County water; 9 having signed the attached petition and
agreement to be included in a special assessment, and a request for
temporary service form. A 10th owner has prepaid the water impact fee,
in anticipation of future construction and water service. The lot
sizes in this project average .43 acre ± , 15 or 79% being substandard
or undersized.
These homeowners describe their water as below drinking water quality.
The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment
project. 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.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of
the above -listed project in order that they may proceed with design
engineering work in preparation for the special assessment project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by.
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the water service project for 10th Court S.W. (south
off 9th Street S.W./Oslo Road, as recommended by
staff.
57
NOV 231993 BOOK 91 PAGE 93
r NOV 2 3 1993
BOOK 91 ivu 94
NORTH COUNTY EFFLUENT FORCE MAIN FINAL PAY REQUEST AND CHANGE ORDER
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated November 9, 1993:
DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL ERVICES
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: WILLIAM F cCAIN
CAPITAL CTS ENGINEER
DEPAR UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY EFFLUENT FORCE MAIN
FINAL PAY REQUEST AND CHANGE ORDER
BACKGROUND:
On April 27, 1993, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a contract with Tri -Sure Corporation for the
construction of the above -referenced project (see attached agenda
item and minutes). We are now coming to the Board of County
Commissioners for approval of the final pay request and change order
so that the project may be finalized.
ANALYSIS:
The original contract amount was $214,636.00; the final change order
is for a net decrease of $227.08. The final contract price is
$214,408.92, making the final pay request in the amount of
$31,030.32 (see attached change order and final pay request).
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of both the final change order and pay request to Tri -Sure
Corporation as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the final change order and pay request to Tri -Sure
Corporation in the amount of $31,030.32, as
recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
58
COUNTY -GROVE FRUIT HARVEST
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated November 15, 1993:
DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRA R
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI ERVICES
PREPARED TERRY H. DRUM
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: COUNTY GROVE FRUIT HARVEST
BACKGROUND
The Department of Utility Services has approximately a 60 -acre
citrus grove located at the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
site. The red and white grapefruit crop for the 1993-1994 season
will be ready to harvest soon.
ANALYSIS
In previous years (including last season), an attempt to solicit
bidders for the harvest of the grapefruit crop resulted in no bids.
Last year's negotiated sale resulted in a total amount of $44,071.03
for the 1992-1993 grapefruit crop.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners authorize the Department of Utility
Services to negotiate the sale of the 1993-1994 grapefruit crop.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
authorized the Department of Utility Services to
negotiate the sale of the 1993-94 grapefruit crop.
S.W.D.D. GROVE HARVEST
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated November 16, 1993:
59
BOOK 91 `A,1)E :1
OV 2 3 1993 J
rNOV 231993
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO2
DIRECTOR OF UTILI VICES
PREPARED TERRY H. DRUM IH17
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: S.W.D.D. GROVE HARVEST
BACKGROUND
BOOK 91 FAr,F
The Solid Waste Disposal District (S.W.D.D.) has approximately 65
acres of citrus grove consisting of white grapefruit, temple
oranges, and naval oranges. The grove is located adjacent to the
Indian River County landfill.
ANALYSIS
In previous years, an attempt to solicit bidders for the harvest of
the S.W.D.D. citrus crop resulted in no bids.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services and S.W.D.D.
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Solid
Waste Disposal District to negotiate the sale of the 1993-1994
citrus crop.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
authorized the Solid Waste Disposal District to
negotiate the sale of the 1993-94 citrus crop.
TALLAHASSEE LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE
Commissioner Tippin reported that he will attend the
Legislative Conference in Tallahassee. In addition to the Board's
list of items presented at the Legislative Delegation, he will take
the information regarding unemployment compensation discussed
earlier.
PUBLIC"LAND RESEARCH
Commissioner Adams noted that at various times comments are
made about the amount of publicly -owned land. She requested
consensus of the Board to direct staff to compile a list of lands
in Indian River County under public ownership, including federal,
state, county, and other entities.
Administrator Chandler stated - that staff has all the basic
data on lands owned by the County, some of which is computerized
and some is on maps, and it is a matter of compiling that data.
60
M M M
Commissioner Macht was interested to know the percentage of
publicly owned lands in our county compared with other counties.
The Board members directed the County Administrator to gather
that information.
LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION INFORMATION MEETING
Commissioner Macht recounted that he has requested that Board
meetings be televised and has not received any support for that
request mainly because the Board objected to the cost involved.
Commissioner Macht gave the example of very important items which
were discussed at the Legislative Delegation meeting and were not
reported in the newspaper. He urged the Board to reconsider
televising Board meetings.
County Administrator Jim Chandler assured the Board that since
the last discussion on this subject, he has been in communication
with the School Board. Their meetings are televised using a new
technician and School Superintendent Dr. Gary Norris will report on
the success of that project. Administrator Chandler stated that it
was his intent to report to the Board when he receives a report
from Dr. Norris.
There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 11:35 a.m.
ATTEST:
J. ton, Clerk
61
SOV 2 3 1993
R chard N. Bird, Chairman
BOOK 91 FACE .9-7