HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/6/1995� MINUTESOATTACHED =
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
TUESDAY, JUNE 69 1995
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman (Dist. 3) James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman (Dist. 1)
Richard N. Bird (Dist. 5) Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Carolyn K. Eggert (Dist. 2)
John W. Tippin (Dist. 4) Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
2. INVOCATION
3. PI.EDA Ems' ALLEr AN Charles P. Vitunac
11 •►11 1T 01:/ D16 6
13-A-1 Millage survey
13-A-2 Comment relative to DEP permit program
13-C Brief Announcement (Comm. Bird's retirement)
5. PBOSI:AMATION.and..PBESENTATIONS
None
' ►f1
A. Special Meeting of April 24, 1995
B. Regular Meeting of May 2, 1995
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk
to the Board:
1. I.R. Farms Water Control Dist. Annual
Report FY 1993-94 and Financial State-
ments a/o 9/30/94
2. Seb. Inlet Tar Dist. Comm. Financial
Statements a/o 9/30/93 & 9/30/92
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.):
A. Reports (cont'd.)
3. St. Johns Water Control Dist. Financial
Statements & Reports of Independent
CPAs a/o 9/30/94
4.' Fellsmere Water Control District
Districts Map
FY 1995-96 Annual Budget
5. St. of Fla. Report No. 12491, an
Operational Review Made Regarding
The District School Board Bus Driver
Driving Records
B. The Restoration Company
(memorandum dated May 25, 1995)
C. Limitation of Waiver of Sovereign Immunity
(memorandum dated May 25, 1995)
D. Occupational License Tax
(memorandum dated May 30, 1995)
E. Oslo Rd. & Old Dixie Hwy. Improvements
Fraser Engineering & Testing, Inc.
(memorandum dated May 9, 1995)
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
G9YERNd IENTAL.AGENCIES
AnaBabinson, Supervisor afFlections:
Creation of New Precinct and Change of Polling Place
(memorandum dated May 22, 1995)
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE AC-
COMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM
CL TO OCR, FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE S.W. CORNER OF
S.R. AIA & MOORING LINE DR., AND
DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE
(memorandum dated May 18, 1995)
2. Delois Buckner's Request for a Partial
Abandonment of 47th St. R -O -W
(memorandum dated May 31, 1995)
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Mone
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
Request by City of Sebastian to Schedule & Conduct
Joint Public Hearing
(memorandum dated May 25, 1995)
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community. DeYelopment
1. Consideration of Economic Development
Strategy Plan
(memorandum dated May 26, 1995)
2. Developer's Agreements for the Indian
River Mall Project
(memorandum dated May 31, 1995)
B. Emergency -Services
None
C. Genernl.SmTkes
1. New County Courthouse - Art Display
(memorandum dated May 19, 1995)
2. Roseland Community Center
(memorandum dated May 11, 1995)
3. Bid No. 50-62 / Intersection Improve-
ments to CR510 and 66th Ave.
(memorandum dated May 31, 1995)
D. Leisure -Services
Golf Course Capital Budget Revision
(memorandum dated May 23, 1995)
E. Offic of Management_and_Budget
None
F. Personnel
None
G. Public -Works
1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACGE) - Ordnance Investigation
Project - South Beach
(memorandum dated May 18, 1995)
2. Full Time Resident Inspection Services
for S. AIA Widening
(memorandum dated May 9, 1995)
111. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.):
G. Public Works (contd.):
3. Amendment No. I - King's Highway
Improvements - Oslo Rd. To 26th St.
(memorandum dated May 30. 1995)
H. Utilities
Petition Water Service in Sundowners S/D 1
53rd Ave. (South of 16th St.), Res. l &.11
(memorandum dated May 26, 1995)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
A. Amendment to Utility Franchises Between
the County & City re: So. Beach Re -Use Water
(memorandum dated May 31, 1995)
B. Defense of Expected PEP Reef Permit Challenge
(memorandum dated May 31, 1995) _.
13. COMMISSIONERS.ITEMS
A. Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
B. Vka.ChArman Eran-B.-.dams
Fellsmere Transfer Station and Landfill
(memorandum. dated May 31, 1995)
C. Commissioner_Pjchard N.Bird
D. Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
E. Commissioner John W. Tippin
4
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. Emergency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
1. Gifford Landfill / Ground Water
Monitoring System
(memorandum dated May 17, 1995) _
2. Request to Schedule Public Hearing
Date - 1995-96 Budget Assessment
Procedures/Tipping Fees
(memorandum dated May 31, 1995)
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting %kill
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 x408 at least 48 hours in
a,3•. anc- of P,ieetin
S
Tuesday, June 6, 1995
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, June 6, 1995, at
9:00 a.m. Present were Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman; Fran B. Adams,
Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and John W.
Tippin. Also present were James E. Chandler, County
Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Barbara
Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Attorney Vitunac
led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Macht requested two additions:
13-A-1 Millage survey
13-A-2 Comment relative to DEP permit program
Commissioner Bird requested the addition of a brief
announcement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously added the
above items to today's Agenda.
APPROVAL OF AIRIUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of April 24, 1995 or the
Regular Meeting of May 2, 1995. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of April 24,
1995, and the Regular Meeting of May 2, 1995, as
written.
BOOK D F
June, 6 1995
1 ���
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to the Board:
1. Indian River Farms Water Control District
Annual Report FY 1993-94 and Financial
Statements as of 9/30/94
2. Sebastian Inlet Tax District Comm. Financial Statements
as of 9/30/92 and 9/30/93
3. St. Johns Water Control District Financial Statements &
Reports of Independent CPAs as of 9/30/94
4. Fellsmere Water Control District FY 1995-96 Annual Budget
& Districts Map
5. Florida State Report No. 12491, Operational Review Made
Re District School Board Bus Driver Driving Records
B. The Restoration Company - Courthouse Files
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/25/95:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THRO: H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Directo
Department of General Servic s
FROM: Lynn Williams, Superintendent 0
Buildings & Grounds
DATE:
May 25, 1995
SUBJECT: The Restoration Company
Consent Agenda
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
In October of 1994, a contract was executed with
The Restoration Company to provide anti -microbial and ozone
treatments to files, law books and materials to be moved to
the new Courthouse. The original contract was contained a not to
exceed amount of $20,000.00. This amount was originally intended
to treat all materials including materials stored in the basement.
However, The Restoration Company had not actually examined the
condition of the materials in the basement and staff original
quantities were for record books only. Financial records and
boxes of documents were not included in the information
forwarded to The Restoration Company.
Additionally, the condition of the materials requires a
more labor intensive process than was used for the main building
materials.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The attached Amendment #1 in the amount of $7,396.50
(letter dated April 4, 1995) is required in order to treat- the
basement materials prior to relocation to the new Courthouse.
2
June, 6 1995
Breakdown is as follows:
lst floor treatment (complete)
Basement Treatment
Total
Original Contract
Amount of Amendment #1
Recommendation and Funding:
$ 13,716.50
$ 13,680.00
$ 27,396.50
(S 20,000.00)
$ 7,396.50
Staff recommends approval of Amendment #1 in the amount of
$7,396.50. Funding is available in the Courthouse Construction
Budget Account #315-909-516-033.19 as set aside for moving
expenses.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Amendment #1 with The Restoration Company for
$7,396.50.
AMEND. #1 ON FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
C. Set Public Hearing for Proposed Ordinance on Limitation of Waiver of
Sovereign Immunity - Courthouse Construction
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/25/95:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney U
DATE:
SUBJECT:
May 25, 1995
LIMITATION OF WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
As a result of three demands for arbitration in connection with the
construction of the new courthouse, our office feels that certain
ordinance limitations on County liability would be helpful if there should
be similar claims filed with respect to any future construction.
What has happened is that James Cummings, Inc., the prime contractor,
has filed three claims against the County on behalf of his
subcontractors, Martin Paving Company, Saraventures, Inc., and Ed
Ducar, Inc. None of these claims is based on written change orders
approved by the BCC and signed by the Chairman. however, there
may- be some recovery against the County because the arbitration
process is by its very nature a procedure that tries to give a little to
everyone even if there are valid legal defenses to recovery.
Hopefully, the proposed language will allow the County to seek a legal
prohibition against proceeding when the claim is outside the express
written terms of the contract or properly executed change orders.
In view of the foregoing, this office prepared the attached proposed
ordinance. A public hearing date of June 27, 1995 is suggested.
3=
June, 6 1995 nox 6 -5
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously scheduled
a public hearing for June 27, 1995 to consider
adoption of a proposed ordinance on limitation of
waiver of immunity.
D. Set Public Hearing for Ordinance on Occupational License Tax
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/30/95:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: May 30, 1995
SUBJECT: OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TAX
The County enacted Ordinance No. 95-4 which established a single
occupational license tax classification for all businesses. This ordinance
has an effective date of August 1, 1995. It appears that the public
notice for this ordinance may not have met the specificity required by
Section 205.032, F.S. This section requires that the public notice
contain the "proposed classification and rates applicable to the
occupational license tax." Rather than face a possible challenge at a
later date, it is felt that this matter should be corrected by enacting a
new ordinance with proper notice.
The proposed amendments are identical to those adopted in Ordinance
95-4 with the exception of a new requirement for flea markets set
forth in Section 207.11.
The Tax Collector recently made a weekend sweep of major flea markets
to look for violations of the occupation license tax ordinance. As a
result of that sweep, the Tax Collector felt that a revision to the
ordinance would facilitate enforcement. A copy of his letter is attached.
A public hearing date of June 27, 1995 is suggested.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously scheduled
a public hearing for June 27, 1995 to consider
adoption of a proposed ordinance on occupational
license tax.
4
June, 6 1995
E. Oslo Rd. & Old Dixie Highway Improvements/Fraser Engineering
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/9/95:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis,
Public Works Director 4� CONSENT AGENDA
V
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.,
Capital Projects Manage
SUBJECT: Oslo Road & Old Dixie Highway Improvements
Fraser Engineering and Testing, Inc.
DATE: May 9, 1994 FILE: FRASER. AGN
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Construction of Oslo Road and Old Dixie Highway Improvements are
complete. Fraser Engineering and Testing, Inc. is requesting final
payment for testing Services including retainage in the amount of
$494.50.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Board release final payment in the amount
of $494.50. Funding is from Account 101-156-541-067.43.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
final payment to Fraser Engineering and Testing,
Inc. in the amount of $494.50.
5
June, 6 1995 600K
L--
v
900W
ANN ROBINSON. SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/22/95:
ANN ROBINSON
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
1840 25TH STREET, SUITE N-109
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-3394
TELEPHONES: (407) 567-8187 or 567-8000
May 22, 1995
TO: HON. KENNETH R.MACHT, CHAIRMAN, BCC
FROM: ANN ROBINSON, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS {1`
RE: ITEM FOR BCC AGENDA OF JUNE 6, 1995
(Place under Constitutional Officers and title: Creation
of new precinct and change of polling place.)
We ask for your approval of the following:
1. We propose moving the polling place for Precinct 44 from
Glendale Elementary School to the new Immanuel Baptist
Church, 455 58th Avenue S.W., Vero Beach. The Rev. Elmer
Vogelsang, Pastor, and the elders of the church have given
us approval in writing. This will put the polling place inside
the precinct boundaries for the first time.
2. We propose creating a new precinct, Precinct 45, from the west
part of the existing Precinct 42 and the westernmost part of
Precinct 46, see attached map. Precinct 42 has more than 3,000
registered voters in it now. This change would place about 850
registered voters in the new precinct where growth is occuring.
The polling place for Precinct 45 will be Glendale Elementary
School, 4940 8th Street, Vero Beach.
With your approval-, these changes will take effect July 1, 1995.
New voter identification cards will be mailed in early November.
With help from Bob Keating and Jim Davis, we can make the necessary
changes in-house to the legal descriptions and precinct map mylar.
6
June, 6 1995
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
moving polling place for Precinct 44 to New Immanuel
Baptist Church and creating Precinct 45 from the
west part of existing Precinct 42 and the
westernmost part of Precinct 46, as recommended by
Ann Robinson, Supervisor of Elections.
POINT KING, INC. REOUEST TO REZONE APPROX. 5.3 ACRES
FROM CL TO OCR
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as
follows:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published rally
Vero Beach, Indian River County. Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER' STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authorily personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Bushless Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
I /
In the matter of
M the
Court, was pub•
lishad In veld rt=apa;w is1 the Issues of // �•� fy.�� _ . r..._.___._ _ _�
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Joumal Is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian Rim County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published M sold Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty. Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount. rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
adverileement for publieall(Ari In the said e.ew aper. L
•......
...'$w" to aoW subscribed be�ae me this �' day of A.D. 19 _
.•♦ "T �•w A. .�.
C`
+�. � •.-' -�
.(Business Manager)
r
• (:� �.n �,' ?p ; 1. i 6iahld�l Imda hit
\ ;i '{•.. • ( IWC fhJn�•vr ( ..'As•.::
(SEAL) t'J:
�i'� 't�IA; ��t�•
Signed: Nohary:IJUtl3rJtl' r.
NOT= —PPllgLWtEARM0Noft of too" 10 W #4land �pCL�, t
of a
CountyLkWW
(lintneeaWDISM 10 OCR ofte, cwgn dr.
Realden ild 01 -11 TMRopaM k awned
Baty Pohl Nks rte. the seblea pAolpAxly Y boaMd
Do DK and oa a s ner of Sapprmirratdlr 5..32 e�oae
Itis LA in bis rnaDWwcat a eco
tion d on Rags 41E. We
end hrhdah16vsCt
A hearing st Z3. parks In rhterest and
etteas shd has an appsrba ft lo bs head, M
be held by rb dm MW CCoia�. F1ald4 b Ilia Gaff" canedsd
Y a bce H 1Chambers 840 251h Streak Y FAdmktftft �br-
Ide an Tuesday. June 6. 1995. at go am
The Boar of Coady Canmkdoners rm adapt
q eEted, pr�ardee W" dsffld cow ft diem °e i w
A�r"M who may vrkh in arty dedabn
which may i'-3•mads at ftM need to an.
sin may a verbslin record of ft preoee -9 IS
made, whish hdidas tales and avldenha upon
vrit!dh the e�asl fe ted.
Arhy(itb wlho needs a apodal aooaario0atlonh ter
MIS r(�ebrq must ennead the awws Amabao
whhh OkabrTtles Ad (ADA) CbondniI'm ► d W74N=
aterotwh 223 at but 46 hen In adrwhsa d
BBBo�a'rd dCanh
LMWKChdMW
they 16. logs 1200616
7•
June, 6 1995 000K 95 Pgui 285
a"
Boa 1 95 wE 286
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/18/95:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEP TMENT HEAD -CONCURRENCE
Obert N. Keat g, A
Community Developmen Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICD S:, W.
Chief, Long -Ran a Planning
FROM: John Wachtel
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: May 18, 1995
RE: POINT KING, INC., REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 5.3
ACRES FROM CL TO OCR (RZON 95-03-0108)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of June 6, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to rezone approximately 5.3 acres from CL,
Limited Commercial District, to OCR, Office, Commercial,
Residential District. Located at the southwest corner of S.R. AlA
and Mooring Line Drive, the subject property is part of The
Moorings subdivision, and is owned by Point King, Inc.
On July 12, 1994, Halvorsen Development Corporation received site
plan approval to build the Sea Mist Shoppes, a 46,560 square foot
shopping center, on the subject property. Point King, Inc., with
the assistance of residents of the Moorings, has recently purchased
the site. The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary
zoning to develop the site with residential uses.
On April 27, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this
request to rezone the subject property to OCR.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is zoned CL, Limited Commercial District.
With the exception of some scattered trees, the site is vacant with
no native vegetation. Since the site consists of an entire block,
it is surrounded by roads and does not directly abut other
properties.
Residential zoning and residential uses predominate in this portion
of the county. To the northeast, west, and southwest of the site,
land is zoned RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3
units/acre), and is developed with single-family homes. To the
north and east of the site, land is zoned RM -10, Multiple -Family
Residential (up to 10 units/acre), and is developed with multiple -
June, 6 1995
family condominiums. To the south of the site is the Mooring's
Harbor Inn, a project which was approved as timeshare/rental
development. Like the subject property, the Harbor Inn site is
presently zoned CL.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and property to the south are designated C/I,
Commercial/ Industrial, on the future land use map. The C/I
designation permits various commercial and industrial zoning
districts. All other land surrounding the subject property is
designated L-1, Low -Density Residential -1, on the future land use
map. The L-1 designation permits residential uses with a density
up to 3 units/acre. The RM -10 zoned areas north and east of the
site were already developed and were allowed to remain when the
comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990.
Environment
As a cleared site, the subject property's natural condition has
been disturbed. No wetlands or native upland plant communities
exist on site. According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the
eastern portion of the subject property is not in a flood hazard
area. The western portion is within an "AE" 100 year floodplain,
with a minimum base flood elevation requirement of five feet NGVD.
Utilities and Services
The site is within the Urban
wastewater lines extend to
Water and Wastewater Plants.
Transportation System
Service Area of the county. Water and
the site from the City of Vero Beach
Bordering the subject property on the east, S.R. AlA is classified
as an urban principal arterial roadway on the future roadway
thoroughfare plan map. Currently a two-lane paved road with
approximately 100 feet of existing public road right-of-way, this
segment of S.R. AlA is programmed for expansion to four lanes by
2010.
Additionally, the site is bordered by Mooring Line Drive on the
north, Saw'linz Drive on the west, and Windward Way dii the seg th.
With the exception of Mooring Line Drive, which has approximately
120 feet of existing public road right-of-way, these are two-lane
paved local roads with approximately 60 feet of existing public
road right-of-way.
Zoning District Differences
As noted in the county's land development regulations, the CL
zoning dlistribt is intended to accowmodate the convenien" retail
and service needs of area residents. The OCR zoning district,
however, is oriented to less intense uses. According to county
regulations, the OCR zoning district is designed for office,
commercial, and residential development that is compatible with
nearby neighborhoods. Permitted uses within the OCR zoning
district include professional offices, limited services, and
single- and multiple- family residences. Most retail, service, and
other intense commercial uses are prohibited in the OCR district.
9
June, 6 1995
Boa 95 PnE OS' i
I
BOOK 95 r-, a288
The difference between the CL and OCR zoning districts is best
illustrated by the respective purpose statements of the two
districts. These purpose statements, found in the land development
regulations, are as follows:
• CL, Limited Commercial District, is intended to provide areas
for the development of restricted commercial activities. The
CL district is intended to accommodate the convenience retail
and service needs of area residents, while minimizing the
impact of such activities on any nearby residential areas.
OCR, Office, Commercial, Residential District, is intended to
provide areas for the development of restricted office,
commercial, and residential activities in a manner which will
be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. The OCR
district is further intended to provide land use controls for
ensuring the separation of potentially incompatible
activities, such as intense commercial uses, from established
residential areas.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
• concurrency of public facilities;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
• consistency with the comprehensive plan; and
• potential impact on environmental quality.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area
deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive plan
establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use
Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary
to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community.
The comprehensive plan also requires that new development be
reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these
services and facilities are maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no
development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the
concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is
required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since rezoning
requests are not projects, county regulations call for the
concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the
subject property based upon the requested zoning district. For
commercial rezoning requests, the most intense use (according to
the county's land development regulations) is retail commercial
with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre of land
proposed for rezoning. The site information used for the
concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Rezoned:
2. Land Use Designation:
June, 6 1995
M
10
M
t5.3 acres
C/I, Commercial/Industrial
M
30 Existing Zoning Classification:
CL, Limited Commercial
4. Proposed Zoning Classification: OCR, Office, Commercial,
Residential
5. Most Intense Use under Existing Zoning Classification:
±53,000 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in
the 5th Edition ITE Manual).
6. Most Intense Use under Proposed Zoning Classification:
±531000 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in
the 5th Edition ITE Manual).
As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of
the County's Land Development Regulations, projects which do not
increase density or intensity of use are exempt from concurrency
requirements. This rezoning request is exempt from concurrency
review because the requested zoning would not increase the use
intensity of the site.
By changing the zoning of the subject property from CL to OCR,
residential uses not currently allowed would be permitted on the
site. However, because the most intense use of the property would
be the same with either zoning district, changing the property's
zoning from CL to OCR would not create additional impacts on any
concurrency facilities.
When new development is proposed for the subject property, a more
detailed .concurrency analysis will be conducted during the
development approval process.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
The principal impacts of development of the subject property will
be on the surrounding residential areas. Compared to the site's
existing CL zoning, the proposed OCR zoning district is less
intense. In terms of noise, hours of operation, and traffic
generated, the impacts of OCR type development are less than the
impacts of CL type development. Consequently, development under
the OCR district would generally have fewer impacts than
development under CL zoning. For that reason, the proposed OCR
zoning of the site would be compatible with the surrounding
residential uses.
Either the existing CL, or the requested OCR zoning, would be
appropriate for the subject site. As the only Ci I des igaated land
on the barrier island south of the City of Vero Beach, the subject
property and the property to the south are appropriate for
commercial zoning. The existing CL zoning was originally intended
to accommodate a neighborhood retail center. Such a center could
meet the convenience retail needs of area residents, while creating
only limited impacts on surrounding areas.
In the past, several development proposals were submitted for the
subject site and approved. Each was for a neighborhood retail
center. Prone, however, was built. Following substantial
neighborhood opposition to the most recent development proposal for
the site (Sea Mist Shoppes), the applicant for this rezoning
purchased the property with the intention of developing residences
on the site.
Since the current CL zoning of the subject property allows
residential development only as an accessory use, the applicant
cannot develop the property for residential use without zoning
11
June, 6 1995
booK 95 F, a 289
FF-
Boa
changes. There are two principal alternatives available to the
applicant which would allow residential development of the
property. These are:
1. Amend the comprehensive plan to redesignate the site to a
residential land use designation while simultaneously rezoning
the site to a residential zoning. This alternative would cost
$1,100.00 and take approximately 9 months.
2. Rezone the site to OCR. This alternative would cost $850.00
and take approximately 3 months. The applicant has chosen
this alternative.
Both the applicant and surrounding land owners have indicated a
need for a high degree of control of impacts of the 'subject
property. The proposed OCR zoning district provides that control,
while continuing to allow the development of residential, office,
and limited business and personal service uses on the site.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of
the comprehensive plan. Rezonings must also be consistent with the
overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use
Map, which include agriculture, residential, recreation,
conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their
densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in
nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are
important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing
rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request is
the following policy.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 states that the commercial land
use designation is intended for uses such as retail and wholesale
trade, offices; business and personal services, residential
treatment centers, limited residential uses, and other similar type
uses. In addition, that policy states that all commercial uses
must be located within an existing or future urban service area.
Since the subject property is located within a commercial/
industrial node within the county's urban service area, the request
is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15.
While the referenced policy is particularly applicable to this
request, other comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have
relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the subject request
for consistency with all plan policies and objectives. Based upon
that analysis, staff determined that the request is consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
June, 6 1995
M
12
M
M
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
Staff's position is that the requested zoning change will not
negatively impact the environmental quality of this previously
disturbed site. Since the property has been cleared, county native
upland preservation regulations do not apply. Based upon its
analysis, staff has determined that the environmental impacts of
development of the subject property will be the same under either
the current CL zoning or the requested OCR zoning.
Conclusion
The requested zoning is compatible with the surrounding area,
consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
comprehensive plan, and meets all applicable concurrency criteria.
The subject property is located in an area deemed suitable for a
mix of office, restricted commercial, and residential uses. The
request meets all applicable criteria. Staff supports the request.
Recommendation
The Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the
subject property from CL to OCR.
Community Development Director Robert Keating commented that
he didn't know anybody that is against this request for rezoning.
Chairman Macht opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
John MacLean, 139 Anchor Drive, recalled that last summer 980
of the people in the Moorings were in favor of this rezoning. He
noted that the total value of this property will be higher than if
it had developed with a supermarket, etc. He emphasized that the
tax base will increase also.
Ed Goldman, current president of the Moorings Property Owners
Association, confirmed that the membership is greatly in favor of
this rezoning.
Keith Pelan of Urban Resource Group commented on what a
difference it months can make. He introduced Jim Upton, the
developer of this property.
13 BOOK fti�E
June, 6 1995
BOOK 5 PnE 29+2
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the Public Hearing.
Alice White, Executive Aide to BCC, presented the following
memo dated 6/5/95:
June 5, 1995
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
John Wachtell brought in.three letters today regarding the proposed
rezoning request in the Moorings subdivision. Two of the letters
indicate a desire to leave the property zoned commercial, and one
letter requests that the property,,be rezoned to OCR
Alice White
Executive Aide
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 95-11, rezoning approximately 5.3 acres
from CL to OCR
14
June, 6 1995
L—_ J
ORDINANCE NO. 95- 11
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM CL TO
OCR, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF S.R.
AlA AND MOORING LINE DRIVE, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND
PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and.. subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning requests' at. which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
Lot 57 of the "Moorings" Unit 2, as recorded in Plat Book 8,
page 28-A of the public records of Indian River County,
Florida.
Be changed from CL to OCR.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Land Development Regulations.
15 a�nK dal
June, 6 1995
wx 95 PAcE 294
ORDINANCE NO. 95-11
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 6th day of June, 1995.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 15th day of May, 1995 for a public hearing to be held on the
6th day of June, 1995 at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Adams , and
adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIA RIVER COUNTY
BY:
enneth.R. Macht,Ch� rman
ATTEST BY:
Jeffrey K. on, Clerk
/7.�:- ,
Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 14th day of June , 1995.
Effective Date: Acknowledgement from the Department of State
received on this 16th day of June , 1995, at 10:30
A.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
William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney
Robert M. Ke i g, ICP meirI Rivas Co At {,; a� epi
Community Developme t Di ctor Date
Admin, r.C--
Legal S 30
U%V%j\M=W.ord Bridget
Dept --
Risk Mgr.
16
June, 6 1995
QUEST FOR A PARTIAL ABANDONMENT OF 47TH STREET
RIGHT-OF-WAY - DELOIS WOOER
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney
announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised, ;,as
follows:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily lo
Vero Beach. Indian River County. Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority paisonally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he Is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach In Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
In the matter
_
'---'"-lama Of 011111LIbwM—
Nolte d heaft 1e eanaklIr a Alan for ftmeq, a�endor. 0 and raetlon d app�tbn d
471h 8tree1 **me 10 Lot ti
L. PM Vbw CrIA
d hoer t4'w" tFb a lands nd balnD h t►!
Who and j;in in kwon War ,'em". Boni.
ihePwb t PVodAaftdd aiK
Tho prom d Qlh street'GIMM r q'
boos_! b L01 ti, Block 4 d the Plit d Pkb
r o d9 c1 k dm ld„ver�0ardy. Fbrkkla�L d
ap' d here air ��h ��b be b=or
r w n1� aerd a Ca1�1ir Canniada�era d
Inft Court, was pub- y tMp'
We on MR
fished In said newspaper M the Issues of i mn be erode r
nreft Vol"opp �!idea
A YhON @iM{0
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press•Joumal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach. In said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published In sold Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter.at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty. Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement: and ofltanl further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn fo aw subscribetirlostme It. .Sday of A.D. 19
:n (Business Manage
� ii ir.ll r � Ii•d•Nn;, , ^ I
let
�'•� '�,•.:01L��:`',
b any d10 M
eeldon .
qM
A MIECIM. ACCOMMODA-. t
ass.
"M RMIR COUNTY
BOARD OF OMM F MeclitChdman
�
L*IMM 1200541
Planning Director Stan Boling presented staff's recommendation
for approval of the Buckner request for a partial abandonment of
47th Street right-of-way:
17
June, 6 1995
J
BOOK 95ou 296
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D ISI N HEAD CONCURRENCE:
o ert M. K ti g, P
Community Devvelopme Dir for
THROUGH: Stan Boling"4&ICP
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AIC60A
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: May 31, 1995
SUBJECT: Delois Buckner's Request for a Partial Abandonment of
47th Street Right -of -Way
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of June 6, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Delois Buckner has submitted a petition for the abandonment of a
portion of the 47th Street right-of-way between 39th Avenue and
40th Avenue. The applicant is requesting that a 5' strip of right-
of-way for 47th Street that is contiguous to her lot be abandoned.
The subject right-of-way segment is located approximately 350' east
of 40th Avenue on 47th Street (see attachment #2).
The applicant is seeking abandonment of the 5' strip to cure a
setback violation. The violation is the result of construction
that was commenced on a house addition, which is too close to the
front property line. If the 5' right-of-way strip is abandoned,
then the addition will meet the front yard setback, and the
frontyard setback violation will be cured.
ANALYSIS:
The existing 60' right-of-way for 47th Street was created via the
Pine View Park subdivision plat. While sixty feet is the minimum
right-of-way width for a local road designed with swale type
drainage, only 50' is required where curb and gutter drainage is
used. Pine View Park was platted with 60' rights-of-way, even
though it was constructed with a curb and gutter system..
Therefore, the width of the right-of-way could be reduced by 101,
5' on each side of the roadway, and still comply with the 50' wide
right-of-way width minimum required in the LDRs. The 5' strip will
remain as a utility and drainage easement. The applicant will need
to sign a drainage and utility easement document for the 5' strip
prior to the recording of the resolution.
18
June, 6 1995
Per guidelines established by the Board of County Commissioners,
the petition was reviewed by all county divisions and utility
providers having jurisdiction or potential interests within the
right-of-way. All reviewing agencies and departments have
recommended approval of the requested abandonment, with the
reservation of an easement for utilities and drainage. This right-
of-way is not part of the roadway system as noted on the County
Thoroughfare Plan, and is not needed for the thoroughfare system.
The abandonment would not affect the right of convenient access to
the subject property or to surrounding properties. Also, the
County Attorney's Office has reviewed and approved the attached
abandonment resolution for legal form and sufficiency.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners:
1. Abandon its rights to the subject 5' right-of-way strip, with
the condition that a drainage and utilities easement be
executed by the applicant for the 5' strip prior to recording
the resolution, and
2. Authorize the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to
execute the attached abandonment resolution.
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 approved
staff's recommendation as set out in the above memo
and adopted Resolution 95-65, providing for the
closing, abandonment, vacation and discontinuance of
a portion of 47th Street between 39th Avenue and
40th Avenue said land lying in Indian River County,
FL.
June, 6 1995
I
Bou 95 FAGS298
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 65
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING,
ABANDONMENT, VACATION AND DISCONTINUANCE OF A PORTION OF
47TH STREET BETWEEN 39TH AVENUE AND 40TH AVENUE SAID LAND
LYING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, on March 7, 1995 Indian River County received a duly
executed and documented petition from Delois Buckner of Vero Beach,
Florida, requesting that the County close, vacate, abandon,
discontinue, renounce and disclaim any right, title and interest of
the County and the public in and to a portion of 47th Street
between 39th Avenue and 40th Avenue, said lands lying in Indian
River County, Florida.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes 336. 10, notice of
a public hearing to consider said petition was duly published; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the petition, supporting
documents, staff Investigation and report, and testimony of all
those interested and present, the board finds that the subject
right-of-way is not a state or federal highway, nor located within
any municipality, nor is said right-of-way necessary for continuity
of the County's street and thoroughfare network, nor access to any
given private property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
1. All right, title and interest of the County and the public in
and to that certain right-of-way being known more particularly as:
Begin at the Northwest corner of Lot 5, Block 4 of
Pineview Park, Unit 2 as shown on the plat thereof
recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 44 of the Public Records of
Indian River County, Florida, and run
On the extension northerly of the West line of the said
Lot 5 a distance of 5 feet. Then run
Easterly, parallel with the North line of Lot 5, a
distance of 60 feet to the Northerly extension of the
East line of Lot 5. Then run
Southerly, along the extension, a distance of 5 feet to
the Northeast corner of Lot 5.
Westerly, along the North line of Lot 5, a distance of 60
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. .
Lying in .Indian River County, Florida.
is hereby forever closed, abandoned, vacated, discontinued,
renounced and disclaimed.
2. The closing, vacation, abandonment, discontinuance and
disclaimer of this public right-of-way is in the best
interests of the public.
3. Notice of the adopting of this resolution shall be forthwith
published once within thirty (30) days from the date of
adoption hereof; and
4. This abandonment is conditional upon the petitioner executing
a drainage and utility easement for the above referenced 5'
strip, prior to the recording of this resolution. Said
easement to be recorded immediately following the recording of
this resolution.
20
June, 6 1995
5. The Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution
together with the proofs of publication.required by Florida
Statutes 336.10'in the Official Record Books of Indian River
County without undue delay.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commission
Eggert who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Adams , and upon being put to a vote,
the vote was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye -
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 6. day of. `,June , 1995.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN R ER C LORID
BY:
enneth `Mac ,- Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
ATTEST:
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
to of Flor
4j��= C ty J,�qd- an iver
21
June, 6 1995
h7
BOOAfirig N4 _
1
1
N
N
Lot 6
100,
Pineview Park
o Unit 2
�o Block 4
Lot 5
100,
Lot 4
CERTIFICATION
P.O.B.
60'
SCALE: 1 p=20'
EASEMENT DESCRIPTION
Begin at the Northwest corner of Lot 5, Block 4 of
Pineview Pork, Unit 2 as shown on the plat thereof
recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 44 of the Public Records
of Indian River County, Florida, and run
On the extension Northerly of the West line of the
said Lot 5 a distance of 5 feet. Then run
Easterly, parallel with the North line of Lot 5, a
distance of 60 feet to the Northerly extension of the
East line of Lot 5. Then run
Southerly, along the extension, a distance of 5 feet
to the Northeast comer of Lot 5. Then run
Westerly, along the North line of Lot 5, a distance
of 60 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Lying in Indian River County, Florida.
I, Charles A. Cramer, hereby certify that I am a registered Professional Land Surveyor licensed to practice in the state
of Florida, that this sketch was made under my immediate supervision, and that it is accurate and correct. I further
certify that this sketch meets the Minimum Technical standards as described in Chapter 61G17 of the Florida Admin—
istrative Code, pursuant to F.S. Chapter 472.
Charles A. Cramer, P.L.S.-Re g. #4094
Indian River County Surveyor
1840 25th St, Vero Beach, FL 32960
(407) 567-8000
PREPARED FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
THIS IS NOT A SURVEY
SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Date ZS%/Jii.
W
SCALE: 1 p=20'
EASEMENT DESCRIPTION
Begin at the Northwest corner of Lot 5, Block 4 of
Pineview Pork, Unit 2 as shown on the plat thereof
recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 44 of the Public Records
of Indian River County, Florida, and run
On the extension Northerly of the West line of the
said Lot 5 a distance of 5 feet. Then run
Easterly, parallel with the North line of Lot 5, a
distance of 60 feet to the Northerly extension of the
East line of Lot 5. Then run
Southerly, along the extension, a distance of 5 feet
to the Northeast comer of Lot 5. Then run
Westerly, along the North line of Lot 5, a distance
of 60 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Lying in Indian River County, Florida.
I, Charles A. Cramer, hereby certify that I am a registered Professional Land Surveyor licensed to practice in the state
of Florida, that this sketch was made under my immediate supervision, and that it is accurate and correct. I further
certify that this sketch meets the Minimum Technical standards as described in Chapter 61G17 of the Florida Admin—
istrative Code, pursuant to F.S. Chapter 472.
Charles A. Cramer, P.L.S.-Re g. #4094
Indian River County Surveyor
1840 25th St, Vero Beach, FL 32960
(407) 567-8000
PREPARED FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
THIS IS NOT A SURVEY
SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Date ZS%/Jii.
REQUEST BY CITY OF SEBASTIAN TO SCHEDULE AND CONDUCT
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 5/25/95:
City of Sebastian
1225 MAIN STREET o SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958:a1 -*'1`
TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 0 FAX (407) 589-5570'._; MA)r1'�V�
r- C;�ton
May 25, 1995 :s
Mr. James Chandler
Administrator
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Mr. Cha er.
During the regular scheduled meeting of the City Council on May 24, 1995, a
proposal was set forth regarding the possibility of combining the public hearing
requirements as mandated by FS 125.3401 and FS 180.301. The basic thought
is to save time on the part of both level of governments. The tentative date
suggested is June 28, 1995, and the City would like to invite County
Commissioners to meet at City Hall. I would appreciate your review of this
suggestion and share with me your thoughts regarding the possibility of
conducting a joint public hearing. The City Council, hovurever, is availabl- �a
meet at any place and time which is mutually convenient. If both the City and the
County staff can finalize the proposed terms of sale, the City is interested in
affecting the transfer as rapidly as possible.
I appreciate your assistance in this matter of mutual interest.
Sincerely,
J el L. Koford
City Manager
JLKJjmt
BOX t f'."1' 1
23
June, 6 1995
Joel Koford, City Manager of Sebastian, presented Sebastian Is
request for a joint public hearing.
Commissioner Adams felt it would be beneficial to hold the
public hearing jointly, and she suggested it be held in the third
week of July.
Commissioner Eggert had no problem with holding it in
Sebastian, but remembered joint meetings in the past that were held
in Sebastian on controversial issues.
Commissioner Bird believed we have two different audiences who
could benefit from two separate meetings - the Sebastian residents
and current County Utilities customers.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously established
two separate public hearings, as recommended by
Administrator Chandler.
AMENDMENT TO UTILITY FRANCHISES BETWEEN THE COUNTY
AND CITY OF VERO BEACH REGARDING RE -USE WATER ON
SOUTH BEACH
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/31/95:
TO: Board of County Co issioners
FROM: CharlseP. Vitunac, Coun y Attorney
DATE: May 31, 1995
RE: Amendment to Utility Franchises between the
County and City roe South Beach Re -Use Water
The City of Vero Beach is the utility provider for the South Beach area
under franchises given by the Board of County Commissioners sometime
ago. By the attached letter from the City Attorney's Office, the City
is requesting that the franchises be amended to clarify that the City
has the right to construct and operate a re -use water system as part of
its utility providing authority.
The Department of Utility Services and the County Attorney's Office
believe that the re -use of treated effluent is subsumed in the
definition of wastewater service; however, there is no harm in
clarifying that in the franchise agreement. The problem occurs with the
City's request that the 6% County franchise fee not be levied against
their re -use water charges. Since the franchise fee money does not
return to the utilities department, the utilities department expresses
no opinion on the City's proposal.
The Administrator's recommendation is attached to this item and staff
respectfully requests direction from the Board.
24
June, 6 1995
� r �
Chairman Macht asked that this item be moved up on the Agenda
to allow Vero Beach city officials to get back to their jobs.
Administrator Chandler stressed that this is a difficult
recommendation to make because we all have been subjected to
mandates. Our concern is the potential for setting a precedent.
Tom Nason, Vero Beach City Manager, recapped that we got into
this through a mandate of the DEP. This was further mandated by
the St. Johns River Water Management District with regard to deep
well injections. All they are asking is that the re -use water be
a part of the water system. Mr. Nason did not feel there is any
potential for setting a precedent.
Larry Braisted, City Attorney for Vero Beach, offered to
answer any technical questions on the legalities of the agreement.
OMB Director Joe Baird was concerned about setting a precedent
with other franchises in the County.
Dorothy Hudson, attorney representing the Moorings Property
Owners Association, urged the Board not to impose the 6% franchise
fee on re -use water.
Administrator Chandler stated that at the present time the
County does not have any customers paying a 6% franchise fee on
re -use water.
Commissioner Tippin thought the attorneys could get together
and come up with some wording that would not set a precedent.
Commissioner Bird agreed that we need to look at the total
picture and make a decision on whether imposing a 6% tax is the
proper thing to do. If we think that encouraging people to use
re -use water is the thing to do, then we should go ahead and not
impose the franchise fee.
Commissioner Adams thought we should do what we can to
encourage people to use re -use water.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously tabled
this item for two weeks for further recommendations
and a better definition of re -use water.
Marvin brook, vice president of the Moorings Property Owners
Association, advised that he has been working on this matter with
the City of Vero Beach for the last few years, and they want to be
treated just like anyone else. Ifnobody else is paying this, they
don't want to pay it.
25 BON
June, 6 1995
L-
CONSIDERATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
PLAN
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/26/95:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
SION HEAD
Community Developme*t Di e
FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP/S•
Chief, Long -mange Planning
DATE: May 26, 1995
RE: Consideration of Economic Development Strategy Plan
It is requested that the
consideration by the Board
meeting of June 6, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
data herein presented be given formal
of County Commissioners at their regular
Recently, the Board of County Commissioners held a workshop meeting
which focused on utility issues, transportation issues, and
potential economic development incentives. Among the items
discussed at the workshop meeting was the dr -aft Indian River County
Economic Development Strategy Plan.
The Economic Development Strategy Plan is one of the work products
required by the county's current contract with the Economic
Development Administration. As structured, the economic
development strategy plan includes an inventory and analysis of all
major factors affecting economic development in Indian River
County, including tourism. Based upon that inventory and analysis,
a recommended set of strategic actions was developed. Finally, an
evaluation and monitoring process was included in the plan to allow
for an assessment of the progress made in meeting the plan's
objectives.
On January 24, 1995, and March 28, 1995, the Economic Development
Council (EDC) reviewed the draft of the Economic Development
Strategy plan and provided comments to staff. The staff then
incorporated those changes in the plan and presented the revised
draft to the EDC on April 25, 1995. At that time, the Economic
Development Council reviewed and approved the Economic Development
Strategy plan with some changes.
Since copies of the draft Economic Development Strategy Plan were
distributed as backup for the recent workshop meeting, a copy of
the plan is not attached to this agenda item. Staff, however, has
filed a copy of the draft strategy plan with the BCC office.
26
June, 6 1995
4
ANALYSIS
The county's current Overall Economic Development Plan (OEDP)
served as the basis for developing the Economic Development
Strategy Plan (EDSP). For that reason, the strategy plan closely
relates to the OEDP. Consequently, some of the objectives and
strategic actions identified in the strategy plan are the same as
objectives and policies of the OEDP. Based on the results of the
county's recently completed economic base study, other pertinent
market and labor information, and extensive input by the Chamber of
Commerce and the Council of 100, the Economic Development Strategy
Plan represents an extension and update of the OEDP.
As drafted, the strategy plan contains various actions to be
undertaken by the county, the Chamber of Commerce, the Council of
100, and several other entities. Besides involving staff time and
personnel costs, some of the proposed strategies also require other
-expenditures.
As with any other plan, implementation is the most important part
of the strategy plan. Unless the strategic actions identified in
the plan are implemented, the plan's objectives will not be met.
Therefore, it is important to ensure that strategic actions are
acceptable and that responsible agencies have the ability to
implement them.
• ALTERNATIVES
With respect to the proposed Indian River County Economic
Development Strategy Plan, the Board of County Commissioners has
three alternatives. These are:
• To approve the plan as proposed
• To approve the plan with changes
• To reject the proposed plan
Either of. the first two alternatives will ensure that the county
will fulfill its obligation as part of the contract with the
Economic Development Administration and have more focused economic
development strategies to improve the county's economic development
situation. TJjG, t4iru alternative will jeopardize the county's
contract with the Economic Development Administration. Staff
supports the first alternative.
RECOMMENDATION
The Economic Development Council and the staff recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed Indian River
County Economic Development Strategy Plan and direct staff to
submit a copy of the approved plan to the Economic Development
Administration.
27
June, 6 1995
:�0)i
to e7
5 KT -61
Commissioner Adams questioned the other expenditures that
might be necessary, and Commissioner Eggert advised that they would
be coming back for approval.
Chairman Macht mentioned the electrical company that just
announced it was leaving the county, and he asked if the Council of
100 had known beforehand.
Commissioner Eggert understood that they knew only one day
before it came out in the newspaper.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the proposed Indian River Economic Development
Strategy Plan and directed staff to submit a copy to
the Economic Development Administration.
IRC ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY PLAN IS ON
FILE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSION OFFICE
DEVELOPER AGREEMENTS FOR THE INDIAN RIVER MALL
PROTECT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/31/95:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
ISIQNT,HEAD CONCURRENCE:
MWb*rt ' M. Reafti`ng;
Community Developmo
FROM: Stan Boling,
Planning Director
DATE: May 31, 1995
SUBJECT: Developer Agreements for the Indian River Mall Project
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of June 6, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
For several weeks, staff and representatives and agents of the
DeBartolo Corporation have drafted, reviewed, and negotiated three
agreements relating to development of the Indian River Mall
project, which includes a mall, shopping center, and peripheral
development. The agreements include a water and sanitary sewer
agreement, a local development agreement, and a transportation
impact fee and credits agreement.
28
June, 6 1995
W
M M
Planning staff has coordinated closely with public works, utility
services, the attorney's office, emergency services, and
environmental health in the review of these agreements. Through
this process, the proposed agreements have been structured in a
manner acceptable to staff and the developer. The Board of County
Commissioners is now to review and consider approval of these
agreements.
ANALYSIS:
•Water and Sanitary Sewer Agreement
Utility Services staff have reviewed the water and sanitary sewer
agreement and have determined that the agreement is acceptable (see
attachment #2). The agreement specifies developer and county
responsibilities in regards to: construction and maintenance of
various utilities improvements, an initial concurrency
determination for water and sewer capacity that has already been
reserved for the project, on site water and sewer easements, and
treated effluent re -use.
•Local Development Agreement
The local development agreement addresses many development issues,
and specifies the following:
1. The limits of county streetlighting requirements.
2. The developer's responsibility to construct an 8' wide
bikepath along the project's SR 60 frontage, within a 10' wide
easement.
3. The county's obligation to assist the developer in requesting
that FDOT reclassify the segment of SR 60 from 58th Avenue to
66th Avenue.
4. The developer and county obligations for maintenance and
operation of the to -be -installed traffic signals at SR 60/66th
Avenue and SR 60/project entrance "F" intersections.
5. The developer's means of satisfying a development order (D.O.)
condition relating to mass transit (buses) and ridesharing.
6. The developer's options and general procedures for platting
all or a portion of the project.
7. The developer's open spade obligations and distribution of
open space throughout the project.
8. The developer's landscaping and buffer requirements along SR
60, 66th Avenue, and within the project parking areas.
9. The developer's obligation to provide interconnections between
the project and vacant property north of the project
(currently owned by the developer) and commercial property
east of the project (along SR 60).
10. The developer's ability, subject to agreement by the Indian
River Farms Water Control District, to use the east 10' of a
30' wide canal maintenance easement that is to be dedicated to
the county and the Indian River Farms Water Control District.
11. The developer's parking and loading space obligations.
12. The developer's obligations for preserving and establishing -
conservation easements.
13. The developer's limitations on initial land clearing.
29.
June, 6 1995 BON 9, - �Na.
Book 95 ;0
14. The developer's obligation to present to and obtain approval
from the Board of County Commissioners regarding project
signage.
15. The developer's obligations regarding stormwater system
access, stormwater system location, and parking lot
maintenance.
16. The developer's satisfaction of or method of satisfying.D.O.
requirements relating to management plans for hazardous
materials, wetland/littoral zones, and conservation area
habitat.
17. The developer's ability, under planning staff's interpretation
of LDR building height allowances, to exclude certain building
features (e.g. roof equipment, skylight and window structures)
from the county's 35' height limitation.
18. The developer's satisfaction of certain D.O. conditions
relating to police and fire protection services.
*Transportation Impact Fee and Credits Agreement
This agreement, pursuant to provisions of the county's traffic
impact fee ordinance (Chapter 953), grants a traffic impact fee
credit to the developer for widening SR 60 and improving the 66th
Avenue/26th Street intersection. The agreement provides for the
following:
1. Assessment of the Mall, for transportation impact fee
purposes, based upon gross leasable area (excludes mall
"concourse" and other common areas) and assessment of the
shopping center and peripheral development based upon gross
floor area.
2. Use of the traffic impact fee rate for large retail projects
for all uses and buildings within the project, with the
exception of the peripheral development.
3. The specific amount of traffic impact fee credit to be given
for the SR 60 and 66th Avenue/26th Street improvements, based
upon cost estimates and designs provided by the developer and
reviewed by public works staff. Also, the agreement allows
for adjustments, approved by the Public Works Director, after
actual construction costs are known.
4. A determination of initial concurrency vesting for traffic,
for a specific amount of commercial development.
5. An arrangement, approved in concept by the Board of County
Commissioners at its April 18, 1995 meeting, whereby the
county will collect "traffic impact fees" from tenants and
lesees and distribute said fees, minus an administrative
charge, to the developer.
Staff's review of these proposed agreements indicates that they are
consistent with the LDRs, the D.O., and previous county approvals
and policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
three agreements and authorize the Chairman to execute each
agreement.
30
June, 6 1995
0
D.R.
walin
,tree
A Vft o --
a
"Oo
L,;L; rM I / ��
MMO
R
W
'doi "0
A
M-liq
Bom 95 mf 1
Planning Director Stan Boling advised that the three
agreements before the Board this morning finalize and memorialize
the way the LDRs and the D. 0. conditions are applied to this
project. He didn't feel the Board would find many new issues in
any of these development agreements, but these agreements do
specify the details. Director Boling advised that for the record
he would be highlighting some of the changes included in the
additional backup material distributed before the beginning of
today's meeting.
Director Boling highlighted the following changes in the
proposed interlocal agreement:
C) Reclassification of State Road 60: The County has
determined that State Road ('IS.R.") 60 may be
• reclassified from a class III to class V roadway, and
accordingly the County agrees to not object to any
developer- initated petition to the Florida Department of
Transportation ("FDOT") and the Indian River County
Metropolitan Planning Organization ("MPO") to reclassify
such roadway as a Class V roadway. The County
acknowledges that upon reclassification of S.R. 60 as a
Class V*roadway, the Developer may be entitled to remove
median turning movement restrictions and to construct a
signal and provide full access turning movements at
entrance "D" to the Development, which entrance is
generally depicted on Revised Map H, attached to and
incorporated in the Development Order, subject to FDOT
access management approval and meeting applicable
warrants.
grading shall be established as part of site plan review for
the Mall and/br Shopping Center. Such initial selective
clearing, grubbing and grading shall not be considered
"development", and therefore such areas shall not at that time
be subject to buffering or other development conditions
associated with development of the Peripheral Development.
32
June, 6 1995
.13) On-site Storm Drainage System:
A) The County acknowledges that under applicable
regulations, the Development shall not be required to
provide public access to detention areas, retention
areas, wetlands, or wetland mitigation areas , and the
County will not request that any such public access be
provided; however, the Developer, shall provide emergency
maintenance access to such areas as shown on the approved
site plan.
B) The - Developer, at its option, may utilize the
residentially zoned portion of the Property for the
'- stormwater system of the Development, as reflected in a
letter from William G. Collins II dated August 2, 1990,
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B".
C) Pursuant to condition 24 of the Development Order, the
Developer shall be responsible for implementing -a parking
lot sweeping program for the Mall and Shopping Center.
The . Peripheral Development developer(s) shall be
responsible for implementing a parking lot sweeping
program in connection with development. of such Peripheral
Development, as required under the Development Order.
14) Management Plans:
A) The hazardous materials management plan required under
condition 26 of the Development Order has been provided
by'the Developer, and accordingly such condition to the
issuance of building permits has been satisfied.
B) The habitat management plan required under condition 19
of the Development Order shall be' submitted by the
Developer for approval by the County and DCA, in
consultation with the TCRPC, prior to any clearing or
activity within the 4.7 acre cabbage palm hammock area.
15) Building Heights:
Under applicable Land Development Regulations, the
Development shall not exceed an average building height
of 35 feet as measured in accordance with applicable
County regulations. For* purposes of calculating maximum
heights of buildings, antennae, communication facilities,
e2cchan+cal equirnvnt, elr conditioning and condensing
units, roof structures for housing elevators, elevator
towers, and similar equipment, required to operate and
maintain buildings, architectural. features, such as
16) Fire Protection:
The County acknowledges that adequate fire
protection/emergency medical service is available to
serve the Development and that the Development has met
concurrency requirements for fire protection/emergency
medical service through buildout of the Development, as
evidenced by the letter dated May 1, 1995 from the Indian
River County Department of Emergency Services, attached
hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C".
Accordingly, the Developer has satisfied condition 36 of
the Development Order.
33
June, 6 1995
BOR nzt
V_
.�K
41
800X"95 ME-3
Director Boling next highlighted the changes in the agreement
on transportation impact fees and credits:
hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C". Based upon the
estimated transportation impact fee credit amount of $1,907,531 and
estimated contingencies indicated in Exhibit "C", and applying the
credit and estimated contingencies amounts toward the gross
leasable area of the Mall and the gross floor. area of the Shopping
Center and Peripheral Development, the County hereby determines
that 1,397,000 square feet of gross leasable area and gross floor
area are vested for initial concurrency through December 31, 1999.
5. The County acknowledges that the Developer requires that
all Users within the Development shall pay transportation impact
fees prior to issuance of any building permits to such Users, for
buildings, areas, spaces or land to be utilized by such Users. In
no event shall the County issue building permits to any such Users
until such transportation impact fees have been paid by such Users.
For Users within the Mall and the Shopping Center, evidence shall
be provided which confirms that the provisions set forth in Exhibit
"D" have been. included in such Users' leases or contracts or
I
therwise provided in writing to such Users prior to such Users
-making application for building permits. Upon receipt of such
transportation impact fees from Users within the Development, the
County will forward an -equal amount, less administrative costs of
.$100.00 per transaction, to Developer within 30 days of receipt.
Once the applicable transportation impact fee has been paid by a
User, and forwarded, less administrative costs, to the Developer,
no further transportation impact fees shall be assessed upon the
subject space,'area or land under this mechanism. This mechanism
shall be available to the Developer until such time that all of the
Developer's transportation impact fee credits granted pursuant to
the Development Order, as amended, and applicable provisions of the
Impact Fee Ordinance, have been paid back to the Developer through
this mechanism. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary,
the Developer shall have the option of directing the County not to
require such payments of transportation impact fees from individual
Users, but instead to apply such fees in favor of Users of other
buildings, spaces, areas or land within the Development. In no
event shall the County allow any Users to utilize any of the
Developer's trandportation impact fee credits without the prior
written approval of the Developer. Developer shall hold the County
harmless from any and all costs as a result of claims by Users,
including attorneys fees, or Developer's loss of anticipated
revenues from impact fee reimbursements, which may be incurred by
or during actual implementation of this agreement.
Chairman Macht asked if in the event of default by the tenant
the developer would be responsible for the payment of impact fees,
and Commissioner Bird explained that the developer is paying the
impact fees up front. This speaks to the reimbursement, so we are
protected.
Director Boling explained that the agreement states that the
developer is going to get credit for constructing improvements and
paying the impact fees up front.
Chairman Macht understood then that there is no way the County
is going to lose money, and Director Boling confirmed that to be
34
June, 6 1995
us
the case, explaining that these things have to be in place before
the C.O. is issued.
Director Boling recalled that when the D.O. was first
discussed last summer, a person who lives on an unpaved road across
from the mall on the south side of SR -60 asked if some improvements
to the aprons and turn -outs of those unpaved residential streets
could be included in the 6-laning of SR -60 to make it a safer
situation. Director Boling stated that the developer has said they
will take that into account when they apply for the D.O.T. permits
for the project.
Commissioner Eggert noted that "taken into account" and doing
it are two different things. She asked if the developer said they
would do it, and Director Boling replied affirmatively. He would
let the developer speak to that for the record, but it is staff's
understanding that they will propose to the D.O.T that these
improvements be included.
Commissioner Eggert asked if there is going to be adequate
buffering along SR -60 until such time as the peripheral sites are
developed.
Director Boling explained that the 500 -ft. setback between SR -
60 and the parking lot will be grassed. Protected trees in that
area will be left and a preservation area near the front driveway
will be totally left intact. The D.O. does not require the buffer
to be put in along SR -60 until the peripheral parcels are
developed.
Commissioner Adams stressed that we want this project to be
very clean and green.
Chairman Macht was very disappointed with the buffering along
SR -60 in front of Wal-Mart. He remembered that during discussions
on their landscaping the Board was assured that the buffer along
SR -60 would be dense and more or less opaque. It is not. It is
very transparent. In addition, he noticed that they had a big car
sale with a large tent erected very close to SR -60, right across
from residential.
Community Development Director Robert Keating explained that
they can, do that if they have sufficient parking, and they did gain
parking space from the Sam's that was never built.
Chairman Macht also noted that the Wal-Mart sign is very ugly,
and the Board members nodded in agreement.
Commissioner Eggert asked if we have any ability to go back to
Wal-Mart and ask them to do what they said they were going to do,
and Director Keating explained that there are a lot of big trees
along the front of Wal-Mart which include a lot of live oak trees.
80OX 9,5feV'b�E
35.
June, 6 1995
I
Even if there is not an opaque screen of up to 6 feet high, it is
aesthetic looking with a lot of big trees.
Director Boling advised that the hedging itself is 2 feet high
and is 1 -ft. up over the curb, giving a total of 3 feet.
Director Keating took this opportunity to invite the Board to
a field trip to visit the Dunlaughton corridor in Port Orange to
see how a corridor plan can really work.
Commissioner Tippin cautioned staff about getting into
architectural control in developing a corridor plan.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, to approve three agreements in
connection with the Indian River Mall Project:
1) Water and Sanitary Sewer Agreement
2) Local Development Agreement
3) Transportation Impact Fee and Credits
Agreement
Under discussion, Chairman Macht suggested a change under
Treated Wastewater Effluent Re -use. The last item states that
"Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Developer
shall have the option to utilize potable water for irrigation of
building perimeter landscaping." He suggested the addition of
"until such time as re -use water is available".
Director Keating advised that the developer has said that the
re -use lines are almost there, at the corner of 66th Avenue and
26th Street, and Chairman Macht withdrew his suggestion to change
the wording.
Tom Marsicano of Greiner Engineering, speaking on behalf of
DeBartolo, stated they plan to irrigate the overall site with
re -use water, but there is a concern that re -use water might
discolor the exterior walls if it is used to irrigate the flower
beds around the buildings.
Responding to Chairman Macht's question, Administrator
Chandler explained that our maintenance of lift station pumps
varies depending on the location. It is not uniform that we do it
everywhere. It is in our best interests, however.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The
Motion was voted on and carried unanimously.
THREE AGREEMENTS ARE ON FILE IN OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
36
June, 6 1995
r
r
NEW COUNTY COURTHOUSE - ART DISPLAY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/19/95:
DATE: MAY 19, 1995
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERV E
SUBJECT: NEW COUNTY COURTHOUSE - ART DISPLAY
BACKGROUND:
Jo Kelly, President of the Artist Guild Gallery of Vero Beach has
made a request to display some of their paintings in the new
courthouse. Ms. Kelly had made this request by telephone but I
requested she put it in writing as per the attached letter.
Since there are so many walls in this building that do not have
anything on them, I feel the paintings would be decorative as well
as impressive to people using that facility.
ANALYSIS:
In order to support the subject paintings and protect the walls, we
would have to install hangers such as is noW in the Libraries. It
would also be necessary to have insurance and an agreement that
would indemnify the County in case of damage.
If the Board approves this request, it is recommended that the
price of the painting not be displayed. It is also requested that
all Paintings be approved by Staff prior to installation.
Commissioner Eggert felt that one organization should not be
able to take over a display wall, and Commissioner Tippin suggested
that we form a committee and establish a policy before doing
anything further.
Commissioner Eggert felt we should limit a display period to
one month.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously tabled
this item and directed Director Dean to come back in
two weeks with a policy for displaying art.
June, 6 1995
ROSELAND COAMUNITY CENTER
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/11/95:
DATE: MAY 11, 1995
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TBRII: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SER CE
BUBJBCT: ROSELAND COMMUNITY CENTER
BACKGROUND:
As requested by the Board, staff has looked at the subject facility
in. an. effort to determine an estimated cost to install
airconditioning, insulation, replace windows and doors, and perform
other work that is required to meet ADA requirements.
The following is a breakdown of the costs:
1. Replace all windows and doors (Material Only)
2. Remove and replace front porch (overhead) and
Skirt underside of building (Materials Only)
3. Install new electrical panel and breakers
(Material Only)
4. Install central air/heat
5. Insulate ceiling, walls and floors
6. Re -roof all flat deck areas of building
7. Replace front door to meet ADA
S. Renovate restroom to meet ADA
9. Provide Handicap Parking
SUBTOTAL
$1,950.00
1,500.00
850.00
4,600.00
3,150.00
3,000.00
1,000.00
1,800.00
2,000.00
$19,850.00
The above cost reflects labor being performed by staff with
approximately 100 manhours. An estimated cost of $6,500 would be
incurred if the work is subcontracted entirely.
Funding for this project has not been provided for in this year's
budget.
Staff requests Board action as to what direction should be taken on
this project.
38
June, 6 1995
Administrator Chandler recommended that this project be funded
through the MSTU contingencies.
General Services Director Sonny Dean advised that two
additional requests are pending. Rockridge would like their air
conditioning improved and Douglas School is bringing in a
request.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to proceed with the work at Roseland Community
Center with funding from MSTU contingencies.
BID NO. 50-62 - INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO
CR -510 & 66TH AVENUE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/31/95:
aa'aa�a�a.eoses4�aeaaaaaaaaaaa�aaa�aaaaaaaaeaaaaa
TO: James E. Chandler DATE; May 31, 1995
County Adminlstrator
THROUGH: H.T. "Sonny" Dean
General Services Direct r
AND
Fran Boynton •Poael
Purchasing Manager
FROM: Roger D. Coln, P.E.
County Englneer
SUBJECT: Bld .No: 50-62
Iniersectlon Improvements to CR510 & 66th Avenge
- IRC Projeci.No. 9301
Bid -Opening Date: May 25. 1995
Specifications Obtained by: Four 4 Vendors
Replies: One fll Vendors
D.TABUTATION
UNIT PRICE
g Company
#1, Unit #9436
L 32958
r
$482,243.12
BUDGETED AMOUNT: Account No. 101-153-541-067.68. $300.000.00
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that this bid be rejected and the Road & Bridge Division be directed to
perform this work.
No other alternatives are presented.
June 6 1995
601K mf 318
General Services Director Sonny Dean advised that this item
has been bid twice in order to bring it down to where we felt it
should be.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, to award Bid 50-62 to Martin
Paving in the amount of $482,243.12.
Under discussion, Commissioner Adams asked if we have time to
do this, and Public Works Director Jim Davis was comfortable that
we can handle it this year. The 66th Avenue pipe work probably
will be done by mid-July.
Commissioner Adams understood that we would be looking at
completion by mid-September.
Director Davis advised that we hope to put the signal up this
summer, which should solve the traffic problem.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
The Motion carried unanimously.
GOLF COURSE CAPITAL BUDGET REVISION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/23/95:
DATE: MAY 23, 1995
TO: MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM6lISSIONERS
THRU: MR. JAMES E. CHANDLER, CAUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: GOLF COURSE CAPITAL BTAGET REVISION
FROM: BOB KOMARINE=., npIJd=QR )OF GOLF
According to the approved 1994-95 Capital Budget for the golf
course, $190,000.00, has been ear marked for the Phase I "Dunes"
renovation project. This would include the reconstruction and
relocation of the #18 green complex and the reconstruction of
greens 1 thru 8.
The bid process for the reconstruction of #18 is under way with
construction to start in the near future. The estimated cost is
$50,000.00.
After further reviewing the remainder of the above reconstruction,
staff is requesting to defer the rebuilding of greens 1 thru 8 at
the present time. Staff feels that it would be most beneficial to
use the remaining $140,000.00 to construct desperately needed
golf cart paths. These paths will enable the golf courses to
remain open during wet conditions caused by rain and maintain
revenues. These paths will also help the golf course in the long
term by reducing wear from golf cart and the cost of course
maintenance.
40
June, 6 1995
The majority of the golf cart paths will be installed on the
"Dunes" course with some path extensions on the "Lakes" course. It
will all depend on the cost per lineal foot.
RECOMMENDATION
Board of County Commissioners approve the construction of
additional golf cart paths for the Sandridge Golf Club.
FONDS AVAILABLE: ACCOUNT # 418-221-572-066-39
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the construction of additional golf cart paths for
the Sandridge Golf Club, as recommended by staff.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ORDNANCE INVESTIGATION
PROTECT - SOUTH BEACH
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/18/95:
TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director Cr
SUBJECT: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) -
Ordnance Investigation Project - South Beach
DATE: May 18, 1995
On May 16, 1995, Jim Boone and Robert Bridgers both employed by the USACOE in
Jacksonville, FL, telephoned me to explain that the preliminary field reconnaissance work
for the subject project including a survey of the South Beach area is complete. The work
consisted of above ground magnetometer surveys to detect metal objects beneath the
ground surface. The government used this area in the 1940's for military training
including ordnance testing.
A map has been prepared showing those areas where metal objects were detected. The
COE personnel, Robert Bridgers, Jim Boone (phone 904-232-2583), and technical manager
Bill Davis (phone 205-895-1542), are scheduled to arrive in Vero Beach on June 5, 1995
to brief staff on the results of the field work. The COE staff will present the preliminary
findings to the Board at the June 6, 1995 meeting. That evening, the COE staff will be
reporting to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners the result of the same
study in north St. Lucie County.
866, : �,
41•
June, 6 1995
BOOK 95 FACE 320
Eventually, the COE will prepare a Final Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis from
which an Action Plan will be prepared. I would recommend that Doug Wright,
Emergency Services, Charlie Vitunac, County Attorney, Bob Keating, Community
Development Director, Terry Pinto, Utilities Director, and you attend this meeting on
June 5 with me.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Public Works Director Jim Davis introduced Robert Bridgers and
William Davis of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who distributed
copies of an informational hand-out.
Project Location
The former U.S. Naval Amphibious Training Base, Fort
Pierce, FL (forma FL Pierce NATB), consisting of
approximately 19,000 acres, was located on North and
South Hutchinson Islands in Indian Riva, St. Lucie, and
Martin Counties, FL. Situated on barrier islands, the site
is long and narrow. extending approximately 23 miles
from rmrttn-northwest to south-southeast. The northern
extent of areas Identified as likely to contain
conventional ordnance and explosive wastehmexploded
ordnance (0EWA1X0) Is near the southeast boundary of
Vero Beach. FL, and the southernmost of time areas Is
am Nettles Island Jost north of Jensen Beach, Fl.
Site Illstory
The former FL Pierce NATB site was established In 1942
as a World War R (WWII) naval amphibious training
base. Development of the hoes first training activity
was focused near Ft Pierce inlet. on South Hutchinson
Island, and a filled extension of South Hutchinson Island
(mown as Causeway Island. The base extended north
about as far as Queen's Cove on North Hutchinson Island
(including the Naval Combat Demolition Unit Area).
The base camp. Including troop quarters, was on
Causeway Island, and training exercises were conducted
on outlying areas of North and South Hutchinson Islands.
During 1943, the Joint Army Navy Experimental and
Testing Board (JANE'1) was established at the former
FL Pierce NATE. JANErs mission was to develop and
test procedures for breaking through (breaching) and
removing beach fortifications expected to be encountered
In Europe and Japan. JANET operations extended north
from the Naval Combat Demolition Unit Area on North
Hutchinson Island toward Veto Beach. Along this
northern portion of the forte Ft. Pierce NATB, beeches
were fortified, and alternative techniques for breaching
and removing time fortifications were tested. When
JANET was established, some of the conventional
training activities were relocated from North Hutchinson
Island to South Hutchinson Island, specifically the small
amts artillery range.
The U.S. Achy Chemical Warfare Service Medical and
Technical Divisions, charged with the task of studying
Me persistence of mustard in the beach environment,
operated at the former FL Pierce NATB from
approximately late 1943 to February 1944. Mustard
simulant and limited amounts of live mustard agent were
U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers
Former
Ft. Pierce
Naval
Amphibious
Training
used in the Chemical Warfare Test Area (now under
water), located on South Hutchinson Island. No evidence
exists of any chemical warfare material (CWM) being
disposed of in the FL Pierce area This operation was
transferred to the Dry Tortugas, where larger -stale
testing was performed.
Fr
L • former ft. Pierre MA16 • former It. Pierre MAIB • former ft. Pierre MAIB a former ft. Pierre MAIB • Former ft. Pierre NIB o
42
June, 6 1995
Previous InvessUgatiotut
An mddves search and site inspection were conducted
during 1993 and 1994 by the U.S. Amry Corps of
Engineers. The archives search report concluded that no
evidence indicates that any chemical warfare agents were
left at the base. it was likely, however, that conventional
ordnance or explosive waste remains at the former Ft.
Pierce NA7B site in the following areas:
1. Engineer Board Area;
2. Navel Demolition Research unit;
3. Swamp Area New Demolition Research Unit;
4. Suspected Burial Site, New Sands Condtmdniums;
S. Beach Obstacles. North Hutchinson island;
6. Artillery Range Bunkers;
7. South Island Bombing Range; and
8. Ocean Areas. Ft. Pierce itis Jetties.
Current Investigation
Based on information gathered and through discussions
with their contractor, Environments] Science &
Engineering, Inc. (ESE), the Corps of Engineers chose
three sites for further investigation. Two of tie three
sites were part of the Beach Obstacles am (Areas A
and B); the third was the Suspected Bads] Site, New
Sands Condominiums (Arco C). The map on am next
page shows the location of tact arem.
Pmject Dewrlptlon
In March 1995, the Corps of Engineers began the site
characterization for fornmr FL Pierce NATB.
Information obtained from tie site characterization
activities will be used in developing the Engineering
Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EEICA). The purpose of the
EEICA Is to determine the extent and mature of ordnance
contamination, evaluate alternatives to reduce the risk to
public safety, and select the best way to achieve this
objective at the site. Based on the findings of the site
characterization. any necessary remedial action will be
scheduled. The first phase was a survey to determine the
extent of ordnarcecontamination at the former Ft. Pierce
NATB. Two Corps of Engineers organizations are
Involved with this activity. Jacksonville District
(Jacksonville. F7.) gnd Huntsville Division (Huntsville,
AL). The Jacksonville District is responsible for the
geographic area where the forcer militay Installation is
located, and the Huntsville Division is the Cepa of
Engineers' Center of Expertise for Ordnance and
Explosive Waste Engineering. During this phase of the
project, the Huntsville Division contractor, ESE of
Gainesville. R. has subcontracted with EOD
Technology, inc. (EODT) of Knoxville, TN, and ADI
Services of Huntsville, AL, to conduct the actual site
investigation. The Corps of Engineers expects the draft
EEICA to be released before the end of 1995.
Survey Results
During March 1995, three meas of the former Ft. Pierce
NATB were surveyed using magnamacters. The
magnetometer is a highly sensitive metal detector that
looks for changes in underground magnetic fields to
determine if iron -based metallic objects are present. At
one of the three areas, the metallic objects detected were
dug up to determine whetter the objects were from the
military.
The following three meas were investigated;
Area A Two undeveloped Iota (combined area slightly
more than I acre) In the Sears Cove and
Surfside Estates subdivisions east of
Route Al A nem Porpoise Point, North
Hutchinson Island, Indian River County;
Area B Two undeveloped lots (combined area of
1 acre) east of Route AiA and approximately
I mile north of the Treasure Cove
Condominiums (at entrance to Queen's Cove
Subdivision), North Hutchinson island, St.
Lucie County; and
Area C Approximately Irl acre east of The Sands
condondniumsrwhich is located on the east
side of Route AiA nem the southern end of
North Hutchinson Island. St. Gude County.
In Area B. all magnetic anomalies were exposed and
Identified. No ordnance or debris from WWII was found
in Areas B or C.
in Area A, WWII military debris was discovered lying on
the surface of both parcels surveyed. Magnetic
anomalies, indicating subsurface metallic items, were
also detected by the magnetometer. These anomalies
were not exposed and identified because of the proximity
of residences and major thoroughfares. To safely bxpose
and identify these items, it would have been necessary to
evacuate some residences and temporarily close
Route AiA.
• former ft. 11A16 • Former fr. Pierre HA16 • Former It. Pierre HAiB • former ft Pierre HAi8 • former ft Pierre HAiB .
43 BOOK
June, 6 1995
95 PAGE 319.1
Ordnance
Ordnamx could be Wand at former R Pidee NATB. It
may look like one of these Illustrations or photograph. If
you see or have sem anything that resembles ordnance,
please call 9111mnedlately. DO NOT TOUCH OR
TRY TO MOVE IT.
4.5 -INCH BARRAGE ROCKET WARHEAD
AIRCRAFT DEPTH BOMB
alt :;?.1(`fn}?}�{•.�1tM•!1;:. i ..
. P•i
ANTI-TANK MINES
Boos 95 Face 322
PIbilc Safety
Safety Is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers primary
concern. Corps of Enghteers personnel will do
everything possible to mhdmin any impact as a result of
this project
Repositories
A repository has been esatablished at the Indian Riva
County Main Library, 1600 21st Street, Vern, Beach. A
repoattory will also be established In St. Lade County.
All documentation compiled and gememted for this
activity will be located at these repositories.
Additional Information p
For more information about Corps of Engineer activities
at the former Ft Pierce NATB, call or write:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jacksonville District
ATTN: Public Affahs
P.O. Box4970
Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019
9041232-2233
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
HumsMile Division
ATTN: Public Affahs
P.O. Box 1600
Hmtsville, AL 35807.4301
2051995-1693
Definitions
ordnerwe: bombs, land mimes, rockets, etc.
onon"es: abnormal magnetic lidds.
[• former ft. Pierre 11A16 • former It. Pierre NAN • former ft Pierre HAIR . former ft Pierre 11A16 • former rt. Pierre NO •
Mr. Davis referred to a chart showing the areas they looked at
using very sensitive metal detectors. He reported that they
detected magnetic anomalies under two undeveloped lots in
subdivisions east of AIA near Porpoise Point -- Sears Cove and
Surfside Estates. It is possible that there is live ordnance in
this area. The anomalies were not exposed and identified because
of the proximity of residences and major thoroughfares. The
detected activity could be anything from beer cans to a gas grill.
Ordnance left alone does not harm people or the environment. It
won't rust and activate. The risk for ordnance is when someone
digs it up, exposes it and decides to play with it. The area is 80
percent developed and if the area is dug up, the worse case
scenario could be the evacuation of 300 people, closing off
sections of AIA and an expenditure of more than $1 -million.
44
June, 6 1995
Before going in and digging up the site, Mr. Davis felt it was
incumbent for them to come to Indian River County and talk to the
County Commission because there is a low risk of finding any
ordnance in the developed area.
Mr. Davis recalled that in December, 1993, 30 -inch shell
without a fuse was discovered on a construction site off Anglers
Cove and was determined to be a World War II -era bomb. The
.ordnance was taken to Patrick Air Force Base south of Cocoa Beach.
Commissioner Adams asked if this was the way the government
gets rid of any further liability, but Mr. Davis couldn't really
say because even attorneys cannot agree. When they leave a site,
that doesn't mean they would not come back later and deal with any
ordnance that might be discovered.
After lengthy discussion, the Board felt the best thing to be
done would be to workshop that area with staff and come back and
get input from the people in those areas.
Administrator Chandler noted that another important area is
Area A, Floralton Beach and the Moorings. He stressed that staff
feels that more guidance is needed from the Corps on what needs to
be done in this case.
Mr. Davis proposed that the Corps' staff work with County
staff on the two sites discussed this morning.
Commissioner Eggert thought it would be irresponsible for us
not to have an immediate educational program to get this out to the
people, and Commissioner Adams suggested that the hand-out be made
available in the Building Department and the Planning Department.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
setting up a workshop and preparing a one-page
public awareness sheet to get out to the people in
that specific area.
Mike Vanatta, president of the South Beach Property Owners
Association, advised that they want to be involved in this issue.
BOOK 95 PAGE.323
45
June, 6 1995
BOOK 95 FAGS 3204
U
FULL-TIME RESIDENT INSPECTION SERVICES FOR WIDENING OF
SOUTH AIA
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/9/95:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.Qr�
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Full Time Resident Inspection Services for
S. AlA Widening
REF. MEMO: Memorandum from Jack Price to Jim Davis dated May 4, 1995
DATE: May 9, 199,Ir FILE: alainspe.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Full time resident inspection services on Indian River Boulevard
Phase IV, Oslo Road and Old Dixie Highway, and CR510 and SRAlA were
provided by retired FDOT inspector, William Howard. The Public
Works Department has been satisfied with Mr. Howard's services and
would like to once again payroll him through a temporary services
agency, for the widening of South AlA.
The Personnel Department contacted "At Your Service' and they have
agreed to payroll Mr. Howard at the same billing rate of $22.69 per
hour that was used on the previous projects. This billing rate
includes all social security, worker's compensation, unemployment
insurance, taxes and agency fees.
Mr. Howard's services are needed for a period of 21 weeks for total
cost of $19,059.60.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The Alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Authorize staff to employ William Howard through "At Your
Service" at a cost of $22.69/hr for 21 weeks for a total
cost of $19,059.60.
Alternative No. 2
Contract with a consulting firm for inspection services.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1. Funding is from
Account 101-152-541-067.37.
46
June, 6 1995
M
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the employment of William Howard through "At Your
Service" at a cost of $22.69 an hour for 21 weeks
for a total cost of $19,059.60.
IUNNGS HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS - OSLO RD. TO 26TH ST. -
AMENDMENT NO.1 - KESILEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/30/95:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.EIS
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 - Kings Highway Improvements - Oslo Road
to 26th Street
DATE: May 30, 1995 FILE: AMIKINGS . AGN
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. is under contract with Indian
River County to perform professional services for improvements to
Kings Highway. The Scope of Services includes the widening and
reconstruction of Kings Highway from a two lane to a four lane
divided facility from 26th Street south to 12th Street;
transitioning the four lane divided facility to a two lane roadway
trom 12th Street to 8th Street; and reconstructing a two lane
facility from 8th Street to Oslo Road.
Recent traffic counts indicate that the four lane divided facility
should continue to 4th Street, transitioning back to two lanes
south of 4th Street. The design cost of extending the four lane
section approximately one mile south is $20,000.
The attached Amendment No. 1 provides for extending the four lane
section south of 4th Street. The Amendment also provides for
accelerating the design and permitting of Kings Highway from 26th
Street to SR60 (Section I Improvements)to facilitate commencement
of construction by September, 1996. On May 23, 1995, the Board
approved a resolution amending the Indian River Mall Development
Order that included the Developer paying the $15,000 cost of
accelerating, permitting and design of the 58th Avenue Section I
Improvements.
47•
June, 6 1995
BOOP( 95 PAGE32105
BOOK 95 PAGE 326
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Approve the attached Amendment No. 1. The compensation
due the Engineer for these services is $35,000. This
compensation added to the current contract amount of
$1,125,000 results in a new contract amount of
$1,160,000.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the request and continue with the existing scope of
work.
RECOMMMATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1 whereby the attached
Amendment No. 1 is approved. Funding for extending the four lane
section is from Account 101-158-541-067.30 and 109-214-541-067.30.
Funding for accelerating the design from SR60 north is from
DeBartolo Properties, Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Amendment No. 1 with Kimley-Horn in the amount of
$35,000, as set out in staff's recommendation of
Alternative #1.
AMENDMENT NO. 1 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
PETITION WATER SERVICE IN SUNDOWNERS S/D - RESOLUTIONS
IAND II
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/26/95:
DATE: MAY 26, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTA
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASSES PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: PETITION WATER SERVICE IN SUNDOWNERS SUBDIVISION/
53RD AVENUE (SOUTH OF 16TH STREET)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -95 -05 -DS
RESOLUTIONS I AND II
BACKGROUND
On March 21, 1995, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved
the petition for water service for Sundowners Subdivision/53rd Avenue (south of
48
June, 6 1995
—Gth Street) to supply potable water to its residents. Design has been completed
by the Department of Utility Services Engineering staff. We are now ready to
begin the assessment process associated with this project (see attached agenda
item and minutes of the above meeting).
There are 14 platted lots and a parcel described as Tract A in this subdivision;
the typical lot sizes are one acre ±. The to property owners signing the petition
represent 73% of the properties to be served. 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 $47,899.64. The cost per square foot is $0.0712649.
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.
*i*];Q_4ZP2•
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 Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 95-66, providing for water service to
Sundowners Subdivision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 95-67, setting a time and place for
public hearing.
EIV
June, 6 1995
BOOP( 95 PACE 92.117
BOOK 9� f',G:. •�?�
Providing (First Reso.) 5/22/95(reso/sundown)Vk/DC
RESOLUTION NO. 95-f;fi_
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR WATER SERVICE TO
SUNDOWNERS SUBDIVISION; PROVIDING THE
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT
OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALL-
MENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
SPECIFICALLY SERVED.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has determined that the improvements herein described are
necessary to promote the public welfare of the county and has deter-
mined to defray the cost thereof by special assessments against certain
properties to be serviced by water main extension to Sundowners
Subdivision (53rd Avenue south of 16th Street), hereinafter referred to
as Project No. UW -95 -05 -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 line shall be
installed to benefit 14 platted lots and a parcel described as Tract
A in Sundowners Subdivision, 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 $47,899.64 or $0.0712649 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 $0.0712649 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.
50
June, 6 1995
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 66
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 8.5% from the Credit
Date until paid.
5. There is presently on file with the Department of Utility Services a
.plat showing the area to be assessed, plans and specifications, and
an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements. All of these
are open to inspection by the public at the Department of Utility
Services.
S. 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 and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert ,
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 6th day of June, 1995.
BOARD OFI COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN VER COUN RIDA
Attest:
BY
Kenneth cht
Jeff Barton, C e Chairman
I Zz--
44
June, 6 1995
BOCK 95rar;.4.39
Boa 95 uu, 030
Time and Place (Second Reso.) - 5 / 23/95 (reso/ sundown) Vk/ DC
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 6 7
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SETTING A TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH
THE OWNERS OF PROPERTIES LOCATED
IN SUNDOWNERS SUBDIVISION, AND OTHER
INTERESTED PERSONS, MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND BE
HEARD AS TO THE PROPRIETY AND ADVISABIL-
ITY OF CONSTRUCTING THE WATER MAIN
EXTENSION, AS TO THE COST THEREOF, AS TO
THE MANNER OF PAYMENT THEREFOR, AND AS
TO THE AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE SPECIALLY
ASSESSED AGAINST EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED
THEREBY.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has, by Resolution ..No. 95- 66 , 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 14
platted lots and a parcel described as Tract A in Sundowners
Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the cost to be specially
assessed with respect thereto shall be $0.0712649 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, July 11, 1995, at which time the owners of
52
June, 6 1995
RESOLUTION NO. 95-.7
11
the properties to be assessed and any other interested persons
may appear before said Commission and be heard in regard
thereto. The area to be improved and the properties to be
specially benefited are more particularly described upon the
assessment plat and the assessment roll with regard to the special
assessments.
2. All persons interested in the construction of said improvements and
the special assessments against the properties to be specially
benefited may review the assessment plat showing the area to be
assessed, the assessment roll, the plans and specifications for said
improvements, and an estimate of the cost thereof at the office of
the Department of Utility Services any week day from 8:30 a.m.
until 5:00 p.m.
3. Notice of the time and place of this public hearing shall be given
by two publications in the Press Journal Newspaper one week
apart. The last publication shall be at least one week prior to the
date of the hearing. The Indian River County Department of
Utility Services shall give the owner of each property to be
specially assessed at least ten days notice in writing of such time
and place, which shall be served by mailing a copy of such notice
to each of such property owners at his last known address.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Adams , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert,
and, upon being put to a note, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert A y e
Commissioner John W. Tippin A y e
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 8th day of June, 1995.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNT , FLORIDA
Attest:
By L4LW;
Kenneth R. Macht
Jeo , BartCle Chairman
� �- , Inas i8ew Ca A09roved I
Admin I <;*,O 3
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL
W
53•
June, 6 1995 BOOK 95 PACE 31
BooK 95 PAGE,3- 32
DEFENSE OF EXPECTED CHALLENGE ON MY REEF PERMIT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/31/95:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
9ChFROMs es P. nac, Count Attorney
DATE: May 31, 1995
RE: Defense of Expected PSP Roof Permit Challenge
The County has been given every indication by the permitting authorities
that all permits will be in hand in the near future for the construction
of the PEP reef . The County has also been informed by Mr. Frank zorc,
and perhaps others, that Chapter 120 rule challenges will be filed
against the County's permits seeking to invalidate them.
At the last meeting of the Board of County Commissioners Commissioner
Fran Adams suggested that the County forcefully defend any challenges to
the permitting process, and, in that regard, has suggested the hiring of
a Tallahassee law firm expert in the defense of Chapter 120 rule
challenges, Lewis, Langman & Walker. Attached to this memo is a letter
of engagement prepared by the firm's Tallahassee partner, R. Steve
Lewis.
I talked with Mr. Lewis by telephone and was made aware by him that he
was already quite familiar with our case and would very much like to
defend the County in this matter, if necessary. Mr. Lewis -indicated
over the phone that his hourly rate for governments is $150.00, and'that
he expected this matter to be in active litigation for some five months.
Requested Actions Request direction from the Board.
Don Donaldson, County coastal engineer, reported that as of
today the permit has not been issued, but we do expect it soon.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the engagement of Lewis, Langman & Walker, P.A. to
defend expected challenges on the PEP reef permit
from the DEP.
CONFIRMATION OF ENGAGEMENT LETTER IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
SURVEY OF OTHER FLORIDA COUNTIES REGARDING MILLAGE
COMPARISONS
Chairman Macht announced that in an effort to understand why
Indian River County has ranked in the top 3 counties these past
years, OMB Director Joe Baird has prepared a survey.
54
June, 6 1995
LISTING OF 1994NS AGGREGATE MILLAGES BY COUN'T'Y
*Aggregate Millage numbers supplied from Dept. of Revenue from figures submitted by countie
DR -422 prior to final budget hearings.
June, 6 1995 55 . BOOK 95 PAGF 333
COUNTY,
POPULATION
AGGREGATE
MILLAGE*
% RANKING
LOWER TO
HIGHER
1
ISARASOTA
296,002
3.9278
1.49%
2
ICOLLIER
180,540
4.3374
2.99%
3
CHARLOTTE
124,883
4.5038
4.48%
4
OKALOOSA •
158,318
4.7755
5.970/9
5
FLAGLER •
35,292
5.0000
7.460/6
6
LAKE
171,168
5.3295
8.96%
7
PALM BEACH.
937.190
5.6303
10.45%
8
BAY
136,289
6.3172
11.94%
9
PINELLAS
970,722
6.3910
13.43%
10
MARTIN
110,227
6.5350
* 14.93%
11
SEMIN01 E
316,555
6.5857
16.42%
12
OSCEOLA
131,111
6.6437
17.91%
13
ST. JOHNS
94,758
6.7330
19.40%
14
LEE
367,410
6.7671
* 20.90%
15
VOLUSIA
396,631
6.7990
22.39%
16
INDIAN RIVER
97,415
6.8158
23.88%
17
BREVARD
436,333
6.8564
25.37%
18
MONROE
82,252
6.9358
* 26.87%
19
WALTON
31,860
6.9600
28.360/9
20
SANTA ROSA
93,813
6.9720
* 29.85%
21
NASSAU
47,371
7.2053
31.34%
22
BRADFORD
24,210
7.3770
* 32.84%
23
BROWARD
1,340,220
7.4060
34.33%
24
MANATEE
228,283
7.7309
35.82%
25
POLK
437,204
7.7770
37.31%
26
ORANGE
740,167
7.8633
38.81%
27
ST. LUCIE
166,803
7.9500
40.30%
28
HERNANDO
114,866
7.9580
41.79%
29
GULF -
13,265
8.2330
43.28%
30
MARION
217,862
8.2950
44.78%
31
DESOTO
26,260
8.4800
46.27%
32
HIGHLANDS
75,860
8.5000
47.76%
33
CITRUS
102,846
8.5450
49.25%
34
JACKSON
45,421
8.6220
50.75%
35
HOLMES
16,926
8.6400
52.24%
36
LEON
212,107
8.6600
53.73%
37
PUTNAM
68,980
8.7206
55.22%
38
COL"IA
48,897
8.8640
56.72%
39
HENDRY
28,686
8.9000
58.21%
40
CLAY
117,779
8.9999
59.70%
41
LEVY
29,111
9.0000
* 61.19%
42
SUWANNEE
29 999
9.1360
* 62.69%
43
OKEECHOBEE
32,325
9.2500
64.18%
44
BAKER
19,700
9.4400
65.67%
45
WAKULLA
16,441
9.5000
* 67.16%
46
FRANKLIN
9,995
9.5860
68.66%
47
PASCO
298 852
9.7090
70.15%
48
ESCAMBIA
277,067
9.8390
71.64%
49
SUMTER
35,189
10.0000
73.13%
50
UNION
12-1-53-4
10.0000
74.63%
51
LAFAYETTE
5,286
10.0000
* 76.12%
52
WASHINGTON
18,115
10.0000
77.61%
53
MADISON
17,768
10.0000
79.100/6
54
1GLADES
9,366
10.0000
80.60%
55
CALHOUN
11565
10.0000
82.09%
56
GADSDEN
4,0
10.0000
83.58'/0
57
LIBERTY
6.539
10.0000
85.07%
58
GILCHRIST
11,526
10.0000
86.57%
59
HAMILTON
11,918
10.0000
88.06%
60
HARDEE
22,454
10.0000
* 89.55%
61
JEFFERSON
13,085
10.0000
* 91.04%
62
DADE
1990,445
10.3050
92.54%
63
TAYLOR
17,461
11.0020
* 94.03%
64
DUVAL
710,592
11.2131
* 95.52%
65
ALACHUA
193,879
11.2480
* 97.01%
66
HILLSBOROUGH
879,069
11.3722
* 98.51%
67
DDGE
12,150
13.0000
* 100.00%
*Aggregate Millage numbers supplied from Dept. of Revenue from figures submitted by countie
DR -422 prior to final budget hearings.
June, 6 1995 55 . BOOK 95 PAGF 333
BOOK 95 PAGF334,
LISTING OF 1994/95 GENERAL FUND MILLAGES
June, 6 1995 56
COUNTY
POPULATION
GENERAL FUND
MILLAGE
1
MONROE
82,252
1.4818
2
OKEECHOBEE,.
32,325
1.7380
3
PALM BEACH
937,190
1.7899
4
IOKALOOSA
158,319
1.8653
5
SANTA ROSA
93,813
2.0360
6
WALTON
31,960
2.7360
7
MARION
217,862
2.9300
8
ST. LUCIE
166,803
2.9942
9
NASSAU
47,371
2.9971
10
LEON
212,107
3.0900
11
BAKER
19,700
3.1600
12
COLLIER
180,540
3.5999
13
CHARLOTTE
124,893
3.6400
14
SARASOTA
296,002
3.7880
15
HENDRY
28,686
4.2230
16
INDIAN RIVER
97,415
4.2266
17
BREVARD
436,333
4.3974
18
JACKSON
45,421
4.5140
19
SEMINOLE
316,555
4.7388
20
FLAGLER
35,292
4.8500
21
HAMILTON
11,918
4.8700
22
LIBERTY
6 538
4.9000
23
VOL SIA
396,631
4.9760
24
ORANGE
740,167
4.9998
25
FRANKLIN
9,995
5.1290
26
LAKE
171,168
5.1350
27
LEE
367,410
5.1501
28
MARTIN
110,227
5.2230
29
PINELLAS
870,722
5.4430
30
MANATEE
228$283
5.7437
31
BAY
136,289
5.9491
32
OSCEOLA
131,111
5.9945
33
GULF
13,265
6.0090
34
HOLMES
16,926
6.0200
35
CITRUS
102,846
6.0250
36
ST. JOHNS
94,758
6.0690
37
POLK
.1, 437,204
6.8420
38
BR WARD
1340,220
6.9631
39
HERNANDO
114,866
6.9776
40
BRADFORD
24,210
7.3770
41
SUMTER _
35,189
7.8000
42
PUTNAM
68,980
7.8620
43
HILLSBOROUGH
879,069
7.9048
44
TAYLOR
17,461
8.0760
45
CLAY
117,779
8.4585
46
DESOTO
26,260
8.4800
47
HIGHLANDS
75,860
8.5000
48
COLUMBIA
48,897
8.7260
49
PASCO
298,852
8.8100
50
ESCAMBIA
277,06_7
8.8170
51
LEVY
29,111
9.0000
52
SUWANNEE
29,999
9.1360
53
ALACHUA
193,879
9.2500
54
WAKULLA
16,441
9.5000
55
WASHINGTON
18,115
9.7200
56
MADISON
17 768
10.0000
57
UNION
12,534
10.0000
58
CALHOUN
11,565
10.0000
59
DADE
1,990,445
10.0000
60
DIXIE
12,150
10.0000
61
GADSDEN
44,853
10.0000
62
JEFFERSON
13,085
10.0000
63
GILCHRIST
11,526
10.0000
64
GLADES
8 366
10.0000
HARDEE
22,454
10.0000
165
LAFAYETTE
5286
10.0000
DUVAL
710,592
11.2131
June, 6 1995 56
ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF 1994/95 AGGREGATE AND GENERAL FUND MILLAGES
*Aggregate Millage numbers supplied from Dept. of Revenue from figures submitted by counties on their
DR -422 prior to final budget hearings.
57 600K 95 FACE 335
June, 6 1995
COUNTY
POPULATION
AGGREGATE
MILLAGE*
GENERALFUND
MILLAGE
I
ALACHUA
193,879
11.2480
*
9.2500
2
BAKER
19,700
9.4400
3.1600
3
BAY
136,289
6.3172
5.9491
4
BRADFORD
24,210
7.3770
*
7.3770
5
BREVARD
436,333
6.8564
4.3974
6
BROWARD
1340,220
7.4060
6.9631
7
CALHOUN
11,565
10,0000
10.0000
8
CHARLOTTE
124,883
4.5038
3.6400
9
CITRUS
102,846
8.5450
6.0250
10
CLAY
117,779
8.9999
8.4585
11
COLLIER
180 540
4.3374
3.5999
12
COLUMBIA
48,897
8.8640
8.7260
13
DADE
1.990,445
10.3050
10.0000
14
DESOTO
26,260
8.4800
8.4800
15
DIXIE
12,150
13.0000
*
10.0000
16
DUVAL
710,592
11.2131
*
11.2131
17
ESCAMBIA
277,067
9.8390
8.8170
18
FLAGLER
35,292
5.0000
4.8500
19
FRANKLIN
9,995
9.5860
5.1290
20
GADSDEN
44,853
10.0000
10.0000
21
GILCHRIST
11,526
10.0000
10.0000
22
GLADES
8,366
10.0000
10.0000
23
GULF
13,265
8.2330
6.0090
24
HAMILTON
11,918
10.0000
4.8700
25
HARDEE
22,4.54
10.0000
*
10.0000
26
HENDRY
28,686
8.9000
4.2230
27
HERNANDO
114,866
7.9580
6.9776
28
HIGHLANDS
75,860
8.5000
8.5000
29
HILLSBOROUGH
879,069
11.3722
*
7.9048
30
HOLMES '
16,926
8.6400
6.0200
31
INDIAN RIVER
97,415
6.8158
4.2266
32
JACKSON
45,421
8.6220
4.5140
33
JEFFERSON
13,085
10.0000
*
10.0000
34
LAFAYETTE
5,286
10.0000
*
10.0000
35
LAKE
171,168
5.3295
5.1350
36
LEE
367,410
6.7671
*
5.1501
37
LEON
212.107
8.6600
3.0900
38
LEVY
29,111
9.0000
*
9.0000
39
LIBERTY
6,538
10.0000
4.9000
40
MADISON
17,768
10.0000
10.0000
41
MANATEE
228,283
7.7309
5.7437
42
MARION
217,862
8.2950
2.9300
43
MARTIN
110,227
6.5350
*
5.2230
44
MONROE
82,252
6.9358
*
1.4818
45
NASSAU
47,371
7.2053
2.9971
46
OKALOOSA
158,318
4.7755
1.8653
47
OKEECHOBEE
32,325
9.2500
1.7380
48
ORANGE
710.167
7.8633
4.9998
49
OSCEOLA
131.111
6.6437
5.9945
50
PALM BEACH
937,190
5.6303
1.7899
51
PASCO
298,852
9.7090
8.8100
52
PINELLAS
870,722
6.3910
5.4430
53
POLK
437,204
7.7770
6.8420
54
PUTNAM
68,980
8.7206
7.8620
55
SANTA ROSA
93,813
6.9720
*
2.0360
56
SARASOTA
296,002
3.9278
3.7880
57
SEMINOLE -
316,555
6.5857
4.7388
58
ST. JOHNS
94,758
6.7330
6.0690
59
ST. LUCIE
166,803
7.9500
2.9942
60
SUMTER
35,189
10.0000
7.8000
61
SUWANNEE
29,999
9.1360
*
9.1360
62
TAYLOR
17,461
11.0020
*
8.0760
63
UNION
12,534
10.0000
10.0000
64
VOLUSIA
396,631
6.7990
4.9760
65
WAKULLA
16,441
9.5000
*
9.5000
66
WALTON
31,860
6.96002.7360
67
WASHINGTON
18,115
10.0000
9.7200
*Aggregate Millage numbers supplied from Dept. of Revenue from figures submitted by counties on their
DR -422 prior to final budget hearings.
57 600K 95 FACE 335
June, 6 1995
POCK 9-5 FKA- 36
Director Baird explained that over the years Indian River has
ranked significantly different in many surveys of counties. Since
the Board does not have control of the School Board, the Hospital
District and other independent districts, we did a survey comparing
IRC's millage rates on budgets under BCC control. We found that in
the comparison of the general fund millage, we were #16 out of 67
counties. When we compared the aggregate millage, we were also
#16, so we are in the lower 25 percent of counties. A lot of
counties have independent fire districts which means the fire
district is not included in the aggregate millage. Our fire
district is a dependent district and is included in the aggregate
millage under the BCC.
Information only. No action was taken.
DEP PERMIT PROGRAM
Deleted. Information was received in the discussion on
ordnancE. see Item 11-G-1).
FELLSMERE TRANSFER STATION AND LANDFILL
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/31/95:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Board of County Commissioners
Commissioner Fran B. Adamslzg
May 31, 1995
Fellsmere Transfer Station and Landfill
On Saturday, May 29th, Fellsmere had a creative
playground workday and we constructed a new playground. On
Tuesday morning, we sent some trash to the transfer station
that was left over from the project --paper boxes, garbage
debris, etc. In addition, we sent a dump -truck load of
debris to the landfill.
The trash transfer attendant informed the City of _
Fellsmere that it would no longer be able to dump its City
trash at the transfer station as it was a commercial center.
58
June, 6 1995
M M
The City of Fellsmere was not notified of this new
policy ahead of time. Personally, I think the action was
perhaps a reaction to my exposure of the excess tires at the
landfill.
I, along with the City of Fellsmere, have been trying
to work with the County for three years now to find
alternatives to the ugly entrance of Fellsmere created by
the mess at the transfer station. To date we, the County,
have given the City nothing but lip service. I would
request that we try some cooperation, that we allow the City
the courtesy of dumping its small amount of trash at the
transfer station, and that we immediately begin working
towards a resolution of the appearance of the site.
if we cannot achieve that small step, I would suggest
that we look for personnel that can.
Commissioner Adams wished to have staff address what happened
and then ask Fellsmere Mayor Robert Baker to relate the City's
position.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto stated that it is a question of
whether we want to receive commercial material at the transfer
station. He stated that Fellsmere was notified two months ago of
the County's position; however, they were not notified in writing.
He believed the attendant at the transfer station was just trying
to do his job.
Commissioner Bird understood that the driver tried to drop off
construction and demolition (C & D) material which is not
acceptable at any transfer station and must be taken to the
Landfill.
Chairman Macht understood the City had loaned their vehicle to
the creative playground project to carry off the remaining debris.
Fellsmere Mayor Robert Baker referred to his memo written to
the County Administrator:
ROBERT C. "BOB" BAKER, Mayor
DEBORAH C. KRAGES, City Clerk
Phone (407) 571-0116
CITY OF FELLSMERE
MEMORANDUM
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Robert C. Baker
Mayor
RE: Tansfer Station, Fellsmere
Dear Mr. Chandler:
P.O. Box 39
Fellsmere, FL 32946-0039
Fax (407) 571-1901
June, 6 1995 59- @OOK 95 PAGE 337
BOOK 95 FAr,F338
In response to your letter dated June 2, 1995, I must advise you
that the facts contained are less than accurate. The concrete
Mr. Fowler describes happened to be empty bags as a result of the
Work Day held on May 27, 1995. The actual concrete pieces and
large debris were hauled to the appropriate landfill station, as
your records indicate. The PVC pipe discussed is from one of our
service trucks that are used to install water lines.
As for the city utilizing the dump, approximately nine (9) months
ago the city contracted for use of a dumpster. We have used the
dump only during the time our dumpster is full or when it was
more convenient to dump paper type garbage collected from the
Little League Ball Field and Grant Park. I would also like to
remind you that the City of Fellsmere paid more than $2,500.00 in
landfill fees for this year.
I hope this will clear up any and all questions, however, please
feel free to call me at any time.
Respectfully,
�7
�7ez,
.rz, C 1B
Robert C. Baker
Mayor
CC: Commissioner Fran Adams
Terrance G. Pinto, Director
Solid Waste Disposal District
Ronald R. Brooks, Manager
Solid Waste Disposal District
Director Pinto stressed that it is not what the material is,
it is where it comes from. The only place where the material makes
a difference is C & D material, and that has to be taken to the
Landfill. It is up to the Board to decide if they want to change
that policy.
Commissioner Adams felt it was unfortunate that this happened.
She wondered if County trash is taken to the transfer stations, but
Director Pinto couldn't say.
.Attorney Vitunac stated that the only garbage that goes into
the transfer stations is residential.
Commissioner Adams read from Chapter 204 of the County's
ordinance on Solid Waste Disposal District.
Commissioner Bird understood then that we don't allow
commercial to dump at the transfer stations and we consider
municipalities commercial.
Commissioner Tippin felt that if we cannot tell what is
commercial, then we should not expect our attendants to decide what
is commercial.
The following memo was handed out as additional information
for Item 13-B:
60
June, 6 1995
--------------------------------------------------------
DATE: JUNE 51 1995
TO: TERRANCE G. PINTO, DIRECTOR
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
FROM: RONALD R. BROOKS, MANAGER
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
----psi+-r—
:. ;:Jrp4 J
rot;;
SUBJECT: FELLSMERE LANDSCAPING
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the concerns about the landscaping of the
Fellsmere Transfer Station, the following has yet to be
accomplished and we hope to do so in the time -frame specified:
1. Receive quotes from landscaping/irrigation June 26, 1995
firms for installation of irrigation
system and landscaping materials.
2. Place 250 cubic yards of clean organic soil June 26, 1995
along front of the elevated traffic area
and grade to a gradual slope.
3. Sod the newly sloped area. June 31, 1995
4. Present quotes to Board for award of land- July 11, 1995
scape and irrigation contract.
5. Complete the landscaping and the irrigation Aug. 3, 1995
system.
THE BOARD INDICATED THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF THE ABOVE REPORT.
ANNOUNCE BY COAUMSSIONER BIRD
Commissioner Bird announced that after giving it a lot of
thought and discussing it with family and friends, he has made the
decision to retire as County Commissioner in the fall of 1996 at
the end of his term. He noted that it has been a real honor and
privilege to serve the people of the county and he has especially
enjoyed working with this particular Board of County Commissioners.
He believed that in fairness to his district, he should make this
announcement soon enough to allow someone to make plans to run for
the District seat.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
Chairman Macht announced that immediately following
adjournment, the Board would reconvene sitting as the District
Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those minutes
are being prepared separately.
June, 6 1995 61 BOOK . PA 339
95 PAGE 340
DOCTJMENTS TO BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD
Lease of County -owned single residence on corner of 8th Street and
27th Avenue
Lease dated 6/1/95 is continuance of lease approved by BCC on
11/16/93. Though executed by the Chairman, the lease went through
the administrative approval process and did not go in front of the
Board at a BCC meeting.
LEASE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD DATED 6/6/95
There being no further business, on motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
ATTEST:
J. Barton, Clerk Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman
Minutes approved
62
June, 6 1995