HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/3/1996� MINUTE.�TTACHED �
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3,1996
T 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Fran B. Adams, Chairman (District 1) James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman (District 2)
Caroline D. Ginn (District 5) Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Kenneth R. Macht (District 3)
John W. Tippin (District 4) Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER BACKUP
PAGES
2. INVOCATION None
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Charles P. Vitunac
4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
11-B-2 Funding for replacement parts in 911 communications
center.
12 Items for Legislative Delegation Meeting
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Special Meeting of November 5, 1996 (EAR)
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to
the Board: Fellsmere Water Control District,
Minutes of the Board of Supervisors Meeting
for Fiscal Year 1995-96
- B. Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated November 21, 1996) 1-10
C. School Board Appointments to County Committees
(memorandum dated November 22, 1996) 11
D. Quitclaim of Water Treatment Plant Site to Nelson
Hyatt at Park Place Mobile Home Park
(memorandum dated November 22, 1996) 12-16
Y
800 f:: y. 7
7.
8.
9:05 A.M. 9.
CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.): BACKUP
PAGES
E. Proposed Budget Revision to FY 1996/97
Mass Transit Grant (49 USC CH. 53,
Section 5307 Grant)
(memorandum dated November 25, 1996) 17-21
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. American Tower Systems' Request for
Special Exception Use Approval to Erect
a 300' Tower in the North County
(memorandum dated November 22, 1996) 22-41
2. Unitarian Universalist Fellowship Inc.'s
Request for Special Exception Use Approval
for an Expansion to its Existing Place of
Worship
(memorandum dated November 21, 1996) 42-52
3. I.R.C. Utility Services' Request for Special
Exception Use Approval for an Expansion of
the South County Sub -Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant
(memorandum dated November 25, 1996) 53-67
4. Amendment to Chapter 309, I.R.C. Code,
"Fair Housing"
(memorandum dated November 20, 1996) 68-72
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Proposed Change to the County Alcoholic
Beverages Ordinance
(memorandum dated November 25, 1996) 73-85
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11, DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development -
1. Approval to Proceed with Closing on the
Fischer -Sebastian River LAAC Site and
Seek After -the -Fact Reimbursement From
the State
(memorandum dated November 25, 1996) 86-90
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.): BACXUP
PAGES
A. Community Development (cont'd.):
2. Date for Second Board Workshop on
Communications Towers
(memorandum dated November 25, 1996) 91
B. Emergency Services
V.B. Firefighters Relief & Pension Fund Proposed
Change to Provide for an Increased Retirement
Benefit
(memorandum dated November 15, 1996) 92-98
C. General Services
None
D. Leisure Services
None
E. Office of Management and Budget
None
F. Personnel
None
G. Public Works
1.
Amendment No. 4 / Kings Highway
Improvements / Oslo Rd. to 26th St.
(memorandum dated November 22, 1996)
99-106
2.
Amendment No. 5 / Professional Engineer-
ing Services 37th St. Improvements From
U.S.1 to Indian River Boulevard
(memorandum dated November 22, 1996)
107-108
3.
Special Waterway Projects Grant - Replace-
ment of Donald MacDonald Boat Ramp
(memorandum dated November 25, 1996)
109-112
H. Utilities
1.
So. Co. Reverse Osmosis Plant Wastewater
Connections (Domestic/Skid Cleaning) Con-
tract for Construction
(memorandum dated November 19, 1996)
113-122
2.
Final Pay Request for I.R.C. Bid #6082
(memorandum dated November 22, 1996)
123-125
3.
Continuing Service Survey Work in Excess of
$10,000.00 Contracts
(memorandum dated November 18, 1996)
126-151
4.
I.R.C. RFP No. 6073 - Maintenance of Water
Storage Tanks, Gifford, Roseland & Kings Hwy.
(memorandum dated November 22, 1996)
152
BOOK 99
f»�',E 9*72
I
C. Environmental Control Board
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need
to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
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 advance
of meeting.
Meeting broadcast live on TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast 5:00 p.m. Thursday through
5: 00 p. m. Friday
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening
$oa c
99 fAi,,E 973
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
BACKUP
PAGES
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A.
Chairman Fran B. Adams
B.
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
C.
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
D.
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
E.
Commissioner John W Tippin
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS
A.
Emergency Services District
None
B.
Solid Waste Disposal District
1. Litter Control Grant
(memorandum dated November 14, 1996)
153-155
2. Glass Recycling
(memorandum dated November 12, 1996)
156-157
C. Environmental Control Board
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need
to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
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 advance
of meeting.
Meeting broadcast live on TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast 5:00 p.m. Thursday through
5: 00 p. m. Friday
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening
INDEX TO MINUTES
DECEMBER 3, 1996
REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS . . . . . . . . . . . 1
APPROVAL OF MINUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CONSENT AGENDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
A. Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
B. Approval of Warrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
C. School Board Appointments to County Committees . .
11
D. Quitclaim of Water Treatment Plant Site to Nelson
Hyatt at Park Place Mobile Home Park . . . . . . .
12
E. Proposed Budget Revision to FY 1996-97 -- Mass
Transit Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
PUBLIC HEARING - AMERICAN TOWER SYSTEM'S REQUEST FOR SPECIAL
EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL TO ERECT 300' TOWER IN NORTH
COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL
FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING PLACE OF WORSHIP - UNITARIAN
UNIVERSALIST FELLOWSHIP, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
PUBLIC HEARING - IRC UTILITY SERVICES' REQUEST FOR SPECIAL
EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL FOR EXPANSION OF SOUTH COUNTY SUB -
REGIONAL WASTEWATER PLANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 309, IRC CODE, "FAIR
HOUSING" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE COUNTY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ORDINANCE
45
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH CLOSING ON FISCHER-SEBASTIAN
RIVER LAAC SITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57
SETTING DATE FOR SECOND WORKSHOP ON COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS . .
60
VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS RELIEF AND PENSION FUND PROPOSED
RETIREMENT BENEFIT INCREASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
61
REPLACEMENT OF DC CAPACITORS & FLYWHEEL BEARINGS - 911
COMMUNICATIONS — BUDGET AMENDMENT . . . . . . . . . . .
62
KINGS HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS - OSLO ROAD TO 26TH ST. - KIMLEY-
HORN - AMENDMENT NO. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
64
37TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS - U.S.#1 TO I.R. BLVD. - KIMLEY-HORN,
AMENDMENT NO. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
65
SPECIAL WATERWAY PROJECTS GRANT APPLICATION - REPLACEMENT OF
DONALD MACDONALD BOAT RAMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
66
SOUTH COUNTY R.O. PLANT WASTEWATER CONNECTIONS - CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT - TREASURE COAST CONTRACTING . . . . . . . . .
68
1 8DOX 9 9 FAf,F_ 974
BOOK 99 pAu975
REMOVAL OF UNDERGROUND DIESEL TANKS
- (170 Filbert
St. and
810 Bailey Drive locations -
Sebastian) - FINAL PAY
REQUEST - FLORIDA WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICE
. . . . .
69
CONTINUING SERVICE SURVEY WORK
IN EXCESS OF
$10,000
CONTRACTS . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .
70
RFP NO. 6073 - MAINTENANCE OF WATER
STORAGE TANKS -
GIFFORD,
ROSELAND AND KINGS HIGHWAY . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .
71
LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION ITEMS . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .
72
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .
74
2
Tuesday, December 3, 1996
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street,
Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday, December 3, 1996 at 9:00 a.m.
Present were Fran B. Adams, Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice
Chairman; Caroline D. Ginn; Kenneth R. Macht; and John W. Tippin.
Also present were James 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 Adams requested the addition of the following items:
11-B-2 Funding for replacement parts in 911 communications
center.
12 Items for Legislative Delegation Meeting
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously added the
above items to today's Agenda.
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of November 5, 1996 (EARS).
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of 11/5/96, as
written.
1
DECEMBER 3, 1996
BOOK 99 F,A"E 9 16
ru
no,K 99 F f
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Reports
Received and placed on file in the office of the Clerk to the
Board:
1. Fellsmere Water Control District, Minutes of the Board of
Supervisors Meeting for Fiscal Year 1995-96
B. Approval of Warrants
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/21/96:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1996
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR
In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued
by the Board of County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes.
Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk
to the Board, for the time period of November 14 to November -21. 1996.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the list of warrants issued by the Clerk to the
Board for the time period of November 14 to November
21, 1996.
DECEMBER 3, 1996 2
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0017986
BLATUS, JAMES
11/14/96
1,056.03
0017987
KRUGER CONSTRUCTION CORP
11/14/96
2,791.00
0017988
FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF
11/15/96
65,456.04
0017989
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
11/18/96
41.00
0017990
BIRELEY'S ELECTRIC
11/18/96
1,071.41
0017991
BEACHLAND HEATING AND
11/18/96
1,849.55
0017992
RODDENBERRY, ALFRED
11/18/96
516.28
0017993
SCHUCKERS, GERALD
11/18/96
72,250.00
0017994
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP
11/19/96
56.00
0017995
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
11/19/96
116.80
0017996
BURGER, MICHAEL JR & HELENE
11/19/96
579.00
0017997
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE CO
11/19/96
2,500.00
0212872
A A FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
11/21/96
61.30
0212873
A B C- C L I 0, INC
11/21/96
33.81
0212874
ACTION TRANSMISSION AND
11/21/96
1,023.95
0212875
AERO PRODUCTS CORP
11/21/96
883.56
0212876
AHR, C JONATHAN PHD
11/21/96
500.00
0212877
ALBERTSONS SOUTHCO #4357
11/21/96
211.10
0212878
ALEXANDER BATTERY COMPANY
11/21/96
444.34
0212879
ALPHA ACE HARDWARE
11/21/96
26.06
0212880
AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION
11/21/96
145.00
0212881
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL
11/21/96
140.00
0212882
ANIMAL CARE EQUIPMENT AND
11/21/96
486.20
0212883
APPLE MACHINERY & SUPPLY
11/21/96
73.00
0212884
AT YOUR SERVICE
11/21/96
1,996.72
0212885
ATCO TOOL SUPPLY
11/21/96
15.38
0212886
ATLAS PEN & PENCIL
11/21/96
145.71
0212887
AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH,
11/21/96
17.52
0212888
AWARD COMPANY OF AMERICA
11/21/96
182.05
0212889
A B S PUMPS, INC
11/21/96
205.08
0212890
ALPHA HEALTH SERVICE, INC
11/21/96
1,366.66
0212891
A T & T
11/21/96
83.75
0212892
ALL RITE WATER CONDITIONING
11/21/96
77.00
0212893
ABARE, EDWARD J III
11/21/96
51.55
0212894
AMERICAN AIR FILTER
11/21/96
426.96
0212895
A T & T
11/21/96
34.17
0212896
ADAMS, TOM
11/21/96
157.76
0212897
A T & T LANGUAGE LINE
11/21/96
79.80
0212898
AT EASE ARMY NAVY OUTDOOR
11/21/96
70.00
0212899
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP
11/21/96
247.00
0212900
ABELL STEEL & WOOD FENCE
11/21/96
1,100.00
0212901
ALL COUNTY EQUIPMENT COMPANY
11/21/96
43.20
0212902
ALBERTSON'S PHARMACY
11/21/96
97.33
0212903
ABCO GARAGE DOOR CO
11/21/96
370.00
0212904
ALLEN, CHERI
11/21/96
109.25
0212905
AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC
11/21/96
389.86
0212906
ARDOLINA, ROSEMARY
11/21/96
68.00
0212907
ADLER GROUP CONSTRUCTION INC
11/21/96
500.00
0212908
AMERICAN PHOENIX CORP OF TAMPA
11/21/96
76.00
0212909
ARMSTRONG AND SWAIM
11/21/96
500.00
0212910
BAIRD, JOSEPH A
11/21/96
160.38
0212911
BAKER & TAYLOR, INC
11/21/96
2,040.10
0212912
BAKER BROTHERS, INC
11/21/96
75.11
0212913
BARKER ELECTRIC & A/C
11/21/96
400.00
0212914
BENSONS LOCK SERVICE
11/21/96
220.62
0212915
BLACKHAWK QUARRY COMPANY
11/21/96
305.26
3
DECEMBER 3, 1996
6OOi99 ''
ma 99 Fnf 979
CHECK NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0212916
BREATHING AIR SYSTEMS DIVISION
11/21/96
205.90
0212917
BROOKS, RONALD R
11/21/96
83.98
0212918
BELLSOUTH MOBILITY
11/21/96
123.13
0212919
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
11/21/96
2,707.25
0212920
BERGGREN EQUIPMENT CO, INC
11/21/96
773.16
0212921
B & B INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.
11/21/96
658.53
0212922
BRODART CO
11/21/96
14.05
0212923
BLATUS, JAMES
11/21/96
704.02
0212924
BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION
11/21/96
652.27
0212925
BECO RENTAL
11/21/96
117.07
0212926
BIG ONE AUTO BODY
11/21/96
1,100.50
0212927
B F I MEDICAL WASTE SYSTEMS
11/21/96
268.58
0212928
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
11/21/96
226.36
0212929
BARNETT BANK OF THE TREASURE
11/21/96
10.00
0212930
BELLSOUTH
11/21/96
2,011.61
0212931
BEAZER HOMES FLORIDA, INC
11/21/96
500.00
0212932
CAMERON & BARKLEY COMPANY
11/21/96
957.29
0212933
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC
11/21/96
17,000.00
0212934
CAPE PUBLICATIONS, INC
11/21/96
168.00
0212935
CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC
11/21/96
3,281.70
0212936
CHILTON BOOK COMPANY
11/21/96
16.81
0212937
CHUCK'S ELECTRIC MOTORS, INC
11/21/96
485.00
0212938
COMMUNICATIONS INT, INC
11/21/96
279.75
0212939
CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC SUPPLY
11/21/96
25.00
0212940
CONSTRUCTION HYDRAULICS
11/21/96
134.17
0212941
COMPUTER & PERIPHERIAL
11/21/96
1,257.50
0212942
CHEMICAL CONTAINERS, INC
11/21/96
37.09
0212943
COMPUSERVE INCORPORATED
11/21/96
18.80
0212944
CLEARFIELD COMPANY, INC
11/21/96
681.55
0212945
CAL BUILDERS/LACHNITT
11/21/96
30.00
0212946
COASTAL FUELS MARKETING, INC
11/21/96
16,542.57
0212947
CONNECT, INC
11/21/96
12.63
0212948
COPELAND, LINDA
11/21/96
143.50
0212949
COMPUTER SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY
11/21/96
150.00
0212950
CHIP HARVESTORS
11/21/96
400.00
0212951
CUSTOM CARRIAGES, INC
11/21/96
107.96
0212952
CHIVERS NORTH AMERICA
11/21/96
44.64
0212953
COOGAN, MAUREEN AND
11/21/96
540.20
0212954
CLEANNET USA
11/21/96
19,691.94
0212955
COLONIAL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
11/21/96
15.00
0212956
C A SISU CONTRACTING,INC
11/21/96
1,238.45
0212957
CAPITAL CONTROLS CO.,INC
11/21/96
1,091.55
0212958
CADD CENTERS OF FL
11/21/96
327.00
0212959
C C A HOLDINGS, LTD
11/21/96
27,804.43
0212960
COOPER, GEORGE
11/21/96
30.00
0212961
CAMILLO, FRANK
11/21/96
30.00
0212962
CUSTOM PUBLISHING SERVICES,INC
11/21/96
704.00
0212963
CENTRAL A/C & REFRIG SUPPLY,
11/21/96
398.32
0212964
DAVES SPORTING GOODS
11/21/96
560.62
0212965
DELTA SUPPLY CO
11/21/96
27.55
0212966
DEMCO INC
11/21/96
965.79
0212967
FLORIDA DEPT OF MANAGEMENT
11/21/96
3,724.92
0212968
DICKERSON FLORIDA, INC
11/21/96
53,372.38
0212969
DICKEY SCALES, INC
11/21/96
2,180.87
0212970
DIRECTOR, KENNETH L MD
11/21/96
500.00
0212971
DIXON, PEGGY C
11/21/96
77.00
4
DECEMBER 3, 1996
CHECK NAME
NUMBER
CHECK
DATE
CHECK
AMOUNT
0212972
DIETZ, DANIEL
11/21/96
21.00
0212973
DEGRAFFENREID, JAMES
11/21/96
6.00
0212974
DISCOUNT AUTO PARTS
11/21/96
26.91
0212975
DAVIDSON TITLES, INC
11/21/96
1,513.85
0212976
DRIVEWAY'S, INC
11/21/96
4,656.40
0212977
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
11/21/96
360.00
0212978
DESIGNS BY DEE DEE
11/21/96
392.73
0212979
DELTEC, CORP
11/21/96
970.00
0212980
DADE PAPER COMPANY
11/21/96
437.91
0212981
DUO -SAFETY LADDER, CORP
11/21/96
160.00
0212982
DEZZUTTI, JOHN
11/21/96
48.00
0212983
DEBARTOLO PROPERTIES MGMT,INC
11/21/96
500.00
0212984
E -Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC
11/21/96
104.25
0212985
ENVIROMETRICS, INC
11/21/96
755.25
0212986
EVANS, FLOYD
11/21/96
62.50
0212987
ETTER, TONY
11/21/96
6.00
0212988
E G P, INC
11/21/96
480.00
0212989
ENVIRONMENTAL WATERWAY
11/21/96
190.00
0212990
EVERHART, JOHN
11/21/96
30.00
0212991
EDLUND & DRITENBAS
11/21/96
38.74
0212992
ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING
11/21/96
300.00
0212993
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
11/21/96
1,575.00
0212994
EN RADA PUBLICATIONS
11/21/96
98.00
0212995
FATHER & SON APPLIANCES
11/21/96
230.00
0212996
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP
11/21/96
96.50
0212997
FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF
11/21/96
150.00
0212998
FLORIDA COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
11/21/96
435.00
0212999
FLORIDA FIRE CHIEFS
11/21/96
50.00
0213000
F P & L
11/21/96
30,281.26
0213001
FLORIDA RIBBON & CARBON
11/21/96
1,308.30
0213002
FLORIDA SLUDGE SERVICE
11/21/96
1,575.00
0213003
FLORIDA ANIMAL CONTROL
11/21/96
50.00
0213004
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
11/21/96
192.03
0213005
FLORIDA TIRE RECYCLING, INC
11/21/96
720.00
0213006
FLORIDA WOMEN'S STATE GOLF
11/21/96
50.00
0213007
FALZONE, MATTHEW
11/21/96
28.50
0213008
FLORIDA NOTARY SERVICE AND
11/21/96
74.00
0213009
FINKLIN, WILLIE JR
11/21/96
49.88
0213010
FOUR POINT DESIGN, INC
11/21/96
158.90
0213011
FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES, INC
11/21/96
1,775.00
0213012
GAYLORD BROTHERS, INC
11/21/96
1,540.56
0213013
GEORGE W FOWLER CO
11/21/96
205.30
0213014
GLIDDEN COMPANY, THE
11/21/96
58.06
0213015
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO, INC
11/21/96
201.56
0213016
GARCIA, ARTURO L
11/21/96
500.00
0213017
GENERAL MEDICAL CORP
11/21/96
102.90
0213018
G P N
11/21/96
379.50
0213019
GOLF ASSOCIATES SCORECARD CO
11/21/96
1,940.92
0213020
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER
11/21/96
3,772.20
0213021
GNB TECHNOLOGIES
11/21/96
88.90
0213022
GEAC COMPUTERS INC
11/21/96
3,012.35
0213023
GEORGIA DIVISION TREASURER
11/21/96
700.00
0213024
GROVE'S DICTIONARIES, INC
11/21/96
2,600.00
0213025
GEORGE TRACY PLUMBING
11/21/96
142.50
0213026
GUTTRIDGE, BOBBY D
11/21/96
85.76
0213027
GAP, THE INC
11/21/96
500.00
5
DECEMBER 3, 1996 moo �a ? b u
BOOK 99 F-A�u 981
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0213028
HARRIS SANITATION
11/21/96
56.62
0213029
HARRISON UNIFORMS
11/21/96
66.40
0213030
HILL MANUFACTURING CO
11/21/96
1,212.38
0213031
HARTSFIELD, PHILLIP
11/21/96
30.00
0213032
HACH SUPPLY
11/21/96
137.25
0213033
HODGSON, MARVIN J
11/21/96
197.72
0213034
HUDSON, FRANK PARKER
11/21/96
65.00
0213035
HISCOTT, JAMES
11/21/96
5.00
0213036
HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS, INC
11/21/96
84.90
0213037
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID
11/21/96
2,706.45
0213038
INDIAN RIVER BATTERY
11/21/96
225.00
0213039
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES
11/21/96
703.61
0213040
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
11/21/96
114.00
0213041
INDIAN RIVER OXYGEN, INC
11/21/96
22.50
0213042
INGRAM
11/21/96
67.45
0213043
INTERLINK COMMUNICATIONS OF
11/21/96
360.90
0213044
I B M CORP-DVU
11/21/96
1,370.99
0213045
INVESTIGATIVE SUPPORT
11/21/96
840.00
0213046
IZOD GOLF & TENNIS
11/21/96
103.86
0213047
INDIAN RIVER ALLFAB
11/21/96
74.50
0213048
INTERNATIONAL GOLF MANAGEMENT
11/21/96
68,333.33
0213049
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
11/21/96
100.00
0213050
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
11/21/96
120.00
0213051
IDENTIFAX OF PALM BEACH
11/21/96
600.00
0213052
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
11/21/96
242.50
0213053
HOMELAND IRRIGATION CENTER
11/21/96
251.59
0213054
J R REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC
11/21/96
43.00
0213055
JORDAN, ELIZABETH M
11/21/96
66.80
0213056
JIMMY'S TREE SERVICE, INC
11/21/96
126.00
0213057
JOBEAR, INC
11/21/96
10,532.21
0213058
JIM ROTT HOME IMPROVEMENTS &
11/21/96
525.00
0213059
JUNO INDUSTRIES
11/21/96
4,124.85
0213060
JUNIOR LIBRARY GUILD
11/21/96
30.75
0213061
J A SEXAUER INC
11/21/96
440.54
0213062
JONES CHEMICALS, INC
11/21/96
9,440.00
0213063
JOBE, JENNIFER
11/21/96
73.63
0213064
KING, JOHN W
11/21/96
443.50
0213065
KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC
11/21/96
45.00
0213066
KELLY TRACTOR
11/21/96
10,056.48
0213067
KURTH, PATSY
11/21/96
250.00
0213068
KAUFFMANN, ALAN
11/21/96
24.00
0213069
KNIEF, MARK A
11/21/96
30.00
0213070
KT MOWER & EQUIPMENT
11/21/96
30.26
0213071
KIRLIN, JOHN J INC OF FLORIDA
11/21/96
286,946.19
0213072
KELL TELEPHONE
11/21/96
75.00
0213073
KETCHUM MFG: CO. INC.
11/21/96
496.80
0213074
LIGHT SOURCE -TONER SUPPLY
11/21/96
215.90
0213075
LESCO, INC
11/21/96
159.75
0213076
LIBRARY STORE
11/21/96
15.20
0213077
LLOYD, JOHN RALPH
11/21/96
72.00
0213078
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES
11/21/96
1,020.24
0213079
LASTER, JAMES
11/21/96
30.00
0213080
LEWIS, MARK
11/21/96
30.00
0213081
MACMILLAN OIL COMPANY
11/21/96
898.29
0213082
MAX DAVIS ASSOCIATES
11/21/96
259.43
0213083
MAXWELL & SON, INC
11/21/96
9.17
C:
DECEMBER 3, 1996
a � �
CHECK NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0213084
MCCALL ELECTRIC, INC
11/21/96
81.10
0213085
MCCOLLUM, NATHAN
11/21/96
470.22
0213086
MEEKS PLUNGING
11/21/96
67.50
0213087
MILLER, GWENDOLYN M
11/21/96
119.00
0213088
MILNER DOCUMENT PRODUCTS
11/21/96
563.37
0213089
MUMFORD LIBRARY BOOKS, INC
11/21/96
21,373.94
0213090
MASTELLER, MOLER & REED
11/21/96
1,225.00
0213091
MASTELLER & MOLER, INC
11/21/96
8,520.00
0213092
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY
11/21/96
377.91
0213093
MICRO -SCILLA
11/21/96
274.00
0213094
MCGINNIS, LYNDA, LPN
11/21/96
120.00
0213095
MICHAEL F HERBIG, INC
11/21/96
35.00
0213096
MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET
11/21/96
138.40
0213097
MAIN STREET HARDWARE, INC
11/21/96
35.18
0213098
MCLAUGHLIN WELL DRILLING
11/21/96
6,601.62
0213099
MCDONALD, PAUL S
11/21/96
1,356.43
0213100
MUELLER, EDWARD A
11/21/96
45.35
0213101
NATIONAL GOLF FOUNDATION
11/21/96
225.00
0213102
NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING
11/21/96
93.56
0213103
NEWSBANK
11/21/96
2,295.00
0213104
NOLTE, DAVID C
11/21/96
2,134.00
0213105
NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY
11/21/96
56.92
0213106
N F P A
11/21/96
95.00
0213107
NATIONAL AMBULANCE BUILDERS,
11/21/96
12.94
0213108
NAN MCKAY & ASSOCIATES, INC
11/21/96
12.50
0213109
NATIONAL ANIMAL CONTROL ASSOC
11/21/96
125.00
0213110
NATIONAL PROPANE CORP
11/21/96
94.49
0213111
NOLEN, VICKIE L
11/21/96
10.69
0213112
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
11/21/96
299.54
0213113
ORYX PRESS
11/21/96
20.59
0213114
OGILVIE, LIONEL H
11/21/96
30.00
0213115
OFFICE DEPOT, INC
11/21/96
4.80
0213116
OSBORN, JOSEPH E
11/21/96
5.00
0213117
OSCEOLA PHARMACY
11/21/96
267.94
0213118
OAK HARBOR CLUB PROPERTY INC.11/21/96
49.32
0213119
ONSITE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
11/21/96
30,888.90
0213120
PAGENET
11/21/96
46.70
0213121
PALM BEACH NEWSPAPER, INC
11/21/96
976.00
0213122
PEACE RIVER ELECTRIC
11/21/96
18.20
0213123
PERKINS DRUG, INC
11/21/96
479.10
0213124
PERKINS INDIAN RIVER PHARMACY
11/21/96
20.24
0213125
PETTY CASH
11/21/96
447.26
0213126
PHILLIPS, LINDA R
11/21/96
161.00
0213127
PINTO, TERRANCE G
11/21/96
161.82
0213128
PUBLIC DEFENDER 19TH JUDICIAL
11/21/96
3,567.42
0213129
PERKINS MEDICAL SUPPLY
11/21/96
55.95
0213130
P G A PACKAGING
11/21/96
215.22
0213131
PORT PETROLEUM, INC
11/21/96
637.55
0213132
PERCONTI DATA SYSTEMS, INC
11/21/96
6,250.00
0213133
PALM BAY LAWN SERVICE & LANDSC
11/21/96
548.00
0213134
PRIMESTAR BY TCI CABLE
11/21/96
39.95
0213135
PERROTTA, RICHARD J &
11/21/96
125.00
0213136
QUALITY BOOKS, INC
11/21/96
107.64
0213137
RADIO SHACK ACCT RECEIVABLE
11/21/96
244.51
0213138
RELIABLE WELL DRILLING
11/21/96
920.00
0213139
RIFKIN, SHELDON H PHD
11/21/96
950.00
7
DECEMBER 3, 1996 Box 99 QgE gS
BOOK 33 F -m E 3.83
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0213140
RUSS, WAYNE
11/21/96
448.13
0213141
RUSSELL CONCRETE, INC
11/21/96
586.50
0213142
RUSSO PRINTING, INC
11/21/96
96.00
0213143
RANGER CONSTRUCTION IND, INC
11/21/96
358.88
0213144
RANGEMASTER S E, INC
11/21/96
121.00
0213145
RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS
11/21/96
33.16
0213146
REARDON, RICK
11/21/96
78.00
0213147
ROVELLA, MICHAEL
11/21/96
110.44
0213148
ROGALA, GEORGE
11/21/96
30.00
0213149
SAFETY KLEEN CORP
11/21/96
87.05
0213150
SCHULTZ, DON L MD
11/21/96
450.00
0213151
SCOTTY'S, INC
11/21/96
1,493.49
0213152
SCOTTY'S, INC
11/21/96
162.92
0213153
SEBASTIAN BUSINESS SUPPLY, INC
11/21/96
76.08
0213154
SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
11/21/96
610.73
0213155
SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING,
11/21/96
764.50
0213156
SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY
11/21/96
1,109.63
0213157
STATE CHEMICAL MFG CO
11/21/96
159.33
0213158
STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO
11/21/96
400.94
0213159
SUDDEN IMAGES
11/21/96
68.03
0213160
SUN COAST CLEANING SUPPLIES,
11/21/96
272.90
0213161
SUNSHINE PHYSICAL THERAPY
11/21/96
30.00
0213162
SERVICE REFRIGERATION CO, INC
11/21/96
128.25
0213163
SIGNS IN A DAY
11/21/96
30.00
0213164
SOUTHERN JANITOR SUPPLY
11/21/96
540.88
0213165
SOUTHERN HISTORICAL PRESS, INC
11/21/96
750.00
0213166
SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMNT
11/21/96
14.00
0213167
SUN BELT MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC
11/21/96
483.20
0213168
SEGUINE, JAMES
11/21/96
295.84
0213169
SELIG CHEMICAL IND
11/21/96
124.50
0213170
SALEM PRESS, INC
11/21/96
3.00
0213171
SOLINET
11/21/96
444.75
0213172
SUPERIOR PRINTING
11/21/96
46.00
0213173
SYSCO FOOD SERVICE
11/21/96
1,654.76
0213174
STEWART, REUBEN W
11/21/96
26.75
0213175
SOUTHERN LOCK AND SUPPLY CO
11/21/96
161.96
0213176
SOUTHWIND GRAPHICS
11/21/96
108.05
0213177
STAPLES, INC
11/21/96
463.92
0213178
SILVA, SUE
11/21/96
100.00
0213179
TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
11/21/96
2,662.68
0213180
TITLEIST DRAWER CS
11/21/96
533.16
0213181
TRI -SURE CORPORATION
11/21/96
187,203.80
0213182
TIMBERGATE BUILDERS, INC
11/21/96
500.00
0213183
TERRA INTERNATIONAL, INC
11/21/96
785.85
0213184
TLC DIVERSIFIED, INC
11/21/96
61,162.56
0213185
TREASURE COAST CONTRACTING,INC
11/21/96
860.00
0213186
TRANE PARTS CENTER OF SOUTH
11/21/96
198.67
0213187
TREASURE COAST PUBLISHING INC
11/21/96
155.00
0213188
TATTEGRAIN, RAYMOND
11/21/96
62.50
0213189
THOMAS T BEELER, PUBLISHER
11/21/96
504.76
0213190
TRUGREEN-VERO BEACH
11/21/96
635.00
0213191
UMI
11/21/96
3,625.60
0213192
ULVERSCROSP LARGE PRINT BOOKS
11/21/96
1,198.58
0213193
UNITED ARTIFICIAL LIMB
11/21/96
774.90
0213194
VELDE FORD, INC
11/21/96
2,021.33
0213195
VERO BEACH PRESS JOURNAL
11/21/96
396.00
8
DECEMBER 3, 1996
CHECK NAME
NUMBER
CHECK
DATE
CHECK
AMOUNT
0213196
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
11/21/96
16,277.48
0213197
VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS,INC
11/21/96
117.80
0213198
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
11/21/96
44.95
0213199
VITUNAC, CHARLES P
11/21/96
88.89
0213200
VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
11/21/96
25.00
0213201
VERO BEARING & BOLT
11/21/96
180.40
0213202
WAL-MART STORES, INC
11/21/96
704.94
0213203
WALGREENS # 1547
11/21/96
100.25
0213204
WGYL 93.7 FM
11/21/96
810.00
0213205
WHITTON, HENRY G ESQ
11/21/96
927.00
0213206
WILLIAMS, ERNESTINE W
11/21/96
250.00
0213207
WRIGHT, DOUGLAS M
11/21/96
456.30
0213208
W W GRAINGER, INC
11/21/96
146.51
0213209
WINN DIXIE STORES, INC
11/21/96
560.55
0213210
WAL-MART PHARMACY, INC
11/21/96
25.17
0213211
WQOL FM
11/21/96
525.00
0213212
WAL-MART PHARMACY, INC
11/21/96
153.45
0213213
WILLHOFF, PATSY
11/21/96
104.00
0213214
WM THIES & SONS, INC
11/21/96
142.50
0213215
WHEELER PUBLISHING, INC
11/21/96
142.92
0213216
WALKER, KEITH
11/21/96
117.00
0213217
WPAW-FM
11/21/96
150.00
0213218
WBBE-FM
11/21/96
525.00
0213219
WOSN-FM RADIO STATION
11/21/96
107.25
0213220
WINKEL CONSTRUCTION INC
11/21/96
1,500.00
0213221
XEROX CORPORATION
11/21/96
198.46
0213222
YOUNG, BRUCE
11/21/96
90.48
0213223
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICES
11/21/96
171.18
0213224
ZIMMERMANN, KARL
11/21/96
66,519.81
0213225
ESQUIRE FARMS 1993 INC
11/21/96
19.27
0213226
DRISDOM, MARK
11/21/96
41.71
0213227
VORDERMEIER III,HARRY & REJAN
11/21/96
36.41
0213228
BRENNAN, DR ARTHUR
11/21/96
20.00
0213229
BURNS, ROBERT
11/21/96
105.14
0213230
BYRNE, SHIRLEY J
11/21/96
106.18
0213231
DAVENPORT, KENNETH L
11/21/96
109.82
0213232
COOPER, MARJORIE A
11/21/96
53.14
0213233
VAGLIVIELO, VIC J
11/21/96
52.61
0213234
NIGHTENGALE, LAURA
11/21/96
52.58
0213235
LAVIN, CHARLES & SHIRLEY
11/21/96
52.88
0213236
DEAN RAY N
11/21/96
52.61
0213237
WESTOVER, TODD & MARINA
11/21/96
52.59
0213238
SNUFFER, HENRY E
11/21/96
52.59
0213239
LYONS, JEAN MARIE
11/21/96
56.15
0213240
BEATTIE, CHARLES A
11/21/96
57.60
0213241
KING, ROBERT E
11/21/96
57.55
0213242
SOMMERFROIND, MARIUS
11/21/96
57.54
0213243
PATTERSON, ALBERT A
11/21/96
52.54
0213244
POUST, DONALD W
11/21/96
57.61
0213245
PATTEN, WILLIAM
11/21/96
54.32
0213246
MARTIN SR, JOHN D
11/21/96
52.52
0213247
THORNTON, REGINA C
11/21/96
46.42
0213248
ASBURY, JUDY A
11/21/96
39.14
0213249
STETSON, RALPH & BARBARA
11/21/96
51.98
0213250
BASS SR, MARVIN P
11/21/96
31.33
0213251
ALLEN, HAROLD W
11/21/96
5,30
9
DECEMBER 3, 1996
Bm 9 fnE 984
aoof 99 985
CHECK NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0213252
SILVERWOOD, CHARLES J
11/21/96
4.23
0213253
DANIELS JR, WALTER
11/21/96
67.36
0213254
MGB CONSTRUCTION INC
11/21/96
80.52
0213255
COOPER, JAMES L
11/21/96
34.63
0213256
GLASS, BARBARA A
11/21/96
59.72
0213257
AUSTIN, COLIN M
11/21/96
55.08
0213258
BEATTY, ALBERT
11/21/96
38.71
0213259
KING, SANDRA L
11/21/96
41.33
0213260
DUNCKLEE, TIMOTHY
11/21/96
39.43
0213261
H & D JACKSON APTS
11/21/96
2.44
0213262
DALY, MICHAEL J
11/21/96
46.82
0213263
VERO BUILDING CORP
11/21/96
44.63
0213264
CAL BUILDERS INC
11/21/96
53.16
0213265
R ZORC & SONS BUILDERS INC
11/21/96
31.75
0213266
ZUGELTER CONSTRUCTION CORP
11/21/96
102.16
0213267
ARCHER OF VERO INC
11/21/96
42.20
0213268
RAY, JAMES M
11/21/96
22.83
0213269
NIXON, PHILIP
11/21/96
22.87
0213270
GIRVEN, JAMES R
11/21/96
8.39
0213271
TAN, TIONG KIE
11/21/96
32.79
0213272
DEVOE, BARBARA
11/21/96
83.47
0213273
DURANT, JONATHON L
11/21/96
36.11
0213274
GURKLIS, MICHAEL P
11/21/96
1.29
0213275
WOLF, PAT & JAMES
11/21/96
18.92
0213276
DAV LIN CONST CO
11/21/96
326.10
0213277
MYERS, CHARLES A
11/21/96
23.25
0213278
LECLERC, ALICE C
11/21/96
51.41
0213279
TREASURE COAST DRYWALL
11/21/96
34.32
0213280
WBH CONSTRUCTION
11/21/96
44.81
0213281
TONY'S BARBER SHOP
11/21/96
55.53
0213282
LANE, HARRY L
11/21/96
74.03
0213283
KELLEY, PAUL F
11/21/96
66.44
0213284
WILCOX, WARREN
11/21/96
44.78
0213285
STEWART, DAVID
11/21/96
50.26
0213286
WARD, DONNA R
11/21/96
4.97
0213287
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
11/21/96
9.87
0213288
SHOWCASE PROPERTIES LTD CO
11/21/96
41.97
0213289
GONSALVES, ELAINE
11/21/96
103.62
0213290
HENCH, MOLLIE M
11/21/96
64.08
0213291
NIXON, ROBERT L
11/21/96
43.77
0213292
CRAWFORD, PATRICIA L
11/21/96
42.44
0213293
THOMAS, MICHAEL G
11/21/96
40.96
0213294
ZINCK, NORMAN B
11/21/96
29.16
0213295
SCHLITT JR, FRANK J
11/21/96
31.10
0213296
MEADE, JEFFREY S
11/21/96
29.63
0213297
BELLOW, NATASHA
11/21/96
31.64
0213298
HARRISON, HEIDI L
11/21/96
45.03
0213299
GHO VERO BEACH INC
11/21/96
137.72
0213300
JOSEPH, ANTOINE
11/21/96
81.41
0213301
PERFECTION TRUSSES INC
11/21/96
74.76
0213302
STEVENS, RONALD E
11/21/96
40.88
0213303
BROWNE, ROSALEE B
11/21/96
27.42
0213304
KRETZMER, THOMAS
11/21/96
54.12
0213305
OBER,LISA
11/21/96
18.67
0213306
DUNCAN, DEBBIE
11/21/96
57.71
0213307
UNGER JR, JAKOB
11/21/96
73.03
10
DECEMBER 3, 1996
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0213308
GIEL, DOROTHY
11/21/96
71.15
0213309
VELDE, TIM & JODI
11/21/96
27.36
0213310
PURVIS; KATRINA
11/21/96
32.71
0213311
LYON, ANDREA I
11/21/96
32.07
0213312
SCOTT, JOYCE & GEORGE
11/21/96
31.65
0213313
ALLEN, VALERIE
11/21/96
20.85
0213314
WILLIAM P WELLS TRUST
11/21/96
80.02
0213315
SANCHEZ, ORLANDO
11/21/96
49.63
0213316
ART KRIEGER CONSTRUCTION
11/21/96
68.54
0213317
MEEKS, RONNIE
11/21/96
50.00
0213318
HALLMARK DEVELOPMENT
11/21/96
72.42
0213319
BEERS CONSTRUCTION
11/21/96
312.94
0213320
DOTSON, BRYAN
11/21/96
28.41
0213321
BEEBE, RICHARD
11/21/96
76.43
0213322
GO, ROBERT
11/21/96
34.70
0213323
NATIONAL CHAINS
11/21/96
356.70
0213324
HEALY, BERNADETTE
11/21/96
19.59
0213325
SCHAEFER, ROBERT T
11/21/96
220.28
0213326
JOHNSON, DONIAL
11/21/96
55.80
0213327
GRANT, HELENE J
11/21/96
109.12
0213328
VANDEN BOSCH, OTTO E
11/21/96
105.08
0213329
GOSMAN, R EMMETT
11/21/96
105.28
0213330
MAZARIN, YULIN M
11/21%96
105.12
0213331
SMITH, JAMES B
11/21/96
111.74
0213332
WALLACE, JOHN F
11/21/96
105.20
0213333
SCHLITT, MICHAEL
11/21/96
52.90
0213334
COMEAU, WILLIAM G
11/21/96
105.52
0213335
CARLSON, HARRY D
11/21/96
105.16
0213336
GREENE, ROBERT E
11/21/96
1,011.45
0213337
BOBINSKI, WALTER
11/21/96
21.20
1,268,818.70
C. School Board Appointments to County Committees
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/22/96:
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Alice E. White
Executive Aide to Board
Date: November 22, 1996
Subject: School Board appointments to County committees
Ratification is requested for School Board appointments to the following
committees:
Dorothy Talbert
Herbert Bailey
Wesley Davis
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Economic Development Committee
Council of Public Officials
11
DECEMBER 3, 1996
BOOK yy
'�W'."
I
'99 fx-987
Boa r -
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously ratified
the School Board committee appointments as set out
in the above memo.
A Quitclaim of Water Treatment Plant Site to Nelson Hyatt at Park Place
Mobile Home Park
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/22/96:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
`J
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: November 22, 1996
RE: Quitclaim of Water Treatment Plant Site to
Nelson Hyatt at Park Place Mobile Home Park
When the Department of Utility Services took over the Park Place water and
sewer franchise by purchase in July of 1989, the County agreed to return the
real property used in the utilities operation when the County no longer used
it or at the end of ten years, whichever came first.
The Department of Utility Services is no longer using the water plant site
and has no objection to it being return to Nelson Hyatt, the owner of Park
Place Mobile Home Park.
Requested Action: Request the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the
attached quitclaim deed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the quitclaim deed to Nelson Hyatt and authorized
the Chairman's signature.
COPY OF DEED IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
DECEMBER 3, 1996
12
M ® M
E. 1�° posed Budget Revision to FY 1996-97 -- Mass Transit Grant
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/25/96:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Keith Burnsed, AICP
MPO Planner
THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICPJ11ryX'
Community Development Director
DATE: November 25, 1996
SUBJECT: PROPOSED BUDGET REVISION TO FY 1996/97 MASS TRANSIT GRANT
(49 USC CH. 53, SECTION 5307 GRANT)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 3, 1996.
At the August 27, 1996 meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners, the Board authorized the filing of a FY
1996/97 Section 5307 (formerly Section 9) grant
application, requesting $1,176,099 in federal, state, and
local cash and soft -match funds. As proposed, those
funds will be passed -through to the Indian River County
Council on Aging to provide funding for the Community
Coach bus system. At the time that staff prepared the FY
1996/97 grant, federal funds were estimated to be
available in the amount requested. The actual allocation
approved by Congress was, however, less than originally
estimated. Therefore, the Section 5307 budget must be
revised to reflect the lower allocation of funding.
Revisions to the grant budget in Attachment 1 of this
staff report reduce the operations budget by $98,763.
Based on these proposed revisions in Attachment 1, staff
prepared the revised budget in Attachment 2, which
reflects federal, state/local, and soft -match funds used
in the Section 5307 grant. Staff recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve a budget revision
for the FY 1996/97 Section 5307 grant as indicated in
Attachments 1 and 2 of this staff report.
At the August 27, 1996 meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners, the Board authorized the filing of a FY 1996/97 49
USC Ch. 53, Section 5307 (formerly known as Section 9 of the
Federal Transit Act) grant application, requesting $1,176,099 in
federal, state, and local cash and soft -match funds. As proposed,
13
DEC , ER 3, 1996
BOOK 99 pta 988
BOOK 99 MUTE 989
those funds will be passed -through to the Council on Aging to
provide funding for the Community Coach bus system.
At the time that staff prepared the FY 1996/97 grant, federal funds
were estimated to be available in the amount requested. Estimates
of available federal grant money are, however, subject to
Congressional appropriations. The amount of transit funding
appropriated by Congress for the 1996/97 fiscal year was less than
estimated. In addition to Congress's reduction, two Florida
transit systems applied for Section 5307 funding for the first time
in FY 1996/97, thereby reducing the amount available to all systems
in Florida.
As a result of the reductions in available transit funding, Indian
River County's federal Section 5307 allocation for FY 1996/97 is
$98,763 less than estimated. The amount of state funding remains
the same as estimated, $112,655.
PAI
The reduction in federal transit allocation affects the transit
operations portion of the County's Section 5307 grant. As a result
of the lowered operations funding, it is likely that the level of
transit service planned for the 1996/97 fiscal year will be
reduced. Federal operations funding for the 1996/97 fiscal year
is, however, still higher than federal operations funding received
in the 1995/96 fiscal year.
To offset the reductions, the Indian River County Council on Aging
Transportation Director has provided staff with recommended
revisions to the Section 5307 grant budget. Staff concur with the
Council on Aging's recommendations. These revisions are listed in
Attachment 1 of this staff report. Attachment 2 of this staff
report is a revised Section 5307 budget.
The specific proposed Section 5307 budget revisions are:
Capitalize a portion of maintenance costs -- FTA rules allow
a portion (201s) of transit system maintenance costs to be
capitalized. This would provide $37,500 that could be used
for operations. To add this budget item, an appropriate
amount of funds must be reduced in the capital portion of the
grant. These are:
■ Eliminate funding for Bus Stop Signs -- this reduction
would provide $1,250
■ Eliminate Bus Shelter funding -- $11,250 was originally
allocated for additional bus shelters. The 1995/96
Section 5307 budget was revised in August 1996 to provide
$10,000 for shelters, so construction at some locations
would still occur
• Reduce Bus Washing System funding -- by reducing funding
for this item by $15,000, $60,000 would still be
available for the washing system
• Reduce funding for contingencies -- this would provide
$10,000 and would not adversely affect the grant budget
14
DECEMBER 3, 1996
M M M
As a result of the revisions above, $98,763 would be eliminated
from the Section 5307 operations funding.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
budget revision for the FY 1996/97 Section 5307 grant as indicated
in Attachments 1 and 2 of this staff report.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
budget revision for the FY 1996/97 Capital and
Operations Budget for 49 USC Ch. 53, Section 5307
Grant and the revised FY -1996/97 Capital and
Operations Budget for 49 USC Ch. 53, Section 5307
Grant.
15
DECEMBER 3, 1996 $ooK 99
BOOK
Attachment I
Revsions to FY 1996/97
Indian River County Capital & Operations Budget
49 USC Ch. 53, Section 5307 Grant
(formerly known as FTA Section 9 Grant)
Original
DESCRIPTION Total
BUS TROLLEY PURCHASE
$150,000
BUS < 30 FT (CUTAWAY)
$250,000
TERMINAL LEASE
$8,750
BUS SIGNS
$1,250
BUS SHELTERS
$11,250
BUS WASHING SYSTEM
$75,000
LEASE BUS ADMIN
$22,000
LEASE BUS YARD
$9,000
MAINTENANCE CAPITALIZATION
$0
CONTINGENCY
$26,363
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL
$553,613
OPERATING EXPENSES $617,486
SUBTOTAL OPS $617,486
TRAVEL $2,000
FEES $1,000
HOUSING/MEALS $2,000
SUBTOTAL TRAINING $5,000
GRANT TOTAL $1,176,099
16
DECEMBER 3, 1996
Revision
($1,250)
($11,250)
($15,000)
$37,500
($10,000)
$0
($98,763)
($98,763)
$0
Revision
$0
($98,763)
$0
($98,763)
New
Total
99 Pic[ 991
GNUS LINE
ACT CODE
$150,000
Original
Summary
Total
Capital
$553,613
Operations
$617,486
Training
$5,000
GRANT TOTAL $1,176,099
16
DECEMBER 3, 1996
Revision
($1,250)
($11,250)
($15,000)
$37,500
($10,000)
$0
($98,763)
($98,763)
$0
Revision
$0
($98,763)
$0
($98,763)
New
Total
99 Pic[ 991
GNUS LINE
ACT CODE
$150,000
11.13.09
$250,000
11.13.04
$8,750
11.36.03
$0
11.32.09
$0
11.32.10
$60,000
11.42.20
$22,000
11.46.01
$9,000
11.46.05
$37,500
11.17.00
$16,363
99.99.00
$553,613
$518,723 30.09.00
$518,723
$2,000 50.10.00
$1,000 50.20.00
$2,000 50.30.00
$5,000
New
Total
$553,613
$518,723
$5,000
$1,077,336
Attachment 2
FY 1996/97
Indian River County Capital & Operations Budget
49 USC Ch. 53, Section 5307 Grant
(formerly known as FTA Section 9 Grant)
• The required match for Section 5307 capital assistance will be met through an agreement to use toU revenue as a credit toward the ton -Federal matching share.
** Cash Total is the amount of actual cash fimdmg and does not reflect soft -match. This is the amount reflected on Form 424, Application for Federal Funding Assistance.
17
DECEMBER 3, 1996 BOON 99 PnL 992
LOCAL/
SOFT
CASH
GMIS LINE
DESCRIPTION
BLOCK GRANT
MATCH*
FEDERAL
TOTAL
TOTAL**
ACT CODE
BUS TROLLEY PURCHASE
$0
$30,000
$120,000
$150,000
$120,000
11.13.09
BUS <30 FI' (CUTAWAY)
$0
$50,000
$200,000
$250,000
$200,000
11.13.04
TERMINAL LEASE
$0
$1,750
$7,000
$8,750
$7,000
11.36.03
BUS SIGNS
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
11.32.09
BUS SHELTERS
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
11.32.10
BUS WASHING SYSTEM
$0
$12,000
$48,000
$60,000
$48,000
11.42.20
LEASE BUS ADMIN
$0
$4,400
$17,600
$22,000
$17,600
11.46.01
LEASE BUS YARD
$0
$1,800
$7,200
$9,000
$7,200
11.46.05
MAINTENANCE CAPITALIZATION
$0
$7,500
$30,000
$37,500
$30,000
11.17.00
CONTINGENCY
$0
$3,273
$13,090
$16,363
$13,090
99.99.00
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL
$0
5110,723
$442,890
$553,613
$442,890
Percent of Total
0%
20%
80%
OPERATING EXPENSES
$308,743
$0
$209,980
$518,723
$518,723
30.09.00
SUBTOTAL OPS
$308,743
$0
$209,980
$518,723
$518,723
Percent of Total
60%
0*/
401%
TRAVEL
$1,000
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$2,000
50:10.00
FEES
$500
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,000
50.20.00
HOUSING/MEALS
$1,000
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$2,000
5030.00
SUBTOTAL TRAINING
$2,500
$0
$2,500
$5,000
$5,000
Percent of Total
Soya
0•/*
SO%
Local/
Soft
Cash
Summary
Block Grant
Match*
Federal
Total
Total**
Capital
$0
$110,723
$442,890
$553,613
$442,890
Operations
$308,743
$0
$209,980
$518,723
$518,723
Ting
$2,500
$0
$2,500
$5,000
$5,000
Grant Total
$311,243
$110,723
$655,370
51,077,336
$966,613
• The required match for Section 5307 capital assistance will be met through an agreement to use toU revenue as a credit toward the ton -Federal matching share.
** Cash Total is the amount of actual cash fimdmg and does not reflect soft -match. This is the amount reflected on Form 424, Application for Federal Funding Assistance.
17
DECEMBER 3, 1996 BOON 99 PnL 992
BOOK 99 fnU 993
PUBLIC HEARING - AMERICAN TOWER SYSTEM'S REQUEST FOR
SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL TO ERECT 300' TOWER IN
NORTH COUNTY
PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Darryl K. Hift who on
oath says that the is President of the Press -Journal, a daffy newspaper published at Vero Beach
in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
hi-I")0>j CGP
in the
lished in said newspaper in the Issues or–/)yY' L /99'c
Court, was Pub-
Arrant further says that the said Press%bumal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, In
said Indian River County Florida, and that to said newspaper las heretofore been
continuously published In said Indian River County, Florida, each daffy and has been entered as
second class mail matter at the post office lo Vero Beach, =Ian Indian River County, 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 nelther paid Thor pronged any person, firth
or corporation any discamt, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing fig
nna►►dvertsement for publicatlon to said rewspaw.
SMvtfiTt'to�h��4ubscribed before me this -2— day ACAL— A.D.1
!y Comm. Expires
August25,1997 ` iA\:.11AA. PRk4rUrr.N(rrARYPCBUC )
No. CC310M = s•at� of Flonde Nt• t.xtnrn emon %Auzmt 23 1997
omrur+inn .rumwr L:C3 mm.
4SEAL) pr.°
4lF�F„F
slv�,�d•
oto : SANnRA A. FSCOTT
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARNG
NOUN of hearUtg to consider the grar�ttrq of e.
dexception use approval •for a Za"1 nunurlica
*M tower. The Abject
bwned stn�ro�ped is
JIM
bird Street yJoseMnTract 2147 0} the
ISla1. See the above map for the focaticn.
A pLd* roaring at which parties •in interest and
citlzens shall have an opportwllty to be hard, will
fie held by the Bard -of
Ildian A �County.lftn �Ftoida, Un the Can`{y s,.
located at 1840 25tln�Skeet, Vero Bach, Flor-p
JIM uesd. Anyone �Dewer 3.1998may wish to aattp8�015 am.
decision
VAft rosy be made at ft mewing WPI �
Sore that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
Made. which incudes testimony and evidence upon
which the Is based.
ANYONE appeal
WHONEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA-
TION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE
COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
(ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-M X223 AT
1EAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEET-
IV, INDIAN -RIVER COUNTY
t, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
;Nur. 8, B� ran B. Adams 1349209
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/22/96:
TO: James .Chandler
County Administrator
D S ON HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keats ,CP
Community De�velopme Dire for
THROUGH: Stan Boling; AICP
Planning Director
FROM: Eric Blad �F
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: November 22, 1996
SUBJECT: American Tower Systems' Request for Special Exception Use
Approval to Erect a 300' Tower in the North County
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 3, 1996.
18
DECEMBER 3, 1996
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Houston Cuozzo Group, Inc., on behalf of American Tower Systems,
has submitted an application requesting site plan administrative
approval and special exception use approval to construct an
unmanned 300' self -supported communications tower and associated
equipment building. The subject tower site is to be located at
12280 83rd Street, approximately 2 miles south of CR 512, west of
I-95 (see attachment #2). The proposed tower site is a .92 acre
lease area in the northern third of an overall 6.32 acre site. In
the southeast corner of the overall site, an existing single family
dwelling is occupied by the lessor. Because the proposed tower
exceeds 140' in height, and because the site is located within an
A-1 zoning district, special exception use approval must be granted
for construction of the tower.
At its regular meeting of October 24, 1996, the Planning and Zoning
Commission, by vote of 5 to 0, recommended that the Board grant
special exception use approval with the conditions stated in the
recommendation section of this report (see attachment #4). On
November 5, 1996, the Board adopted a six month moratorium on
applications for communications towers such as the one proposed
with this application. However, the moratorium specifically
excluded complete applications in process as of November 5, 1996.
This is such an application. Therefore, this application is not
affected by the moratorium and is to be const e5
the
The Board is now to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
special exception use request. Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the
LDRs, the Board of County Commissioners is to consider the
appropriateness of the requested use for the subject site and its
impact on surrounding properties. The County may attach any
conditions and safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts and to
ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area.
Staff has reviewed the submitted proposal and has granted site plan
administrative approval subject to the Board granting special
exception use approval and any conditions attached to that
approval. Therefore, the administrative site plan approval will
become effective if and when the Board grants special exception use
approval.
ANALYSIS:
• General Land Development Regulations
1. Land Use Designation: AG -1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit per 5
acres)
2. Zoning Classification: A-1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit per 5
acres)
3. Area of Development: 0.92 acres (lease area from Stone
property)
4. Subject Parcel Area: 6.32 acres overall (Stone property)
5. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Residence/A-1
South: Residence/A-1
East: Vacant/A-1
West: Vacant/A-1
19
DECEMBER 3, 1996
BOOK 99 PA,f 994
Box 99 F.auE 995
6. Airport Zoning Ordinance Regulations: The proposed 300' tower
would extend into one of the county's "height notification
zones." Pursuant to the county's height notification and
other airport zoning ordinance regulations, the applicant has
been notified that it must file a notice of proposed
construction form with the FAA (Federal Aviation
Administration), to obtain the FAA's obstruction determination
on the proposed tower.
If the FAA determines that the proposed tower does not exceed
federal obstruction standards, then the applicant will need to
obtain an "airport construction permit" from staff. That
permit merely requires compliance with any limitations or
conditions noted in the FAAs determination.
If, however, the FAA determines that the proposed tower
exceeds federal obstruction standards, then the applicant will
need -to obtain an "airport construction variance" from the
Board of Adjustment. Such a variance can be approved only
upon satisfaction of various air traffic safety criteria.
The applicant has informed staff that the appropriate
notification information has been filed with the FAA. The
applicant has also acknowledged that, upon receipt of the
FAA's determination, it will apply for a county "airport
construction permit". Prior to site plan release, the
applicant must obtain a county "airport construction permit"
or "airport construction variance".
7. Building Area: 600 sq. ft. (unmanned, electrical equipment
building)
8. Open Space: Required: 80.0%
Provided: 95.5%
9. Traffic Circulation: The tower lease area is to be accessed
from 83rd Street via a private driveway that runs north and
south along the east boundary of the overall site. In order
to establish access rights, a proposed 20' wide access
easement will be created. The easement necessary to serve the
proposed tower must be recorded into the public records prior
to release of the approved site plan. Due to the low traffic
generation associated with an unmanned tower site, traffic
engineering has approved the proposed access.
10. Off -Street Parking: Required: 2 unpaved
Provided: 2 unpaved
Note: County off-street parking regulations for towers
require two (2) parking spaces. The spaces may be fully
sodded or otherwise stabilized as approved by the Public Works
Director. The stabilized parking spaces provided for the
subject site have been approved by the Public Works Director.
11. Landscape Plan: For towers, such as this one, that exceed
140' in height in agricultural zoning districts, the lowest
50' of the tower must be screened from adjacent properties.
Initially some screening will be provided by existing pines
and myrtles on the overall site. However, in order to provide
for all required screening, additional pine trees and myrtles
are
proposed to be planted along the perimeter of the tower
lease area. Therefore, the specific land use criteria of
section 971.44(2) are satisfied.
12. Stormwater Management: The Stormwater Management Plan has
been approved by the Public Works Department.
20
DECEMBER 3, 1996
13. Utilities: The proposed site is outside of the utilities
service area. Given the type of use, no water or wastewater
services are required. Therefore, county utilities has no
objection to approval of the site plan and use request.
14. Health & Rehabilitative Services (HRS): The HRS Environmental
Health Unit acknowledges that the site will not require a
potable water supply or sanitary facility, and has no
objections to approval of the site plan and use request.
• Special Exception Use Criteria
15. Specific Land Use Criteria: The applicant must satisfy the
following specific land use criteria which apply to the
erection of a tower exceeding 140' in height within an A-1
zoning district.
A. General criteria for all towers exceeding 70' in height.
1. All towers not related to amateur radio
communications use shall have setbacks from all
property lines equal to one hundred ten (110)
percent of the height of the proposed structure.
This setback provision may be waived or modified if
the applicant submits a certified, signed and
sealed statement from a Florida registered
professional engineer stating that the tower would
collapse within the designed and specified fall
radius depicted on the plans.
Towers related to amateur radio communication use
need only satisfy building setbacks for the zoning
district in which the tower is located. This less
stringent setback provision is in recognition of
the FCC's PRB-1 preemption for amateur radio
communications.
2. In cases where the tower is not related to amateur
radio communications use, the fall radius (one
hundred ten (110) percent of the tower height or
other approved design fall radius) shall not
encroach upon existing off-site structures or
adjacent residentially designated property;
Note: The project engineer for the tower has
provided a general description of the tower design,
and has stated the tower is designed to fall within
the radius of the guy wires, which is 100(see
attachment #5).
The tower is set back 134' from the nearest
property line, and approximately 350' from the on-
site residence occupied by the lessor. Pursuant to
the specific land use criteria, the tower's fall
radius (1001) is contained on the subject site and
does not encroach upon existing structures.
3. The distance of any guy anchorage or similar device
shall be at least five (5) feet from any property
line;
4. All accessory structures shall be subject to the
height restrictions provided in Accessory uses,
Chapter 917;
21
DECEMBER 3, 1996
BOOK 99 997
5. If more than two hundred twenty (220) voltage is
necessary for the operation of the facility and is
present in a ground grid or in the tower, signs
located every twenty (20) feet and attached to the
fence or wall shall display in large bold letters
the following: "HIGH VOLTAGE - DANGER";
6. No equipment, mobile or immobile, which is not used
in direct support of the transmission or relay
facility shall be stored or parked on the site
unless repairs to the facility are being made
(applies only on A-1, A-2, or A-3 zoned property);
7. _ No tower shall be permitted to encroach into or
through any established public or private airport
approach path as provided in the airport height
limitations. All proposed towers shall satisfy the
airport zoning ordinance requirements.
8. Towers proposed to be located in the RFD, RS -1, RS -
2, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6, RM -8, RM -10,
RMH-6, RMH-8, Con -2, Con -3, R-BCID, AIR -1, and
ROSE -4 zoning districts shall be accessory to the
principal site use and shall meet standard building
code requirements for structures.
B. Specific criteria for towers over 140' in height
requiring special exception use approval.
1. Suitable protective anti -climb fencing and a
landscape planting screening shall be provided and
maintained around the structure and accessory
attachments. Where the first fifty (50) feet of a
tower is visible to the public, the applicant shall
provide one canopy tree per three thousand (3,000)
square feet of the designated fall radius. The
trees shall be planted in a pattern which will
obscure the base area of the tower, without
conflicting with the guy wires of the tower;
2. All towers shall submit a conceptual tower lighting
.plan. Louvers or shields may be required as
necessary to keep light from shining down on
surrounding properties. Strobe lights must be used
unless prohibited by other agencies;
Note: The applicant has agreed to install the
least obtrusive tower lighting system allowed by
the FAA (i.e. a combination day/night tower
lighting system that provides white strobe lighting
during the day and red pulsing lighting during the
night).
3. The reviewing body shall consider the impact of the
proposed tower on residential subdivisions near the
project site;
4. All property owners within six hundred (600) feet
of the property boundary shall receive written
notice;
5. Applicants shall explain in writing why no other
existing tower facility could be used to meet the
applicant's transmitting/receiving needs. An
application may be denied if existing tower
facilities can be used;
22
DECEMBER 3, 1996
M M M
M M
Note: The applicant, American Tower Systems (ATS),
provides tower infrastructure, but is not itself a
wireless communications company. ATS has
commitments and/or is negotiating with wireless
communication service companies to locate
facilities on the tower. For the proposed tower,
ATS has indicated that its clients include PrimeCo,
Sprint, General Wireless, and several paging and
radio users. Two users (PrimeCo and Sprint) are
committed to use the proposed tower.
The applicant has provided correspondence from AT&T
Wireless that the Berry Groves AT&T tower (approved
by the Board on September 3, 1996) is unable to
support ATS's clients. (see attachment #6).
Additional correspondence has been provided which
indicates that AT&T's Berry Groves Tower is not
structurally capable of supporting the number of
microwave antennae to be accommodated by the ATS
tower. Even though ATS is not a communications
provider, ATS has indicated that the tower space
needed by its clients is not currently available in
the north county. It is staff's position that,
pursuant to current LDR criteria, the applicant has
demonstrated a need for the proposed tower. The
applicant has submitted justification for the
proposed tower location (see attachment #6).
6. Towers shall be designed to accommodate multiple
users;
7. A condition of approval for any tower application
shall be that the tower shall be available for
other parties and interests. This shall be
acknowledged in a written agreement between the
applicant and the county, on a form acceptable to
the county, that will run with the land.
Note: The applicant is currently finalizing the
language of this agreement with the county
attorney's office. The agreement must be finalized
prior to release of the approved site plan.
Each of these 15 criteria has been addressed by the applicant,
subject to conditions referenced in the analysis.
16. Dedications and Improvements: The LDRs do not require any
dedications or improvements connected with the proposed
development of this site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners grant special exception use approval for the
requested tower with the following conditions:
1. That prior to site plan release, the applicant shall obtain
either a county "airport construction permit" or "airport
construction variance".
2. That prior to site plan release, the applicant shall provide
the following:
a. An executed agreement acceptable to the County Attorney
that acknowledges that the tower shall be available for
other parties and interests.
23
DECEMBER 3, 1996 BOOK 9,F
I
BOOK 99 mUE 999
b. Documentation, acceptable to the planning staff, that the
tower shall be provided with the least obtrusive lighting
system allowed by the FAA, as described under item
15.B.2. of this report.
3. That, if the communication use of the tower is abandoned for
a period of twelve (12 ) consecutive months, the tower shall be
dismantled_and removed from the site.
U
Planning Director Stan Boling presented staff's recommendation
for approval subject to 3 conditions, noting that this application
came in previous to the moratorium. He advised that this
application is not affected by the moratorium and is to be
considered under the existing LDRs.
Commissioner Eggert asked how far the tower is from the
single-family dwelling located in the southeast corner of the site,
and Director Boling explained that the tower is located 400 feet
from the house which is occupied by a tenant who has not raised any
objections.
Director Boling advised that landscaping is proposed within
the leased areas and the owner's areas.
Chairman Adams asked why no landscaping is planned for the
east side, and Director Adams explained that there is a stabilized
driveway from the roadway on the east side, but landscaping could
be done along the roadway area.
Commissioner Eggert understood that the canal runs along the
east boundary line, also.
Chairman Adams opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Warren Dill, attorney representing American Tower Systems
introduced several representatives from Sprint and PrimeCo who
would be happy to answer any questions the Board may have. He
stressed that co -location is very important to his client whose
goal is to get as many users on the tower as possible. Attorney
Dill realized that towers are a sensitive subject and that a lot of
good ideas came out of the workshop held on November 12. He
understood the County's interest lies in reducing the proliferation
of towers within Indian River County and is encouraging co -location
and stealth towers in residential areas. He also understood that
the County's desire is to discourage towers in the urban service
area because of concerns about the visibility of towers and levels
DECEMBER 3, 1996 24
� � r
of lighting. Attorney Dill emphasized that American Tower Systems
is addressing those concerns in a very positive manner in this
application. -This tower is designed to hold 12-15 other users and
his clients have written commitments from PrimeCo and Sprint, an
oral agreement with Nextel, and are negotiating with General
Wireless, Inc. as well as several paging, two-way and specialized
mobile radio ("SMR") users.
Attorney Dill advised that the request is for a location in a
rural area west of I-96 that will have low visibility, and that his
client's application meets all the requirements being proposed in
the LDR amendments. Based on that, he urged the Board to approve
their application.
Jim Eisenstein, chief operating officer of American Tower
Systems, addressed an issue raised at the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting about why American Tower Systems cannot use the
AT&T Wireless tower facility located at Berry Groves. Next, he
explained that they want to build out the I-95 corridor looking for
seamless coverage so that people driving up or down I-95 never lose
a call. They are building towers in Martin County and all the way
up to the Brevard County line. They need two towers for seamless
coverage in Indian River County. They have one at Central
Assembly of God and the Fellsmere site will allow them to link up
to the north county area.
Chairman Adams asked if Sabre Communications had designed the
proposed tower, and Mr. Eisenstein explained that Sabre designed it
with American Towers Systems. He emphasized that American Tower
Systems is not in the cellular phone business but in the business
of constructing towers for other companies to use and co -location
is their -main objective.
Chairman Adams asked if the engineer that signs off on the
tower works for American Tower Systems, and Mr. Eisenstein said,
"No." He explained that the tower is being designed to handle
winds of incredible velocity. The equipment would fall off before
the tower would fall, towers are designed to fall on top of
themselves.
Chairman Adams asked if the equipment would fall within the
100 ft. design radius, and Mr. Eisenstein answered affirmatively.
The Board indicated their desire to have the engineer seal a
letter to that effect on behalf of American Tower Systems.
DECEMBER 3, 1996 25 90OX 99 PAGEI000
il"A
BOOK U F ,u AUJ
Chairman Adams noted that she took personal affront to
comments about people living in agricultural areas having a greater
or lesser lifestyle than people residing in cities. She emphasized
that people choose to live in rural areas to get away from the city
hustle and bustle and enjoy the serene environment.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, to approve staff's
recommendation for approval subject to the 3
conditions listed.
Under discussion, Commissioner Macht suggested that some
language be added to the agreement requiring that a radiation
pattern be sealed by an engineer.
Commissioner Macht asked if their radiation pattern was
computer projected, and someone from the audience stated that it
was.
Chairman Adams wished to see the letter from the engineer
about the tower fall area:
, eAh
SA13 RE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
300 NW. 75 NWO • PA. BOX pt . SWUX CrM IOWA #110
TELOWNE: M33 ?!able • iws: (n23 U94M
November 20. 1 M
Ameflcan Twos r Systema
"W Nath ConOress Ave
Suite 1750
Boca Raton. FL 33487
Attn: Gary Hess
Dear Mr. Hess.
I am wrttw4 mo tester in reterence to your repued for Satbs CommuniMions Corporation to determine
the mode of 001spse of the guyed towers you have adored for your I-" nstw** in Florida.
As You WON know. communication towers an destined in stria accordance with the Eiectr+orros MduWy
Association Standard MAM^.ffi•F as well ae tool Widirq codes Futthw. Amaban Toaer Stretems
has spedfled that we design for extra rigidity. Hav ft done lhls you have Incnsased the weght and
smvivni capecky of the tower.
DECEMBER 3, 1996 26
Aahough S is qt*e rare for a guyed tower to CaVe e, Moo faVUms occur in cat"rophic Minds such as
hurricanes or tomoo
ads. The towers haw a survhra! e+tpacay of 8Wm&rAWy IbO mph. in wW
spans of this MapYpft. total devastatlon to tete sam "ng arw would ooatr.
Because of the vartaes levels of guy csbla dcs%MW b supW the towers. a is vwhtal i ftnpoasta for
the tower to fan in a sindgM one Re a fres ndoht. yhe eXPacted node of Collapse would be upon ftWf
in an aocmrdion lupe fashion wah debrb confined W1111110ate redlus of the gut► adge anomm Fa the
Feasmsrs• Florida Uftw. the Calf area would Dred► be wahln on
feet frown the base of the lower.
We trust that this utfomw"On confirms your knowbidge and our
survive rather than eopaW. Please lot us know ff u have a def that towers am designed lo
Information YOU ny tAtesfbns or reque,e addlikm l
Sinew".
BABRE CC30MUNICATI
.* A �— --
.
izlDu
. P. .
Engineer -
ono , er► W. VW. VW • TOw®t ourso a sass SUPPOKttrtm PM Vaeftowarm
aw.►TtoKa .a, aTad s Coft=nff
aTMueiuwvL �wa.t►sts-artetwatro ttstiwiaioMw� serevrcea . uwrtCTtoe a N&MTMWJM
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
The Motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Adams inquired about the tower change at the Central
Assembly of God location, and Director Boling advised that they are
going to construct a replacement tower that will accommodate
multiple users and will be no taller than the existing tower.
Commissioner Macht stated that he would have liked to have
been briefed on that change.
DECEMBER 3, 1996 26 a BOOK 99 F'AGE¢00
PUBLIC HEARING — REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE .
APPROVAL FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING PLACE OF WORSHIP —
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST FELLOWSHIP INC.
PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the ur>derslgrted authority personally appeared Darryl K. HWts who on
oath says that he is President of the Press_JOumal, a r �wapapar pubes at Vero Beach
in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertlsemellt, betrrg
In to matter of
in the
fished In said newspaper In the issues off 'f u�- c 1
Court, was pub
Affiant further says that the said Press,laimet is a newspaper Published at Vero:each fn
said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been
continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daffy and hes been entered as
second class mail mater at the post office in Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida,
for a period of one year next preceding the fust publication of the attached copy of
advertisement: and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor prondsed any person, flrrrt
or corporation arty discount. rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of secauing firm
advertisement for publication In said newspaper.
Un -VY iftdubscribed before me (I day A.D.
� 1/tiak
`�K,
My Comm. Expires. °s
AlgUsl 25, 1997 SA DRA A. VRF.Srun. NaFARy PUBLIC. ( I
Ido CC31M4$ State of Florida :Av Conunleslun E . Au
P nmm.�rwmn . utn r. CC310945
OF FLS,,.•
SIS ed
Notary: ANnpA A. PRI. Orr
I- - K.W
NOTICE OF PUBLIC REARM
Wdoe of having to Consider the granting pa
cial "C81711011 of s
oace use pprovai far an expanstort to a
IS Wesently
owned by the UnkariartnW=Fps
Veto- Beach.• •Uta: •and located- In: Section 18, Town.
and Range 39. See the above map for,"
citizens public ship have a t with Parties in interest, and
wig
be held by the Board of
Catr.opponw* to �rrliSelCom of
� ��sCounty,fFiorida, to . Canty Administration BuDs-
ing, located at 1840 25th Street, ac BuBd-
loa on T Vero Beach, Floc
Y• December 3,1996aapt 9:05 am.
whichsmay bye made et this wish tmoeeipeal any decision
g
sure that a verbatkn record of the prowill ms is
made, which I ctudes testimony and evidence upon
which the eaj is based.
ANYONE W O NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA-
TION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE
(ADA)
COORDINATOR WITH AT 587 7(� ACT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEET
ING.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY•s-Fran B. Adams
Nov. 8.1998 1349204
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/21/96:
27
DECEMBER 3, 1996
TO: James E. Chandler
County Commissioners
DI ,IDN HEAD CONCU13RENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AI2P
Community Development Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling, �AICP
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP kv'
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: November 21, 1996
SUBJECT: Unitarian Universalist Fellowship Inc.'s Request for
Special Exception Use Approval for an Expansion to its
Existing Place of Worship
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 3, 1996.
BACKGROUND:
John Dean & Associates, P.A. has submitted an application for
special exception use and major site plan approval for the
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. The plan proposes a
significant, two phase expansion of the existing facility, which is
located on the west side of 43rd Avenue just south of 4th Street.
The subject property is zoned RS -3 which requires special exception
approval for an expansion of greater than 10% to a place of
worship.
Pursuant to section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Board of County
Commissioners is to consider the appropriateness of the requested
use based on the submitted site plan and suitability of the site
for that use. The Board may approve, approve with conditions or
deny the special exception use. The County may attach any
conditions and safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts and to
ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area.
•Planning and Zoning Commission Action
At its regular meeting of October 24,
Commission voted unanimously (5-0)
grant special exception use approval
major site plan approval, subject to
exception use request (see attachment
approves the special exception use
approval will become effective.
ANALYSIS:
1996, the Planning and Zoning
to recommend that the Board
with a condition, and granted
Board approval of the special
#6). Therefore, if the Board
request, the major site plan
1. Size of Site: 104,974 sq. ft. or 2.41 acres
2. Zoning Classification: RS -3, Residential Single Family (up to
3 units per acre)
28
DECEMBER 3, 1996
BOOK
99 Ij << 004
4.
5.
BOOK 99 i'#! JE 100
Land Use Designation: L-1, Low Density 1 (up to 3 units per
acre)
Building Area: Existing:
2,473
sq.
ft.
After Phase I:
6,414
sq.
ft.
After Phase II:
11,200
sq.
ft.
Note: The above figures are cumulative, and Phase II
represents the total building area at build -out.
Impervious Area: Existing:
26,709
sq.
ft.
After Phase I:
37,465
sq.
ft.
After Phase II:
49,719
sq.
ft.
Note: The above figures are cumulative, and Phase II
represents the total impervious area at build -out.
6. Open Space: Required: 40%
Existing: 75%
After Phase I: 59%
After Phase II: 47%
Note: The above figures represent the total open space on the
site per phase and do not reflect any credit for a 5,625
square foot.pond nor the grassed parking area.
7. Traffic Circulation: The proposed site plan will not affect
the project's 43rd Avenue access. All parking spaces will be
accessed from an internal driveway which will access 43rd
Avenue. Additional parking and a looped driveway will be
provided with Phase II. The access and internal circulation
plan has been approved by the County's. Traffic Engineering
Division.
8. Phasing: The first phase will include a stand alone
fellowship building, additional parking and a drainage system
to serve the build -out design.
The second phase will be an expansion of the Phase I building,
additional parking lot area, and some minor drainage
conveyance system improvements. Prior to site plan release
for Phase II, an administrative approval will be required to
finalize the Phase II landscape plan.
9. Off -Street Parking:
Required Phase I:
Provided Phase I:
Required Phase II:
Provided Phase II:
54 spaces (cumulative)
55 spaces (cumulative)
84 spaces (cumulative)
84 spaces (cumulative)
10. Stormwater Management: The stormwater management plan has
been approved by the public works department, and the
applicant will obtain a Type "B" stormwater management permit
prior to site plan release.
11. Utilities: The site is presently served by county water and
an on-site septic system. The site will continue to be served
by county water, and a new septic system will be constructed
for the expansion. These utility provisions have been
approved by the Department of
Environmental Health Department.
29
DECEMBER 3, 1996
Utility Services and
12. Environmental Issues: No upland preservation or wetland
requirements apply. Environmental planning staff has no
objections to site plan approval.
13. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan meets the requirements of
Chapter 926- for Phase I. The required buffers for Phase II
will be constructed with the Phase I landscape improvements.
14. Dedications and Improvements: None are applicable.
15. Specific Land Use Criteria: The application must satisfy all
applicable criteria for a place of worship. The place of
worship specific land use criteria are as follows:
a. No building or structure shall be located closer than
thirty (30) feet to any property line abutting a
residential use or residentially designated property;
Note: The new structures comply with the 30' setback
requirement.
b. Access shall be from a major thoroughfare unless
otherwise approved by the public works department;
Note: Access is from 43rd Avenue, which is classified on
the adopted Thoroughfare Plan map as a minor arterial.
C. Any accessory residential use, day care facility or
school upon the premises shall provide such additional
lot area as required for such use by this section and
shall further be subject to all conditions set forth by
the reviewing procedures and standards for that
particular use. Accessory residential uses may include
covenants, monasteries, rectories or parsonages as
required by these regulations;
Note: No accessory uses are proposed at this time, and
none will be approved with this application.
d. Type "C" screening shall be provided along all property
boundaries where the facility is located adjacent to a
single-family residentially designated property. Type
"D" screening shall be provided along all property
*boundaries when the facility is located adjacent to a
multi -family residential designated property.
Note: All required buffers are depicted on the plans and
will be planted with Phase I.
Staff has verified that the site plan application satisfies
all of the applicable specific land use criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners grant special exception approval for the
proposed expansion to the place of worship, with the following
condition:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase II, the
applicant shall submit an administrative approval that
finalizes the landscape plan for Phase II.
30
DECEMBER 3, 1996 took 9
BOOK 99 f'.�, c 4O U
Planning Director Stan Boling presented staff's recommendation
for special exception use approval subject to administrative
approval of a landscaping plan for Phase II. He noted there is no
day care or school being proposed, and if a proposal comes in for
either of those uses, it would have to come back to the Board for
approval.
Chairman Adams opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
John Dean, architect representing the applicant, stated that
they have met all requirements for special exception use approval
and their proposal received a 5-0 recommendation from the Planning
& Zoning Commission.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously granted
special exception use approval to Unitarian
Universalist Fellowship's request subject to the
condition set out in staff's recommendation.
31
DECEMBER 3, 1996
PUBLIC HEARING - IRC UTILITY SERVICES 9 REQUEST FOR
SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL FOR EXPANSION OF
SOUTH COUNTY SUB -REGIONAL WASTEWATER PLANT
PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Darryl K. Hicks who on
Oasays that he is President of the Press -Journal, umal, a daffy newspaper published at Vero Beach
In Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertlsement, being
a. ,W) U
In to
fished in said newspaper in the issues'"'—
Court, was pub -
Affiant further says that the said Press -Journal Is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, In
said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been
continuously published In said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as
second class mail matter at the post ottks In Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida,
for a period of one year rnehd preceding the fast publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; end affiant further says that he has neither pail Thor prontsed arty person, firm
acorporation for discount, lon� . comrrdasion or refund for the purpose7= searrghg tis
�latpseman publics newspaper.
yP Swom to ft4b before me this day of , ail` A.D. 19Zia" �L I,•
L
My Comm. Expires':
August25,1997
I M.MMA A. PRESCOTT. NO ARY PUBUC.
NO. C1i31�45 a State of Florida. My Commission " . Au t 29. 1897
eLIOMMIeRmn NUMM.r _ I
�r� P\OPc
••..t"06
o �r
/ Nolan^ SAP --)QA A. Pr.,F. r arr
1 T
r RM -4
ske�
•:;:r�:•'r%•:•v { �:�:•:=vim
NOTICE OF PUBLIC FEARNG •
dNotice of haft to consider the granting of spe-
al exception use approval for anm lite
sough county wastewater treatment ep�The Sub•
Jett propaen�dy Is presently owned by Indian River
&W Range 40. See the abovlocated In e
3ft location.
c �Mp 33
A pubfk hearing it which parties In Interest and
dbm shall have an opportunity to be heard, will
be held by the, Board m County Commissioners of
Indian River County. Florida..In—ft Canty Ca nls-
1g;'•loceted'at 1840 251h Street; VerofftlKlIfim
;Ida an Tuagday, December 3,1996 at 9:00m� ,
Which may be maAnyona *who de at this wish towianyneed
deto en -
am that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
nada, which Includes testimony and evidence upon
which the Is based.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA-
TION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE
COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
(ADA) COORDINATOR AT 587.8000 X223 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEET-
ING.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
a , BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY -s -Fran B. Adam
Ji W. 8, 1996 1349199
r:d
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/25/96:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIj;1'4.ION HEAD CONCURRENCE :
Robert 9. Keating, CP
Community Development Di ector
THROUGH: Stan Boling, ATCP
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP. ,1(
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: November 25, 1996
SUBJECT: Indian River County Utility Services' Request for Special
Exception Use Approval for an Expansion of the South
County Sub -Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
32
DECEMBER 3, 1996
BOOK 99 pv1 E1Q0
BOOK 99 Pn,4009
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular
-Weting of December 3, 1996.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND BACKGROUND:
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. has submitted an application for special
exception use and major site plan approval to construct an
expansion of the existing south county wastewater treatment plant.
The subject property is zoned RS -6, Residential Single Family (up
to 6 units/acre) and RM -6, Residential Multi -Family (up to 6
units/acre), and is located at the northeast corner of 25th Street
S.W. and 6th Avenue S.W., and 100' north of the St. Lucie County
line (see attachment #2). Regional and sub -regional wastewater
treatment plants are considered a major utility use which requires
special exception use approval in the RS -6 zoning district. The
proposed expansion requires special exception use approval since it
will result in a facility area increase of more than 10%.
The applicant proposes to expand the existing .85 million gallon
per day (mgpd) plant to a four ( 4 ) mgpd plant. The first phase will
expand the facility to 2 mgpd and will include a loop road which
will ring all future improvements. A second phase will expand the
plant to 4 mgpd.
Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the LDRs (land development
regulations), the Board of County Commissioners is to consider the
appropriateness of the requested use based on the submitted site
plan and suitability of the site for that use. The Board may
approve, approve with conditions or deny the special exception use.
The County may attach any conditions and safeguards necessary to
mitigate impacts and to ensure compatibility of the use with the
surrounding area.
Planning and Zoning Commission Action
At its regular meeting of October 24, 1996, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted unanimously to grant conditional major site plan
approval, subject to the Board of County Commissioners action on
the special exception use request. The Commission also voted
unanimously to recommend that the Board grant special exception use
approval with the condition presented in staff's report to the
Commission, and an additional condition added by the Commission
during its consideration of the request.
The additional condition was in response to input received at the
Commission meeting from Bob Swift developer of Indian River Club,
a golf course community adjacent to the treatment plant site. Mr.
Swift expressed concerns with tree preservation and the buffer
along the northeast side of the plant, where the expansion would
clear existing vegetation between the Indian River Club golf course
and the existing utility plant facilities. In response to those
concerns, the Commission recommended that county utilities
accommodate additional buffering and tree preservation to the most
reasonable extent possible, including a minor re -design of the
facility expansion.
ANALYSIS:
1. Size of Overall Site: 25.09 acres or 1,092,920 sq. ft.
2. Zoning Classifications: RS -6, Residential Single Family (up to
6 units per acre) and RM -6, Residential Multi -Family (up to 6
units per acre)
3. Land Use Designation: L-2, Low Density 2 (up to 6 units per
acre)
33
DECEMBER 3, 1996
4. Building Area:
Existing Building:
Proposed Buildings:
Total:
3,350 sq. ft.
1,900 sq. ft. (Phase I)
5,250 sq. ft.
5. Phasing: The applicant is proposing to construct a variety of
structures in Phase I. These include: an aeration basin,
chlorine contact basins and clarifiers, anaerobic anoxic
basins, and an electrical equipment building. The addition of
these structures in Phase I will expand the plant's capacity
to two (2) million gallons per day (mgpd). Phase I will also
include a loop road which will ring most proposed Phase I and
II structures.
Phase II will include similar plant structures which will
expand the plant's capacity from 2 mgpd to 4 mgpd.
6. Impervious
Area:
Existing:
62,778
sq.
ft.
Phase I:
39,641
sq.
ft.
Phase II:
18,073
sq.
ft.
Total Build
-Out: 120,492
sq.
ft.
7. Open Space:
Required:
40.00%
Existing:
63.03%
After Phase
I:
49.72%
After Phase
II:
48.06%
Note: Phase II reflects a build -out condition. The open space
percentage does not reflect any credit for waterbodies on
site.
8. Traffic Circulation: The plant will continue to be accessed
from 6th Avenue S.W. The paved loop road will be constructed
in Phase I to improve internal circulation. The traffic
engineering division has approved the access and traffic
circulation pattern.
9. Off -Street Parking: Required: 5 spaces (existing)
Proposed: 5 spaces (existing)
Note: It is anticipated that no additional parking demand will
be generated by the proposed expansion.
10. Stormwater Management: The stormwater management plan has been
approved by the Public Works Department, and a Type "B"
stormwater permit will be obtained by the applicant prior to
site plan release.
11. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan is in conformance with
Chapter 926, including the buffers required by the specific
land use criteria for major utilities uses.
12. Utilities: The facility will continue to be serviced by an on-
site well and county wastewater services. These utility
provisions have been approved by the Department of Utility
Services and the Environmental Health Department.
13. Dedications and Improvements: None are required.
14. Environmental Issues:
Uplands: Since the site is greater than 5 acres, the native
upland set-aside requirements of section 929.05 apply. The
project site contains 1.41 acres of native upland habitat, and
the applicant is proposing to preserve .41 acres or 30%. This
exceeds the county's 15% preservation requirement. Since the
DECEMBER 3, 1996 34
BOOK 99 Ph,EI010
I
BOOK 99 F'AGE�o�
site plan will control the county's use of the site, depiction
on the site plan of the preservation area will prevent
development of the preservation area.
Wetlands: There is an existing 4.4 acre wetland on the site.
Of the total 4.4 acres, the applicant is proposing to fill 1.5
acres with Phase I construction. To do so, the applicant is
required to obtain wetland resource permits from Indian River
County and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP). These permits will set out the required mitigation
for the wetland filling. Environmental planning staff have
verified that the proposal will meet county wetland mitigation
requirements. Prior to site plan release, the applicant must
obtain the necessary county and FDEP permits for such
activity.
15. Concurrency: No increased traffic will be generated as a
result- of the proposed expansion. Therefore, concurrency
requirements do not apply.
16. Specific Land Use Criteria:
The following criteria apply to major utility uses:
a. Any power generation facility shall be consistent with
the provisions of the Florida Electrical Power Plan
Citing Act, Chapter 23, Section 23.09191 F.S.;
Note: N/A
b. All below -ground voltage cables within a utility right-
of-way shall be made known to the public through the use
of signs posted therein;
Note: N/A
C. The disposal of all waste, gaseous, liquid or solid,
shall comply with all federal, state and local laws;
Note: N/A
d. Between all above -ground facilities, (except distribution
and collection facilities) and adjacent properties having
a residential land use designation, a Type "A" buffer
(reduce to "B" buffer where abutting a local roadway,
reduce to "C" buffer where abutting a Thoroughfare Plan
roadway) (with six-foot opaque screening) as specified in
Chapter 926, Landscaping;
Note: A Type "A" buffer (the county's densest buffer
type) will be provided along the north, south, and east
property lines where new construction is proposed. The
width of the buffer will vary from 30' to 60' as shown on
attachment #3. The 30' width is the minimum dimension
for a Type "A" buffer. The Utilities Department has
exceeded the 30' width for the majority of the perimeter
buffer area. Along the west property line a substantial
buffer of existing vegetation will be left intact. There
will be no new construction on the west half of the
site. New landscaping material will be installed and,
together with existing vegetation, will --meet the Type A
buffer requirements.
At the October 24th Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting, the project engineer hired by Utility Services
was present. The project engineer answered questions
from the Commission and stated that he would relay the
Commission's comments regarding additional buffering and
35
DECEMBER 3, 1996
M M
shifting the proposed plant to the Utilities Department.
Planning staff has also relayed the Commission's
recommendation to Utility Services staff.
Since the October 24th meeting, Utility Department staff
have confirmed what the project engineer stated at the
Commission meeting, namely that moving the expanded plant
more than 5' to the west (away from the Indian River Club
golf course) is not feasible. Shifting the plant more
than 5' would require a significant cost to relocate
substantial, influent piping that "feeds" the plant raw
sewage. Shifting the plant to the south (away from the
golf course) is precluded by the presence of wetlands and
wetland mitigation areas.
Utility Department staff are scheduled to meet with Mr.
Swift on November 26, 1996. The result of that meeting
will be reported to the Board at the December 3, 1996
Board meeting.
e. In all zoning districts except the industrial districts,
all equipment, machinery, and facilities which cannot, by
their size or nature, be located within an enclosed
building shall be separated from adjacent properties
having a residential land use designation by a Type "D"
buffer -(with six-foot opaque screening) as specified in
Chapter 926, Landscaping;
Note: N/A
f. Driveways located in close proximity to adjacent
properties having a residential land use designation
shall provide a six-foot opaque screening between the
driveway and adjacent property. An eight -foot opaque
screen may be required if deemed necessary to mitigate
noise and visual impacts.
Note: N/A
Staff has verified that all of the applicable specific land
use criteria are met by this application.
17. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Golf course (Indian River Club)/RM-6
South: Vacant/RS-6
East: Vacant, golf course (Indian River Club)/RS-6, RM -6
West: Single family residential/RS-6
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners grant special exception use approval, with the
following condition:
1. Prior to site plan release, the applicant shall obtain a
county wetland resource permit and an FDEP permit for the
wetland filling proposed in Phase I.
36
DECEMBER 3, 1996
BOOK 99 f.A F_
BOOK 99 ml,4013
Planning Director Stan Boling presented staff's recommendation
for approval subject to one condition. Using the ELMO projection
system, he showed an aerial view of the site for the proposed
expansion and neighboring Vero Beach Highlands and Indian River
Club golf course. Director Boling advised that the Planning &
Zoning Commission requested that consideration be given to
additional buffering and shifting the proposed plant approximately
5 feet to the west, away from the Indian River Club golf course.
He directed the Board's attention to the following memo received
from Eric Grotke of CDM:
CDMCamp Dresser & McKee Inc.
FAX MEMORANDUM
To: Robert O. Wisemen
Indian River County Utilities Department
From: Eric J. Grotke
Date: November 27,1996
Subject: South County WWTP Expansion
Meeting with Indian River Club
A meeting was held in the Utilities Department conference room on November 26,1996
regarding the above referenced project. The following people were in attendance:
Robert Wisemen, IRC UD
John McCoy, IRC P&Z
Bob Swift, Indian River Club
Bob Ellis, Indian River Club
Eric Grotke, CDM
Mr. Swift expressed concerns regarding the plant expansion due to the proximity of
planned homes along the golf course. The area of most concern is the northeastern
portion of the County's property.
The following modifications were discussed and approved by the County and the
Indian River Club:
1. Use wax myrtle instead of dahoon holly in the designated buffer zone.
2. Oak trees proposed for the buffer zone in the northeast corner should be
a minimal of ten (10) feet as required by the County ordinance.
3. The County will let the Indian River Club relocate existing trees to their
property which must be removed due to construction.
Mr. Swift still is concerned with the proposed buffer and the removal of the existing
screening brush in the northeast portion of the property. Mr. Swift has requested that a
six to eight feet high berm be placed around the property to aid in buffering the site.
37
DECEMBER 3, 1996
Commissioner Eggert inquired about the 6-8 ft. high berm, and
Director Boling believed that Mr. Swift was in favor of doing the
berm because of the grade levels.
Commissioner Tippin stressed that every possible effort should
be made to preserve the oak hammock shown at the top of the aerial.
Commissioner Eggert asked if any of those trees have to be
taken down, and Director Boling explained that, unfortunately, it
was necessary due to the pattern of the driveway.
Commissioner Eggert felt that a little imagination could have
been used early on to construct the plant around those oak trees.
Commissioner Ginn wished to hear the technical reasons why the
engineering could not be done in such a way as to save those trees.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto stated that they certainly want
to keep as much vegetation as possible around the wastewater
treatment plant.
Eric Grotke of CDM explained that the planning the Board is
referring to was considered before they ran the plans by the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Primarily, the
percolation ponds had to interconnect and be used during
construction. The existing pipe lines restrict the plant being
moved more than 2 or 3 feet. It would be quite costly to move the
pipe lines around during construction.
Chairman Adams felt we may put a higher value on those trees
than it would cost to change the construction plans.
Commissioner Ginn asked if the percolation pond to the west
could be eliminated, and Mr. Grotke believed that the DEP might
give us some latitude to use one of those ponds.
After lengthy discussion about redesigning the expansion so as
to preserve the oak hammock, the Board indicated their desire to
table this item for 2 weeks. Commissioner Tippin offered to work
with staff and the engineer on design, and asked for a tree
relocation map.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously tabled
this item for two weeks, until December 17, 1996 at
9:00 a.m., and directed staff to revisit the design
with the objective of saving the oak hammock.
DECEMBER 3, 1996 ROOK 99
38 FA�E�p�.4
�
99 FnA615
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 309 IRC CODE
"FAIR HOUSING"
weess-Jouawu
ftwwww Day
vme Beadb u&= atll., C"My, "WWO
=N" OF MW BIVEB: STATE OF FIOiWA
Beton as utlnagie0 sNnM aeS, a0aese0 00rA K lake aft m
oath Bays vat m Q< . Fbn t m I ffMXhW C a Sep mks Ouasellea p Pato Beeal
n e�ml Riser Cauor. Fterae; oat se eaeatea mp, � aa.enaselata, beY9
a. /)C// Cr
—inew court,a Pub.
lsra n ase newspsW in as lssalaof 44j 1,Z /99L•
AttpN (volar says oat ate eea F,eas.lal,tal b
a=—,= at vera 8"M In
Sea .lass tarA camry. Fkraa em Sal ale nseoolon test
aeosi0 caa7 t+aimuesa atf e � a�Mes� Beast. In �e�itm�i � c�asar.
is a seeoa a am ter mal preoWtg as fiat pOleettan of an evaotaa copy d
a
s ospaaommmk as etnatn (vats says eat M em tlemts Ora nor ttras,ea Osas4 km
tan any aaootnt. reaeee. oon.lnektl s relva for tlla Puoaae at d aesrtq Sae
aaerWemN for aeauaon n Sea ra.repalls
UAW
W' Calm E,pies
Augur 25. ta 1997 ! eaatluw vtsr,m..:,earnntx.
Ob toalaei 3•d n°'16 w c� &V +•'s.° a 19.
,ry.Al,t •�� -u
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Board of County Cmftaloners of Indian
River Caurtiy� Florida.' w8 as WM a Hearing
on Tiesday, Deoernber-3. 1996 at 8:05 am. in the
840 -251h- SWK
Bench Florida � 1 the adoptbn of
an ordinance entitled: #
AN ORDINANCE OF MDIAN RIVER 000N -
TY, . FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER. 309
FAIR HOUSING," TO DELETE AWES -
TRY, MARITAL STATIA AND AGEAS
PROTECTED PASSES THEREB,Y AT
TANNG CONSISTENCY: WITH FEDERAL
AND STATE FAIR HOUSIM .LAWS, • AND
'TO PROVIDE FOR CODFIC1001% SEV , .
ERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE BATE
The txWosed ordinance nray be (nepected by the
4AJML,%=
kbuskershours(8:30am..tothe to the B� o F�mCo mftaaimerathe Ofte d,
1840 25th Street,'Vero Beach, Florida. y at the._ k
How
I
With ip
kKerested t reeped to the pn;poeer ordF
and be
kqm who wish to 4, P*R*M which
IterlOe.
may be made Uric meetip WE few to won
that a • verbatim record of the prooeedtngo Is • made,'
which Inckdes testknony and Adenoe upon which.
the appeal Is based
UArritm who IIM e . aooarrmodalim for
fS
WHINDisab Aet (ADA) Coor6nator he Coirlh Amartmro
8000, Ext 223 at Inst 48 horns in adruioe of the
meeth
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
..BOMW OF t M99T' Y
FRAN B. ADAMS, CHAIRMAN
Nov.23,1996 1352587
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/20/96:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: I;' November 20, 1996
SUBJECT: Amendment to Chapter 309, Indian River County Code, "Fair
Housing"
In order to enhance the likelihood of obtaining funding from the DCA under a
Community Development Block Grant program, the Board of County Commissioners
on March 14, 1995 adopted Ordinance No. 95-7 which has been incorporated into
the Indian River County Code as Chapter 309, Fair Housing.
During the past year I determined that the county ordinance adopted at the
DCAIs request was broader than the federal Fair Housing Act or the Florida
Fair Housing Act.
While the state and federal act prohibit discrimination in housing based on
race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and handicap,
the local ordinance also includes as protected classes those discriminated
against based on _ancestry, marital status, and acre. During the adoption
hearing, concerns were expressed regarding the application of this ordinance
to housing for the elderly. As a result, code section 309.04.(3)h. exempts
from operation of the act any person who wishes to restrict sales, rentals,
leases, or occupancies to persons over age 55, to the extent allowed by state
or federal law.
The term "ancestry" seems redundant of "national origin".
The only court case located which discusses "marital status" was County of
Dane v. Norman, a Wisconsin Supreme Court case decided in 1993, which held
that unrelated individuals living together was a "conduct" not "status";
i.e., the court said marital status was single or married. The county
ordinance did not preclude either singles or marrieds from living in a
39
DECEMBER 3, 1996
single-family house.
living together.
It proscribed the conduct of unrelated individuals
The Board authorized a public hearing on this ordinance amendment on April
23, 1996.
RECOMMENDATION:
Amend Chapter 309, Fair Housing, to delete "ancestry, marital status, and
age" as protected classes under the ordinance. The current ordinance
over -reaches state and federal fair housing acts and potentially could cause
unnecessary disputes with other local governments within the county.
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins presented his
recommendation for adoption of the amendment.
Chairman Adams opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard. There were none.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, to adopt Ordinance 96-23,
amending Chapter 309 "Fair Housing", to delete
ancestry, marital status, and age as protected
classes.
Under discussion, Commissioner Ginn expressed her concern
about doing some of the things we have to do in order to receive
grants.
Chairman Adams asked if Commissioner Ginn felt okay about the
deletions, but Commissioner Ginn emphasized that one had to feel
okay about it but it makes one feel like you are between a rock and
a hard space.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION.
The Motion carried unanimously.
DECEMBER 3, 1996 40 Book Al
Boa 99
ORDINANCE NO. 96- 23
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 309 "FAIR HOUSING", TO DELETE ANCESTRY, MARITAL
STATUS, AND AGE AS PROTECTED CLASSES, THEREBY ATTAINING
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL AND STATE FAIR HOUSING LAWS, AND
TO PROVIDE FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, Indian River County, Florida has adopted a Fair Housing
ordinance as Chapter 309 of the Indian River County Code, and;
WHEREAS, the policy declaration of that ordinance was to be in
keeping with the laws of the United States of America, to promote fair
housing, and;
WHEREAS, neither the Federal Fair Housing Act nor the Florida Fair
Housing Act extend "protected class" status to those discriminated against
based on ancestry, marital status, or age,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Indian River County Code Chapter 309,
Fair Housing, Section 309.01; Section 309.03(1); Section 309.03(1)o; Section
309.03(1)p; Section 309.03(2); Section 309.03(3); and Section 309.06(3)c are
hereby amended to delete ancestry, marital status, and age as classes
protected from discrimination as follows:
SECTION 1. Amend Indian River County Code Section 309.01
"Declaration of policy" to read:
"Section 309.01. Declaration of policy.
It is the policy of Indian River County, in keeping with
the laws of the United States of America, to promote
through fair, orderly and lawful procedure the
opportunity for each person so desiring to obtain housing
of such person's choice in this county, without regard to
race, color, "0009"/ national origin, religion, sex,
familial status/ or handicap, O# / x(901/
and, to that end, to prohibit discrimination in housing
by any person."
SECTION 2. Amend Indian River County Code Section 309.03
"Unlawful housing practices" to read:
CODING: Words in 09"091ftM 07AdX type are deletions from existing law;
words underlined are additions.
41
DECEMBER 3, 1996
� � i
M M
ORDINANCE NO. 96- 23
"Section 309.03. Unlawful housing practices.
(1) Unlawful housing practices; sale or rental and
advertising in connection therewith. Except as provided
in section 309.04 hereof, it shall be unlawful and a
discriminatory housing practice for an owner, or any
other person engaging in a real estate transaction, or
for a real estate broker, as defined in this chapter,
because of race, color, AA0009"I national origin,
religion, sex, ;A;6%t(X//$¢$tyt0/ familial status/ or
handicap//440:
o. To promote, induce, influence or attempt to
promote, induce or influence by the use of
postal cards, letters, circulars, telephone,
visitation or any other means, directly or
indirectly, a property owner, occupant, or
tenant to list for sale, sell, remove from,
lease, assign, or otherwise dispose of any
housing by referring) as a part of a process or
pattern of inciting neighborhood unrest,
community tension, or fear of racial, color,
religious, nationality or ethnic change in any
street, block, neighborhood, or any other area,
to the race, color, "0009"/ national origin,
religion, sex, familial status,
or handicap 0;61Ad$/ of actual or anticipated
neighbors, tenants or other prospective buyers
of any housing;
P- To cause to be made any untrue or intentionally
misleading statement or advertisement, or in
any other manner/ attempt,,- as part of a process
or pattern of inciting neighborhood unrest,
community tension or fear of racial, color,
"0009`1 national origin, religious, sex,
familial status, or handicap,
AM/ or ethnic change in any street, block,
neighborhood, or any other area, to obtain a
listing of any housing for sale, rental,
assignment, transfer or other disposition where
such statement, advertisement or other
representation is false or materially
misleading, or -where there is sufficient basis
to judge its truth or falsity to warrant making
the statement, or to make any other material
misrepresentations in order to obtain such
listing, sale, removal from, lease, assignment,
transfer or other disposition of said housing;
(2) Unlawful housing practices; financing. It
shall be unlawful and a discriminatory housing practice
for any lending institution, as defined herein, to deny a
loan or other financial assistance to a person applying
therefore for the purpose of purchasing, constructing,
improving, repairing or maintaining housing, or to
discriminate against such person in the fixing of the
amount, interest rate, duration, or other terms or
conditions of such loan or other financial assistance,
because of the race, color, AA0409"/ national origin,
CODING: Words in $g"OX,/1:Uojagg type are deletions from existing law;
words underlined are additions.
42
DECEMBER 3, 1996 aoo? 99 F,AG10 8
I
BOOK 99 FA [1019
ORDINANCE NO. 96- 2 3
religion, sex, iWMi(X//¢¢€LAW familial status, or
handicap///¢;6//¢d¢ of such person or of any person
associated with such person in connection with such loan
or other financial assistance or for purposes of such
loan or other assistance, or of the present or
prospective owners, lessees, tenants or occupants of the
housing in relation to which such loan or other financial
assistance is to be made or given; provided, that nothing
contained in the subsection shall impair the scope or
effectiveness of the exceptions contained in section
309.04 of this chapter.
(3) Unlawful housing practices; brokerage services.
It shall be unlawful and a discriminatory housing
practice to deny any person access to or membership or
participation in any multiple listing service,
organization, or facility related to the business of
selling or renting housing, or to discriminate against
such person in the terms or conditions of such access,
membership or participation because of race, color,
¢yi¢¢¢¢#¢/ national origin, religion, sex,L#7�L�iLX/¢¢�(¢�¢/
familial status, or handicap//¢j6/A¢¢."
SECTION 3. Amend Indian River County Code Section 309.06
"Complaints", to read:
"Section 309.06. Complaints.
-(3) An informal complaint must be in writing,
verified or affirmed, on a form to be supplied by the
administrator and shall contain the following:
a. Identity and address of the offending party;
b. Date of the offense and date of filing the
informal complaint;
C. General statements of facts of the offense
including the basis of the discrimination
(race, color, ¢yi¢¢¢¢"/ national origin,
religion, sex, ";WAZ10¢A¢y(¢/ familial status,
or handicap//¢;'/Ad$) ;
d. Name and signature of the complainant."
SECTION 4. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the
Indian River County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of the
ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions.
CODING: Words in type are deletions from existing law;
words underlined are additions.
43
DECEMBER 3, 1996
M
M
M
M
ORDINANCE NO. 96-2 3
SECTION S. Severability
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of
this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative or
void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions hereof and it
shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance
without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 6. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the
Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, on this 3 day of December , 1995.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on
the 23 day of November_, 1996, for a public hearing to be held on the
3 day of
December
, 1996,
at which time it
was moved
for
adoption by
Commissioner
Eggert
and
the motion was
seconded
by
Commissioner
Ginn , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Ave
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Ave
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Ave
Commissioner John W. Tippin Ave
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Ave
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
b Fran B. Adams, Chairman
ATTEST•„„-� - _
Y y
to
K. B_artog,,CX4rk -
,�'j,l�
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida, this
day of , 199
Acknowledgment for the Department of State received on this day of
199_, at a.m./p.m. and filed in the Office of the Clerk
of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
CODING: Words in type are deletions from existing law;
words underlined are additions.
44
DECEMBER 3, 1996
800F,99 F-AGE1020
I
BOOK 99 T,GE1021
PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE COUNTY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
ORDINANCE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/25/96:
TO: James. E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVJ.�ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
R6bert M. Keatin, AICP
Community Develo ment birector
FROM: Stan Boling,.AICP
Planning Director
DATE: November 25, 1996
SUBJECT: Proposed Change to the County Alcoholic Beverages
Ordinance
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 3, 1996.
BACKGROUND:
At its November 5, 1996 regular meeting, the Board of County
Commissioners discussed and received comments from various
interested parties regarding changes to the county's existing
Chapter 300 alcoholic beverages ordinance (see attachments #1 &
#2). After the discussion, the Board directed staff to draft a
proposed ordinance to be discussed, but not acted upon, at a
subsequent meeting. With respect to the proposed ordinance, the
Board indicated its preference to change existing regulations to
allow beer and wine to be consumed at restaurants that are closer
than 1,000 feet to an established church or school, under certain
conditions. Staff has done more research, further coordinated with
interested parties, and drafted an ordinance change in accordance
with the Board's direction (see attachment #3).
ANALYSIS:
While current county regulations allow churches and schools in
agricultural, residential, and commercial zoning districts, most
churches and schools are located in residential districts. Bars
and restaurants, however, are allowed in commercial and industrial
districts only, while social clubs that serve alcoholic beverages
are allowed in residential districts. Thus, churches and schools
are allowed in almost all areas of the county, but bars and
restaurants are allowed in only a relatively limited area of the
county and are further restricted in location by separation
distances from churches and schools.
In regard to --the alcoholic beverage regulations, the land use issue
now under consideration is the compatibility of bar, restaurant,
church, and school uses located in or near commercial zoning
districts. Currently, alcoholic beverage regulations do not
distinguish between bars and restaurants that serve beer and wine
45
DECEMBER 3, 1996
M
and those that serve other alcoholic beverages, nor do current
regulations differentiate between establishments such as bars whose
primary function is to serve alcohol and restaurants whose primary
function is to serve food.
In staff's opinion, changing the alcoholic beverage regulations to
make such a distinction is logical, since activity at a bar is
focused primarily on drinking alcoholic beverages, but activity at
a restaurant is focused primarily on eating.
Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance section 300.05(1)(a) contains the
county's current requirement that alcoholic beverage sales
establishments where on -premise consumption occurs be located at
least 1,000' from an established church or school. The proposed
ordinance change would, under the following conditions, allow a
reduced separation distance between restaurants that serve beer and
wine and churches and certain types of schools:
1. The beer and wine is consumed at a "restaurant" where at least
51% of gross revenue is from the sale of food and non-
alcoholic beverages.
2.
3.
Reason: This requirement is to ensure that the establishment
is a bona fide restaurant and not a de facto bar that merely
serves snacks with alcoholic beverages.
The beer and wine is served and consumed at a table ( not a
bar) at times only when food service is available.
Reason: This requirement is to ensure that, unlike a bar
where drinking is the primary activity, drinking is done at a
table where meals are served and only during hours when meals
are served.
In relation to schools, the reduced separation distance would
apply only to post -secondary, technical, and business schools.
Reason: This requirement will ensure that schools where
children are required to attend will not be impacted.
The 500' separation distance contained in the proposed ordinance is
consistent with the City of Vero Beach's 500' separation distance
and is slightly more restrictive then the City of Sebastian's 450'
separation distance.
Staff's research indicates that, within the unincorporated area of
the county, there are 60 active establishments licensed to serve
alcoholic beverages (beer and wine or beer, wine and liquor). Of
these 60 establishments 27 are restaurants (45%); 19 are social
clubs (32%); and 14 are bars (23%). Staff's research also
indicates that, of the 90 restaurants (including fast food places)
in the unincorporated county, 30% are licensed to serve alcoholic
beverages. Therefore, serving alcoholic beverages appears to be a
fairly common, accessory practice at restaurants.
Because restaurants and churches are both allowed to be located in
many of the same commercial zoning districts, the Board is
justified in seeking a reasonable balance between normal restaurant
uses (which includes "accessory" consumption of beer and wine),
school uses that do not involve regular attendance of children, and
church uses. The proposed ordinance provides a balance that allows
bona fide restaurants to serve beer and wine at tables, if the
restaurant is located at least 500' from an established church or
Post -secondary type of school, under the previously described
conditions.
46
DECEMBER 3, 1996
BOOK 99 pnC-1022
L
I
Boa 99 i,nE1023
County planning staff has coordinated with interested parties,
including School District staff. At its November 19, 1996 meeting
the School District voted to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners not change the alcoholic beverage ordinance (see
attachment #5). According to School District staff, the District's
concerns relate to District schools only (elementary and secondary
schools). The proposed ordinance change should not affect District
schools, since only post -secondary types of schools would be
affected.
Staff is currently mapping locations of bars, restaurants and clubs
that are licensed to serve alcoholic beverages. That information
is being added to existing map information on church, school,
zoning district locations. Maps showing all this information will
be distributed to the Board and interested parties prior to the
December 3rd meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize staff to advertise the
proposed ordinance for adoption.
Planning Director Stan Boling advised that this is the third
time the Board has looked at this proposed change to the County's
alcoholic beverage ordinance. The purpose of this meeting is for
staff to get further direction from the Board on preparing a final
ordinance which would be county -wide. Using the ELMO overhead
projection system, he showed a map the Board had requested at the
last meeting showing the locations of existing bars and restaurants
in commercial and industrial districts. At present, County
ordinances state that a bar or a restaurant serving alcohol,
located in commercial or industrial districts, must be 1000 ft.
away from a church or school.
Chairman Adams opened the meeting to public discussion.
Chris Taylor, pastor of Antioch Primitive Baptist Church,
felt it was unfair that the proposed ordinance treats schools and
churches differently. In fact, they believe it may be
unconstitutional and they have contacted a legal action group to
research the matter. Pastor Taylor requested that the following
Legal Opinion Memorandum be entered into the record:
DECEMBER 3, 1996 47
OHIO OFFICE:
G1XH=4 & CtA,= (30- XL PA.
7708 ENOLS ROAD, SUITE 608
CLEVELAND, OHIO 44130 --
TELEMMONE: ta131 399-830o
December 2, 1996
N
FLORIDA OFFICE:
GIBBS a1 CR AZA. P. A.
Baas SEMINOLE BOULEVARD. SUITE TWO
SEMINOLE, FLORIDA 34642
Mrs. Sheri 'Taylor
Anticx:h Primitive Baptist Church
2010 Vero South Circle SW, #4
Vera Beach, FL 32962
Dear Mrs. Taylor.
CALIFORNIA OFF1C[:
01888 & CR.A2=
1660 EL C"ANO NGL, RUITC 220
MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 04028
FAX: (813) 398.3007
PLEASE R98POND TO:
MORIDA OFFICE
Thank you fnr contacting the Christian Law Association regarding your zoning
situation with Indian River County. We have prepared the: following legal Opinion
Memorandum which someone from your church should submit to the Board of County
Commissioners at its preliminary hearing. You should ask to have this Memorandum
entered into the record as representative of your legal position regarding this matter.
LEGAL OPINION MEMORANDUM
The Facts
The; Board of County Commissioners, of Indian !fiver County is considering a
change in local county zoning ordinance, §300.05, which requires a separution distance of
1000 feet between a church or school and any alcohol sales cstablisheuent where on -
premises consumption of alcohol is permitted. This change would be made in order to
allow a pi?.7a parlor closer than 1000 feet to a church to serve liquor. We are concerned
about the constitutional ramifications of making any change in the law only with respect to
churches, while keeping the law intact with respect to schools.
Questions or Law
To change ft 300.05 for churches but not for school% would clearly be
discriminatory and would show hostility toward religion in violation of the F-stablishrnent
Clause of the United States Constitution which doer: not permit laws which do not meet
three specific. criteria. Under the Establishment Clause test of L.ermon v Kurtzman_ 403
U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971), these three criteria are:
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its
principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits
religion ...; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive cntnnglement
N with religion."
It is clear that by moderating the distance between liquor establishments and churches,
while not moderating the distance between such establishments and schools, the Board
would put itself in the position of violating the primary effect criteria to not inhibit religion.
48
DECEMBER 3, 1996 BOOK 99 f,A;c1024
F,
BOOK 99 rm-4025
Taking account of the religious sensibilities of its citizens is u governmental virtue,
but it is not a First Amendment right. On the other hand, a law that bencfits similarly
situated groups, either public or private, but purposefully excludes religious organizations
from such a benefit is to prima facie violation.of the Free Exercise Clause as well as of the
Establishment Clause.
Protecting schools and churches from the presence, disruption and commotion
associated with liquor outlets is a valid secular objective for both schools and churches.
The -United States Supreme Court said in the ease of Larkin v. Or's Lam" -,459
U.S. 116, 120 (1982), that "a zone of protection around churches and schools is essential
to protect diverse centers of spiritual, educational, and cultural enrichment."
The Supreme C.,ourt struck down the Massachusetts law in Larkin only bedause the
ban on liquor establishments was not absolute, but allowed churches to either "veto" or
approve such establishntenLs on a case by case basis. The court slid not address the subject
of whether an absolute ban which was not subject to veto or approval by churches would
have been upheld, however, the Court did note:
Plainly schcmis and churches have a valid interest in being insulated from
certain kinds of commercial establishments, including those dispensing
liquor. Zoning laws have long been employed to this end, and there can be
little doubt shout the power of a state to regulate the environment in the
vicinity of sehcmis, churches, hospitals, and the like by exercise of
reasonable; zoning laws.
kL at 121.
The Larkin Court mentioned that it had upheld reasonable zoning ordinances
protecting such institutions from "so-called `adult' theaters [by recognizing) the legitimate
governmental interest in protecting the environment around certain institutions." The Court
also noted that noise: laws are also appropriate for such institutions. Id.
The right of zoning laws to control the environment around institutions such as
schools and churches is clear. The issue involved in changing established coning
restrictions for churches while upholding them for schools is a problem involving
discriminatory and hostile treatment of religious institutions. Such a change would clearly
discriminate against churches which have the same "valid interest in being insulated from
certain kinds of commercial establishments, including those dispensing liquor." IU
-rhe issue of discriminatory motive is involved in the situation before the Indian
River County Board. One court held in Brown v. Borough of Maha!'fev, 35 F.3d 846.
849-50 (3d Cir. 1994), that when the government's discrimination is purposeful, no
substantial burden on religion need he shown by the religious claimant. The court refused
to apply a substantial burden requirement on the religious claimant because such "would
make petty harassment of religious institutions ... immune from the protection of the First
Amendment." It is clear that the actions of the Board in this instance would he motivated
by a desire to lower zoning protection standards for churches in order to allow a particular
commercial establishment to serve liquor near a church while continuing to protect schools
from such a negative environmental presence.
The United States Supreme Court held in 13osenbereer v Llniv, of Virginia,, 115
S.Ct. 2.510, 2519 (1995), than government may not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint.
The Court said, "[W]e must in each case inquire first into the purpose and object of the
governmental action in question ...: ` The motive of the Board in this instance would not
pass constitutional muster.
DECEMBER 3, 1996
49
The Rosenbcreer Court also held:
A central lesson of our decisions is that a significant factor in upholding
,governmental -programs in the lace of Establishment Clause attack is their
neutrality towards religion.... f Wye must `be sure that we do not
inadvertently prohibit [the government) from extending its general state law
benefits to all its citizens without regard to their religious belief."
j¢. at 2521.
If zoning laws were changed with respect to churches, but not with respect to schools,
when bath share a common secular purpose in their enactment, as the Larkin case stated,
that would be deliberate, not merely "inadvertent" discriminatory pn)hihition.
The; I.J.S. Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the government cannot engage in
activities which either aid or handicap religion_ Government must he neutral in its relations
with religious organizations. Voiding protection zoning laws for churches but not for
schools is not neutrality: On the contrary, such a change would show hostility to the
churches. The Supreme Court hit,; long held that the U.S. First Amendment "affirmatively
mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility
toward any."' Lynch v. Donnelly. 465 U.S. 668, 673 (1984). Since schools and churches
are similarly situated with respect to the need to protect their environments, any
diffcrcatiation in such pmtec;tion would show ho.stilily, not neutrality, toward religion.
In Lamb's Chalml v_,. Q13ter Mari6ry Union Frcc Sch. Dist 113 S_C't_ 2141, 2I47
(1993), the Court said that a school district could not ban the showing of a film with a
Christian perspective on family values when the same sehcx)l district allowed non -religious
views to be presented in the same forum. Justice White said:
The principle that has emerged from our cases "is that the First
Amendment forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that favor
some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others."
Id. at 2147.
Similarly, zoning decisions should not be purposefully distinguished on the basis of
secular and retigious interests.
We hope that the above Legal Opinion Memorandum will he helpful to you and to
the Indian River County Board of Commissioners. If we can he of any further help to you
or to the Board, please to not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Gibbs & Craze, P.A.
David C. Gibbs III
AdmilhAl in Flnrida
Btubaru J. Weller
Admitted in noridat
50
DECEMBER 3, 1996
�ooK 99
NO, 99 f'A4027
In conclusion, Pastor Taylor emphasized that their church was
first established in 1908, and he urged the Board not to amend the
existing ordinance to reduce the required number of feet separating
churches and schools from establishments serving alcoholic
beverages.
Mark Buffington of the Sheriff's Department read into the
record the following letter:
� riff
GARY C. WHEELER o INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION
4055 41st AVENUE
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32960-1608 PHONE (561) 569-6700
October 29, 1996
Mr. Stan Boling, Chief
Indian River County
Community Development Dept. - Planning Division
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960-3394
Re: Chapter 300.05 (1)(a) and (1)(b)
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
Restriction on location of licensed premises
Dear Mr. Boling:
We have been pursuing a possible solution to solving an enforcement problem
with off -premises drinking of alcoholic beverages in certain areas with regard
to "Chapter 300.05 (1)(a) and (1)(b) ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES - Restriction
on location of licensed premises". We have met with area ministerial groups
and community leaders soliciting input from them as to changing this ordinance
as a solution to the problem. From our conversations with these area leaders,
we have found there is little or no support for the change in this ordinance.
Therefore, at this time we are withdrawing our request to change this
ordinance.
Sincerely,
(y
Gary C. Wheeler, Sheriff
DECEMBER 3, 1996 51
Letters expressing no objection to the reduction in separation
distances were received from the following:
Mr. & Mrs. L. Marshall, 426 Tenth Court
Catherine Katrovitz, 1606 25th Avenue
Letters of objection to the reduction in separation distances
were received from the following:
Doris Tropf, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
Joan McGarvey, president of American Family Association
The following people spoke against any reduction in the
separation distances in the current ordinance:
Bob Gerken, 2403 2nd St., SW.
Jim Newsome
Charlotte Selph, 550 45th Avenue
Judy Saucerman, 625 11th Place
Rev. Hugh King, pastor of First Church of the Nazarene
Connie Stevens, board member, Stop Turning Out Prisoners
Rev. Andrew Jefferson, St. Peter's Missionary Baptist Church
Rev. Jerry Cooper, pastor of First Baptist Church of Wabasso
Henry Holmes, St. Peter's Missionary Baptist Church
Art Firtion, resident of Sebastian
John Dean, local architect representing Visitation House,
placed the following letter on the record:
Visitation House
Christ Centered Ministries
November 27, 1996
To: Commissioners of Indian River County:
Fran B. Adams, Chairwoman
Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice -Chairwoman
Richard Bird
Kenneth R. Macht
John W. Tippen
We would like to Wke a moment to revisit the Commission's last workshop ordinance review on 11/5/96
concerning the County's existing Chapter 300 Alcoholic Beverages Ordinance.
Although we were not at the first workshop on this matter, we have reviewed in detail videos of both the
County Commission Meeting on 11/5/96 and the Indian River County School Board Meeting on
11/19/96.
DECEMBER 3, 1996
52
BOOK, 99 �,,,, 40
BOOK 99 fn;E1029
In reviewing the County Commission Meeting video and the School Board Meeting video, it is very
evident that the County Commission may have been mislead by several remarks Mr. Barkett made. Mr.
Barkett was the only person at the County Commission Meeting or the School Board Meeting that spoke
in favor of changing the Ordinance. Please note that he was hired and paid to speak in favor of the
change. No one else from the public or private sector spoke for the change.
One of Mr. Barkett's major points was totally inaccurate. He incorrectly stated that the School Board was
not concerned with the distance of separation from the school, clearly defined in Chapter 300. This is
misinformation. I do not believe he purposely meant to mislead the County Commission, but made an
interpretation of some earlier remarks he heard which were totally false regarding the School Board's
position. The video of the School Board Meeting clearly reveals that the School Board is unanimously in
favor of leaving the existing Ordinance intact with no change and no lessening of the separation. This was
the strong, undivided, and unanimous position of the School Board. In fact, the video reveals that some
Board Members felt that if uniformity is needed, perhaps those areas with less separation than the existing
County Ordinance should in fact increase the separation distance to match the existing County
Ordinance.
Mr. Barkett's second main point was that the Board should not be concerned so much with the concerns
of just one denomination - the Baptists. As we reviewed the video of the Commission, I heard several
denominations disagree with the change, not just the Baptists referred to by Mr. Barkett. It is our opinion
that the Commission should hear the voice of the Baptists, the other church denominations, the School
Board and the other citizens opposed to any change, and not Mr. Barkett's single restaurant owner who
wants to change the regulations simply for monetary reasons.
It is true that different church denominations, just as different individuals, viewed the consumption of
alcohol policies differently. But one cannot argue with the Forest Park Baptist Church representative,
Reverend Paul Mace, who spoke clearly regarding the fact that a change of this Ordinance could
dramatically affect the buffer of protection they now have around their facilities under present zoning. We
believe that the same injustice would apply to a number of unaware churches and schools in this County.
We believe that if you further consider this issue, the County should be obligated to notify everyone
whose existing rights might be affected so they have an opportunity to be heard. We believe this should
require the County to notify every church and school, private and public, about the Ordinance change.
We also believe that the proposed Ordinance change to say that on premises consumption shall not be
Dated within 1000 feet of a school but reduce it to 500 feet for churches is completely unfair and
insensitive to the needs of the churches which are working with the same children as the schools. To say
that it is not okay to be within 1000 feet of schools but it is okay to reduce this distance to 500 feet of a
church because one restaurant wants to be able to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises is totally
wrong. Many churches have schools - some churches which do not have a school today will have one
tomorrow.
Although several Commission members were very sympathetic to the pizza owner's self-imposed
problems, several points seemed obvious to us:
1. The problem was created by the restaurant owner's locating in an area where it is not legal to serve
alcohol. It would appear that the restaurant owner could continue to operate without selling
alcohol (many do). Or, they could relocate to a properly zoned area. The landlord of this new
facility would have (or at least should have) known exactly what was allowed here and what was
not. It is the landlord's and tenant's responsibility to go by the governing regulations and not the
County's responsibility to bail people out of a self-made problem. The building is brand new. The
owner knew the regulations. The site plan and building were just recently completed. The
building is so new there are still new businesses just moving in.
2. If the County Commission feels this is a unique and special circumstance, then the proper
procedure is not an Ordinance change, but rather a Special Exception or a Variance. Not a
reduction to 500 feet for everyone, but rather a specific measured distance for this one unique
and special hardship causing the need for a Variance or Special Exception. The problem is, this
situation is not special and unique, and is caused by the restaurant owner's desire to sell alcoholic
beverages to be consumed on the premises in opposition to the existing, successful Ordinance
regulation.
3. We believe the County Commission was influenced by improper information regarding the School
Board's unanimous opinion not to change the Ordinance. Surely the County Commission would
have to have a very strong and substantial reason to contradict the School Board's decree on this
issue. The School Board wants it left as it. That is a clear message from the Indian River County
School Board. We think the County Commission would need very strong and valid reasons to
vote in opposition to the request of the County School Board for what they feel is wise for the
students. and families attending the school system. Many churches also have schools.
DECEMBER 3, 1996 53
4. Those who oppose the change are not just Baptists. They were from several different Baptist
Churches, several Church of Gods, Lutheran Church, The Church of Christ, and pastors from
Gifford and across Indian River County representing MADD, and we are sure you have heard from
others. Your Commission notes also indicate you had letters from the Tabernacle Baptist Church,
American Family Association, Immanuel Baptist Church and the Community Baptist Church, all in
opposition to any lessening of the existing regulations. You have more than likely received other
letters such as -this one, also opposed to any change. We believe you have heard from only a few
voices of the many opposed to change in this Ordinance. All these citizens are looking at the
concerns of their churches and schools because they want Indian River County to be the kind of
place where the rights of the school children and church members are protected in every possible
way from the creeping influence of alcohol into these would-be safe areas. Yes, it is true you can
buy closed package goods within 500 feet, but that doesn't mean all other Ordinances have to be
compromised to that standard. Indian River County has a high standard of living - that's why we
live herel
5. This is a very clear case of one individual making an uninformed relocation decision against the
zoning code. That person's misinformed relocation should not be given priority over the rights of
those obeying the law and what is best for the community.
6. The Italian restaurant can survive without alcohol - many do. The restaurant also can relocate again
to a area with proper zoning for alcohol consumption if the owner feels that is a must. That is what
every other restaurant until now has done. Indian River County Planning Staff's unincorporated
County research indicates that 60% of the restaurants do not serve alcohol - a fact to remember.
7. Yes, alcohol is a problem in our community. Alcohol and its association and availability in and
around our schools and churches is not in keeping with the long standing high standards so
plainly outlined in our existing Zoning Ordinance to protect minors.
8. To deny the request that Ms. Fothergill might serve alcohol at her establishment is a simple
enforcement of long established Indian River County regulations. We are sure Ms. Fothergill
intends to continue run her restaurant with a good, clean, and controlled atmosphere. That is not
the case with all places that serve alcoholic beverages. By extending open consumption closer to
schools and churches you might as well also extend drinking hours, lower the age of drinking,
take the separation to 100 feet or less and advertise alcohol consumption to school and youth
group aged children. That is not rightl There is no good reason to change this regulation other
than one individual business saying "I didn't know I couldn't sell alcohol here and I think I need to
in order to make additional money." This is not how Indian River County operates, nor is it the way
the majority of citizens would want the County Commission to vote.
9. At Visitation House we are concerned about the well being of our entire community. We see no
redeeming value in shortening the Ordinance's 1000 foot separation requirements. We see no
establishment in Indian River County which serves alcohol providing counseling, rehabilitation,
divorce recovery, AA programs or self-help programs to the many lives affected by the devastating
misuse of alcohol in our County.
10. We urge you to simply vote NO to a lessening of the existing restriction for both schools and
churches. To view schools and churches as different in the protection they are entitled to is
biased and wrong. A vote for no change is for the good of: the School Board, which opposes any
precedent -making changes; the many churches, organizations, and citizens who are opposed to
any changes of this nature; and, the children, in schools and in churches, who are most affected
by the increasing exposure to alcohol and the results of the use of alcohol. We urge you not to
change the existing 1000 foot separation requirement with the intent of continuing the existing
Indian River County policy of creating a safe place for the minors involved in our school and church
systems.
Thank you for your wise and prayerful consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Jim Way (John dean
Director President
54
DECEMBER 3, 1996 BOOK 99 PAG4O30
I
BOOK 99 P440.31
Bruce Barkett, attorney representing applicant Lori
Fothergill, stated that he was here to address commercial use of
commercial property in this county. He referred to the map showing
existing commercial uses and emphasized that commercial uses are
encouraged in commercial areas. He noted that the proposed
ordinance is not about bars; it is about restaurants in commercial
areas serving alcoholic drinks. Attorney Barkett also noted that
no one here today has talked about how the serving of beer and wine
at a restaurant would affect the church. They have talked about
the evils of alcohol. He then addressed the matter of police
enforcement, and pointed out that Vero Beach Police Chief Jim
Gabbard said that in his 11 years in Vero Beach he has never had a
complaint or an incident concerning the proximity of a restaurant
to a church. Attorney Barkett emphasized that the City's
separation distance is 500 feet. He didn't agree that it was a
lowering of a standard; the proposed ordinance only permits
restaurants to be within 500 feet of a church.
Attorney Barkett asked the Board to consider the arguments of
how -the restaurant could affect the church by serving alcoholic
beverages along with food. He felt that if the goal is to decrease
consumption of alcohol, let's go the route of making this a dry
county. He stressed that we are talking about on -premise drinking,
not beer and wine to take out, such as in convenience stores.
Commissioner Macht felt the difference between the County and
the City requirements probably came about because of the population
densities of Vero Beach.
Lori Fothergill, owner of the Ultimate Pizza, related that she
and her husband went established this family business 7 years ago.
They have a 4 year-old son her husband passed away 3 years ago.
They have family values and they have not contributed to the
delinquency of minors and never will. Mrs. Fothergill felt that
the issue of the separation distance requirement should have been
handled a long time ago. The problem of on -premise drinking
outside of some bars has not been resolved and now it has become
her problem. She believed the owners of those bars should have
been fined or penalized in some way to control those activities.
Mrs. Fothergill urged the Board to consider her request.
Jim Isaacson, pastor of Grace United Methodist Church in
Wabasso, spoke against reducing the separation distance because he
believed it would further erode the moral standards of our
community. He cautioned that changing it for this person only
would open the doors to other requests.
DECEMBER 3, 1996 55
Ray Dykes, 4737 83rd Place, mother of applicant Lori
Fothergill, stated that she is very much against driving and
drinking. She emphasized that every restaurant in this state that
serves alcoholic beverages has to abide by the State restrictions.
She pointed out the inconsistencies in the locations of bars,
restaurants and establishments that sell alcoholic beverages to go.
Mrs. Dykes urged the Board to consider her daughter's request.
Bobby Hiers, Jungle Trail, was in favor of this reduction. He
rented or sold this property to Lori Fothergill. He is a Baptist,
but he is not afraid to take children to a restaurant where one can
order a beer to drink with their pizza. He felt people should
complain about the 7-11 Store being within 200 feet from them and
the County Beer Discount store being across the street where people
can buy beer in a bag and get in their car and drink it.
Nancy Flannery, resident of Vero Beach, commented that she and
her family go to Lori's restaurant every week and have never seen
any problems in the restaurant. They take their children there
every Sunday and have never seen any commotion. Mrs. Flannery
stated that she is in favor of reducing the separation, and made
the point of convenience stores being allowed closer than 1000 feet
to a church.
Guy Barber of 7th Place asked if it was State mandated that
the County has to pass an ordinance regarding separation distances,
and County Attorney Vitunac answered affirmatively, explaining that
the bars cannot be locate closer than 1000 feet from schools or
churches.
Mr. Barber asked if people are told about the restriction in
the ordinance when they go to lease or purchase a piece of
property, and Planning Director Stan Boling stated that they are
not told for a number of reasons. The situation could change.....
Attorney Vitunac interjected that the owner is responsible for
knowing the zoning laws.
Pastor Joe Brooks of 20th Avenue Church of God emphasized the
number of churches in this community and their concern about the
moral standards of the community. He cautioned that this is an
issue that is going to affect the entire county, and he felt that
if we are not having problems with the existing ordinance, it
should not be changed.
DECEMBER 3, 1996
56
BOOK PA1110, 2
i
BOOK 99 mAcEJ033
Rosemary Wilson stated that she works in commercial real
estate and is licensed under State regulations. She would. be
subject to losing her license if she did not inform a client of the
regulations or restrictions on a piece of property. She urged the
Board to keep the ordinance intact.
George Lakanides of 9th Drive felt we need to change our laws
to accommodate today's population and growth.
There being no others who wished to be heard, Chairman Adams
closed the public discussion.
Chairman Adams summarized that today's meeting is for the
purpose of deciding whether or not to direct staff to prepare an
ordinance reducing the separation distances between churches and
schools and advertise it for a public hearing at which the Board
will consider its adoption.
Commissioner Ginn was opposed to any change and Commissioner
Eggert agreed because she believed our standard should be
maintained.
Lori Fothergill stated that she would not do anything to harm
the community, but she is in fact operating under an ex post facto
law. She suggested that we step up our law enforcement on people
who buy beer in a bag and drink while driving.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board by a vote of 4-1
(Chairman Adams dissenting) directed staff not to
advertise for a public hearing or continue any
further study on changing the separation
requirements.
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH CLOSING ON FISCHER-
SEBASTIAN RIVER LAAC SITE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/25/96:
DECEMBER 3, 1996 57
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DER TMENT MEAD CONCURRENCE:
Rober M. Keating AICP
Community Development WZector
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois,ICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: November 25, 1996
SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO PROCEED WITH CLOSING ON THE FISCHER-SEBASTIAN
RIVER LAAC SITE AND SEEK AFTER -THE -FACT REIMBURSEMENT
FROM THE STATE
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its
meeting of December 3, 1996.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On January 31, 1996, the County Land Acquisition Advisory Committee
(LAAC) recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve
purchase of the +89 acre Fisher property bordering the St.
Sebastian River. Subsequently, at a public hearing on March 19,
1996, the Board approved the purchase as a 50% cost -share project
under the State Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) program.
Since March, staff has been working with the seller and State staff
to resolve issues relating to closing on the property. One issue in
particular pertains to the area of jurisdictional wetlands on the
subject property, and how that affects the appraised value and the
negotiated purchase price of $1.49 million. Due to the expense of
a detailed survey for this type of riverfront property, the State
and the County had proceeded to negotiate a purchase price based on
an "appraisal map," which falls short of a full boundary survey.
Subsequent to the County's approval of the purchase, the County and
the State obtained a more comprehensive survey. That survey
indicated that there was more wetland acreage than previously
determined.
The matter at hand is that the County's option on the property
expires January 1, 1997, and the wetland issue will not be resolved
by that time if the County continues to work with the State for a
joint closing. The seller, Dr. Henry Fischer, has indicated that
he will not extend the option. Therefore, the County must consider
proceeding on its own to closing on the property prior to January
lst, and seek after -the -fact -reimbursement from the State CARL
program, or not buy the property.
Option Contract Purchase Price "Buffer"
When the option contract was drafted and subsequently executed by
the seller, County and state staff were aware that there might be
a wetland acreage adjustment that could affect the appraised value
of the property. For this reason, a "buffer" of $89,400 was written
into the contract, so that the seller was aware that the purchase
price would be reduced, up to that much, if warranted by a final
survey of wetlands and overall acreage.
58
DECEMBER 3, 1996 BOOK 99 F'�4p34
BOOK 99 i-,, 4035
LAAC Recommendation
At its meeting on November 20, 1996, LAAC considered whether or not
the County should proceed on its own with closing to meet the
January 1st option deadline. A quorum was not present at that LAAC
meeting, so a formal vote on the matter did not occur. However, the
consensus among those LAAC members in attendance was for staff to
offer to Dr. Fischer that the County would proceed with closing to
meet the deadline if the purchase price was reduced to $1.3
million. Subsequently, staff made that offer, which was summarily
rejected by Dr. Fischer.
ANALYSIS
Attached is a memorandum from Charles Hardee, the County's
environmental lands acquisition consultant, explaining the
implications and risks associated with the County proceeding with
closing and seeking reimbursement from the State. The bottom-line
is that this approach could result in the State paying less than
50% of the costs, or possibly that the Governor and Cabinet would
not approve any after -the -fact cost share. However, if the County
does not proceed with closing in order to meet the option
expiration deadline, the County risks losing the opportunity to buy
and protect the property.
When the Fisher property was on the LAAC site ranking list, the
property was ranked number 3, and is considered an important
environmental property to protect via public acquisition. It is
staff's position that the risk of losing the purchase opportunity
outweighs the risk of the County losing cost -share funding.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
staff to close on the subject property prior to the January 1, 1997
option contract expiration date, conditioned upon the seller
escrowing $89,400 to account for a potential property value
adjustment due to increased wetland acreage. Staff is also
recommending that the Board authorize staff to continue working
with State CARL program staff to obtain after -the -fact 50% cost -
share funding reimbursement. In addition, staff requests that the
Board authorize the Board Chairman to execute closing documents and
cost -share documents, as necessary.
ATTACHMENTS:
*Charles Hardee memorandum dated November 19, 1996
sGeneral map of project
APPROVED:
FOR • % ` 3 —' c, Inbi�n Rroa Co A010"d
i Adman.
BY:
c:�gr1
Uevt. '
RisK Mgr.
\r1\1aac\fischbuy.bcc
59
DECEMBER 3, 1996
2
to
�n
Commissioner Macht asked if Roland DeBlois, Chief of
Environmental Planning, was satisfied with the escrow conditions,
and Mr. DeBlois answered affirmatively. He added that they are
going to try to close with the acknowledgement that there are still
some unresolved issues in the seller's court. If we cannot resolve
those matters and close by January 1, 1997, we will report back.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to proceed with the closing on the
Sebastian/ Fischer LAAC site, as set out in staff's
recommendation.
Jim Granse, 36 Pine Arbor Lane, couldn't understand the Board
approving the purchase of this property when the State will control
the title and also the title to the Cairns property. He felt the
State's intention is just to have the County maintain the property
and have title to it so they have the option of disposing of it at
sometime in the future.
Bill Koolage of Vista Gardens was upset that this meeting had
continued while all the people here for the last item had filed out
of Chambers. He believed the Chairman should call a halt to the
meeting while people were filing out. He urged the Board to do
that in the future.
SETTING DATE FOR SECOND WORKSHOP ON COMMUNICATIONS
TOWERS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/25/96:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DI ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
,
41
Obert Keatin , A
Community Development irector
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP ✓
Planning Director
DATE: November 25, 1996
SUBJECT: Date for Second Board Workshop on Communications Towers
60
DECEMBER 3, 1996 BOOK 99 FAcFI096
BOOK 99 N,4037
BACKGROUND:
At the conclusion of its November 13, 1996 workshop on
communications towers, the Board of County Commissioners indicated
that a second public workshop will be needed after staff obtains
tower/antenna needs projections from the communications industry.
Since the November 13th workshop, staff has met with industry
representatives and is obtaining industry 5-10 year needs
projections. By the second week in December, staff should have the
projections and additional staff analysis on potential regulations
for the Board's consideration.
Staff has coordinated with the Board office and industry
representatives regarding a workshop date. A date that appears to
accommodate the needs and schedules of the Board, industry
representatives, and staff is Thursday, December 19, 1996 at 10:00
a.m. Staff has reserved the Commission Chambers for that time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners set
Thursday, December 19, 1996 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission
Chambers as the date, time, and place for a second public workshop
on communications towers.
Commissioner Eggert requested that the meeting time be changed
to 9:00 a.m. or 9:30 a.m.
BY CONSENSUS, the Board scheduled the second workshop on
Communication Towers for 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, December 19, 1996.
VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS RELIEF AND PENSION FUND
PROPOSED RETIREMENT BENEFIT INCREASE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/15/96:
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Jim Chandler, County Adm' istrator
FROM: Doug Wright, Director
Emergency Services
DATE: November 15, 1996
SUBJECT: Vero Beach Firefighters Relief and Pension Fund Proposed
Change to Provide For An Increased Retirement Benefit
The City Council for the City of Vero Beach has passed on first
reading the attached ordinance relating to a proposed change in the
Vero Beach Firefighters Relief and Pension Fund.
As noted in the proposed ordinance, in addition to other benefits
already being received, each fireman who retires, and any
participant who is receiving a benefit, shall receive a monthly
amount equal to the aggregate number of years of service completed
at the time of retirement, multiplied by $10.00 for each year of
service. This supplemental benefit would apply at this time to the
61
DECEMBER 3, 1996
nine (9) people who are presently receiving benefits and would not
require any employer contribution.
Mr. J. Stephen Palmquist, Plan Actuary, will provide the Board an
overview of t -he Actuarial Impact Statement and answer any questions
related to the proposed change.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Board approval and transmittal to the City Council
of Vero Beach for the second and final reading of the Ordinance,
subject to the approval of the State Division of Retirement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved
the proposed ordinance of the City Council of Vero
Beach for its second and final reading of the
Ordinance, subject to the approval of the State
Division of Retirement.
REPLACEMENT OF DC CAPACITORS & FLYWHEEL BEARINGS - 911
COMMUNICATIONS - BUDGET AMENDMENT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/27/96:
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Jim Chandler, County Administrator
FROM Doug Wright, Director
Emergency Services
DATE: November 27, 1996
SUBJECT: Funding For Replacement of DC Capacitors and Flywheel
Bearings in the 9-1-1 Communications Center's
Uninterrupted Power Supply Equipment; Waiver of Bidding
Process For Emergency Repairs; and Approval of Budget
Amendment
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be added to the agenda and given formal consideration by the Board
of County Commissioners at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
MGE UPS Systems, Inc., is the current service agreement contractor
for the power conditioning equipment at the 9-1-1 Communications
Center. During their most recent preventative maintenance visit,
the Field Engineer determined that the DC capacitors and flywheel
_bearings needed to be replaced. All of these items are subject to
62
DECEMBER 3, 1996 1 BOOK 99 PnF10e38
I
BOOK 99 FaA639
general wear and have exceeded their suggested life cycle.
According to MGE staff, it is difficult to determine when these
parts will expire; and, because of the expense, they only recommend
replacement when they begin to malfunction.
The entire computer network utilized by the 9-1-1 Center is
dependent upon the integrity of the UPS equipment. Over the last
week, maintenance crews have made make -shift repairs until
replacement parts could be authorized and installed. The Field
Engineer has cautioned staff that continuing to operate the
equipment without adequate repairs could either damage the motor
generator or possibly cause the unit to catch on fire.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The life span of the worn equipment can only be estimated in that
it is affected by environment, lightning strikes to commercial
power services, and general wear and tear. MGE highly recommends
replacing the worn equipment as soon as possible. Time is of the
essence in repairing the equipment to operate at full capacity.
The UPS system supports the dispatch and CAD functions of the 9-1-1
Center and optimum capability should be maintained at all times for
obvious and substantial reasons.
The costs for the replacement equipment include:
DC Capacitor Change Out
24 DC Capacitors $2,026.75
Labor 1,170.00
$3,196.75
Bearing Change Out
Flywheel Bearing incl. Labor 4,735.00
Total cost $7,931.75*
*The above costs reflect a 30% discount afforded the County
since we are a contracted maintenance customer.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board waive the bidding process, declare the
purchase an emergency, and authorize MGE UPS Systems, Inc. to
repair the equipment at their earliest convenience. Funds for the
repairs is available from the contingency account of the 9-1-1
Communications Center budget.
Staff also recommends the Board authorize the necessary budget
amendment to appropriate the funds for this expense.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation as set out in the above memo
and authorized the necessary budget amendment to
appropriate the funds for this expense.
DECEMBER 3, 1996
M
177
L�
KINGS HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS - OSLO ROAD TO 26TH ST. -
KEN4LEY-HORN - AMENDMENT NO. 4
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/22/96:
TO:
James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH:
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director`
FROM:
Terry B. Thompson, P.",E)'
Capital Projects Manage
SUBJECT:
Amendment No. 4
Kings Highway Improvements
Oslo Road to 26th Street
DATE: November 22, 1996
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc. is under contract with Indian River County to perform
professional services for improvements to Kings Highway. The attached Amendment No.
4 provides for the relocation of Lundberg Road and the design of landscaping
improvements in the medians of Kings Highway in the vicinity of SR 60.
Lundberg Road is currently located within the right-of-way of the Main Relief Canal. On
October 29, 1996 the Board approved a land exchange to relocate Lundberg Road away
from the Main Relief Canal bridge. The relocation resolves a traffic safety issue and
provides better accessability to adjacent property. Amendment No. 4 provides for design
of Lundberg Road at its new location.
Amendment No. 4 also provides for the design of landscape and improvements in the
Kings Highway medians between 16th Street and 26th Street. The SR 60 Task Force has
not finalized the SR 60 Corridor Plan, but the final plan will include recommendations for
landscaping the medians of SR 60 and major cross streets. If the medians of Kings
Highway are going to be landscaped and irrigated, it would be the most cost effective to
include this work in the Kings Highway Widening project.
Attached is an opinion of probable cost for the up -front installation cost and the annual
maintenance cost of two (2) different landscaping options. The Public Works Department
prefers Option 1 because it includes a 1' band of pavers around the landscaped area
which provides a clean maintenance edge. Option 2 uses sod instead of pavers. If the
sod is not edged regularly, the grass will creep into the landscaped area and create
additional maintenance costs.
Compensation for Amendment No. 4 is as follows:
Lundberg Road $31,900.00
Landscape Design $11.500.00
Total $43,400.00
This increases the maximum amount for Roadway Design from $571,860.00 to
$615,260.00.
RECOMfdIENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of Amendment No. 4 in the amount of $43,400.00. Staff also
recommends that the medians be landscaped without sod, Option No. 1.
Funding is from Account 101-158-541-067.30.
64
DECEMBER 3, 1996
BOOK 99 PndW
BOOK 99 Fx A041
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, to approve Amendment No. 4 with
Kimley-Horn in the amount of $43,400 and Option No.
1, the medians to be landscaped without sod.
Under discussion, Commissioner Tippin favored going ahead with
the landscaping but preferred using sod instead of pavers (Option
2) .
COMMISSIONERS EGGERT AND MACHT WITHDREW THEIR MOTION to
approve Option 1.
Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that staff's
recommendation was based on the high traffic environment, the tight
right-of-way, and the risk factor encountered during construction.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved
Amendment No. 4 with Kimley-Horn in the amount of
$43,400 and Option No. 2, the use of sod.
37TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS - U.S.#1 TO I.R. BLVD. - KIMLEY-
HORN, AMENDMENT NO. 5
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/22/96:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH. James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E 7
Capital Projects Manage
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 5
?9
Professional Professional Engineering Services
37th Street Improvements
From US 1 to Indian River Boulevard
DATE: November 22, 1996
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Since the time that plans for 37th Street were completed, three (3) site plans have come
in on 37th Street that allow for the installation of sidewalks and the elimination of 406
linear feet of culvert pipe and two (2) structures which will save approximately $18,200.00
irlconstruction costs.
DECEMBER 3, 1996 65
E___1
The attached Amendment No. 5 provides for eliminating culvert pipe and revising typical
sections, plan and profile sheets and cross-sections to include a 5' wide sidewalk on the
north side of 37th Street from US 1 to Indian River Boulevard. Compensation due the
engineer for revising 18 sheets of construction drawings is $3,492.00. This added to the -
current contract amount $37,445.00 results in a new contract amount of $40,937.00.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of Amendment No. 5. Funding is from Account 309-215-541-
033.13.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
Amendment No. 5 with Kimley-Horn, as set out in
staff's recommendation.
AMENDMENT NO. 5 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
SPECIAL WATERWAY PROTECTS GRANT APPLICATION
REPLACEMENT OF DONALD MACDONALD BOAT RAMP
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/25/96:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E. �-„it;i-
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Special Waterway Projects Grant
Replacement of Donald MacDonald Boat Ramp
DATE: November 25, 1996
Attached is a Special Waterway Projects Grant application and resolution authorizing
submission of the application to the Department of Environmental Protection for
replacement of the Donald MacDonald Boat Ramp.
The grant application in the amount of $80,000.00 provides for replacement of the existing
boat ramp north of the camping area. Indian River County is exempt from a match
requirement because it is one of twenty-three (23) eligible counties with the least number
of registered boaters.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the resolution authorizing the submission of the
grant application to the Department of Environmental Protection.
66
DECEMBER 3, 1996 Boor 99 r-AfE10, 42
BOOK 99 f't1,4p43
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 96-151, authorizing grant application for
$80,000 through the Special Waterway Projects
Program.
DONALD MACDONALD BOAT RAMP
RESOLUTION # 96 -151
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION
REQUESTING A GRANT OF $80,000.00 THROUGH THE SPECIAL
WATERWAY PROJECTS PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO REPLACE
DONALD MACDONALD BOAT RAMP IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AS
DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIAL WATERWAY PROJECT APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County Florida
(BOARD), through its Public Works Department propose to perform the project
described in the Special Waterway Project Application for Florida's Fiscal Year 1996-
97; and
WHEREAS, the BOARD, by submitting a Special Waterway Project Application
for Florida's Fiscal Year 1996-97 requesting $80,000.00 in funds through the Special
Waterway Projects Program, agrees to perform the proposed project as described in
the Special Waterway Project Application for Florida's Fiscal Year 1996-97.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD IN REGULAR
MEETING ASSEMBLED THIS 3 DAY OF December , 1996;
That the BOARD hereby supports participation in the Special Waterway Project
Program to perform the project described in Special Waterway Projects
Application for Florida's Fiscal Year 1996-97 and authorized Public Works
Department to submit an application requesting $80,000.00 in funds through the
Special Waterway Projects Program.
2. That the BOARD hereby designates Terry Thompson, P. E., Capital Projects
Manager in the Public Works Department as the Grant Project Manager for this
project; and
That this resolution take effect immediately upon adoption.
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly
and legally adopted by the Board of County Commissioners at a legal meeting held on
this 3 day of nprpmhpr 1996.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST:
Jeffery K. Barton INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
.,r.k4 ofCourt '
Y
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
67
DECEMBER 3, 1996
I
SOUTH COUNTY R.O. PLANT WASTEWATER CONNECTIONS -
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - TREASURE COAST CONTRACTING
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/19/96:
DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 1996
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. CAI
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PR GINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT M UT t�TYSERVICES
SUBJECT: SOUTH COUNTY REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT WASTEWATER
CONNECTIONS (DOMESTIC/SKID CLEANING) CONTRACT
FOR CONSTRUCTION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -96 -14 -CS
BACKGROUND
On September 17, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners approved
the above -referenced project. To implement the project, staff was
approved to purchase material directly from US Filter (previously
Davis Meter) and ABS Pumps. For construction, staff was to acquire
three quotes from local contractors and return to the Board with a
contract for execution. (See attached agenda item and minutes for
details.)
ANALYSIS
Staff acquired quotes as follows:
1) Treasure Coast Contracting, Inc. $ 8,800.00
2) A and R Utilities $11,675.00
3) Driveways, Inc. $12,800.00
We have prepared a contract with Treasure Coast Contracting, Inc.,
in the amount of $8,800.00. (Please see attached.) Funding for
this work will be from Account No. 472-000-169-314.00.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff -of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached contract as
presented and authorize the chairman to execute same.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved
the agreement with Treasure Coast Contracting, Inc.,
as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
68
DECEMBER 3, 1996 BooK 99 PAc a44
I
Bgg 99 FAL 1045
REMOVAL OF UNDERGROUND DIESEL TANKS - (170 Filbert St. and
810 Bailey Drive locations - Sebastian) - FINAL PAY REQUEST -
FLORIDA WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/22/96:
DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 1996
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT
FROM: TERRANCE G. PI O
DIRECTOR OF UT SERVICES -
PREPARED GENE A. RA
AND STAFFED MANAGER O AND WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: FINAL PAY REQUEST FOR INDIAN.RIVER COUNTY BID
NO. 6082
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
On October 1, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners approved a
contract with Florida Waste Environmental Service, Inc., for the
removal of the above -referenced diesel tanks. The removal of the
tanks is complete in accordance with Indian River County Standards
and Specifications.
The department is now prepared to finalize the project. Therefore,
we are requesting approval by the Board of County Commissioners to
make final payment in the amount of $7,770.00 to the contractor.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached final pay
request in the amount of $7,770.00 to Florida Waste Environmental
Service, Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the final pay request by Florida Waste Environmental
Service, Inc. in the amount of $7,770, as
recommended by staff.
FINAL PAY REQUEST ON FILE IN OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
69
DECEMBER 3, 1996
CONTINUING SERVICE SURVEY WORK IN EXCESS OF $10.000
CONTRACTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/18/96:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
NOVEMBER 18, 1996
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G.
DIRECTOR OF
WILLIAM F.
CAPITAL PF
CES
PW P.E.
ENGINEER
UTILITY SERVICES
CONTINUING SERVICE SURVEY WORK IN EXCESS OF
$10,000.00 CONTRACTS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -96 -15 -DS
On October 15, 1996, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners authorized staff to proceed with contract
negotiations with the three successful survey firms; Masteller and
Moler, Inc., Carter Associates, Inc., and Kimbley Horn, see
attached agenda item and minutes. We have completed the
negotiation process and are requesting Board signature on the
contracts.
ANALYSIS
Contracts have been executed by the above -referenced firms. The
format of the contracts is essentially the same as in previous
years. The firms will be put under contract for survey work in
excess of $10,000.00 on a rotational basis per the above listing.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached contracts as
submitted and authorize the Chairman to execute same.
Chairman Adams questioned the insurance mentioned on the
Request for Proposal and the insurance certificates, and Capital
Projects Engineer Bill McCain advised that they are all insured for
$1 -million professional liability.
Chairman Adams directed Mr. McCain to check the figures in the
errors and omissions insurance and provide copies of the insurance
certificates to the Board.
70
DECEMBER 3, 1996 BOOK 99 UCE[M6
Boor 99 F�nFJ047
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved
the three contracts with the condition that $1 -
million professional liability insurance is in place
on each contract and the contracts speak to the
same.
CONTRACTS _ PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
RFP NO. 6073 - MAINTENANCE OF WATER STORAGE TANKS -
GIFFORD, ROSELAND AND KINGS HIGHWAY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/22/96:
DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 1996
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRA
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI ERVICES
PREPARED GENE A. RAUrA
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ER AND WASTEWATER OPERATIONS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY RFP NO. 6073 - MAINTENANCE
OF WATER STORAGE TANKS, GIFFORD, ROSELAND AND
KINGS HIGHWAY
BACKGROUND
On June 6, 1996, the County received three (3) responses to a
Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFP) on the above -
referenced project. On October 30, 1996, presentations were made
to the Staff Selection Committee. The selection process was
finalized and the Department is now prepared to proceed with
contract negotiations.
ANALYSIS
The following firms submitted proposals for this RFP:
1. Eagle Tank Technology and Renovation
2. Utility Service Company, Inc.
3. Tank Engineering and Management Consultants, Inc.
The firm of Utility Service Company, Inc., was unanimously selected
by the Staff Selection Committee. A copy of the firm's proposal is
on file in the Board of County Commissioners office.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of -County Commissioners authorize the staff to proceed with
the negotiations for a contract for the maintenance of our water
storage tanks with the firm of Utility Service Company, Inc.
71
DECEMBER 3, 1996
Chairman Adams asked why we didn't do this on a bid, and
Capital Projects Engineer Bill McCain explained that previously
this work has been handled on a tank by tank basis. We brought
consultants on board to generate specifications for the work and
went out to bid for the specification renovations on each tank. We
found that process to be very cumbersome and costly. We have done
a lot of research within the state and country and looked at
various companies that offer continuing maintenance programs
whereby they take full responsibility, i.e. needed engineering
services, painting, maintenance, etc. The selection of the 3 firms
was handled very much like the Consultants Competitive Negotiations
Act (CCNA) process, and now we are looking for authorization to sit
down and negotiate a contract.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously
authorized staff to proceed with the negotiations
for a contract with the three firms listed in the
above memo, as recommended by staff.
LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION ITEMS
Attorney Vitunac asked the Commissioners for their list of
items they wish to take before the Legislative Delegation.
1) Chairman Adams wanted to repeat our request for the clams and
shellfish 75 -ft. limit on private property and this time keep
a better track on the legislation in Tallahassee. She
believed we could use the special law we introduced last year.
2) Commissioner Tippin recommended we support FAC's Top 6 in 1997
which includes the Economic Development Tax Exemption Reform
.and the Tax Equity Partial Year Assessment. He would like to
combine the goals of FAC and the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council.
72
DECEMBER 3, 1996 BOOK 99 PA 048,
BOOK 99 FnE1049
FAC'S TOP' 6 IN 1997
Ad Valorem Assessments: SUPPORT assessments on ad valorem property which allows for the
equitable distribution of ad valorem taxes on property for the portion of a year that new
construction is receiving benefit of public services such as partial -year, substantially complete or a
fee for interim government services.
Courts/Article V: Counties maintain that the operation and funding of the State Court System is
a state responsibility. In a spirit of cooperation to resolve longstanding court funding problems,
FAC supports the following: SUPPORT legislation authorizing counties to utilize alternative
funding mechanisms for capital improvements and operationz- such as court improvement funds,
reset fees and deferral fees; SUPPORT state funding to provide counties with financial relief for
existing court operations, including full funding for any new programs and court related
obligations; and SUPPORT other measures which will provide a more a uitab a funding balan e
reducing county expenditures for the State Court System.
Economic Development Tax Exemption Reform: SUPPORT developing criteria to identify
and evaluate the economic benefits of proposed and existing exemptions to the tax structure and
establish performance-based measurements to enhance accountability.
Medicaid Reform: SUPPORT a deliberative policy process to restructure the Medicaid program
that involves counties in the development and implementation of reform initiatives and which
addresses at a minimum governance, financing, client eligibility and benefits, program integrity,
and service delivery. OPPOSE mandating additional responsibility and costs to counties.
Telecommunications: SUPPORT improvements to the state and local tax structure for
electronic communication products and services that will strengthen Florida's economic
vitality. Tl•,erefore, county officials support establishing an equitable system that promotes the
expansion of the communications'industry and advancE:: the availability of electronic
communication products and services for Florida's business community and the general public.
In the same manner, SUPPORT the preservation of local governments responsibility to
manage public resources, including, but not limited to public rights-of-way.
Welfare Reform Implementation: SUPPORT job creation and social strategies that effectuate
long-term se; 'I sufficiency and improvement in the quality of life for all families and children on
public assistance, including legal immigrants, and extending voting privileges on the WAGES
governance board to counties. "'C=�
3) Discussion ensued about including the problem of getting title
in perpetuity on the land we have purchased in conjunction
with the State, i.e. the Cairns' property and -the Sebastian
tract. Chairman Adams felt that is a Cabinet issue and could
be handled through a policy change. She agreed to talk to
73
DECEMBER 3, 1996
State Legislators Sembler and Kurth to see if they can
initiate a policy change at the department level.
Commissioner Eggert wanted to see us ask for continued funding
of cultural grants.
CONSENSUS was reached that Chairman Adams and Attorney Vitunac
would represent the County at the Legislative Delegation meeting.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
Chairman Adams announced that immediately following
adjournment, the Board would meet as the District Board of
Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes
are being prepared separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:25 p.m.
ATTEST:
. Barton, Clerk
Minutes approved_L- �% -
74
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
DECEMBER 3, 1996
BOOK 99 F��4-OSO