HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/18/19990 MINUTES ATTACHED 0
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, MAY 189 1999 - 9:00 A.M.
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman (District 3)
Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman (District 1)
Caroline D. Ginn, (District 5)
Ruth Stanbridge (District 2
John W. Tippin, (District 4)
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffley K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 am. 1. CALL TO ORDER BACKUP
PAGES
2. I WOCATION Father Donal O'Haire
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. John W. Tippin
4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
1. Add Item 13.A.1., Emergency ordinance 99-015 Establishing an Amended Effective Date of October 1. 1999 for regulations
governing Alarms responded to by Law Enforcement Agencies in Indian River County (amends Ordinance 99-010).
2. Add Item 13.A2., Commenta regarding the recent Relay for Life Cancer Fund Raiser.
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated May 6, 1999) 1-9
B. Declare Equipment Surplus for Sale or Disposal
(memorandum dated May 11, 1999) 10-14
C. Replacement of Executive Aide to the Board of
County Commissioners
(memorandum dated May 12, 1999) 15
D. Fellsmere Health Coalition, Inc. Request for Funding
(memorandum dated May 12, 1999) 16-30
E. Approval of Revised Maintenance Map for a Portion
of Jungle Trail
(memorandum dated May 11, 1999) 31
F. Approval of City of Fellsmere Appointments to MPO
and TCRPC
(letter dated April 28, 1999) 32
BOOK i� F;uF 9.119
BOOK 00 fnF �.
BACKUP
7. CONSENT AGENDA kont'C: PAGES
G. Approval of City of Vero Beach's Appoint-
ment to Economic Development Comm.
(letter dated May 5, 1999) 33
H. Recently Acquired Property - Tax Cancellation
(memorandum dated May 5,1999) 34-36
I. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
(memorandum dated May 7,1999) 37
J. Resolution Accepting a Right -of -Way Dedication
and Canceling Taxes on Acquired Property
(memorandum dated May 5, 1999) 38-42
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. County Initiated Request to Amend the Text
of the Comprehensive Plan (Legislative)
(memorandum dated April 30,1999) 43-80
2. Knight and Associates, Inc.'s Request to Amend
Policy 5.8 of the Future Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive Plan to Allow the Subdivision
of Agricultural Land into Platted Lots Greater than
One Acre in Size, and to Revise the Clustering Re-
quirements for Residential Lots Within Equestrian
Agricultural Planned Developments (Legislative)
(memorandum dated May 12, 1999) 81-112
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
None
10. COUNTY ADMIMSTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
None
B. Emergency Services -
Purchase of an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS)
for the E9-1-1 Communications Center
(memorandum dated May 10, 1999) 113-115
C. General Services
Termination of Food Service Concession License
(memorandum dated May 10, 1999) 116-122
(cont'd. from BCC meeting of 5/11/99)
•
BACKUP
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd 1• PAGES
D. Leisure Services
None
E. Office of Management and Budget
$18,000,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds
Financing for St. Edward's school, Inc.
(memorandum dated May 12, 1999) 123-134
F. Personnel
None
G. Public Works
1. Single Source Vendor for Boat Launching
Facilities Replacement for Donald MacDonald
Park
(memorandum dated November 16, 1999) 135-142
2. Right -of --Way Acquisition/County Proj. #9601
43rd Avenue hWovements/8th St. to 26th St.
Parcel No. 146 - Paul C. & Joyce M. Redstone
(memorandum dated May 18, 1999) 143-147
3. Request by I.R.Comm. College for Westerly
Extension to College Lane
(memorandum dated May 11, 1999) 148-154
4. Fleet Management Complex Property Acquisi-
tion - County / School District Joint Venture
(memorandum dated May 5, 1999) 155-177
H. Utilities
None
I. Human Services
None
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
B. Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams
C. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Additional Members - Beach & Shore Preservation
Advisory Committee
(memorandum dated May 11, 1999)
D. Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge
E. Commissioner John W. Tippin
178
BOOK 1 PAGE 2 1
BOOK 100 F -AGC -2,
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
1. Approval of Minutes - meeting of 4/27/99
2. Approval of Minutes - meeting of 5/4/99
BACKUP
PAGES
3. Sampling and Laboratory Analysis
(memorandum dated May 4, 1999) 179-181
4. Interagency / Public Works Agreement
(memorandum dated May 5, 1999) 182-186
5. Analysis of Solid Waste Management
(memorandum dated May 10, 1999) 187-197
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 may be broadcast live on TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast various times
throughout the week
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening
INDEX TO MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MAY 18, 1999
1. CALL TO ORDER .............................................. -1-
2. INVOCATION .................................................. 1-
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ....................................... 1-
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA ................................... 1-
7. CONSENT AGENDA ............................................ 2-
7.A. Approval of Warrants ....................................... 2-
7.B. Equipment Declared Surplus for Sale or Disposal .................. 8-
7.C. Executive Aide to the Board of County Commissioners - Replacement of
Retiring Executive Aide Alice White by Kimberly Massung .......... 9-
7.13. Fellsmere Health Coalition, Inc. - Request for Grant Application Extension
...................................................... .10-
7.E. Jungle Trail - Revised Maintenance Map ...................... .11-
7.F. City of Fellsmere Appointment of John A. McCants to Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) and Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council (TCRPC) To Replace Dale E. Carter ................... .12-
7.G. City of Vero Beach - Appointment of Carl Pease to Economic Development
Committee To Replace Mayor Arthur Neuberger ................. .13-
7.H. Resolution 99-043 - Tax Cancellation on Recently Acquired Property -
Abraham Barkett et ux - 58 h Avenue Right -of -Way ............... .14-
7.I. Payments to Vendors of Court -Related Costs ................... .17-
7.J. Resolution 99-044 - Accepting Right -of -Way Dedication and Canceling
Taxes on Acquired Property - R & R Investment Management, Inc. - 4V
Street Right -of -Way ....................................... .18 -
MAY 189 1999
-1-
Ir,
BOOK I
U�
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION 99-045 TRANSMITTING PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
(DCA) - COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -(COASTAL MANAGEMENT, ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, FUTURE LAND USE AND RECREATION AND OPEN
SPACE ELEMENTS) AMENDMENT CPTA 99-01-0179 .............. .23-
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - KNIGHT & ASSOCIATES, INC. - REQUEST TO
AMEND POLICY 5.8 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (1) TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF
AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO PLATTED LOTS GREATER THAN ONE
ACRE IN SIZE AND (2) TO REVISE THE CLUSTERING REQUIREMENTS
FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITHIN EQUESTRIAN AGRICULTURAL
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS .................................. .38-
11.13. PURCHASE OF UNINTERRUPTIBLE POWER SUPPLY (UPS) FORE 9-1-1
COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FROM MGE SYSTEMS (SNAPS [State
Negotiated Agreement Price Schedule] STATE CONTRACT) ............ 49-
11.C. RESOLUTION 99-046 - TERMINATING FOOD SERVICE CONCESSION
LICENSE AT COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - TROGDEN
(BARKER) .................................................. .51-
11.E. RESOLUTION 99-047 AUTHORIZING $18,000,000 INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS - FINANCING FOR ST. EDWARD'S
SCHOOL, INC . ............................................... .54-
11.G.1. BOAT LAUNCHING FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FOR DONALD
MACDONALD PARK - SINGLE -SOURCE VENDOR - RANDALL G.
TEDDER D/B/A TEDDER BOAT RAMP SYSTEM ................... .58-
11.G.2. - PAUL C. AND JOYCE M. REDSTONE - COUNTY PROJECT #9601-
43m AVENUE IlVIPROVEMENTS - 817'STREET TO 26TH STREET - RIGHT-
OF-WAY ACQUISITION - PARCEL NO. 146 ....................... .60 -
MAY 189 1999
-2-
11.G.3. INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE - REQUEST FOR
WESTERLY EXTENSION TO COLLEGE LANE IN LIEU OF SECOND
STORMWATER POND - RICHARDSON CENTER BUILDING ......... .61-
11.G.4. FLEET MANAGEMENT COMPLEX PROPERTY ACQUISITION -
ANNETTE ROBERTS, TRUSTEE - JOINT VENTURE WITH SCHOOL
DISTRICT ................................................... .62-
13.A.1. CHAIRMAN KENNETH R MACHT - EMERGENCY ORDINANCE 99-
015 ESTABLISHING AN AMENDED EFFECTIVE DATE OF
OCTOBER 1, 1999 FOR REGULATIONS GOVERNING ALARMS
RESPONDED TO BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY - (AMENDS ORDINANCE 99-010) ........... .64-
13.A.2. CHAIRMAN KENNETH R MACHT - COMMENTS REGARDING
RECENT RELAY FOR LIFE CANCER FUND RAISER .......... .70-
13.C. COMMISSIONER CAROLINE D. GINN - BEACH & SHORE PRESERVATION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADDITIONAL MEMBERS - TOWN OF ORCHID,
TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES AND CITY OF VERO BEACH .... -70-
DOCUMENTS TO BE ADDED TO THE RECORD - PROCLAMATION IN SUPPORT
OF THE COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS FUND-RAISER, MAY 27, 1999
............................................................ .72-
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT ............................ .73 -
MAY 189 1999
-3- 800K 16"'�) PAGE %
May 18, 1999
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25' Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Tuesday, May 18, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman; Fran B.
Adams, Vice Chairman; John W. Tippin; Caroline D. Ginn; and Ruth Stanbridge. Also
present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County
Attorney; and Patricia "PT' Jones, Deputy Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Macht called the meeting to order.
2. IlWOCATION
Commissioner Ginn delivered the Invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Tippin led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Chairman Macht requested 2 additions to today's Agenda:
1. Item 13.A.1., Emergency Ordinance 99-015 Establishing an Amended
Effective Date of October 1, 1999 for regulations governing Alarms responded
to by Law Enforcement Agencies in Indian River County (amends Ordinance
99-010).
2. Item 13.A.2., Comments regarding the recent Relay for Life Cancer Fund
Raiser.
MAY 189 1999
1�);.
BOOK 109 F-nuE u
J
BOOP( k FA� .
Ut.s,ja
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the
Board unanimously added the above items to the
Agenda.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
7.A. APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 6, 1999:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: MAY 6,1999
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 April 30 to May 6, 1999.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the list of Warrants as issued
by the Clerk to the Board for the period from April
30, 1999 through May 6, 1999, as recommended by
staff.
MAY 189 1999
•
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0019963
FLORIDA COMBINED LIFE
1999-04-30
2,193.62
0019964
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF
1999-05-04
1,689.00
0019965
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE AND
1999-05-05
1,416.39
0019966
FLORIDA RETIREMENT SYSTEM
1999-05-05
504,972.25
0261825
A A FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
1999-05-06
192.40
0261826
ACE PLUMBING, INC
1999-05-06
230.00
0261827
AIRBORNE EXPRESS
1999-05-06
40.00
0261828
ALPHA ACE HARDWARE
1999-05-06
38.06
0261829
AMERICAN BUSINESS INTERIORS
1999 -OS -06
2,405.82
0261830
AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL
1999-05-06
35.00
0261831
AMERICAN LEGION POST 0039
1999-05-06
1,007.14
0261832
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
1999-05-06
166.50
0261833
AMERICAN PROBATION & PAROLE
1999-05-06
35.00
0261834
AT YOUR SERVICE
1999-05-06
2,542.24
0261835
AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH,
1999-05-06
859.66
0261836
AT EASE ARMY NAVY
1999-05-06
387.00
0261837
ABS PUMPS, INC
1999-05-06
2,262.00
0261838
ACTION DIESEL INJECTION
1999-05-06
325.00
0261839
ALRO METALS SERVICE CENTER
1999-05-06
334.56
0261840
A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES
1999-05-06
204.91
0261841
ANESTHESIA OF INDIAN RIVER,INC
1999-05-06
434.00
0261842
A T & T
1999-05-06
20.71
0261843
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE
1999-05-06
49,632.99
0261844
ALLIED MEDICAL SERVICES
1999-05-06
52.28
0261845
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP
1999-05-06
63.00
0261846
ALL COUNTY MOWER & EQUIP CO
1999-05-06
97.82
0261847
APPERSON CHEMICALS,INC
1999 -OS -06
3,158.64
0261848
AMERICAN LIBRARY PREVIEW
1999-05-06
50.85
0261849
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP
1999-05-06
2,906.00
0261850
AMERISYS, INC
1999-05-06
2,485.10
0261851
A T & T
1999-05-06
8.86
0261852
ACCESS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
1999 -OS -06
559.58
0261853
BARTH CONSTRUCTION
1999-05-06
500.00
0261854
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1999-05-06
5,005.98
0261855
BENSONS LOCK SERVICE
1999-05-06
7.00
0261856
BILL BRYANT & ASSOCIATES, INC
1999-05-06
500.00
0261857
BUILDING OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION
1999-05-06
430.00
0261858
BRUGNOLI, ROBERT J PHD
1999-05-06
1,050.00
0261859
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
1999-05-06
4,658.50
0261860
BERGGREN EQUIPMENT CO, INC
1999-05-06
792.43
0261861
BAKER & TAYLOR INC
1999-05-06
1,562.00
0261862
BRODART CO
1999-05-06
832.23
0261863
BONET, JAMES RN
1999-05-06
80.00
0261864
BAY STREET PHARMACY
1999-05-06
20.94
0261865
BRANDTS & FLETCHERS APPLIANCE
1999-05-06
114.68
0261866
BILLING SERVICES INC
1999-05-06
108.49
0261867
BREVARD ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC
1999-05-06
27.55
0261868
BLOOMINGBURG, OTTO
1999-05-06
197.78
0261869
BLAKESLEE MAINTENANCE
1999-05-06
250.00
0261870
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
1999-05-06
35.95
0261871
BOBCAT OF ORLANDO
1999-05-06
450.00
0261872
BEYEL BROTHERS INC
1999-05-06
315.00
0261873
BMG
1999-05-06
54.01
0261874
BIG DIPPER PRODUCTIONS
1999-05-06
370.98
0261875
BARRETT, BOREN PH D
1999-05-06
500.00
0261876
BAYER CORP
1999-05-06
500.00
0261877
BUZA, PAUL W DO
1999-05-06
138.60
0261878
BASS-CARLTON SOD INC
1999-05-06
75.00
0261879
BELLSOUTH
1999-05-06
116.31
0261880
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC
1999-05-06
31,260.37
0261881
CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC
1999-05-06
7,832.75
0261882
CHANDLER EQUIPMENT CO, INC
1999-05-06
456.20
0261883
COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC
1999-05-06
273.50
0261884
CORBIN, SHIRLEY E
1999-05-06
311.50
0261885
CHANDLER, JAMES E
1999-05-06
530.90
0261886
COASTAL REFINING & MARKETING
1999-05-06
15,800.73
0261887
CLINIC PHARMACY
1999-05-06
316.63
0261888
COPELAND, LINDA
1999-05-06
213.50
0261889
CALL ONE, INC
1999-05-06
25.13
0261890
CUES, INC
1999-05-06
399.36
0261891
CAMPBELL, STEPHANIE
1999-05-06
66.95
0261892
CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND
1999-05-06
175.00
0261893
COLUMBIA HOUSE
1999-05-06
23.94
0261894
COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT LEASING
1999-05-06
98.92
0261895
COOPER, LEE AND
1999-05-06
20.00
0261896
DAVES SPORTING GOODS
1999-05-06
84.00
0261897
DEMCO INC
1999-05-06
228.87
0261898
DICKERSON-FLORIDA, INC
1999-05-06
274.50
0261899
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
1999-05-06
156.26
0261900
DOCTOR'S CLINIC
1999-05-06
2,715.00
MAY 1891999
-3-
0
BOOK 109 FAUF 80'
B 0 0 K HEGE2_
MAY 189 1999
TQC
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
NAME
DATE
AMOUNT
0261901
DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, INC
1999-05-06
464.93
0261902
DUI TV AD FUND
1999-05-06
50.00
0261903
DILLARD, CASSIE
1999-05-06
28.32
0261904
DOUBLE TREE HOTEL
1999-05-06
158.00
0261905
E -Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC
1999-05-06
42.75
0261906
EVANS, FLOYD
1999-05-06
25.00
0261907
EBSCO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES
1999-05-06
22,275.34
0261908
EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES
1999-05-06
196.00
0261909
EMMONS, FRANCES S
1999-05-06
109.30
0261910
FLORIDA SURVEYING AND MAPPING
1999-05-06
75.00
0261911
FINNEY, DONALD G
1999-05-06
40.60
0261912
FLORIDA BAR, THE
1999-05-06
16.00
0261913
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO
1999-05-06
7,387.32
0261914
FLORIDA COURT REPORTERS
1999-05-06
52.00
0261915
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
1999-05-06
3,601.05
0261916
FLINN, SHEILA I
1999-05-06
31.50
0261917
FACETS MULTIDEDLA, INC
1999-05-06
22.95
0261918
FT PIERCE, CITY OF
1999-05-06
773.28
0261919
FENIMORE, CHARLES
1999-05-06
221.00
0261920
FLORIDA EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS
1999-05-06
202.00
0261921
FLORIDA RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES
1999-05-06
10.00
0261922
FLORIDA ANIMAL LEAGUE
1999-05-06
124.00
0261923
FLORIDA LAW WEEDY
1999-05-06
59.00
0261924
FLORIDA DEPT. OF TRANSPORATION
1999-05-06
43,750.00
0261925
FLOYD MD, IRA
1999-05-06
183.00
0261926
FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
1999-05-06
50.00
0261927
FLORIDA HOSPITAL
1999-05-06
279.75
0261928
GATOR LUMBER COMPANY
1999-05-06
4.99
0261929
GLIDDEN COMPANY, THE
1999-05-06
6.45
0261930
GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC
1999 -OS -06
55.82
0261931
GALL'S INC
1999-05-06
422.49
0261932
GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER
1999-05-06
110.07
0261933
GRA HARBOR LTD PARTNERSHP
1999-05-06
4,377.27
0261934
GROCHOLL, KEITH
1999-05-06
26.00
0261935
GOLD STAR OF THE TREASURE
1999-05-06
2,196.00
0261936
HARRISON COMPANY, THE
1999-05-06
46.90
0261937
HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES
1999-05-06
450.18
0261938
HYATT ORLANDO
1999-05-06
630.00
0261939
HOLIDAY BUILDERS, INC
1999-05-06
500.00
0261940
HELD, PATRICIA BARGO
1999-05-06
245.00
0261941
HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS
1999-05-06
65.00
0261942
MACH COMPANY
1999-05-06
33.50
0261943
HILL MANUFACTURING
1999-05-06
310.84
0261944
HIGHLANDS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
1999-05-06
387.00
0261945
HEALTHSOUTH TREASURE COAST
1999-05-06
993.72
0261946
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
1999-05-06
500.00
0261947
HARTSFIELD, HENRY
1999-05-06
260.00
0261948
HOLSHOUSER, MICHAEL
1999-05-06
183.00
0261949
HOLLOMAN III, WILLIE JAMES
1999-05-06
206.00
0261950
HAMPSON, TODD
1999-05-06
500:00
0261951
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID
1999-05-06
10.80
0261952
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1999-05-06
250.00
0261953
INDIAN RIVER ACE HARDWARE
1999-05-06
28.66
0261954
INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC
1999 -OS -06
641.00
0261955
INDIAN RIVER BLUEPRINT CO INC
1999-05-06
238.45
0261956
INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE
1999-05-06
783.00
0261957
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY
1999-05-06
190.74
0261958
INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES
1999-05-06
61.29
0261959
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
1999-05-06
936.76
0261960
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1999-05-06
3,910.33
0261961
IBM CORPORATION
1999-05-06
46.00
0261962
INMAN, KATHALEEN P A
1999-05-06
900.45
0261963
INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC
1999-05-06
370.00
0261964
INDIAN RIVER DONUTS
1999-05-06
500.00
0261965
IMI -NET, INC
1999-05-06
450.00
0261966
IRROMETER COMPANY, INC.
1999-05-06
45.58
0261967
INDIAN RIVER HAND
1999-05-06
740.81
0261968
J C PENNEY
1999-05-06
456.00
0261969
JACKSON ELECTRONICS
1999-05-06
3.04
0261970
JAMES PUBLISHING, INC
1999-05-06
124.95
0261971
JANIE DEAN CHEVROLET, INC
1999-05-06
43.35
0261972
JOHNSON, LINDA
1999-05-06
185.40
0261973
JANICE C BRODA, INC
1999-05-06
220.00
0261974
JEWETT ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC
1999-05-06
49.50
0261975
JEFFERSON. CHRISTOPHER A
1999-05-06
130.00
0261976
JONES CHEMICALS, INC
1999-05-06
1,857.00
0261977
KEATING, ROBERT M
1999-05-06
223.79
0261978
KELLY, CHAD
1999-05-06
500.00
0261979
KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC
1999-05-06
223.00
0261980
KELLY TRACTOR CO
1999-05-06
292.50
0261981
KAUFFMANN, ALAN
1999-05-06
533.00
MAY 189 1999
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0261982
KRUGER CONSTRUCTION CORP
1999-05-06
30.00
0261983
KEEP INDIAN RIVER BEAUTIFUL
1999-05-06
1,483.29
0261984
KEENEY, JESSICA
1999-05-06
87.55
0261985
R & M ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
1999-05-06
34.40
0261986
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC
1999 -OS -06
875.56
0261987
L B SMITH, INC
1999-05-06
54.85
0261988
LIGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS
1999-05-06
341.-10
0261989
LFI VERO BEACH, INC
1999-05-06
73.52
0261990
LOCKSMITH LEDGER CORP
1999-05-06
53.00
0261991
LESCO, INC
1999-05-06
215.85
0261992
LAPSCO INC
1999-05-06
65.00
0261993
LITMAN, GARY W PH -D
1999-05-06
3,000.00
0261994
LEO A LENNON & ASSOCIATES
1999-05-06
1,479.44
0261995
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC
1999-05-06
90.54
0261996
LEXIS LAW PUBLISHING
1999 -OS -06
52.63
0261997
LEWIS, MELISSA
1999-05-06
25.00
0261998
LANDSCAPE STOP
1999-05-06
552.00
0261999
MACMILLAN OIL COMPANY
1999-05-06
21.05
0262000
MARPAN SUPPLY CO, INC
1999-05-06
414.00
0262001
MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC
1999-05-06
315.21
0262002
MCCORKLE RADIOLOGY
1999-05-06
18.00
0262003
MIRES GARAGE
1999-05-06
235.00
0262004
MILNER DOCUMENT PRODUCTS
1999-05-06
390.67
0262005
MITCO WATER LAB, INC
1999-05-06
1,182.92
0262006
3M HARDGOODS AND ELECTRONICS
1999-05-06
1,385.00
0262007
MORGAN AND EKLUND
1999-05-06
12,766.75
0262008
MORA, RALPH PHD
1999-05-06
650.00
0262009
MATRX MEDICAL, INC
1999-05-06
375.00
0262010
MACMILLAN, DAVID MD PA
1999-05-06
154.00
0262011
MCDONALD SERVICES, INC
1999-05-06
1,482.78
0262012
MORELLO, K A
1999-05-06
500.00
0262013
MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET
1999-05-06
152.24
0262014
MAIN STREET HARDWARE, INC
1999-05-06
6.72
0262015
MCLAUGHLIN WELL DRILLING
1999-05-06
2,761.00
0262016
MEDICAL SERVICES COMPANY
1999-05-06
171.29
0262017
MCKESSON GENERAL MEDICAL CORP
1999-05-06
223.80
0262018
MOLLER, EDGAR
1999-05-06
.50
0262019
NATIONAL INFORMATION
1999-05-06
48.90
0262020
NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY INC
1999-05-06
73.47
0262021
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC VIDEO
1999-05-06
23.70
0262022
NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION
1999-05-06
89.95
0262023
NATIONAL PROPANE CORP
1999-05-06
121.41
0262024
NAPIER, WILLIAM MATT
1999-05-06
44.66
0262025
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
1999-05-06
1,757.49
0262026
OMNIGRAPHICS, INC
1999 -OS -06
293.00
0262027
OFFICE DEPOT, INC
1999-05-06
662.53
0262028
ORLANDO HAND SURGERY ASSOC.
1999-05-06
20.70
0262029
PERKINS INDIAN RIVER PHARMACY
1999-05-06
85.64
0262030
PERKINS PHARMACY
1999-05-06
90.00
0262031
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION
1999-05-06
500.00
0262032
PETRILLA, FRED J, PHD
1999-05-06
500.00
0262033
P B S VIDEO
1999-05-06
246.28
0262034
PORT PETROLEUM, INC
1999 -OS -06
258.34
0262035
PRESS JOURNAL
1999-05-06
207.00
0262036
PMI IMAGING SYSTEMS, INC
1999-05-06
400.02
0262037
PANGBURN, TERRI
1999-05-06
24.00
0262038
PROFESSIONAL CASE MANAGEMENT
1999-05-06
213.75
0262039
PROSPER, JANET C
1999 -OS -06
154.00
0262040
R & J CRANE SERVICE, INC
1999-05-06
805.00
0262041
RADIOSHACK
1999-05-06
183.32
0262042
REGENCY DODGE, INC
1999-05-06
13,247.00
0262043
RELIABLE SEPTIC AND SERVICES
1999-05-06
35.00
0262044
RUSSELL CONCRETE, INC
1999 -OS -06
416.82
0262045
R R BOWKER
1999 -OS -06
69.75
0262046
RICHMOND HYDRAULICS INC
1999-05-06
716.57
0262047
RANGER CONSTRUCTION IND, INC
1999-05-06
64,605.60
0262048
RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS & MORE
1999-05-06
140.08
0262049
RENTAL 1
1999-05-06
2,752.60
0262050
RICER, JACOB M
1999-05-06
67.00
0262051
REX TV AND APPLIANCES
1999-05-06
469.99
0262052
RSR
1999-05-06
5,609.45
0262053
RAPP, PAMELA
1999-05-06
60.00
0262054
REYNOLDS, JASON
1999-05-06
105.57
0262055
SAFETY KLEEN CORP
1999-05-06
230.25
0262056
SCHOPP, BARBARA G
1999-05-06
105.00
0262057
SCHULTZ, DON L MD
1999-05-06
400.00
0262058
SCOTTY'S, INC
1999 -OS -06
76.69
0262059
SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
1999-05-06
99.87
0262060
SHELL OIL COMPANY
1999-05-06
430.77
0262061
SHELTON, ORVAL
1999 -OS -06
500.00
0262062
SMART CORPORATION
1999-05-06
9.38
0262063
SUNRISE FORD TRACTOR CO
1999-05-06
15.12
0262064
ST LUCIE PAPER & PACKAGING,INC
1999-05-06
875.10
MAY 18, 1999
-5- BOOKS FAGS. 1
Fr -
BOOK
mGr"".
CHECK
NUMBER
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
DATE
AMOUNT
0262065
SCHOLARLY RESOURCES, INC
1999-05-06
80.00
0262066
SINN & SCHUSTER
1999-05-06
94.26
0262067
SKAGGS, PAUL MD
1999-05-06
25.00
0262068
SALEM PRESS, INC
1999 -OS -06
384.75
0262069
SOLINET
1999-05-06
664.53
0262070
SUPERIOR PRINTING
1999-05-06
125.00
0262071
STEWART MINING INDUSTRIES INC
1999-05-06
60.31
0262072
SEBASTIAN, CITY OF
1999-05-06
5,068.35
0262073
SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
1999-05-06
25.00
0262074
SIMS, MATTHEW
1999-05-06
155.44
0262075
SEBASTIAN RIVER MEDICAL CENTER
1999-05-06
297.82
0262076
SOUTHEAST LIBRARY BINDERY,INC
1999-05-06
297.32
0262077
SOUTHERN LOCK AND SUPPLY CO
1999-05-06
54.35
0262078
SEELEY, HAROLD R JR
1999-05-06
1,215.05
0262079
SOUTHERN SECURITY SYSTEMS OF
1999-05-06
2,094.44
0262080
SHELDON, JAMES
1999-05-06
679.96
0262081
SHIELDS, VANESSA
1999 -OS -06
54.07
0262082
SCBWEY, PAUL MATTHEW
1999-05-06
36.00
0262083
SOUTHERN MANUFACTURING
1999-05-06
345.00
0262084
SALSBURY INDUSTRIES
1999-05-06
722.65
0262085
S & S WORLDWIDE
1999-05-06
55.98
0262086
SCHLITT, LARRY
1999-05-06
500.00
0262087
STEWART, SARAH LYNN
1999-05-06
73.38
0262088
THOMAS, DEBBY L
1999-05-06
364.00
0262089
TINDALE OLIVER & ASSOC., INC
1999-05-06
3,649.48
0262090
TIPPIN, JOHN W
1999-05-06
75.05
0262091
TABAR, JEFFREY
1999-05-06
49.00
0262092
SMITH, TERRY L
1999-05-06
28.42
0262093
TREASURE COAST MASSAGE THERAPY
1999-05-06
91.00
0262094
TRANSIT AIR CONDITIONING
1999-05-06
306.00
0262095
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
1999-05-06
31.73
0262096
TOSHIBA INTERNATIONAL CORP
1999-05-06
142.50
0262097
TREASURE COAST MARINE OF VERO
1999-05-06
7,160.00
0262098
UNIVERSITY PRESS OF FLA
1999-05-06
264.96
0262099
USABLUEBOOK
1999-05-06
1,688.14
0262100
U S GOVT PRINTING OFFICE
1999-05-06
37.00
0262101
VELDE FORD, INC
1999-05-06
24.79
0262102
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
1999-05-06
6,185.79
0262103
VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS,INC
1999-05-06
2,985.80
0262104
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
1999-05-06
180.89
0262105
VERO MARINE CENTER, INC
1999-05-06
10.60
0262106
VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
1999-05-06
100.00
0262107
VERO BEARING & BOLT
1999-05-06
155.57
0262108
VOLUNTEER ACTION CENTER
1999 -OS -06
200.00
0262109
VIRGO INC
1999-05-06
1,075.00
0262110
WAKEFIELD, JUDITH A
1999-05-06
170.86
0262111
WAL-MART STORES, INC
1999-05-06
427.39
0262112
WALGREENS PHARMACY #4248
1999-05-06
48.99
0262113
WEST PUBLISHING PAYMENT CENTER
1999-05-06
451.25
0262114
WOLSTENHOLME, SHIRLEY
1999-05-06
30.16
0262115
WOODY'S PAPER & PRINT
1999-05-06
477.90
0262116
WIGINTON FIRE SPRINKLERS,INC
1999-05-06
547.00
0262117
WILLHOFF, PATSY
1999-05-06
130.00
0262118
WALKER, LAVERNE T
1999-05-06
45.44
0262119
WHARTON-SMITH, INC
1999-05-06
162,259.80
0262120
WHEELER PUBLISHING, INC
1999-05-06
139.24
0262121
WALGREENS PHARMACY
1999-05-06
479.16
0262122
WOSN-FM RADIO STATION
1999-05-06
468.00
0262123
WELLINGTON HOMES
1999-05-06
500.00
0262124
WAREFORCE INC
1999-05-06
6,584.13
0262125
WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR
1999-05-06
2,081.55
0262126
WOLFE, ERIN
1999-05-06
33.47
0262127
WILLIAMS, GENEVA MCALPIN
1999-05-06
225.00
0262128
WRIGHT, MAGGIE
1999-05-06
46.35
0262129
WILLEY, EDWARD N NO
1999-05-06
2,270.62
0262130
XEROX CORPORATION
1999-05-06
210.24
0262131
ZEPHYRHILLS NATURAL SPRING
1999-05-06
17.25
0262132
MILLER, JOSEPH
1999-05-06
902.88
0262133
MERCURI, DEBRA
1999-05-06
145.83
0262134
JOHNSON, LETISHA D
1999-05-06
889.20
0262135
MARTORANA, RAYMOND
1999-05-06
26.31
0262136
HOLTON, TERRY M
1999-05-06
62.80
0262137
ED 3CHLITT
1999-05-06
34.52
0262138
BROWN, ALPHONZO
1999-05-06
40.00
0262139
KROMHOUT, RONALD
1999-05-06
12.74
0262140
ST. PIERRE, ANDREW
1999-05-06
38.64
0262141
JORDON, CAROLYN
1999-05-06
48.09
0262142
MORTON JR, HORACE H
1999-05-06
46.89
0262143
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION CO, INC
1999-05-06
101.00
0262144
NASON, THOMAS
1999-05-06
71.98
0262145
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
1999-05-06
6.32
MAY 18, 1999
•
N'1" N' IJI
CHECK CHECK
DATE AMOUNT
0262146
FAUSETT, SANDRA
1999-05-06
1.55
0262147
MILEY, MAGDA
1999-05-06
58.96
0262148
WINDERS, FRANK R
1999-05-06
30.05
0262149
IRVING, ATAWA M
1999-05-06
5.74
0262150
ANDO BUILDING CORPORATION
1999-05-06
154.05
0262151
CROCKER, BARRY L
1999-05-06
13.17
0262152
ROBINSON, WALTER T
1999-05-06
95.67
0262153
BURNETT, eraUWS
1999-05-06
49.87
0262154
WYMER, DOUGLAS E
1999-05-06
28.57
0262155
GHO VERO BEACH INC
1999-05-06
122.35
0262156
WEGMAN, JOHANNA E
1999-05-06
37.76
0262157
ASHTON, MARK G
1999-05-06
22.30
0262158
BEAZER HOMES FLORIDA INC
1999-05-06
76.51
0262159
LEISENRING, BRUCE
1999-05-06
76.94
0262160
DUGAN, MICHAEL & GAIL
1999-05-06
41.89
0262161
DI GREGORIO, ANGELA
1999-05-06
71.16
0262162
GLOVER, JACOB L
1999-05-06
14.91
0262163
BULL, DAVID R
1999-05-06
69.32
0262164
ROM, GONZALO
1999-05-06
72.85
0262165
RITCHIE, PETER A
1999 -OS -06
92.92
0262166
J K INVESTMENT USA INC
1999-05-06
1.75
0262167
CAMERON CORPORATION
1999-05-06
80.01
0262168
WESTCO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
1999-05-06
746.00
0262169
ENERGY CONSERVATION PRODUCTS
1999-05-06
30.42
0262170
CAMPONE, MICHAEL
1999 -OS -06
17.93
0262171
IRELAN, JANE L
1999-05-06
104.66
0262172
SAVARESE, GAIL A
1999-05-06
31.08
0262173
BROOKS, MARY
1999-05-06
17.02
0262174
GROVE, LORRI D
1999-05-06
39.93
0262175
SPATE, GREGG, & LORI
1999-05-06
81.17
0262176
AMERITREND HOMES
1999-05-06
44.61
0262177
MC CULLERS JR, GEORGE OR BRUCE
1999-05-06
15.58
0262178
CALHOON, JAMES D
1999-05-06
61.20
0262179
GUTIERREZ, MARTIN
1999-05-06
29.96
0262180
YOUNG, CYNTHIA
1999-05-06
52.01
0262181
GIBSON, ROBERT
1999-05-06
4.94
0262182
CLARK, DAVID W
1999-05-06
43.84
0262183
GAFFFNEY, TERRI
1999-05-06
42.80
0262184
BOYD, RICHARD F
1999 -OS -06
13.67
MAY 1891999
1,118,588.47
-7- Boos.`° Ff�ct
•
BOOK i00 f'AGE
7.B. EQUIPMENT DECLARED SURPLUS FOR SALE OR DISPOSAL
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 11, 1999:
DATE: May 11, 1999
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY CONOMSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Thomas Frame, General Services Director 4W.4 a!• �
FROM: Fran Boynton -Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: Declare Equipment Surplus for Sale or Disposal
BACKGROUND:
The attached list of fixed assets have been declared excess to the needs of the County and should
be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Florida State Statutes. The monies received
from this sale will be returned to the appropriate accounts.
Last year, the Board declared various items of County's fixed assets to be surplus and authorized
its disposal as follows:
• Appropriate donations (as per Florida Statutes)
• Appropriate sale (auction or sealed bid)
• Disposal as scrap and junk at the County's recycling operation
Additionally the Board had requested that staff contact the School District relative to their
interest in receiving any surplus computer equipment. The School District opted to take none of
the items due to their obsolescence. Also, staff was permitted by the Board, to provide an
opportunity for the Gifford Economic Development Council to select any of the surplus items
that could be used by this non-profit organization.
Staff recommends that the Board declare the attached list of fixed assets surplus and authorize
the sale and/or disposal of such surplus items as per Florida Statutes. In addition, staff requests
authorization to again contact the Gifford Economic Development Council and offer them the
opportunity to select any of the items that have been declared surplus.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously declared the list of fixed assets surplus;
authorized the sale and/or disposal of such surplus
items as per Florida Statutes; and authorized staff to
again contact the Gifford Economic Development
Council and offer them the opportunity to select any
of the items declared surplus, as recommended by
staff.
MAY 189 1999
z C. EXECUTIVE AIDE TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -
REPLACEMENT OFRETIRING EXECUTIVEAIDEALICE WHITE BY
KIMBERLYMASSUNG
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 12, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler
Count Administrator
FROM: Ron Baker
Personnel Director
DATE: May 12, 1999
RE: Replacement of Executive Aide to the Board of County
Commissioners
BACKGROIIND
Alice White, Executive Aide to the Board of County Commissioners,
notified the Board on March 2, 1999, of her pending retirement
effective July 22, 1999. As a result, employment applications were
solicited and received from all interested applicants during the
period March 15, 1999, through April 9, 1999. Applications of
interviewed applicants were reviewed by each of the five
commissioners, who provided their recommendations to the Board
Chairman. As a result, Kimberly Massung, who is currently Budget
Coordinator, Budget Department, was recommended to replace Ms.
White.
RECOMMENDATION•
The Board of County Commissioners approve the selection of Kimberly
Massung to replace Alice White with an effective date of 28 May
1999, in order to allow sufficient time for a smooth transition.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Grin, the Board
unanimously approved the selection of Kimberly
Massung to replace Alice White with an effective
date of May 28, 1999, in order to allow sufficient
time for a smooth transition, as recommended by
staff.
Chairman Macht extended the Board's congratulations to Kimberly Massung.
MAY 189 1999
IM
•
BOOK FACE
BOOP( �� � FAH
7.D. FELLSMERE HEALTH COALITION, ING - REQUEST FOR GRANT
APPLICATIONEXTENSION
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 12, 1999:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: May 12,1999
SUBJECT: FELLSMERE HEALTH COALITION, INC. REQUEST FOR FUNDING
FROM: Joseph A. B' C
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Fellsmere Community Health Coalition, Inc. is requesting a grant application extension. Grant applications
for Indian River County were mailed out on March 10, 1999 and were due back in the budget office on April
16, 1999. The Budget Director feels the extension should be denied since all other agencies made a good
faith effort to have their packet in on time and in the past when we approved changing the deadline for one
agency more agencies come forth requesting an extension. Every year agency requests exceed the money
available. Many other agencies which had their request in on time will be denied funding or their requests
will be reduced The Fellsmere Community Health Coalition, Inc. could submit their request for the next
budget cycle (2000/2001).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request for the extension.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously denied the request for the extension, as
recommended by staff.
MAY 189 1999
-10-
0 0
7.E. JUNGLE TRAIL -REVISED MARWE1VANCE MAP
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 11, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUQB: James W. Davis, P.E.
,
Public Works Director
FROM: Charles A. Cramer, PSM,
County Surveyor
SUBJECT: Approval of Revised Maintenance Map for A Portion of Jungle
Trail
DATE: May 11, 1999
DESCRIPTION AND COXDXTIONS
In 1979, The County Commission requested the preparation and
recordation of a Maintenance Map to claim title to the then
existing alignment of Jungle Trail. A 40' wide corridor was
surveyed and claimed by the County. Recently, Attorney Byron
Cooksey, representing the Lier family, met with County staff to
request a revision of the map to more accurately define the limits
of County Maintenance. Staff agreed to survey and prepare the
attached revised maintenance map.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Staff agrees that the attached map more accurately defines the
maintenance area.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDINQ
Staff recommends the Chairman approve the maintenance map replat of
Jungle Trail so it can be filed with the Clerk of Court for Indian
River County. The only funds expended at this time will be for the
filing of the map and will come from Fund 111, Transportation Fund.
ATTACF�NT
Maintenance Map — �4 t1,*1*1A LE F02 4EdigcJ /A) 2C C;C;C
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the maintenance map replat
of Jungle Trail to be filed with the Clerk of Court, as
recommended by staff.
COPY OF REPLAT ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
MAY 189 1999
BOOK. Fr1i�t�
SOUK fA"E
7.F. CITYOFFELLSMEREAPPOINTMENT OFJoHNA. MCCANTS TO
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION WPOQ AND TREASURE
COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL (TCRPCI TO REPLACE DALE E.
CARTER
The Board reviewed a letter of April 28, 1999:
Robert C. "Bob" Baker oe
City
Mayor O
John V. Little
Administrative Assistant
April 28, 1999
i'.=- -R� 1.1 -
Mrs. Alice White, Executive Secretary
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 - 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida - 32960
RE: Appointments to MPO a[ TCRPC
Dear Alice:
Deborah C. Krages
City Clerk
Larry W. Napier, C.G.F.O.
Director of Finance
and Accounting
Just for the record, the City Council of the City of Felismere, during their Regular
Council Meeting April 15, 1999, unanimously appointed Councilman John A.
McCants to fill the vacated position of Councilman Dale L Carter. Councilman
McCants will be serving on the Metropolitan Planning Council and the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council.
You may feel free to direct all correspondence to the office address as shown below.
Should you have any questions or require any additional information please feel free
to call.
Sincerely,
01
Rort C. Baker
Mayor SINCE 19137,%
21 South Cypress St. - Fellsmere. Florida 32948-6714 - Telephone: (561) 571-0116 - Fax (561) 571-1901
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved The City of Fellsmere's
appointment of Councilman John A. McCants to fill
the vacated position of Councilman Dale E. Carter
on the Metropolitan Planning Council and the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
MAY 189 1999
C7
Z G. CITY OF VERO BEACH- APPOINTMENT OF CARL PEASE TO ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TO REPLACE MAYOR ARTHUR
NEUBERGER
The Board reviewed a letter of May 5, 1999:
City of Vero Beach
1053 - 20th PLACE - P.O. BOX 1389
MO BEACH, FLORIDA - 32961-1389
Telephone: (561) 9784700 • Fax: (561) 9784790
OFFICE OF THE
CITY CLERK
May 5, 1999
Alice White
1840 25`h Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Alice:
I would like to inform you that City Councilman Carl E. Pease will be taking the place of
Mayor Arthur Neuberger on the Economic Development Council. This change is
effective immediately. You can mail all correspondence to P.O. Box 1389, Vero Beach,
Florida 32961.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
ely,
r=!�n2
re
eputy tyerk
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
nnsnimously approved the City of Vero Beach's
appointment of Councilman Carl E. Pease to replace
Mayor Arthur Neuberger on the Economic
Development Council.
MAY 189 1999
-13-
BOOK F -AGE
•
F" -
BOOK io 9 , Au " 9
ZH. REsOLuTION 99-043 - TAX CANCELLATION ONRECENTLYAcouiRED
PROPERTY-ABRAmwBARKETT ET UX- 58THAVENUERIGHT-OF-WAY
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 5, 1999:
TO: Board of Commissioners
'Y�C' R - 11� �-'- ,
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA
Legal Assistant - County Attorney's Office
DATE: May 5,1999
RE: Recently Acquired Property - Tax Cancellation
The County recently acquired some property and, pursuant to Section 196.28,
Florida Statutes, the Board, after formally accepting the property, may cancel
and discharge any taxes owed on it as long as it was acquired for public purpose.
Such cancellation must be done by resolution of the Board, with a certified copy
being forwarded to the Tax Collector (along with copies sent to the Property
Appraiser and Fixed Assets).
Requested Action: Board authorize the Chairman to sign the attached
resolution which cancels taxes upon the land that the County recently acquired.
MAY 189 1999
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously adopted Resolution 99-043 cancelling
certain delinquent taxes upon publicly owned lands,
pursuant to Section 196.28, Florida Statutes
(Abraham Barkett et ux - 58' Avenue Right -of -
Way). -
-14-
•
Re: RNV - 581 Avenue
Abraham Barkett at ux
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 4 3
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON
PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28,
FLORIDA STATUTES.
WHEREAS, Section 19628, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County Commissioners
of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, held or
owned by the county or the state, upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by
any agency, governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States, for road
purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other public use; and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly describing such lands and
setting forth the public use to which the same are or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper officials of the
county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and directed to make proper entries upon the
records to accomplish such cancellation and to do all things necessary to cavy out the provisions
of Section 196.28, F.S.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The right of way is hereby accepted and any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current,
against the property described in OR Book 1270, Page 1676, which was recently acquired by
Indian River County for future right of way are hereby canceled, pursuant to the authority of
Section 196.28, F.S.
2. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is hereby directed to send a certified copy
of this resolution to the Tax Collector and the Property Appraiser.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner S t;, n h r; riyind the motion was
seconded by Commissioner Ginn and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Commissioner John W. Tippin
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this _1 A_ day of
May ,1999. '
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Att K. Barto lark
By:
rJ
TAX CERTIFICATES
CURRENT• .T—,y
DEPOSITED WITH 'L3:;S�:'-:
MAY 189 1999
By rZ&
Kenneth R. Macht
Chairman
n0
marl Pow► G I �Cate
Admin O
Legai _
6uuuel y
-15-
e=j �
170
Tract 10
Tract 9 30' 50' 1276.08'
0
CM,
C a,
ZZ
J N
� I
I
ORI 270PG 1676
_ Tract 7 Tract 2
Tract Line --7— Tract 8 Tract 1
T33S R39E
N
Scale: 1" =N.T.S. •�
J
? qG_ --� 1355.6' (`D) 1355.66'�O�
T' T 7 T 'T 7 "T —/—T— T 7_
Qi 30 p
�— F`
T j
J /z I THE EAST 56 FEET, AND THE NORTH 50 FEET OF THE SOUTH 80
C N FEET, OF THE EAST 19.8 ACRES OF TRACT 8, SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP
Z 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT
Q V O OF THE LANDS OF THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY RECORDED I
U 4E�`' IN PLAT BOOB 2, PAGE 25, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE
-i. COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 100,951.4 SQUARE FEET, OR oa j
r7 n'n 2.3175 ACRES, LYING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
501 Proposed I*Line (Typ.) _ �P�ag?e
''_/,"West Right=of=Way per O.R. Book 303, 121_
to 0 1356.8 (D.� 1357.93' 0-) o to
rT O.R. Book 1108. Pie 2141 Quiet Title to East 30 feet of Tract 8
,o Line
---- g y -----Tract - o, --
Tract Line Per Plot Book 2, Pae 25, St. Lucie Count
Section 8 011 KING'S HIGHWAY (C.R. 613)
Section 9 1/4 Corner Section Line T
CERTIFICATION SKETCH SHOWING RELATIVE POSITION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS TRACT S. SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP ;,3 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST
I, Charles A. Cromer, hereby certify that I om o Registered Professional Prepared for Indian River County Engineering Department
Surveyor and Mapper licensed to practice in the state of Florida, that
this sketch was mode under my immediate supervision, and that it is
accurate and correct. I further certify that this sketch meets the
Minim m Technical Standards as described in Chapter 61G17 of the
F dministrative�Coodeuont to F.S. Chapter 47{.
Charles A. Cromer, P.S.M. Reg. #4094 1840 25th St, Vero (teach, Fl. 32960
Indion River County Surveyor (407) 561-8000
NOTES:
Hatched area (described in O.R. Boot: 303, Page 121)
contains 18.94 acres (18.90 per des=ription).
The East 30 feet of Tract 8 (O.R. Book 1108,
Poa 2141) contains 0.92 acres.
(D.J=Deed description
(O. =Observed
Date
I
i�
Ch
Ch
7-4
00
r -I
•
ZL PAYMENTS TO VENDORS OF COURT -RELATED COSTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 7, 1999:
TO: Board of County Cmwrbsioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Altomey
DATE: May 7. 1909
SUBJECT: Payments to Vendors of Cant Related Costs
The Office of the County Attorney has processed and approved payment to the following vendors
for the weeks of April 26, 1999 and May 3, 1999. Listed below are the vendors
nam and the
amount of each cant related costs.
Edward N. Willey, M.D.
Public Defender Costs
2,270.62
Janet C. Prosper
Transcription
59.50
Floyd Evans
Public Defender Costs
12.50
Robert J. Brugnoli, Ph.D.
Expert Witness
1,080.00
Sheila I. Flinn
Transcription
31.50
Barbara G. Sdmpp
Transcription
105.00
Floyd Evans
Public Defender Costs
12.50
Patricia B. Held
Transcription
122.50
Debby Thom
Transcription
318.50
Ralph More, Ph.D.
Expert Witness
150.00
Soren Barrett, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
500.00
Smart Corporation
Public Defender Costs
9.38
Melissa Lewis
Court Interpreter
25.00
Patricia B. Held
Transcription
122.50
Ralph More, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
500.00
Linda Copeland
Transcription
213.50
Janet C. Prosper
Transcription
31.50
Janet C. Prosper
Transcription
63.00
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
227.50
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
84.00
Don L. Schurz, M.D.
Clinical Evaluation
400.00
Fred Petriila, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
500.00
Jam Bonet, R.N.
Clinical Evaluation
80.00
Gary W. Litman, Ph.D.
Expert Witness (DNA)
3,000.00
Debby Thomas
Transcription
45.50
Kathaleen Inman, Esq.
Probate Legal Services
900.45
Geneva McAlpin Williams
Witness Reimbursement
225.00
Interim Court Reporting
Transcription
172.50
Michael C. Riordan, Pay. D.
Expert Witness
200.00
Treasure Coast Cant Report
Court Reporter
25.00
Esquire Reporting, Inc.
Court Reporter
6,034.50
Language Services, Ltd.
State Attorney Costs
150.00
Sheila I. Flinn
Transcription
35.00
Robert E. Lockwood
State Attorney Costs
13.00
Patricia B. Held
State Attorney Costs
56.00
Sheila I. Flinn
Transcription
400.50
Medical Record Services, Inc.
State Attorney Costs
10.78
Medical Record Services, Inc.
State Attorney Costs
10.78
C. Jonathan Ahr. Ph.D.
State Attorney Costs
150.00
Ralph More. Ph.D.
State Attorney Costs
150.00
Janet C. Prosper
Transcription
45.50
Janet C. Prosper
Transcription
28.00
Janet C. Prosper
Transcription
59.50
Ralph Moa, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
600.00
Ralph More, Ph.D.
Expert Witness
225.00
Debby Thomas
Transcription
430.50
Debby Thomas
Transcription
112.00
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
66.50
P8trirb3 S. Held
Transcription
112.50
Olga Mas
Cant Interpreter
50.00
Jeannie Hazellief
Transcription
28.50
Airborne Express
State Attomey Costs
14.00
Sheldon H. Rifkin, Ph.D.
Expert Witness
300.00
Floyd Evans
Public Defender Costs
12.50
Olga Mas
Caul Interpreter
37.50
Jeannie Hazellief
Transcription
136.50
Karen M. Orlando
Transcription
38.50
Interim Cant Reporting
Court Reporter
25.00
Janet C. Prosper
Transcription
35.00
Total APPPnVED FOR 5-17-99
$20,725.01
cc Judpekana,acc E.C! ,��Ta CONSENT AGENDA
�/ of UNT.Y ATTOFNEv
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
MAY 189 1999
-17- BOOK EAS "']
BOOK F�it.y
Z J. RESOLUTION 99-044 - ACCEPTING RIGHT-OF-WAYDEDICATIONAND
CANCELING TAXES ONAOUIRED PROPERTY- R & R INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT, ING - 42ND STREET RIGHT-oF-WAY
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 5, 1999:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: V�— William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: May 5, 1999
SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting a Right -Of -Way Dedication and Cancelling
Taxes on Acquired Property
A Resolution has been prepared for the purpose of accepting a right-of-way
dedication and cancelling any delinquent or current taxes which may exist on the
following property acquired by Indian River County for public purpose:
Right-of-way acquired from R & R Investment Management, Inc., a Florida
corporation, which property is fully described in that Warranty Deed
recorded in Official Record Book 1270, Pages 10541055, Public Records
of Indian River County, Florida.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute the
Resolution accepting the right-of-way dedication and cancelling certain taxes
upon publicly owned lands, and the Clerk to send a certified copy of same to the
Tax Collector so that any delinquent or current taxes can be cancelled.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Grin, the Board
unanimously adopted Resolution 99-044 accepting
a Right -of -Way Dedication and cancelling certain
taxes upon publicly owned lands, pursuant to
Section 196.28, Florida Statutes (4V Street Right -
of -Way Dedication - R & R Investment
Management, Inc.).
MAY 189 1999
6 .6
12WRES0(LEGAL)WGGnhm
42nd Street row dedication
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 44
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING A RIGHT-
OF-WAY DEDICATION AND CANCELLING
CERTAIN TAXES UPON PUBLICLY
OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION
196.28, FLORIDA STATUTES.
WHEREAS, section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of
County Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens
for taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state, upon
lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency,
governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States, for
road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other public use;
and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly
describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are or
will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper
officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and directed
to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such cancellation and to
do all things necessary to cant' out the provisions of section 196.28, F.S.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, that:
1. The dedication of right-of-way as described in O.R. Book 1270, at
Pages 10541055 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida, is
hereby accepted; and
2. Any and all liens for taxes delinquent or current against the
following described lands, which were dedicated for right-of-way by R & R
Investment Management, Inc., a Florida corporation are hereby cancelled
pursuant to the authority of section 196.28, F.S.
MAY 189 1999
See attached Warranty Deed describing lands,
recorded In O.R. Book 1270 at Pages 1054-1055,
Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
-19- BOOK
BOOK S Fn'E
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 44
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Star�bridu_ and
the motion was seconded by Commissioner Gim , and, upon being put to
a vote, the vote was as follows:
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman Ay e
Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman _ Air e
John W. Tippin Awe
Caroline D. Ginn Ay e
Ruth M. Stanbridge Ay e
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 18 day of Ma v , 1999.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN R COUNTY, F RIDA
By /
e neth R. Macht, Chairman
J
con,
�6 C.—
1 r'.
Tt V rL^•r'r1 .I rt-�1J J,i 1 V '11`::IItYG � i��YY
yes no
t q
PD
Zi "0.ii i EU Iii ! ri THS uL•_LEC TOR �
MAY 189 1999
APPROVED AS TO F CRtA
AND LEGAL 7SFFIC NCY
BY
WILLIAM G. COLLINS II
DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY
-20-
• 9
Ilia do umeut was prepared by
and should be returned to n '
the Conuty Attorney's Ozuice�v
1840 25th St., Vero Beach,
Florida $2960 IL
THIS INDENTURE, made this0� day of DI'i 1 ,
1999 between R & R INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, INC., a corporation of the
State of Florida, whose mailing address is 4335 N. U.S. Highway 1, Vero Beach,
Florida 32967, hereinafter called GRANTOR, and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a
political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, hereinafter called GRANTEE.
:r,' TWE RECORM or
WITNESSETH: C, -,.:;Y,
CLr:;Y, CipCUrrCO.-
INDIAN RIVER CO., F-:.
That GRANTOR, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN
DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration to GRANTOR in
hand paid by GRANTEE, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has
granted, bargained and sold to the GRANTEE, and GRANTEE'S assigns
forever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in Indian River
County, Florida:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
GRANTOR does hereby fully warrant the title to the land, and will
defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever.
Signed, sealed and delivered
in,,,,the presence of:
*A- lQ. V4&j,�-
printed name: AA4 R. ie—ueA
R & R INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT,
INC., a Florida corporation
f .
By�E'
Gan M. Rollinger `
Vice President
printed nai e:' j,��,
C.s�Q c
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
DOCOAIENTMIY EDAM
DEED $.7a
NOTE:
JEFFREY K. BARYON, M MK
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Ilia foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this W
00k -
day of , 1999, by Gail M. Rollinger the Vice President of R & R
Investment Management, Inc., a Florida corporation, on behalf of the
corporation. She is personally known to me or has produced
FL d r I vers 1; yen-� as identification.
0= COMA = W=
rM1 M=h 24 2M
(SEAL):
MAY 189 1999
NOTARY PUBLIC
� - c VIA uAa� D,
panted name:N&07e N. 11'�o,�xt !t
Commission No.: CC g85rag
Commission Expiration: 3 ci(a- 63
N1!
N
N
N
W
BOOK 0 FAGEO� G
BOOKPtq�F. � <
42ND STREET (50' R/W)
N 1 88'37'16" E--- Scale: 1 =N•T.S
S 88'37 16 W --
Ln
i
z C
cr
QQ
tz
LA
ILA
�AA T
T y
T
y
T
cn 0
0
143.20'
THIS IS NOT A SURVEY
SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PREPARED FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
_ I0
J
NI U
- N
N
LEGAL DESCRIPTION I
d'
• I \
� •or
THE NORTH 5 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT: SE C n
SCner
Section 26, Township 32 South, Range 39 East. Begin at the SE 1/4
SE corner of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 26, run NW 1/4
North, on the 1/4 section line, 242.1 feet, then run West 238.1 feet Sec. 26-32-39
to the West right–of–way of U.S. Highway No. 1 for the POINT OF
os
BEGINNING. From said POINT OF BEGINNING, continue West a distance
a)
of 143.2 feet to the East right–of–way of a 20–foot alley in J.T. Gray
Subdivision, thence run Northwesterly, along said alley right–of–way, a
v
distance of 354.10 feet to the South right–of–woy of a 50–foot street,
then East, along said right–of–way, a distance of 141.21 feet to the
West right–of–way of U.S. Highway No. 1, then run Southeasterly,
a
along said West right–of–woy of U.S. Highway No. 1, a distance of 357.92
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said lands situate, lying and being in Indian River County, Florida.
c
CERWICAMON
I, Charles A. Cramer, hereby certify that I am- �a .Professional Surveyor and Mapper
i
licensed to practice in the state of ,F•locido-, ;,A 4�'-"ihis sketch was mode under my
y
immediate supervision, and that ,it is �qG6drdt*zgnd correct. I further certify that
this s etch meets the Minim um~•Tecaf;;dtird5``.i Ys described in Chapter 61G17
o Florida Admini tive Code,:=�iits�icnt td::�.' CFiGpter 472.
Charles A. Cromer, P S.M. Reg. #4094'--..-- ^
c
Indian River County Surveyor . •�
1R411 )C;rti
qQ
cf 11— ao—k 971 206911
MAY 189 1999
0
s
N
v
O
cj
0
Ln
Ln
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION 99-045
TRANSMITTING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
�DCAI - COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND
THE TEXT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -
(COASTAL MANAGEMENT. ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, FUTURE LAND USE AND
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENTS)
AMENDMENT CPTA 99-01-0179
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 30, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
obert M. Keating, CP
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP S
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Peter J. RadkeF .
Economic Development Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: April 30,1999
RE: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: CPTA 99-01-0179
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of May 18, 1999.
On February 13, 1990, Indian River County adopted its comprehensive plan. As required by state
law, all development activities must be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and all county
activities must conform to plan policies. Occasionally, the plan must be updated to reflect the latest
and best available information and to address changed conditions. Additionally, the plan must
periodically be reviewed and revised in order to reflect the community's changing needs and desires.
At this time, the county is initiating a comprehensive plan text amendment which involves several
elements of the plan. The affected elements are:
► the Coastal Management Element;
► the Economic Development Element;
► the Future Land Use Element; and
► the Recreation and Open Space Element.
MAY 189 1999
-23-
•
BOOS .v, Fr11C./
I
lam', e� r
BOOK � � � F'AGt o
Based on a review of the comprehensive plan, staff has identified text errors in policy 5.1 of the
Coastal Management Element and in policy 7.3 of the Recreation and Open Space Element. Part
of the purpose of this amendment request is to correct those errors.
At the November 24, 1998 Economic Development Council (EDC) meeting, a decision was made
by the EDC to review the policies of the Economic Development Element to determine if those
existing policies are producing the intended results. An EDC workshop was scheduled for January
12, 1999 to perform that review.
At the January 12 workshop, the EDC discussed each of the Economic Development Element
Policies. and assessed whether completion of the actions called for in each policy would produce the
results needed to meet the objectives of the Economic Development Element. Based on the
workshop, the EDC directed staff to revise three policies and delete one policy. In addition, the EDC
decided that another workshop would be held on February 16, 1999, to complete its review of the
Economic Development Element's policies.
Based on discussions at that January 12 workshop, Planning staff and the Chamber of Commerce
staff met to review each policy of the Economic Development Element. In reviewing the policies,
staff assessed the type of action that was called for in each policy and determined if that action could
be defined and if that action could be completed. Consequently, staff recommended that nineteen
policies be revised and another nineteen policies be deleted.
On February 16, 1999, the EDC reviewed and approved the proposed changes to the Economic
Development Element policies and voted 9-0 to recommend that staff proceed with a county initiated
comprehensive plan text amendment to incorporate the proposed changes.
Based on a review of the Future Land Use Element, staff has identified two policies that should be
revised. Policy 14.3 is being revised to correct an error in the text. Policy 6.1 is being revised to
indicate that public services and/or facilities may be expanded into agriculturally designated lands
to serve traditional neighborhood design projects and mixed use districts.
On March 8, 1999, at an advertised public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7
to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the proposed text amendment,
with the exception of policy 5.5 of the Future Land Use Element, to the State Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) for their review.
Proposed changes to policy 5.5 of the Future Land Use Element were presented by staff to the
Planning and Zoning Commission at that March 8 public hearing. Staff proposed reducing the level
of commercial development permitted in a residential planned development (PD) from 10% of the
total project area to 3% of the total project area The Planning and Zoning Commission concluded
that more information was needed regarding commercial uses in a PD. Staff was directed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission to research the issue and resubmit the proposed change in the July
comprehensive plan amendment window.
Professional Services Advisory Committee
On April 29, 1999, the Professional Services Advisory Committee voted 7 to 0 to recommend that
the Board of County Commissioners transmit the proposed text amendment, with minor changes,
to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review.
ANA_ i •Y
In this section, an analysis of the proposed changes by element will be provided, including a
discussion of the consistency of the amendment with the comprehensive plan.
For policies being recommended for revision, new text is identified by a double underline, while
deleted text is identified by a stleex6 Due to significant changes in many of the policies of the
Economic Development Element, the double underline and strikeout method was not used to
illustrate recommended changes; instead, revised polices are provided entirely.
Policy 5.1 has been revised to correct a citation to the Florida Administration Code (FAC). As
shown below, the original policy referred to Department of Community Affairs Rule 9J -5(3)(c)(3).
In the revised policy, the citation has been corrected to refer to the rules 9J-5.003(19) and 9J-5.012,
F.A.C..
MAY 189 1999
•
—24—
U
•
,LL In accordance with Department of Community Affairs Rule 9J -5(3)(c)(3), the county
designates the "Coastal High -Hazard Area" (CHHA) as identified in the Treasure Coastal
al Planning Council Hurricane Evacuation Study (1994). Figure 9.22 of this element is
adopted as the county's CHHA designation map.
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY
2elicy.5-1 In accordance with Depagmeas @-f GOW.MNE, 11
5.003(19) and 9- -S Ol F A r riles T_
the county hereby designates the "Coastal High -Hazard Area"
(CHHA) as identified in the Treasure Coastal Regional Planning Council Hurricane Evacuation
Study (1994. Figure 9.22 of this element is hereby adopted as the counn,'a MM a
In total, nineteen policies are being recommended f
being recommended for deletionor revision, and another nineteen policies are
These or
changes to the policies of the Economic
Development Element will result in policies that are more specific, policies that can be implemented,
and an overall improved comprehensive plan element.
Many of the policies of the Economic Development Element are the responsibility of the Economic
Development Division of the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce. Those policies primarily
address marketing activities. Based on the Economic Development Division's experience over the
last two years of marketing the county's economic development potential, it was the Economic
Development Division's recommendation to revise some of the Economic Development Element's
policies so that the Economic Development Division's role would be better defined and so that the
Economic Development Division could have more latitude in their marketing activities
Policies such as 1.4 define the role and the actions
In revising these polices, the Economic Development of the Economic Development Division,
better defined.pment Division's role and required actions will be
Policy 72 calls for the Economic Development Division to complete an annual marketing plan. This
plan will identify the specific marketing activities that will be undertaken by the Economic
Development Division in the upcoming fiscal year.
Economic Development Division Consistent with revised policy 7.2, the the EDC will be required to present its marketing plan to the EDC and have
approve that plan prior to the Economic Development Division submitting a request for
fiords to the Board of County Commissioners.
Other policies have been revised to better defi
policy 2.4 has ne the actions required of the county. For instance,
been revised to identify the type of assistance that county staff will provide to private
industrial park developers who are attempting to establish industrial parks in Indian River County.
Policy 2.6, which lists the county's targeted industries, has been revised to expand that list of
aged industries. The list has been expanded, based on the recommendation of the EDC, to include
annual wage.
any clean light industries that have average annual wages which are above the county -wide average
Policies such as 1. 12, 3.5, and 7.4, which call for actions that are duplications of other policies, have
been recommended for deletion. Other policies recommended for deletion include policy 1.6, which
called for the county to target industries whose seasons supplement the seasons of the citrus industry
and tourist industry. Staff and the EDC have been unable to identify any such industries, and the
EDC indicated that the county should be targeting industries that create full-time employment. For
those reasons, policy 1.6 is being recommended for deletion.
Following are the recommended changes for the Economic Development Element's policies. Under
each policy is a proposed action to revise or delete that policy. For policies that are being
recommended for revision, a revised policy is presented.
roncv : The county shall utilize existing industries as a
including support businesses for industries located u trIndianmagnet to attract new industries,
River and surrounding counties.
Proposed Action: DELETE POLICY
Policy 1.2 will be combined with policy 1.5.
MAY 189 1999
-25- BOOK
,gGr
C�
r
BOOK
.4: The county shall promote the growth of industries listed in SIC code 20 through 39 and
x targeted by the county which provide skilled and semi -skilled jobs that pay higher than
wages.
Aeon: REVISE POLICY
Economic Development Division of the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce shall
cote the growth of industries listed in SIC codes 20 through 39 and industries targeted by the
Pty which provide skilled and semi -skilled jobs that pay higher than average wages. The
comic Development Division shall determine the methods to be used to promote the growth of
industries and identify these methods in its annual marketing plan. The results will be
;rated to the Economic Development Council on a quarterly basis.
Policy t _5: The county shall on a bi-annual basis support the Indian River County Chamber of
Commerce in surveying targeted businesses having more than ten employees. The purpose of the
survey is to identify opportunities and problems associated with businesses, to identify businesses
willing to expand, and to identify businesses considering relocation. The county's contribution shall
involve financial support. The Chamber of Commerce shall provide a report to the Economic
Development Council on an annual basis, detailing the results of the survey.
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY
On an annual basis, the Economic Development Division of the Indian River County Chamber of
Commerce shall survey local businesses that are included in the county's targeted industries list and
have more than ten employees. The purpose of the survey is to identify opportunities and problems
associated with local businesses, the type of job training and assistance needed by businesses,
businesses willing to expand, businesses considering relocation, and linked businesses. The
Economic Development Division shall report the survey results to the Economic Development
Council at the first meeting of each calender year.
Policy 1.6: The county, as part of setting its list of target industries, shall target different
employment sectors whose seasons supplement the seasons of the citrus industry and tourist
industry.
Posed Action: DELETE POLICY
county should be targeting industries that create full-time employment. A study to idenl
stries that supplement the seasons of the citrus industry and tourist industry was undertaken
ty staff in 1994. Staff were not able to identify any such industries.
Policy 1.7: The Indian River County Chamber of Commerce and its Economic Development
Division shall maintain contact with various businesses on a continuing basis and provide a quarterly
report to the Economic Development Council, indicating the number of contacts, and the number
of possible jobs, as well as results, problems, solutions and other pertinent information.
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY
The Economic Development Division of the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce shall
continue to contact businesses, as identified in its marketing plan, to encourage those businesses to
consider Indian River County as a possible location. The county's list of targeted industries shall
be the Economic Development Division's guide for the type of businesses to contact. On a quarterly
basis, the Economic Development Director of the Chamber of Commerce shall report to the
Economic Development Council the number of businesses that were contacted, the type o
businesses that were contacted, the number of persons em loved by each of the businesses. and the
result or actions taken from those contacts.
,&: The county shall continue a relationship with the Jobs and Education I
and Indian River Community College for quick response to Indian River County
training for existing and prospective employees.
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY
The county and the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce shall continue to inform existing
and relocating businesses of training programs that are offered by the Indian River Community
College, the Jobs and Education Partnership Program, and local high schools. Representatives from
these institutions shall be invited to provide an annual report to the Economic Development Council
summarizing what type of training assistance was provided to local businesses.
MAY 189 1999
y1.2: As an employer, the county shall employ local residents, use local services, and retain
contractors, whenever possible.
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY
As an employer, the county shall notify local residents and local business of any employment or
service contract opportunities by advertising job opportunities in the local newspaperand by sending
request for proposals to appropriate local businesses. To ensure proper notification, the county's
General Services Department shall maintain a list of local businesses and contractors.
Policy 1.10: On an annual basis, the county shall update its Commercial/Industrial Data Source
Book. This book consists of planning, zoning, land use, demographic, and other socio-economic
information helpful to businesses desiring to relocate.
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY
The county shall on a semi-annual basis re-evaluate the size and location of its commercial/industrial
modes. On an annual basis, the county shall update its Commercial/Industrial Data Source Book.
This book consists of planning, zoning, and land use information helpful to businesses desiring to
Policy 1.12: The county shall provide adequate infrastructure to areas designated for commercial
and industrial development.
'Proposed Action: DELETE POLICY
The action for Policy 1.12 is the same as the action for the revised Policy 2.3.
y_2.3: The county shall designate sufficient land on its Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
for firture commercial/industrial uses and shall provide infirasmmcture for these lands to facilitate
lopment of industrial parks within the county.
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY
The county shall designate sufficient land on its Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for
future commercial/industrial uses and shall provide infrastructure (potable water and roads, and to
the extent feasible sanitary sewer) for these lands to facilitate development of industrial parks within
Policy 2.4: The county shall coordinate with private industrial park developers to establish industrial
parks at the SR 60 / I-95, CR 512 / I-95, and Oslo Road / 74`h Ave. commercial/industrial nodes, and
at other appropriate locations within the county.
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY
The county shall assist private industrial park developers to establish industrial parks at the SR 60/1-
95. CR 512/1-95, and Oslo Road/74'h Ave. commercial/industrial nodes, and at other appropriate
locations within the county. Assistance will include providing pre -application meetings to determine
needs and requirements of potential industrial park developers, expediting the permitting process,
assisting with appropriate grant applications, and providing information pertaining to available
incentives.
LI: The county, through the solid waste disposal district, will provide land adjacent to
for appropriate businesses to locate.
Proposed Action: DELETE POLICY
The Solid Waste Disposal District Manager has informed planning staff that the land adjacent to the
landfill is currently designated to be used for a landfill expansion.
Eoliay 2.6: The county, in coordination with the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce, shall
establish a list of target industries and evaluate this list at least every two years in order to reflect the
current economic needs of the county as well as the actual marketing results. The following is the
current list of the county's target industries:
► SIC Code 0273 Animal Aquaculture
► SIC Code 20 Food and Kindred Products
► SIC Code 27 Printing and Publishing
► SIC Code 34 Fabricated Metal Products
► SIC Code 35 Industrial and Commercial Machinery and
Equipment
MAY 189 1999
-27- BOOK rAuC.
► SIC Code 37 Transportation Equipment
► SIC Code 47 Transportation Services
P. SIC Code 48 Communications
► SIC Code 737 Computer Programming, Data Processing, and other
Computer Related Services
► SIC Code 80 Health Services
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY
The county, in coordination with the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce, shall establish
a list of target industries and evaluate this list at least every two years in order to reflect the current
economic needs of the county as well as the actual marketing results. The following is the current
list of the county's target industries:
► SIC Code 0273
Animal Aquaculture
► SIC Code 20
Food and Kindred Products
► SIC Code 27
Printing and Publishing
► SIC Code 34
Fabricated Metal Products
► SIC Code 35
Industrial and Commercial Machinery and Comp
Equipment
► SIC Code 37
Transportation Equipment
► SIC Code 47
Transportation Services
► SIC Code 48
Communications
► SIC Code 737
Computer Programming, Data Processing, and o
Computer Related Services
► SIC Code 80
Health Services
► Other clean light industries that have average annual wages which are above
countv-wide averaee annual wase
Policy 2.7: The county, through the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce and its Economic
Development Division, shall focus its recruitment activities on businesses which are within target
industries, SIC codes 20 through 39, and which provide year round employment opportunities.
Action: DELETE POLICY
r Policy 2.7 are already covered by Policy 1.3 and
Policy 3.4: The county shall provide support to the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce and
its Economic Development Division for undertaking a survey of local industries to determine what
type of training and assistance is needed. The survey will be conducted on an annual basis, and the
results will be reported to the Economic Development Council.
Action: DELETE POLICY
y has been combined with policy 1.5.
L15: The county, through the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce, shall inform
ig and potential employers of available employment training opportunities through Indian
Community College and/or the Jobs and Education Partnership program.
(Proposed Action: DELETE POLICY
Policy 1.8 performs this action.
Policy 4.1: The county, through its Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, i
maintain and/or improve the quality of life by providing protection of environmental, cultural,
aesthetic features of the county.
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY
The county, through its Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, shall maintain
and/or improve its characteristics which attract businesses to Indian River County by providing
protection for its environmental, cultural, and aesthetic features.
Policy 4.3: The county shall on a regular basis re-evaluate the size and location of its
l
commercial/industrial nodes.
Proposed Action: DELETE POLICY
This policy has been combined with policy 1.10. In addition, a comprehensive plan text and fu
land use map amendment will be initiated in July which will introduce a new industrial land
MAY 189 1999
-28-
•
Policy 4.10: The county shall continue to offer water, sewer, and traffic impact fee financing
programs which allow the spreading of impact fee payments over several years. Currently, traffic
impact fee financing is available only to industries listed under SIC codes 20 through 39 and to
county targeted industries.
Proposed Action: DELETE POLICY
Action is included in policy 1.3.
Polia 4-12: The Indian River County Chamber of Commerce, through its programs, shall develop
information on businesses that are locating to the county. The information will be presented to the
county's Economic Development Council on an annual basis. This information shall be used for
marketing activities.
Action: DELETE POLICY
Policy 4,13: The county, through the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce, shall provide
assistance to relocating companies during the relocation process and afterwards as needed
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY
The Indian River County Chamber of Commerce shall provide assistance to relocating companies
during the relocation process and afterwards as needed and report any actions taken to the Economic
Development Council at their regular meeting.
Pow 4.15: The Indian River County Chamber of Commerce and its Economic Development
Division shall designate the Director of Economic Development as a local contact to coordinate with
businesses during the relocation process.
Proposed Action: DELETE POLICY
This action has been included in policy 4.13.
Policy 5-2: The county shall disseminate any new information to those groups that are most
responsible for implementing various economic development projects.
Proposed Action: DELETE POLICY
PoHU 5-4: The county shall ensure an efficient permitting process among all goven
departments and agencies to facilitate a smooth transition for industries relocating to Indian
County.
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY
The county, through pre -application meetings and Technical Review Committee meetings, shall
review procedures, identify needed permits, and provide information and feedback to applicants to
expedite the permitting process. The county shall also assist applicants by providing information
on non -county required permits or reviews and provide contact information.
Poli 5_ : On a regular basis, the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
shall request updated information from the Florida Department of Transportation on the extension
of Amtrak and high speed rail services.
Proposed Action: DELETE POLICY
Policy The county, through the Tourist Development Council, shall continue to market the
county internationally in an effort to increase market share.
Proposed Action: DELETE POLICY
Policy 6.1 will be combined with policy 6.3.
Policy 6"2: By 1998, the county, in cooperation with the Tourist Development Council, shall
continue to market eco -tourism and cultural tourism in relation to the county's environmental
amenities and cultural offerings.
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY
The Tourism Division of the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce shall continue to market
eco -tourism and cultural tourism in relation to the county's environmental amenities and cultural
offerings. The Tourism Division shall publish advertisements which market the county's
environmental amenities and cultural offerings. A representative of the Chamber of Commerce shall
resent those advertisements and any results to the Tourist Development Council.
MAY 189 1999
-29- �,
I ],
BOOK 103 J5-
Policy 6.36.3: By 1998, the county, through the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce and its
Tourism Division, in cooperation with local resorts and motels, shall market the county as a
vacation/recreation area The Chamber of Commerce shall report to the Tourist Development
Council regularly on its marketing activities.
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY
The Tourism Division of the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce, in cooperation with local
resorts and hotels, shall market the county as a vacation/recreation area. Marketing activities shall
include advertising, attending travel shows, and maintaining contact with various travel
organizations at a national level and an international level. A representative of the Chamber o
Commerce_ shall report to the Tourist Development Council on their marketing actions.
Policy 6.4: By 1998, the county, through the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce and its
Economic Development Division and Tourism Division, shall publish advertisements cross -selling
tourism and economic development. The Chamber of Commerce shall present the published
advertisements to the Economic Development Council and the Tourist Development Council.
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY
The Economic Development Division and Tourism Division of the Indian River County Chamber
of Commerce shall publish advertisements cross -selling tourism and economic development. A
representative of the Chamber of Commerce shall present those advertisements to the Economic
Development Council and the Tourist Development Council.
is By 1998, the county shall apply to the Florida Department of Transportation for a
Beautification Grant for funding to provide beautification at the two major interstate
;es within the county as well as along SR 60 and US #1.
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY
By 2000, the county shall have a highway beautification plan in place for the two major interstate
interchanges within the county as well as along SR 60 and US #1.
PoliQ6"7: The county shall continue to use local option tourist tax revenue to fund projects such
as the prefabricated erosion prevention (PEP) reel, which preserve Indian River County beaches.
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY
The county shall fund projects that preserve Indian River County beaches.
Policy 7- 1: The county shall implement economic development plans that reflect community goals
and preserve the present quality of life.
Proposed Action: DELETE POLICY
Policy 7"2: By March of every year, the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce and its
Economic Development Division, in cooperation with the Indian River County Community
Development Department, shall develop a specific plan to market the county's economic
development potential. Through research, the county shall identify the most effective and cost
efficient way to inform potential employers of the county.
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY AND MOVE POLICY TO OBJECTIVE 2
By March of every year, the Economic Development Division of the Indian River County Chamber
of Commerce shall develop a marketing plan that specifies actions that will be taken during that year
to market the county's economic development potential. The marketing plan shall provide detailed
budget information pertaining to any funds that the Chamber of Commerce is requesting from the
Board of County Commissioners for the upcoming fiscal year. Before the marketing plan and
uest for funds is submitted to the Board. the plan shall be resented to and roved by the
Economic Development Council.
Policy 7.3: The county shall coordinate its marketing plan with the Indian River County Cha
of Commerce's long-range marketing plan. The plan shall be evaluated on an annual basis by
the Planning Staff and the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce. The Indian River Cc
Chamber of Commerce will be responsible for contacting on a continuing basis those busin
considering relocation to the county.
Proposed Action: DELETE POLICY
Since the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce is responsible for preparing a marketing plan
as well as implementing that plan, the county does not need to maintain its own marketing plan.
MAY 189 1999
• -30-
•
•
Policy 7.4: The Economic Development Division of the Indian River County Chamber of
Commerce shall be responsible for tracking businesses that contact the county for relocation
information and shall provide a quarterly report of the marketing results to the Economic
Development Council.
Proposed Action: DELETE POLICY
Policy 1.7 performs this action.
Poli" The county, through the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce, shall coordinate
with the commuter airline (if one is recruited) and the City of Vero Beach Airport on marketing
economic development and tourism through the commuter air service.
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY
The Indian River County Chamber of Commerce shall promote services provided by the Vero E
Municipal Airport, the Sebastian Municipal Airport, and the Melbourne International Airport in
economic development and tourism marketing efforts.
Policy 7.9: On an annual basis, the county shall request in writing that the Realtors Association of
Indian River County provide information pertaining to residential, commercial and industrial
property sales data to determine current real estate trends.
Proposed Action: DELETE POLICY
Policy 7.9 is an unnecessary action.
LL: The Indian River County Chamber of Commerce and its Economic Deve
r shall continue its efforts to maintain and increase the level of public and private
for economic development.
tosed Action: DELETE POLICY
Indian River County Chamber of Commerce requested that this policy be deleted from the
Policy 6.1
Policy 6.1 is being revised to include traditional neighborhood design (TND) projects and mixed use
districts as exceptions to the prohibition of providing infrastructure outside of the urban service area.
Both TND projects and mixed use districts are similar to agricultural planned developments because
each of the project types tend to cluster buildings, thereby creating a land use pattern which provides
an efficient use of land. As a result of the clustering of buildings, TND projects and mixed use
districts provide an adequate transitional landscape between the urban service area and the
agriculturally designated area. For those reasons, TND projects and mixed use districts have been
added to policy 6.1.
Miry 6 1: Indian River County shall not provide public services or facilities which would induce
encourage the development of agriculturally designated lands except in the following instances:
• To provide for the health, safety and welfare of existing residents;
• Lots or portions of lots which front on a public roadway that serves as an urban service
boundary, as long as the provision of utility service is consistent with Potable Water Suh-
Element Policy 5.9 and Sanitary Sewer Sub-Flement Policy 5.9; and
• Agricultural Planned Developments.
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY
Poky 6.1: Indian River County shall not provide public services or facilities which would induce
or encourage the development of agriculturally designated lands except in the following instances:
• To provide for the health ilk safety, and wel€we of existing residents;
• Lots or portions of lots which front on a public roadway that serves as an urban service
boundary, as long as the provision of utility service is consistent with Potable Water Suh_
Element Policy 5.9-$,2 and Sanit= Sewer S ,b-Rlemen Policy -4451;
• Agricultural Planned Developments;
• TraAltinnal Neiohhnrhnnrl Thein.. Tlu.minr....e..r� N.............t,. __---:____��- -r_ _c_-- .., .
of the Future Land Use lem nanti
• Mivp.d TTeP Metrirte
MAY 189 1999
•
-31-
BOOK 109 r.1ur. 3,1
Policy 14.3
Staff has revised the third criterion of policy 14.3. The revision to this criterion clarifies that not
only the future land use map, but any portion of the comprehensive plan may be amended based on
a substantial change in circumstances. This criterion further states that for future land use map
amendments, the substantial change in circumstances must affect the subject property.
is 14.3: Indian River County shall approve plan amendments only upon a showing that one
following criteria has been met:
• The proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the approved plan.
• The proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the approved plan.
• For Future Land Use Map amendments, the proposed amendment is warranted based on a.
substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property.
• For Future Land Use Map amendments, the proposed amendment involves a swap or
reconfiguration of land use designations at separate sites and, that that swap or
reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density or intensity depicted on the
Future Land Use Map.
Action: REVISE POLICY
Policyl4.1: Indian River County shall approve plan amendments only upon a showing that one
the following criteria has been met:
• The proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the approved plan.
• The proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the approved plan.
• For Fulme i6end Use Map amendm The proposed amendment is wan -anted based on a
substantial change in circumstances For Future . nd Tee
Man amendments- the change in circumstances must affect the c_nhiect g om eriv�,
• For Future Land Use Map amendments, the proposed amendment involves a swap or
reconfiguration of land use designations at separate sites and, that that swap or
reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density or intensity depicted on the
Future Land Use Map.
Policy 7.3
Policy 7.3 is being revised by deleting the word "type." By deleting that word, the policy becomes
more definitive in describing who shall be allowed to use park areas provided that all of the
conditions are met.
POLICY 73_ The county shall allow private leisure and recreation type groups to use park
and preclude use of those areas for recreation programs and activities provided that the folk
conditions are met:
► The area of the park to be used must not currently be in use by the general public or
designated for future use on the park master plan;
► A lease specifying duration of use, characteristics of use, insurance requirements,
other applicable conditions must be executed by the Board of Coi
Commissioners;
► A site plan or temporary use permit must be approved by the planning department;
Any improvements made to the leased site must be done and paid for by the
with the improvements reverting to the county when the lease expires.
Proposed Action: REVISE POLICY
POLICY 7-3- The county shall allow private leisure and recreation4yp& groups to use park areas
and preclude use of those areas for recreation programs and activities provided that the following
conditions are met:
The area of the park to be used must not currently be in use by the general public
designated for future use on the park master plan;
A lease specifying duration of use, characteristics of use, insurance requirements,
other applicable conditions must be executed -by the Board of Coi
Commissioners,
MAY 189 1999
s
-32-
0
A site plan or temporary use permit must be approved by the planning department;
Any improvements made to the leased site must be done and paid for by the lessee
with the improvements reverting to the county when the lease expires.
Comprehensive plan amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the
comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the county code, the "comprehensive plan may be
amended only in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to section
163.3177(2).F.S."
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan that identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are
important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of
particular applicability for this amendment request. is the following policy:
Future Land Use Policy 14.3
The most important policy to consider in evaluating a plan amendment request for consistency with
the county's comprehensive plan is Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that
one of four criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. These criteria are:
• a mistake in the approved plan;
• an oversight in the approved plan;
• a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property; or
• a swap or a reconfiguration of land uses at separate sites.
The following table shows how this comprehensive plan amendment relates to Future Land Use
Element Policy 14.3.
Objective/Policy
Correct a
mistake
Correct an
oversight
Change in
circumstances
Swap of land
uses
Coastal Management Policy 5.1
X
Economic Development Policies
X
X
Future Land Use Policy 6.1
X
Future Land Use Policy 14.3
X
Recreation and Open Space
Policy 7.3
X
Coastal Management Element
Based upon its analysis, staff feels that the proposed change to policy 5.1 of the Coastal Management
Element meets the first criterion of policy 14.3 of the Future Land Use Element. As revised, policy
5.1 contains the correct FAC citation.
Economic Development Element
Based upon its analysis, staff feels that the proposed changes to the Economic Development Element
meet two of the criteria of Future Land Use Element policy 14.3.
Many of the Economic Development Element's policies that are being deleted are policies that
duplicate actions of other policies. Other policies that are being deleted are policies which did not
have a defined action. That constitutes a mistake in the comprehensive plan. Therefore, the
proposed changes meet the first criterion of Policy 14.3.
There has also been a change of circumstances that supports the proposed revisions to the Economic
Development Element. That change relates to the Economic Development Division's experience
in marketing the county's economic development potential. Because of that experience, the
Economic Development Division has identified more efficient and cost effective marketing
activities. The Economic Development Element policies will enable the Economic Development
Division to use more effective marketing activities.
MAY 189 1999
—33— BOOK PAGc_..
BOOK
Because an effective marketing campaign changes as marketing trends change, the Economic
Development Element will be more general in nature, requiring the Economic Development Division
to prepare an annual marketing plan. Policy 7.2 requires the Economic Development Division to
complete a marketing plan each year and have that plan approved by the EDC.
Future Land Use Element
Based upon its analysis, staff feels that the proposed change to policy 6.1 meets the second criterion
of policy 14.3 and that the proposed change to policy 14.3 meets the first criterion of policy 14.3.
As indicated in the previous section, the concepts oftraditional neighborhood design (TND) Projects
and mixed use districts are similar to the concept of agricultural PDs. The revisions to policy 6.1
correct the oversight of not including the two former development concepts in policy 6.1.
By revising the third criterion of policy 14.3, a mistake in the text will be connected. A substantial
change in circumstances wan -ants a change in any portion of the comprehensive plan that is affected
by that change in circumstances. As originally stated, the third criterion may be construed as to be
available only for future land use map amendment proposals, which was not the intended notion of
that third criterion.
Recreation and Open Space Element
Based upon its analysis, staff feels that the proposed revision to policy 7.3 of the Recreation and
Open Space Element meets the second criterion of policy 14.3 of the Future Land Use Element.
Deleting the word "type" from policy 7.3 con-ects an oversight in the text of that policy and better
clarifies the action of that policy.
While the referenced policies are particularly applicable to this request, other comprehensive plan
policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the amendment requests
for consistency with all plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis, staff determined that
the requests are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The Board of County Commissioners have three alternatives regarding this comprehensive plan text
amendment. The Board of County Commissioners may decide to: ,
1. Deny transmittal of this amendment to DCA;
2. Approve transmittal of this amendment to DCA; or
3. Approve transmittal of this amendment, with changes, to DCA.
It is staffs position that this proposed amendment to the county's comprehensive plan will enhance
the plan. Also, it has been demonstrated that this amendment maintains the plan's internal
consistency. For those reasons, staff feels that the proposed amendment should be adopted.
Based on the analysis conducted, sta$ the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Professional
Services Advisory Committee recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this
amendment for transmittal to DCA for review.
MAY 189 1999
Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the Comp Plan
amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners on this text amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this
application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 60 -day
review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made
by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan by amending the
text. If the Board denies the transmittal of an application to the DCA, the application process
will come to an end.
Director Keating continued that 19 policies have been revised and 19 policies deleted
to eliminate duplicate and unnecessary actions.
Commissioner Adams questioned whether a study had been done prior to deleting
Policy 1.6, and Director Keating advised that such a study was done 3 to 4 years ago in-
house. No industry was found which has a counter -cyclical season to compliment the citrus
season and the County has a need to create more full-time jobs.
Commissioner Stanbridge questioned whether a certified minority hiring program
exists with regard to Policy 1.9, and Director Keating explained that the County does have
a requirement to be proactive through the stipulations of some federal grants but Policy 1.9
relates solely to the County's employment practices, not those of private industry.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
regarding this matter.
Bob Swift, 6450 Glendale Road, questioned which policy would reflect the plan for
the beautification of SR -60/1-95 and CR 512/1-95, and Commissioner Adams referred him
to Policy 2.4.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding this matter. There
being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Adams questioned Policy 2.6, SIC (Standard Industrial Classification)
Code 0273, "Animal Aquaculture", and Director Keating responded that the description was
taken directly from the SIC Code. This category includes a number of sub -industries that are
both animal -related and aquatic -related.
MAY 189 1999
-35-
80A
r 1
-
BOOK Pr1Gr4
=,
Commissioner Adams requested that the category be revised to read
"Animal/Aquaculture".
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously adopted Resolution 99-045 approving
the transmittal of a proposed amendment to the
Indian River County Comprehensive Plan to the
State of Florida Department of Community Affairs
for their review (Coastal Management, Economic
Development, Future Land Use and Recreation and
Open Space Elements - Amendment CPTA 99-01-
0179) with the change suggested by Vice Chairman
Adams in Policy 2.6, by adding to SIC Code 0273
Animal "P' Aquaculture.
RESOLUTION No. 99-4 5
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THEIR
REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications during its
January 1999 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all Comprehensive Plan
Amendment requests on April 8, 1999 after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners transmit the Comprehensive Plan Amendment listed below, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal
Public Hearing on May 18, 1999 after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c).
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public
hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan
amendment process.
MAY 189 1999
• -36-
•
• 0
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 4 5
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The following proposed amendment is approved for transmittal to the State of
Florida Department of Community Affairs for written comment:
Request to amend the text of the Coastal Management, Economic Development,
Future Land Use, and Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Elements.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner T i p p i n and
seconded by Commissioner G i nn and upon being put to a vote the vote was
as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht A y e
Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge_ Ate_
Commissioner John W. Tippin �y e�
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing
held this 18`h day of May 1999.
w:W\pe\lu\text\jan 99\tm res.mt
MAY 189 1999
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF =enneth
R COUNTY, ORIDA
BY:
Macht, Chai an
ATTEST Bk�
Y:
effrey K Bartan, Jerk ��
Rt,Cc
-37-
Imdur NO- Ca Ay F; ov,,d Oa1e
Admin.
Legai -
8!itlgel _
Dept.
Risk Mgr.
BOOK�J F��C, ,d
BOOK`
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - KNIGHT & ASSOCIATES. INC. -
REQUEST TO AMEND POLICY 5.8 OF THE FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN (1) TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF
AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO PLATTED LOTS
GREATER THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE AND (2) TO
REVISE THE CLUSTERING REOUIREMENTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITHIN EQUESTRIAN
AGRICULTURAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FME IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 12, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. Kea ' g, AI P
Community Developmen irector
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP S /;7.
Chief, Long -Range Plan ing
FROM: John Wachtel
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: May 12,1999
RE: Knight and Associates, Inc.'s Request to Amend Policy 5.8 of the Future Land
Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan to Allow the Subdivision of
Agricultural Land into Platted Lots Greater than One Acre in Size, and to
Revise the Clustering Requirement for Residential Lots Within Equestrian
Agricultural Planned Developments
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: CPTA 99-01-0211
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of May 18, 1999.
nFqCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request by Knight and Associates, Inc. to amend Policy 5.8 of the Future Land Use Element
of the Comprehensive Plan. That policy sets the criteria for Planned Developments in agriculturally
designated areas (Agricultural PDs). Among those criteria are the following:
Lots created through the PD process shall not exceed one acre in sue, with the
remainder of the area designated as open space; all lots must be clustered together
to limit the impact of development on agricultural lands.
MAY 18, 1999
-38-
• 0
•
•
The applicant's request is- to amend policy 5.8 to allow lots greater than one acre in size in large
equestrian related Agricultural PDs. The specific wording of policy 5.8, with the applicant's
requested additions lmdcrlined, is shown below.
Policy 5.8: All Planned Development (PD) projects approved in any agriculturally
designated area shall meet the following criteria:
The density of the project shall not exceed the maximum density of the underlying
land use designation; no density transfers from off-site lands, and no density bonuses
shall be permitted within PD projects in agriculturally designated areas;
Lots created through the PD process shall not exceed one acre in size, with the
remainder of the area designated as open space; all lots must be clustered together to
limit the impact of development on agricultural lands. Building Jots of one acre in
�jyg, m ly he located within the front 1/3 of an overall lot size, gm= than one acre,
in la �nPctrian related ab cultLuml P_D.'s. This will allow lots greater than one
acre for barns-1.taddock and training areas For this . erial !„poseshe de nition
_nf rl.,,,stering A211 allow residential home sites along a road with the rear area of
each lot g�l xhbeing behind the one acre h uil ing site- These lots joined together
in the rear and asides will create lamop areas- These =jects may contain other
Open space areas shall be retained as natural areas or used for agricultural uses;
however, up to thirty percent of the open space area may be used for recreational
purposes in AG -1 areas; up to twenty-five percent of the open space area may be
used for recreational purposes in AG -2 areas and up to twenty percent of the open
space area may be used for recreational purposes in AG -3 areas.
On April 8, 1999, the planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 2 to recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners amend Future Land Use Element Policy 5.8 of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning and Zoning Commission's motion, however, varied from the applicant's request in two
ways. First, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended removing the clustering and
maximum lot size requirements for all Agricultural Planned Developments, not just larger equestrian
related ones. Second, unlike the applicant's request which restricts home sites to the front one-third
of a lot, the Planning and Zoning Commission did not include any locational criteria for the 1 acre
home sites in its motion.
On April 29, 1999, the Professional Services Advisory Committee voted 6 to 1 to recommend that
the Board of County Commissioners delete Future Land Use Element Policy 5.8 from the
Comprehensive Plan.
AGRICULTURAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
Since its 1990 adoption, the Indian River County comprehensive plan has required that all residential
development of two or more units (other than a one time lot split) on agriculturally designated land
be reviewed and approved through the Planned Development (PD) process. The plan also requires
Agricultural PDs to cluster residential lots together on a relatively small portion of the property. The
remainder of the site, regardless of its ownership, must remain in open space (either as natural,
agricultural, or to a limited degree, recreational areas) as long as it retains an agricultural land use
designation. If the site's land use designation is subsequently changed to another land use
designation that permits a greater residential density, the undeveloped portion of the site could then
be developed with uses permitted in the new land use designation and at a density/intensity permitted
in the new land use designation. While the overall density of Agricultural PDs ranges from 1 umt/5
acres to 1 unit/20 acres (depending on the underlying land use designation), the maximum residential
lot size is 1 acre.
Attachments 2 through 12 depict drawings of various clustered and non-clustered development
alternatives. Those drawings, taken from recognized planning books and articles, show that there
can be several different clustering methods for each parcel. The drawings also demonstrate several
benefits of clustering, including project amenities, preservation of open space, preservation of
agricultural land, preservation of natural resources, reduced infrastructure costs, and aesthetic
benefits.
Past Approvals
In the past, several Agricultural PDs of 40 acres or less have been approved with five acre lots and
one acre building area along an internal road. The applicant contends that such developments are
MAY 189 1999
-39- ' BOOK J 0� 0 I AU11F
BOOKuc
consistent with the subject request except on a smaller scale. Staff's position is that for small
Agricultural PDs, one acre building areas can be clustered along roads even when those one acre
building areas are part of five acre lots. For most parcels over 40 acres, however, dividing land into
5 acre lots is not consistent with the agricultural and open space preservation intent of policy 5.8.
In 1998, as part of the comprehensive plan evaluation and appraisal process, the county updated
policy 5.8 to specifically include clustering criteria and to better reflect the intent of that policy.
The Provision of Public Services
An important factor related to Agricultural PDs involves the provision of centralized water and
sewer services. The comprehensive plan prohibits the provision of centralized water and sewer
services for most uses outside the urban service area. An exception is made for Agricultural PDs
with clustered residential lots and certain other types of clustered development. For that reason,
centralized water and sewer services, generally, could not be available outside the urban service area
without Agricultural PDs.
The Proposed Amendment
The proposed amendment applies only to "larger equestrian related" (not specifically defined)
Agricultural PDs. While not limiting lot size, the proposed amendment limits the buildable area of
each lot to one acre located within the front one-third of the lot.
ANAs .YSIS
This section will present an analysis of the reasonableness of the proposed amendment, followed by
a discussion of the consistency of the proposed amendment with the comprehensive plan.
ANALYSIS OF REASONABLENESS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
This section includes a discussion of the following:
• the county's preferred development pattern;
• the proposed amendment's development pattern;
• the development of policy 5.8;
• the proposed amendment's impact on agricultural lands;
• the proposed amendment's impact on public services;
• the proposed amendment's impact on land use compatibility; and
• the proposed amendment's impact on policy implementation.
The County's Preferred Development Pattern
When the county's comprehensive plan was adopted, and again during the evaluation and appraisal
process, the county reviewed its overall land use pattern. As a result of those reviews, the county
determined that it wanted an efficient, compact land use pattern that maintained the county's overall
low-density character. The county further determined that growth should occur in a manner that
efficiently uses both infrastructure and natural resources, and discourages suburban sprawl. For
those reasons, the county's comprehensive plan directs urban uses to areas where urban services are
available, thereby protecting agricultural uses, preserving open space, protecting natural areas, and
making the provision of infrastructure more efficient.
One way in which the comprehensive plan protects agricultural areas and discourages suburban
sprawl is the designation of the contiguous compact area around the county's urban centers for urban
development, and the traditionally agricultural areas further west for agriculture. The boundary
between these two areas is well defined. This works to preserve agricultural uses because
agricultural uses generally benefit from being separated from urban uses.
The Proposed Amendment's Development Pattern
Adoption of the proposed amendment would, in effect, allow an exception to policy 5.8's maximum
lot size requirement. Therefore, although it may not be the applicant's intention, adopting the
proposed amendment would allow the development of single-family, five -acre "ranchettes" in
agricultural areas. That type of development, neither agricultural nor urban, not only increases the
per unit cost of providing urban services such as schools, police and fire protection, and emergency
medical service, but also uses up land, road capacity, and other resources faster than a compact
development pattern. Policy 5.8, in fact, was developed specifically to prohibit the type of suburban
sprawl that would be allowed by the proposed amendment.
MAY 18, 1999
The Development of Policy 5.8
When the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990, the county determined that, with respect to the
development of agriculturally designated areas, there were three alternatives available to discourage
suburban sprawl and to protect open space and agricultural uses. Those alternatives, exclusive
agricultural zoning, extremely low density residential development, and clustered residential
development, are discussed below.
One of the sprawl control alternatives that the county examined was exclusive agricultural zoning
within agriculturally designated areas. That alternative limits uses in agricultural areas to traditional
agricultural uses, like farming and ranching. With exclusive agricultural zoning, residential uses are
allowed only as accessory uses. Consequently, the only residential uses allowed with this type of
land use designation would be a grove owner's house, a ranch owner's house, or farmworker housing
on parcels sufficiently large to allow for a viable agricultural operation. Although exclusive
agricultural zoning within agriculturally designated areas is an effective suburban sprawl control
strategy, there are issues associated with that alternative.
One issue relates to preservation of active agricultural operations. For agricultural operations to be
sustained, farmers often must borrow money. Since farmers usually use their land as collateral,
reducing the value of the land threatens their ability to secure a loan, establish a crop and therefore
to maintain active agricultural operations on their land. Because the value of the land is primarily
derived from the permitted residential density of the land, restricting residential development
indirectly reduces the feasibility of active agricultural operations on that land.
The other issue relates to private property rights. With exclusive agricultural zoning, there are few
use options for land outside the urban service area That raises property rights issues, since some
land owners may have property that is not suitable for agricultural uses and therefore have no
economically viable uses for their property. For those reasons, this alternative was not chosen.
A second alternative that the county examined to discourage suburban sprawl and to protect
agricultural uses involved limiting residential development on agriculturally designated land to
extremely low densities such as 1 unit/40 acres or 1 unit/20 acres. That alternative also is an
effective sprawl control alternative. As with exclusive agricultural zoning, this alternative severely
limits the use options for land outside the urban service area and thereby raises property rights issues.
For that reason, this alternative was not chosen.
The third alternative that the county considered was the one that the county ultimately adopted. That
alternative allows slightly higher residential densities, but requires clustering of residential lots. By
implementing project design requirements, such as those incorporated in policy 5.8, the county has
been able to protect active agricultural operations and protect private property rights without
encouraging suburban sprawl.
Impacts on Agricultural Lands
One purpose of policy 5.8 is to protect and conserve agriculturally designated lands for agricultural
uses. This is important because agriculture is a key component of the county's economy and of the
character and history of the community. Statistics from the 1998 Florida c atisti al Absit t
demonstrate that both the state and the county are losing active agricultural lands. The number of
acres of active agricultural land in the state decreased by 428,013 acres (from 11,194,090 acres to
10,766,077 acres) or 3.8 percent, during the 1987 to 1992 time period. Active agricultural land was
lost at a greater rate in Indian River County. During that time period, the amount of active
agricultural land decreased by 20,998 acres (from 195,671 acres to 174,673 acres) or 10.7 percent.
Since economically productive agricultural land is less likely to be converted to other uses,
productive agricultural land serves as a limit to urban development. For that reason, maintaining the
economic viability of agriculturally designated land is also an important factor in combating
suburban sprawl.
Policy 5.8 protects agriculture by requiring that no more than 20% of the area of Agricultural PDs
be used for residential purposes and by limiting uses on the remaining land to agriculture, open
space, and limited recreational uses. As a result, most of the land within an Agricultural PD is large
enough for, and available for, agricultural uses.
In contrast, the proposed amendment allows large tracts of land to be divided into many parcels, each
as small as five acres. Because those parcels are too small to farm profitably, those parcels could
be used only for residences and accessory uses.
MAY 189 1999
g®®K � "" )
The proposed amendment also encourages the conversion of agricultural land in other ways. This
request essentially amends the plan to allow large lot residential subdivisions on agricultural land
outside the urban service area.
Large lot subdivisions, while not encouraged, are currently permitted, and land is available, on
residentially designated land within the urban service area That land, however, is generally more
valuable and expensive due to its greater development potential. The proposed amendment,
however, allows the development of solely residential uses on less expensive agricultural property,
thus inhibiting residential development within the urban service area and encouraging the conversion
of agriculturally designated land to residential uses.
Impacts on Public Services
Policy 5.8 also encourages the efficient provision of public services such as roads, police and fire
protection, emergency medical services, and utilities service. Those services can be provided at a
lower per unit cost in areas with a more compact development pattern, such as required by the
existing policy 5.8, than can be provided to places with a spread out development pattern as allowed
by the proposed amendment. Because nearly every trip is long and must be made by car, these
subdivisions are particularly inefficient in terms of the use of roads. The proliferation of these types
of subdivisions increases the probability that congestion will occur. For these reasons, the proposed
amendment increases the cost of providing public services.
Impacts on Land Use Compatibility
There are several land use compatibility advantages associated with policy 5.8's requirement of a
large open area. Among those advantages are the mitigation of impacts between urban and rural
activities, and better preparation for the possible integration of the site into the urban service area.
Interactions between urban and agricultural activities often result in one of those activities negatively
impacting the other. The noise, odors, and pesticide spray drift of agricultural activities can
negatively impact urban activities. Similarly, urban activities can negatively impact agricultural
activities through increased trespassing, the introduction of pests, and complaints and legal action
related to agricultural activities.
Policy 5.8's open space requirement works to mitigate those impacts in several ways. First, by
requiring the set aside of land that could be used as a vegetative buffer, policy 5.8 facilitates the
development of such a buffer between the residential and agricultural components of Agricultural
PDs. Vegetative buffers have been found to be somewhat useful in reducing the impacts that
agricultural and urban uses have on each other.
The clustering and open space requirement of policy 5.8 also creates a clear, distinct boundary
between urban and rural areas. Such a boundary clearly defines where certain activities are intended
and are not intended to be conducted. This adds certainty to land use decisions and reduces the
likelihood of incompatibilities occurring.
Finally, the clustering and open space requirement reduces the length of the urban/agricultural
boundary. When incompatibilities occur, they are usually located along the urban/agricultural
boundary, where urban and agricultural uses most often interact By reducing the length of the
urban/agricultural boundary, policy 5.8 reduces the area where urban and agricultural uses interact;
therefore, the chances of incompatibilities occurring are reduced.
Since the proposed amendment would allow developments without clustering and open space, the
proposed amendment would increase the likelihood that incompatibilities will occur.
Although.the county presently has more than enough residentially designated land to accommodate
growth through the year 2020, expanding the urban service area and adding residentially designated
land may be necessary in the future. Policy 5.8, as currently structured, allows urban service area
expansion to take place in a relatively compact, incremental, and compatible manner.
With its requirement for smaller clustered lots, policy 5.8 is specifically structured to result in
development that will, if necessary, successfully integrate into the urban service area Additionally,
in the event of urban service area expansion, the open space area required by policy 5.8 will become
available for development
MAY 189 1999
0 4P
The proposed revisions to. policy 5.8 would allow an exception to the maximum lot size requirement
which is the primary vehicle through which the policy's clustering and open space objectives are
achieved Therefore, adoption of the proposed amendment may result in development that is spread
out and will not integrate well into the urban service area if it is expanded With development under
the proposed amendment, urban densities could eventually surround subdivisions with lot sizes of
five acres or more.
That scenario could not occur under the existing policy 5.8 which sets the maximum residential lot
size at one acre. Under the existing policy, urban densities associated with urban service area
expansion would surround lots of one acre or less. Thus, developments with similar densities are
more likely to abut under the existing version of policy 5.8, while developments with dissimilar
densities are more likely to abut under the proposed amendment. For these reasons, the proposed
amendment increases the likelihood of compatibility problems occurring.
Impacts on Policy Implementation
The county is committed to implementing the policies of the comprehensive plan. To achieve the
plan's goals and objectives, policies must be action oriented and clearly written. The proposed
amendment, however, is vague and difficult to implement. For example, several components of the
amendment are not defined or explained Those components are listed in the table below.
COMPONENT OF THE AMENDMENT
COMMENT
Building lots ... may be located ... in
No size standards (neither minimum nor
larger equestrian related agricultural PD's.
maximum) are provided The term "larger" is
highly subjective.
Building lots ... may be located ... in
No standards are provided Again, this is
larger equestrian related agricultural PD's.
highly subjective. While "equestrian related"
clearly means that horses should live on the
property, the amendment does not set any
standards, such as types of activities,
percentage of lots with horses, or the number or
density of horses, for these types of
Agricultural PDs.
These projects may contain other approved
Neither the type of animals, nor the approval
animals besides horses.
process is defined.
Because these components of the proposed amendment lack standards, they require interpretation.
The proposed amendment does not provide adequate guidance to make such an interpretation. For
this reason, the proposed amendment will render policy 5.8 extremely difficult to implement.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
As part of staffs analysis, each comprehensive plan amendment request is reviewed for consistency
with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the county code, the
"comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of
the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2) F.S. "
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan which identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development related decisions—including plan amendment decisions. While
all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing
plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability to this proposed amendment are the following
policies and objectives.
Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3
in evaluating any comprehensive plan text amendment request, the most important consideration is
Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that at least one of three criteria be met
in order to approve a comprehensive plan text amendment. These criteria are:
• a mistake in the approved plan;
• an oversight in the approved plan; or
• a substantial change in circumstances.
Staffs position is that the proposed amendment request does not meet any of the criteria of Future
Land Use Element Policy 14.3.
MAY 189 1999
-43— BOOK`' PA�c�
py
BOOK . �
As described previously in this staff report, when the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990, the
county determined that its preferred development pattern is one that is efficient and compact,
maintains the overall low density character of the community, and protects active agricultural
operations and private property rights without promoting suburban sprawl. At that time, the county
examined alternatives to implement that pattern, and policy 5.8 was developed through that process.
During the evaluation and appraisal process, the county reviewed policy 5.8, and determined that
it does protect active agricultural operations and private property rights without promoting suburban
sprawl. Therefore, there is no mistake or oversight associated with future land use element policy
5.8.
Finally, there have been no new developments or changes in circumstances that wan -ant an
amendment to future land use element policy 5.8. For these reasons, the proposed amendment does
not meet any of the criteria of future land use element policy 14.3 and is not consistent with future
land use element policy 14.3.
Future Land Use Element Goal and Objective 1
The goal of the future land use element and objective 1 of that element both emphasize the
importance of a controlled, orderly, compact and efficient land use pattern that efficiently uses public
facilities and services. Infill development is important for the creation of an efficient and compact
land use pattern. Such a land use pattern has the following advantages compared to one without
infill development:
• it can reduce traffic congestion;
• it is less expensive to serve with public services such as roads, utilities, schools, libraries,
emergency medical care, and police and fire protection;
• it works to preserve agricultural lands; and
• it works to preserve environmentally rare and important land.
In this case, the proposed amendment discourages and inhibits infill development of vacant
residentially designated land. That situation is due to market factors. Because residentially
designated land generally has a higher value than agriculturally designated land, it is economically
advantageous for a developer to buy less expensive agriculturally designated land and convert it to
residential development.
This request essentially proposes that the plan be amended to allow large lot residential subdivisions
on agricultural land outside the urban service area. While subdivisions of five -acre lots are an
inefficient land use regardless of whether or not they are located within the urban service area, they
are essentially a residential, not agricultural, use and are more appropriate within the urban service
area Such uses are currently permitted, and land is available, on residentially designated land within
the urban service area. By allowing large, evenly dispersed lots (as opposed to smaller, clustered
lots) with no provisions to preserve open space or agricultural uses outside the urban service area,
the proposed amendment discourages development of more expensive vacant residentially
designated land that is within the urban service area.
For those reasons, the proposed amendment does not encourage an efficient and compact land use
pattern and is not consistent with the goal of the future land use element or with objective 1 of that
element.
Future Land Use Element Objective 6 and Policies 1.9, 1.10, and 6.2
Policies 1.9 and 1.10 describe the purpose of the Agricultural land use designations, as well as where
they should be located, and which uses are allowed within them. Policy 1.9 states, "rhe Agricultural
Land Use categories will ensure the continuation of the agricultural industry, protect agricultural
lands from urban encroachment, and provide valuable green and open space." While objective 6 sets
an active agricultural retention target of 135,000 acres, policy 6.2 states, "ro protect and conserve
agriculturally designated lands, Indian River County shall maintain its development regulations
which control the division and development of agriculturally designated lands."
Agricultural uses need large tracts of land to be economically viable. By clustering residential
development and setting aside at least 800/a of a parcel for agricultural use and/or open space, the
existing policy 5.8 encourages the maintenance of tracts of land that are large enough to be farmed
in an economically viable manner. In this way, the existing policy encourages and protects
agricultural uses and is consistent with these policies and objective.
In contrast, the proposed amendment allows large parcels to be divided into tracts too small to be
fanned in an economically viable manner. Rather than protecting agricultural lands, the proposed
amendment would allow the conversion of agricultural land to residential "ranchettes".
MAY 189 1999
Additionally, policy 1.10 specifically states that policy 5.8 should require the clustering of residential
lots to limit the impact of development on agricultural lands. For these reasons, the proposed
amendment is not consistent with future land use element objective 6 and policies 1.9, 1.10 and 6.2.
Future Land Use Element Objective 3 and Policy 3.1
This objective and policy deal with maintaining an adopted level of service for the provision of
public services and infrastructure. The costs of providing such services are greatly influenced by
development patterns. Spread out, low-density development patterns generally increase the per unit
cost of providing public services, while more compact or clustered development patterns usually cost
less per unit to serve. Therefore, allowing more spread out development in agricultural areas, as
permitted by the proposed amendment, will have an adverse impact on the provision of services such
as roads, police and fire protection, emergency medical services, and others. For that reason, the
proposed amendment is not consistent with future land use element objective 3 and policy 3.1.
The proposed amendment is not consistent with the future land use element goal; objectives 1, 3 and
6; and policies 1.9, 1.10, 3.1, 6.2, and 14.3. It encourages the conversion of agricultural land to
residential uses, allows suburban sprawl, increases the costs of urban services, increases
compatibility problems, and is difficult to implement. Staff does not support the request.
Based on the analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny this request
to amend Future Land Use Element Policy 5.8.
Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the Comp Plan
amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners on this land use amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal
of this application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their
60 -day review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any
comments made by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan
by redesignating the land use. If the Board denies the transmittal of an application to the
DCA, the application process will come to an end.
Director Keating explained that Policy 5.8 limits lots to one acre in maximum size and
limits buildings to one per 5, 10 or 20 -acre parcel. This Policy also states that the buildings
must be clustered together to prevent urban sprawl. Clustering is done to protect open
spaces, to preserve agricultural uses, and to enhance compact development. The requested
amendment would (1) apply only to larger equestrian projects, (2) not restrict lot size to a
MAY 189 1999
-45- BOOK FP1`r
r 1
BOOK .tLdtr frltUt
maximum, (3) limit one acre of each lot to a buildable area, and (4) have no clustering
requirement. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended the amendment by a 5-2
vote to remove the clustering requirement and allow 5 acre lots with 1 -acre homesites. The
Professional Services Advisory Committee voted 6-1 to delete Policy 5.8. Staffbelieves that
Policy 5.8 tries to limit development to a low density/low rise community. 5 acres is too
small to farm and the Policy allows for conversion of agricultural lands to residential lands
as conditions change. Removing the clustering requirement would have a large impact on
public services and would increase the per-unit cost of providing roads, police and fire
protection, emergency services, and schools. Large lots will not integrate into the Urban
Service Area (USA) and will blur the urban/rural boundary. Staff does not believe the
requested amendment is consistent with the goal of the County's Future Land Use Plan and
does not support the request.
Commissioner Adams felt the request would not change the density or compatibility
of the project and would affect the tax base favorably with an increase in the value of the
land.
Director Keating conceded that the clustering requirement on a 20 or 40 -acre project
would be quite different from a 1200 -acre parcel and agreed that this amendment would only
relate to these much larger projects.
Commissioner Stanbridge questionedwhethertherequestwere site specific or county-
wide, and Director Keating responded that the change would be county -wide.
Chairman Macht questioned the definition of"equestrian" and wondered if potbellied
pigs would be entitled to the same amendment.
Director Keating agreed that the criteria are not well-defined and should be amended.
Commissioner Adams felt that the "equestrian" requirement should be stated in a deed
restriction, and not by County regulation.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Attorney Mchael O'Haire, representing the applicant, stated that he and the
applicant were both shocked when they were informed that a Comp Plan amendment would
be required for this project. He distributed a hand-out containing proposed language for the
amendment as follows:
MAY 189 1999
40 -46-
1
Larger (in excess of 120 acres) Equestrian Use Agricultural — Planned Developments shall
locate lots or primary residential building envelopes within the front (roadside) one-third of an
overall parcel size, with the balance of the parcel dedicated to equestrian accessory uses (pastures,
paddocks, barns, stables, help living quarters, etc.).
Clustered, in the case of Larger Equestrian Developments shall mean and allow primary
residential building envelopes or home sites located along access roadways with the overall parcel
abutting adjacent similar open parcels) to maximize open, equestrian uses.
Attorney O'Haire continued that a conscious decision has been made in this County
that high-rises are not the quality or look desired and the applicant believes that the proposal
is the most efficient use of the property. This project will be created for people who can
afford to live on 5, 10, or 20 -acre tracts. The developer of the project is the one who pays
for the infrastructure and those people who live in the high end of the real estate market
shoulder most of the tax burden in the County. Larger parcels of land pay higher taxes and
higher impact fees. He did not believe a Comp Plan amendment is required for this project
but merely a direction to staff with an interpretation of "clustering".
George Beuttell, 5000 16' Street, stated that he had developed an agricultural PD
and agreed with clustering on a roadway. He felt that staff is trying to jam everyone into a
certain spot and prohibit landowners from living on their own larger parcels. He believed
that the economics of agriculture determine whether or not the land will continue to be used
for agricultural purposes.
Commissioner Ginn questioned whether Mr. Beuttell had been required to obtain a
Comp Plan amendment when he developed an agricultural PD, and Mr. Beuttell responded
that he had not.
Discussion followed regarding "mom and pop" operations and small "start up"
agricultural endeavors.
Commissioner Tippin observed that his daughter is building a home on 10 acres near
Bradenton in a subdivision called "Panther Woods". This development is all broken into 5,
10 or 20 -acre parcels and most of the purchasers are young families. He also noted that
much less land is required today for farming due to pesticides and fertilizers.
Mr. Beuttell then noted that allowing larger parcels is really doing society a service
as there is much less stress involved when people live farther apart.
MAY 189 1999
-47- BOOK Fri F
Kid
i 4; 1 �i
BOOK o 9; �AGr -J ;
Peter Robinson, President of Laurel Homes, 315 Greytwig Road, and Chairman of
the PSAC, felt that "urban sprawl" is all in the eye of the beholder. He also noted that the
PSAC felt that Policy 5.8 negates Policy 5.4.
Bob Swift, 6450 Glendale Road, a member of the PSAC, commented that he lives on
6.5 acres and leases a portion of his property to Sunrise Apiary which has 1500 bee hives
on the property. This is an example of an active agricultural operation on a small tract of
land. Down the road from his property, Glendale Farms has a hydroponic operation on 8
acres. He also noted that in the past he has had to destroy one of his horses because he was
not able to keep her behind his house where he could have watched her and possibly
prevented some injury.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding this matter. There
being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Ginn questioned whether, under the present regulations, this project
would be accepted immediately adjacent to the USA, and County Attorney Vitunac
responded that it would not.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin,
SECONDED by Commissioner Adams that the
Board approve the request to amend Policy 5.8 as
proposed by the applicant.
CommissionerAdams commented thatthe clusteringrestrictions workedfine on a40 -
acre project but would not work nearly as well on a 100 -acre project with golf courses,
hiking trails, etc. She felt that filling in the middle is not the American way and is not what
was originally intended by the restrictions. She believed that either the policy should be
changed to allow this project or the interpretation of "clustering" should be amended. She
preferred altering the interpretation of the requirement.
Commissioner Stanbridge felt the policy should be re-examined.
Commissioner Ginn felt the discussion centered on a textual change to the
Comprehensive Plan, not a specific agricultural planned development, and stated that she
was committed to upholding the Comprehensive_ Plan. She felt this project would leapfrog
development of the urban service area. During the Evaluation and Appraisal process, these
MAY 189 1999
0
-48-
0
policies were reviewed and found to protect private property rights and limit urban sprawl.
She could not support the request and suggested the applicant might come back with a
specific project to consider.
Commissioner Adams suggested that larger subdivisions were not envisioned at the
time of the last review. She asked staff to bring back a projection of the tax base, cost of
services, etc. through 2020 by the end of this year. She also felt that more should be done
to support the agricultural and business community.
THE CHAULMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and
the Motion, amended to (1) re -interpret the
definition of "clustering" as follows: "Clustered, in
the case of Agricultural Planned Developments shall
mean and allow primary residential building
envelopes or home sites located within the front
of the property along access roadways with the
overall parcel abutting adjacent similar open
parcel(s) to maximize open uses", and to (2) deny
the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan,
passed by a 3-2 vote (Commissioners Ginn and
Stanbridge opposed).
11A PURCHASE OF UNINTERRUPTIBLE POWER SUPPLY
(LIPS) FOR E 9-1-1 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER FROM
MGE SYSTEMS (SNAPS [State Negotiated Agreement Price
Schedule] STATE CONTRACT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 10, 1999:
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
FROM: Doug Wright, Director
Emergency Services
DATE: May 10, 1999
SUBJECT: Purchase of an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) for the E9-1-1 Communications
Center
The Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) system for the E9-1-1 Communications Center was
purchased in 1987 and is in need of thirty (30) replacement batteries or replacement of the entire
MAY 189 1999
-49- BOOK F�gG�
BOOK i0o
system due to its age and potential for failure. The batteries have a normal service life of about three
years. The ones in our system are now five and one half years old and some have failed in the past
two months. Since the UPS system supports the CAD system and other components when a power
failure occurs until the generator comes on line, a UPS system failure could create major hardware
and software problems during this critical time period that would take days to restore.
Replacement of the existing 1987 vintage UPS system has been included in the E9-1-1 budget for
fiscal 1999-2000, however staff is recommending replacement of the system now based on the
following reasons:
• The current system is very expensive to maintain with an annual maintenance cost
Of $8,240, which increases annually at a rate of 5% or more.
• The vendor has informed staff that maintenance contracts will not be available within
two to three years due to unavailability of parts.
• A new system with improved technology is quoted at $27,877 under SNAPS state
contract pricing, which includes a two-year extended warranty. Preventive
maintenance would be an additional $1,012 for the first year.
• If the new system is purchased at this time rather than waiting until the new fiscal
year, the vendor has advised that the current maintenance contract would be pro rated
and the amount remaining (approximately $5,500) applied to the purchase of the new
equipment, for a net cost of $23,389.
• It would not be necessary to purchase the 30 batteries at an expense of $6,285.30
because batteries would be included with the new system.
• Additional savings would result during fiscal 1999-2000 and thereafter due to lower
maintenance costs for the new system.
• A new system would be much more reliable, operate more efficiently, and take up
much less space at the 9-1-1 Center than the existing 1987 vintage equipment
• Staff is advised that if new batteries are purchased, the batteries and battery cabinet
cannot be utilized with the new technology when a new UPS system is purchased.
The new UPS would normally be an expense from the 911 Surcharge revenue which is obtained
from a fifty cent surcharge on each phone line up to a maximum of twenty-five lines at a single
location. However, this account does not have sufficient funds available for the purchase of this
important and necessary public safety equipment that is essential to the operation of the 911'
Communications Center.
The alternative is to just purchase the 30 batteries at an expense of $6,285.30 and replace the other
components of the UPS system at a later date. However, the expense for the batteries and the partial
credit from the annual maintenance agreement of $8,240 would not be realized and the new batteries
and battery cabinet can not be utilized with the new technology in current UPS systems. Paying the
increasing annual maintenance agreement over a period of the next three years would be more than
the cost of a new UPS system. Stafffeels the funds would be better utilized for a new system in lieu
of paying maintenance expense and purchasing batteries that are included in the price of a new
system.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the purchase of a new UPS system from MGE Systems, Inc., at a price
of $27,877 (less funds from the annual maintenance agreement prorated) from the SNAPS State
Contract Agreement with funding from the General Fund Contingency since the 911 Surcharge
account does not have sufficient fiords available for this expense. It is estimated the net cost of the
UPS system will be approximately $23,389.
MAY 189 1999
-50-
Commissioner Ginn questioned " possible Y2K problems, and Director Wright
responded that no problems were anticipated.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the
Board unanimously approved the purchase of a new
UPS system from MGE Systems, Inc. at a price of
$27,877 (less funds from the annual maintenance
agreement prorated for a net cost of $23,389) from
the SNAPS State Contract Agreement, as
recommended by staff.
DOCUMENTS WILL BE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
H.C. RESOLUTION 99-046 - TERMINATING FOOD SERVICE
CONCESSION LICENSE AT COUNTY
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - TROGDEN WARUR�
(CLERK'S NOTE: THIS ITEM CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF MAY 11, 1999)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 10, 1999 and a letter of May 10, 1999:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Thomas Frame - Director of General Services
Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: May 10, 1999
SUBJECT: Termination of Food Service Concession License
The current licensee for the food service concession has failed on several
occasions to be open for service during work days. This random closing is
disruptive of employees' and visitors' plans to utilize the facility. This has been
made known to the current licensee but the random closings continue. n is
recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached
resolution which will terminate the license in accordance with the terms of the
license.
MAY 189 1999
•
-51- ' k
BUUK U FAG.
=:a jo
OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
° z INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
zt
• �`-'� c 1840 25th Street. Vern Beach, Florida 33960
—' Telephone.. (407) 567-8000. Ext. 424
Suncom: 324-1424
Far. (407) 770-5095
May 10, 1999
Mrs. Robin Trodgon
Licensee of County Food Service Concession
in County Administration Building
1840 25`" Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Mrs. Trodgon:
BOGKtr�u�
CNARL95 P. VITYNAC
Can,/ Alprnp
WILLIAM O. MUMS 11
D.Wrf Ce Py A" --y
T[RR/NC[ P. OWN"
Ant. Cants AnWMj
$MARCH ►N1UMS RRTNNAN
Art. Cants A".1—f
Under the terms of the license to use County property for a food concession in
the County Administration Building approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on January 3, 1995 and assigned to you, the food facility is to be
open on work days from 7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. This schedule has not been
followed by you. The facility is closed from time to time on a random basis which
creates an awkward situation for employees who come to work relying on the
facility to be open.
As recently as May 3. 1999 you informed the County's Director of General
Services that this random closing would cease. The Caf6 was again closed
without notice on May 5, 1999, and as I write this letter on May 10, 1999, you are
once against closed.
In accordance with your license agreement this letter constitutes the start of the
sixty-day notice to cancel provision. This matter will be brought before the Board
of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of May 11, 1999 for ratification.
Very trul yours,
T rrence P. O'Brien'
Assistant County Attorney
TPO/nhm
Approved:
4 (J. 0
Thomas Frame
Director of General Services
MAY 18, 1999
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously adopted Resolution 99-046 terminating
license for the food service concession in the County
Administration Building (Trogden/Barker).
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 4 6
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA,TERMINATING LICENSE FOR THE
FOOD SERVICE CONCESSION IN THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING.
WHEREAS, the County granted a license to Lillian M. Barker for a
food service concession, and
WHEREAS, said license required food service during work days
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., and
WHEREAS, through a series of assignments the current licensee is
Robin Trogdon, and
WHEREAS, the current licensee has failed to abide by the terms of
the license by being open as required by the license, and
WHEREAS, the current licensee has been warned on several
occasions about this breach.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1) The recitations set forth above are incorporated herein.
2) The license described above is terminated July 9, 1999.
3) The licensee shall vacate the premises by said termination date
and leave the premises in a clean, sanitary condition.
This Resolution was moved to adoption by Commissioner
Adams and the motion was seconded by Commissioner G nn
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman Aye
Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman Aye
Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Ruth Stanbridge Aye
John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared this resolution duly passed and
adopted this 18 day of May, 1999.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Jeftrev K. Barton, Cle By:
enneth R. Ma ht, Chai an
MAY 189 1999
-53-
•
BOCK 4,y .
BOOK
11.E. RESOLUTION 99-047 AUTHORIZING $18.000.000
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS - FINANCING
FOR ST. EDWARD'S SCHOOL, INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 12, 1999:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: May 12,1999
SUBJECT: $18,000,000 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS
FINANCING FOR SAINT EDWARD'S SCHOOL INCORPORATED
FROM: Joseph A.
OMB Dire
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Saint Edward's School, Inc. would like to issue tax exempt "Industrial Development Revenue
Bonds" in the amount of $18,000,000 for financing and refinancing of the acquisition, construction
and equipping of educational facilities in Indian River County, Florida.
Saint Edward's has completed the Industrial Development Revenue Bond application which has
been reviewed by staff and found to meet the requirements. They have paid the $1,000.00
application fee and understand that they will have to pay a County charge equal to .5% of the face
value of the bonds issued not to exceed $10,000.00.
In order for Saint Edward's School to issue the Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Indian
River county must approve an Inducement Resolution, Memorandum of Agreement and hold a
TEFRA (Tax Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act) public hearing. At this time, Saint Edward's is
requesting the Board of County commissioners approve the Inducement Resolution and
Memorandum of Agreement. The TEFRA public hearing will be held in the near future when the
final bond resolution is presented for approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve and have the Chairman sign the
Inducement Resolution and Memorandum of Agreement.
MAY 189 1999
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the
Board unanimously adopted Resolution 99-047
expressing the intent of Indian River County, Florida
to loan funds for the financing and refinancing of the
acquisition, construction, and equipping of
educational facilities in Indian River County,
Florida; providing for the lending of funds for such
purpose to Saint Edward's School, Incorporated or
its successors or assigns; providing for the issuance
of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds of the
County in an aggregate principal amount not to
exceed $18,000,000 for the purpose of making a
loan of funds to finance all or a portion of the cost of
such projects; authorizing the execution of a
Memorandum of Agreement pertaining to the
issuance of such bonds; and providing certain other
details with respect thereto.
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 4 7
A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE INTENT OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA TO LOAN FUNDS FOR THE FINANCING AND
REFINANCING OF THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND
EQUIPPING OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IN INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR THE LENDING OF FUNDS
FOR SUCH PURPOSE TO SAINT EDWARD'S SCHOOL,
INCORPORATED OR ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS; PROVIDING
FOR THE ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
REVENUE BONDS OF THE COUNTY IN AN AGGREGATE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $18,000,000 FOR THE
PURPOSE OF MAKING A LOAN OF FUNDS TO FINANCE ALL OR
A PORTION OF THE COST OF SUCH PROJECTS; AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
PERTAINING TO THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH BONDS; AND
PROVIDING CERTAIN OTHER DETAILS WITH RESPECT
THERETO.
BE IT RESOLVED by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
(the "Board') of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
MAY 189 1999
X55- BOOK F"� =� a
800K 109 F,�GE�JJJ
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to
the provisions of Part II of Chapter 159, Florida Statutes, Chapter 125, Florida
Statutes, and other applicable provisions of law.
SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS.
A. "Act" means Part II of Chapter 159, Florida Statutes, Chapter
125, Florida Statutes, and other applicable provisions of law.
B. "Bonds" or "Bond" means the proposed Indian River County,
Florida, Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (Saint Edward's School,
Incorporated Project), Series 1999, to be issued in an aggregate principal amount
not exceeding $18,000,000 to be authorized by subsequent resolution of the Issuer
pursuant to the Act and in accordance with the terms, conditions and limitations
contained in such resolution.
C. "Borrower" means Saint Edward's School, Incorporated, a
Florida not-for-profit corporation, and its successors or assigns who have been
approved by the Issuer.
Board. D. "Chairman" means the Chairman or the Vice Chairman of the
E. "Issuer" means Indian River County, Florida, a political
subdivision of the State.
F. "Projects" means the financing or refinancing of the acquisition,
construction, and equipping on the Project Site of capital projects consisting of
educational facilities, including refinancing existing loans which financed the
construction of a portion of such educational facilities, including construction of a
new middle school and construction or renovation of upper school classrooms, fine
arts complex, athletic building, administrative building and site improvements.
G. "Project Site" means the tract of land located in Indian River
County, Florida, on which the Projects will be, or have been, constructed, renovated
and equipped.
of the Board. H. "Clerk" means the Clerk of the Circuit Court and ex -officio Clerk
I. "State" means the State of Florida.
SECTION 3. PROPOSAL. The Borrower has requested that the
Issuer issue its revenue bonds under the Act in an aggregate principal amount not
exceeding $18,000,000 for the purpose of financing or refinancing all or part of the
cost of the Projects, which amounts the Borrower has represented will, together
with other available funds of the Borrower, be sufficient to pay all of the cost of
financing or refinancing the Projects, such Bonds to be secured under the terms of a
loan agreement between the Issuer and the Borrower in an amount sufficient to pay
the principal of and interest on such Bonds as the same become due and payable.
SECTION 4. FINDINGS. The Issuer hereby finds, determines and
declares as follows:
A. The Issuer is authorized and empowered by the Act to
enter into transactions such as those contemplated by the Borrower,
and to fully perform the obligations of the Issuer to be undertaken in
connection with the financing or refinancing of the Projects, which
shall promote the industrial economy of the Issuer and the State,
increase opportunities for gainful employment and purchasing power
and improve living conditions, increase educational opportunities and
otherwise contribute to the prosperity and welfare of the Issuer, the
State and the inhabitants thereof,
B. Based solely upon the representations of the Borrower
with respect to the Projects, the Projects are "educational facilities,"
and "projects" within the meaning and contemplation of the Act.
MAY 189 1999
-56-
• 0
•
C. The Borrower has requested that the Issuer issue Bonds
in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $18,000,000 to finance
or refinance the acquisition, construction, renovation and equipping of
the Projects. The Bonds shall be paid solely from the repayment of a
loan of the bond proceeds from the Issuer to the Borrower and other
collateral security provided by the Borrower.
D. Based solely upon the representations of the Borrower
with respect to the Projects, the availability of financing by means of
industrial development revenue bonds is an important inducement to
the Borrower to proceed with the financing and refinancing of
acquisition, construction, renovation and equipping of the Projects.
E. The Bonds shall not be deemed to constitute a debt,
liability or obligation, or a pledge of the faith and credit or taxing
power, of the Issuer, or the State of Florida or any political subdivision
thereof, but the Bonds shall be payable solely from the revenues and
proceeds to be derived by the Issuer from payments received under the
financing agreements entered into between the Issuer and the
Borrower.
SECTION b. DETERMINATION. If, upon further investigation of the
Borrower and its proposal, the Issuer is able to find:
A. That the Issuer, the Borrower and the proposed purchaser
of the Bonds have executed or will concurrently with the issuance of
the Bonds execute the documentation required for the financing of the
Projects as contemplated hereby;
B. That adequate provision has been made in the documents
for the operation, repair and maintenance of the Projects at the
expense of the Borrower and for the payment of the principal of,
premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds and reserves, if any,
therefor;
C. That the interest on the Bonds will be excluded from gross
income for federal income tax purposes under existing laws. of the
United States;
D. That, based on the criteria established by the Act, the
Borrower is financially responsible and fully capable of and willing to
fulfill all of its obligations under the terms and provisions of the loan
agreement to be negotiated between the parties, under which the
Borrower will be obligated, among other things, to pay amounts
sufficient to timely discharge the debt service on the Bonds, and to
operate, repair and maintain the Projects at the Borrower's expense;
E. That any other requirements, determinations and conditions
that the Issuer may reasonably require in connection with the financing have
been satisfied;
then the Issuer shall, and by passage of this Resolution hereby agrees to, issue
Bonds to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, renovation and
equipping of the Projects in accordance with the provisions and authority of the Act
and this Resolution. The principal amount, terms of maturity, interest rate and.
other details of the Bonds will be determined by the Borrower and the Issuer and
subsequently adopted by resolution of the Issuer.
SECTION 6. AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE. The Chairman and
the Clerk of the Issuer are authorized in the name and on behalf of the Issuer
pursuant to this Resolution to execute and deliver a Memorandum of Agreement
(the "Memorandum of Agreement") of even date herewith between the Borrower and
the Issuer in substantially the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A," with
such changes as the officers signing such documents may approve, the execution
thereof to be conclusive evidence of such approval. Any action taken by the
Borrower in furtherance of the acquisition, construction, renovation and equipping
of the Project is hereby ratified, confirmed and approved. The officers executing
such Memorandum of Agreement are further authorized to do all acts which may be
required or may be advisable with respect thereto.
MAY 189 1999
•
-57- BOOK 109
� 1
BOOK iogft1 d�
The Chairman and the Clerk of the Issuer are further authorized to
take such further action and execute such further instruments as may be necessary
to fully effectuate the purpose and intention of the Memorandum of Agreement, and
this Resolution.
SECTION 7. LIMITED OBLIGATIONS. The Bonds and the interest
thereon shall not constitute an indebtedness or pledge of the general credit or
taxing power of the Issuer, the State of Florida or any political subdivision or
agency thereof but shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged therefor
pursuant to a loan agreement or other financing agreement entered into by and
between the Issuer and the Borrower prior to or contemporaneously with the
issuance of the Bonds.
SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall take effect
immediately upon its adoption.
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
i
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of May 1999.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
By:
C ' an, Board of County
.
Commissioners
Kenneth R. Macht
�Li_nc-in &W Ca I A;r"ov0a tJu;,s
Adrmn I la 9
Lal
iRI sr, ie4nr. I —
11.G.1. BOAT LAUNCHING FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FOR
DONALD MACDONALD PARK - SINGLE -SOURCE VENDOR -
RANDALL G. TEDDER D/B/A TEDDER BOAT RAMP SYSTEM
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 16, 1998:
TO:
James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH:
James W. Davis, P.Eie:�
Public Works Directo
Terry B. Thompson,
Capital Projects Manager
FROM:
James E. "Chip° Boy e
Engineering Technician
SUBJECT:
Single Source Vendor f r Boat Launching Facilities
Replacement for Donald MacDonald Park
MAY 18, 1999
-58-
•
•
DATE: November 16, 1998
The Capital Projects Division of Public Works is asking for Board Approval for a single
source vendor/contractor to replace boat launching facilities at Donald MacDonald Park
Existing launching facility has exposed rebar, broken concrete, the ramp is too short, and
in general disrepair.
The Tedder Boat Ramp System is a unique system that requires no dewatering, lowering
the cost of the project The launching facility is in place in 7 -10 working days, being less
of an inconvenience to the public. This product has a national copyright and trademark
issued by the U.S. Patent Office.
Randall G. Tedder Construction, Inc. has been used as a single source vendor by
Department of Environmental Protection.
The cost of the new ramp is $34,615.00. The dock is estimated to cost less than
$5,000.00 and will be bid separately. We have a grant in the amount of $80,000.00 from
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Special Waterway Projects Grant.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Board approve the Single Source Contractor. The grant
requires no matching funds.
Commissioner Adams commended staff for their work on this project.
MAY 189 1999
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board
unanimously approved the single -source vendor,
Randall G. Tedder d/b/a Tedder Boat Ramp System,
as recommended by staff.
-59- BOOP; J f' F'>V-
11.G.2. PAUL C. AND JOYCE M. REDSTONE - COUNTY
PROJECT #9601- 43" AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS - 8TH STREET
TO 26TH STREET - RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - PARCEL NO.
146
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 5, 1999:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
Terry B. Thompson, P.E.
.Capital Projects Managers
FROM: William M. Napier, SRPA, SRA A%N
Right -of -Way Agent
SUBJECT: Right -of Way Acquisition/County Project No. 9601
47d Avenue Improvements/11th Street to 261" Street
Parcel No. 146 - Paul C. & Joyce M. Redstone
DATE: May 5, 1999
Additional right-of-way totaling 3,950 square feet is needed along the east side of 43rd
Avenue in conjunction with the 431d Avenue Improvements Project. The owners have
executed a contract at a purchase price of $1.00 per square foot for the RS -6 zoned
land. This price per square foot is comparable to other similar RS -0 parcels the County
has purchased within the market area based upon appraisals or evaluations.
The contract price is $7,900.00 which includes land of $3,950.00 ($1.00 per square foot)
and an additional $3,950.00 in compensation for trees, brick columns, and other
improvements within the proposed right-of-way which will be removed. In addition, the
County will be providing a viburnum suspensum hedge along the 4V Avenue side as part
of the Uniform Landscape Plan for 43'd Avenue. There are no appraisal or attorney fees.
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the $7,900.00 right-of-
way purchase, and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract.
Funding is from Account #315-214-541-066.12
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the $7,900 right-of-way
purchase from Paul C. and Joyce M. Redstone, as
recommended by stafE
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
MAY 189 1999
0 -60-
11.G.3. INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE - REQUEST
FOR WESTERLY EXTENSION TO COLLEGE LANE IN LIEU OF
SECOND STORMWATER POND - RICHARDSON CENTER
BUILDING
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 11, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Request by Indian River Community College (IRCC) for Westerly
Extension to College Lane
REF. LETTERS Dr. Edwin R. Massey, President of IRCC to Jim Davis dated
April 26, 1999
DATE: May 11, 1999
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Prior to construction commencing on the Kings Highway Widening and
College Lane projects, the County and IRCC entered into an
agreement for the construction of two stormwater/borrow pit ponds
on IRCC property. One pond has been constructed for County
Stormwater needs, however, due to unsuitable soil conditions in the
area, construction of the second pond for project fill and IRCC
stormwater needs is undesirable and has been eliminated from the
contract by the County. By deleting the pond, the County has
deleted $89,700 from County obligations under the County/IRCC
agreement.
At this time, IRCC has acquired the approximately 100 acre Bayer
property west of the original campus and is planning to construct
a new business development training and conference center to be
called The Richardson Center Building. It will be located
southwest of the current terminus of College Lane. The Community
College is requesting that the County fund the extension of College
Lane to serve the new building as a substitute improvement to
constructing the second stormwater pond included in the County/IRCC
agreement.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Under the current County/IRCC agreement, IRCC is owed a comparable
improvement to the second stormwater pond. The alternatives
presented are as follows:
Alternative No. 1
Approve allocating not -to -exceed $89,700 from the
Secondary Road Improvement Fund (Fund 109) for
construction of a south-westerly extension of College
Lane to the proposed Richardson Center Building.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the IRCC request.
MAY 189 1999
-61- F�q;t x f
EOOK
BOOK F�q�t9
RECObIITDATION3 AND FIIBiDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby the County would fund
not -to -exceed $89,700 from Fund 109 (Gas Tax Revenue) for the
south-westerly extension of College Lane. The County staff would
review and approve all costs.
ONMOTIONby Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved allocating not -to -exceed $89,700 from
Secondary Road Improvement Fund 109 for
construction of a southwesterly extension of College
Lane to the proposed Richardson Center Building, as
recommended by staff.
11.GA FLEET MANAGEMENT COMPLEX PROPERTY
ACQUISITION - ANNETTE ROBERTS, TRUSTEE - JOINT
VENTURE WITH SCHOOL DISTRICT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 5, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Fleet Management Complex Property Acquisition -
County/School District Joint Venture
DATE: May 5, 1999
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Last March, the Board approved an Option Agreement for the purchase
of a ±25 acre Parcel on South Gifford Road for a joint
County/School District Fleet Management Complex, Fueling Depot, and
Bus Storage area. Page six of the Option Agreement contained
paragraph 30 "Shared Cost," which stated that "the Option shall not
be considered executed by the purchaser until approval by the
School Board." Page seven of the option contains a signature block
for the School Board, and Page eight includes a notarized
acknowledgment for the School Board.
On April 27, 1999, the School Board approved purchasing a portion
of the property from the County, but the School Board attorney did
not recommend that the School Board sign the Option due to alleged
title and estate problems. The Realtor for the seller has
indicated that the alleged estate problems will be resolved. The
Option Agreement requires any title defects be resolved prior to
closing. Eric Barkett, Attorney for the seller, has spoken with
Russ Peterson, School Board Attorney, and it appears that the
issues are resolved. Attorney Peterson has prepared language
attached herewith which clarifies the School District's position.
MAY 189 1999
-62-
•
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The following alternatives are presented:
Alternative No. 1
Revise Paragraph 30 , Page 6 of the Original Option
Agreement to contain the School District's language. If
approved by the Board, this revision would be presented
to the seller for concurrence. Proceed to complete the
Option terms as required. In addition, approve the
attached interlocal agreement with the School District
which provides for the School District purchasing a
portion of the 25 acre site and establishes a Joint
County/School District Facility Committee to coordinate
the work.
Alternative No. 2
Declare the Option to be void since the School District
will not execute it.
RECOMMDATIONS AND FUNDING
Alternative No. 1 is recommended. Funding to be from 1C Local
Option Sales Tax.
Commissioner Grin questioned whetherthe Countyhas an agreementwiththe School
Board, and Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that he had spoken with the School
Board's attorney who has approved the Interlocal Agreement which establishes that the
School Board will purchase a portion of the land from the County if the County closes on
the property.
Commissioner Adams felt the County would be stuck with the School Board's extra
15 acres should they decide they did not want to participate.
Commissioner Ginn then questioned whether the title defect would be cured, and
Director Davis responded that the problem would be resolved to the County Attorney's
satisfaction prior to closing.
County Attorney Vitunac noted in Paragraph 2 of the Interlocal Agreement "It is the
intent" should read "The School District shall purchase a minimum of 15 acres". There
should also be added the language that "they shall do so by 12/31/2000".
MAY 18,1999
-63-
•
BOOK PAGE o
BOOR
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board, by
a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Adams opposed)
approved: (i) revising Paragraph 30, Page 6 of the
Original Option Agreement to contain the School
District's language, then to be presented to the seller
for concurrence; (ii) proceeding to complete the
option terms as required; and (iii) the Interlocal
Agreement with the School District which provides
for the School District to purchase a portion of the
25 -acre site and establishes a Joint County/School
District Facility Committee to coordinate the work,
as corrected by County Attorney Vitunac, all as
recommended by staff.
DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO TBE BOARD
13.A.1. CHAIRMAN KENNETH & MRCHT - EMERGENCY
ORDINANCE 99-015 ESTABLISHING AN AMENDED
EFFECTIVE DATE OF OCTOBER 1, 1999 FOR
REGULATIONS GOVERNING ALARMS RESPONDED
TO BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY - (AMENDS ORDINANCE 99-010)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 11, 1999 and a letter of April 28, 1999,
with attachments:
TO: Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attorney
DATE: May 11, 1999
SUBJECT: False Alarms Ordinances
The County, at the request of the Sheriff, adopted Ordinances 99-10 which regulates
law enforcement responses to alarms.
MAY 189 1999
The Sheriff's Office through the False Alarms Reduction Administrator, Ron Kramer,
(569-6700, ext. 266) administers this ordinance which becomes effective June 1, 1999.
In the administration of the ordinance the Sheriff has issued an "Information
Brochure" which apparently was mailed to alarm users by form letter dated April 28,
1999.
You have received an inquiry concerning a portion of the brochure which reads as
follows:
In an effort to reduce the false alarms, your alarm company is required, by
law, to take cert -;n proactive measures.
x x x
3. Your alarm company must not request a police dispatch activation until the
alarm system is properly registered
The ordinance provides "no alarm user shall operate or cause to be operated, an alarm
system at it's alarm site without a valid alarm permit...." Therefore, if an alarm
company or user has failed for some reason to have the system properly registered and
an alarm is received it would appear prudent and consistent with the ordinance to have
the law enforcement agency respond to the alarm and then fine the guilty parry rather
than prohibit the alarm company from requesting police dispatch.
A copy of the information is returned with this memorandum.
TPO/sw
Enclosure
1
�tjeriff
GARY C. WHEELER • i:VD1.A. RIVER COU'77r'
...-.: t c: A./E%J= Y'ePC 9EACn -'.ORIOA 32960•16n6 PIfONE (56'` Sc?•8'-.
April 28, 1999
Dear Alar User.
On March 23, 1999, the Indian River Board of County Commissioners voted and
passed the Indian !liver County False Alar Reduction Ordinance. This is currently
Part II of Indian River County Code Chapter 301. The ordinance shall take effect on
Jun: 1, 1999.
Indian River County residents having an alar system monitored or not; must apply and
display an alar sticker. An annual fee of $30.00 must be submitted along with the
completed application. Failure to apply and or display the alar sticker may result in
fines.
If you hayo-w.y questions concerning the application or your eligibility. please contact
the Fa!sd Al6rm Reduction Staff at 569-6700 ext 266.
Ron Kramer, CPP/CPO
Faise Alarm Reduction Administrator
;a
The 173rd Intrrnati:.nallil \ccnditrd l.rw Enforer..ent Asenc%
.accredited b% the Commi...ion on Ila-mlit:uion :or 1 ;tai knCurcwmehtt.1_encies. Irteurpitrated
MAY 189 1999
-65- BOOK FADE
FINES & FEES
Below are tines chargable to aim usersioompanlas for
law enforcement ent response a latae alarm activations.
Fllea apply ONLY B file SNOWS 010cs Is dispoldred•
srdves on file locallon and file alarm signal to false.
fAq Alw" isms
FNpAWraIll""Fl ISY12w M&@ NOFIN
NUAlimsiOFM
hbOftImO U WAMNaft itage'
Febetuixua pcld,sd w1a.elbeq Ureas"
i/rireAirmnlrpek1122 wmeg"Wks
It"cleaft. III
FNW"io wa kdrmaimbraeelpumarson
90MV7IpMuUdio$fawd, iV7.00
3161111111111111111 Wer Argidweed1bekNdnaI-genmjwnst"
erWu
Will may pals h edd*mil firm nP [now Mlsiq I=00.
'Fkn•x 1 t s M fda AlwmAwmawn a&od
•'FM fid MANMUIRY eOweWrn at r,Ywd
AnrW Ne ler A1wm Pwea
For 1111111001111111 Inlormallon concerning the Indian rover
County False Alar Ordinance contact;
Indian River County shwure office
False Alarm Reduction Office
4055 4191 Avenue
Vero Beach, FL.. 72250
Admudsbator, pepuly Rrin lQamar• CPP/CPO
551-5119-8700 ext 260
IIOW T1 IE ORDINANCE WORKS
A %Alan 1'erfomlance Ileview may be required by
Ilse rARt) Adminlskalor.and Involves Ole alarm
10.01 a11111IN IIIA alarm ucedlorlog company to
Prnsrne Prrgler allocation and stggross false
alanna
Ilia InOan River county Shanrs Glum would
Prefer that every alarm tow expo act, Iwo We
alarms. llowever, Ole slam 01001= dace
pr0vk18 for We 'bee' 10126 slams In a colander
Yea'. On Ole third false alarm In a Ialandar year.
Inn alarm "ser will be tiled :180.00. This One
may be waived by allan ing a False Alarm
Awareness Class. False alarm dispatch number
Ira raPdres a marrlalory attendance False Alarm
Awareness School will a One of S178.00. False
aidnn mamba live is a Me of $250.00 and
revocation of Permll. Any subse tuaM dispalches
may inchmde Mee up Ir SSM.Og,
Y10u "ll" ha considered In violator, of pre
t h linanca it yam tat Im.
16915106 your alarm system;
renew your annual registration;
Pay Intposed false alar Ones, or
operaling a suspended or revoked
penial.
pay bllPosad lalse alarm ones.
Provide false inlrrmatInn on this
reglsballen;
I'll" alarm Company or alarm user may appeal no
duclskrl of the Alaint Administrator to the Alam
ROAM Rowd by filing a wrilien requasl lax a
reclew to the Sheriff walling lodh the lessors for
Itlu appeal v4tbl, I mnly (20) cays liner hecalpl of
1118 notice if= the Hann Admbdsbalor. An alarm
la-tiness may also submit The requeel for review
ns behalf of an alarm,ser. .
MAY 1891999
0 -66-
INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY FALSE
ALARM ORDINANCE
Information Brochure
Indian River County Sheriff's
False Alarm Reduction Offl,�^
FARO
Gary C. Wheeler, Sherill
BACKGROUND
II to Indian River County Sherlirs Deputies respond to
I
ver 10,000 alarms each year. False Naas legislation
was adopted because of concerns over officer solely
and In Pllndnals the ndsuse of law enforcelnenl
rPsrnnrCOs, wldGl w!"ates Ie six lull lima depulys per
year Ihdorurfed alar caps reduce the Shanrs
c nfil n s ellocilvaless and hnuierminea our ability to
IPsmunrll In nuns critical ,•ails.
I'AI SE ALARM REDUCTION OFFICE
[I,'- I also Alam Iiedurillsn Ounce, (FARO), of Ole
bnli:a Inver ClnOdy Sledlrs Olfiee was cleated to
:Pbn! deter 010 (,•Cody's Alarm Ordinance. The
t 11Ib11ance. 09 10• allows lor Ole Issuance of permits,
uslahlishes 1004. peovides irenallles for vidanons.
establishes a system of admWsbaton, and sets
I olhhbnnrs Idr suspension or loss of pamdts.
Ilan 'AIIO*s nlaln Itn'0011 Is to educate and
annnaage alarm users and alarm buslnsssos to
nl.lbd cul Urs ePmladlmai latabL'Hy of alarms by proper
as'• ul ,dam, sysienns and to reduce or eliminate false
,b .paint ler•,Ilesls.
WHAT IS A FALSE ALARM?
I Ise lapse alarm ordinance defines a (also alar as
"Ir . ataon�iaa?tLtIIsI clicitr a ra0nnrc br law
fri101afnlf(LLPtpaallri and which Ihrre la tie erl�ence
nI..SILI110dACAiYfILIeinrtib a tan enforcement
I(IPsnlr'. This simply means Thal if a law
Pnlorcehnunl oltiar resprmds to an alarm signal and,
alter InvesllgaluCm (Tres no evidence that criminal
ad!vily e1111er had occulted or was ocpudng, the
Offir 1 will designate 018 alarm signal as a (also alarm.
!acre alarm may he caused by factors such as
Innarm ebur or equipment malfunction.
II an alarm dispalrb Is canceled by the edann company
Im.n 110 1119 time Ilia losprrhding officer readies the
i11. rrr sea, It shill not be considered a false alarm
digl•akh
87000
Alrwr Nw'e16y'
13000
4I You we'4lse slam' be rrs
meyrw.rwnatlandsadb
/1200
AW1Y6raCar�pWfn
5100.0041100(pwuYi.
AWmTrwC_=Pewow+wAea
$3000
iWeAtemAnwwwnedrent
InAll
For 1111111001111111 Inlormallon concerning the Indian rover
County False Alar Ordinance contact;
Indian River County shwure office
False Alarm Reduction Office
4055 4191 Avenue
Vero Beach, FL.. 72250
Admudsbator, pepuly Rrin lQamar• CPP/CPO
551-5119-8700 ext 260
IIOW T1 IE ORDINANCE WORKS
A %Alan 1'erfomlance Ileview may be required by
Ilse rARt) Adminlskalor.and Involves Ole alarm
10.01 a11111IN IIIA alarm ucedlorlog company to
Prnsrne Prrgler allocation and stggross false
alanna
Ilia InOan River county Shanrs Glum would
Prefer that every alarm tow expo act, Iwo We
alarms. llowever, Ole slam 01001= dace
pr0vk18 for We 'bee' 10126 slams In a colander
Yea'. On Ole third false alarm In a Ialandar year.
Inn alarm "ser will be tiled :180.00. This One
may be waived by allan ing a False Alarm
Awareness Class. False alarm dispatch number
Ira raPdres a marrlalory attendance False Alarm
Awareness School will a One of S178.00. False
aidnn mamba live is a Me of $250.00 and
revocation of Permll. Any subse tuaM dispalches
may inchmde Mee up Ir SSM.Og,
Y10u "ll" ha considered In violator, of pre
t h linanca it yam tat Im.
16915106 your alarm system;
renew your annual registration;
Pay Intposed false alar Ones, or
operaling a suspended or revoked
penial.
pay bllPosad lalse alarm ones.
Provide false inlrrmatInn on this
reglsballen;
I'll" alarm Company or alarm user may appeal no
duclskrl of the Alaint Administrator to the Alam
ROAM Rowd by filing a wrilien requasl lax a
reclew to the Sheriff walling lodh the lessors for
Itlu appeal v4tbl, I mnly (20) cays liner hecalpl of
1118 notice if= the Hann Admbdsbalor. An alarm
la-tiness may also submit The requeel for review
ns behalf of an alarm,ser. .
MAY 1891999
0 -66-
INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY FALSE
ALARM ORDINANCE
Information Brochure
Indian River County Sheriff's
False Alarm Reduction Offl,�^
FARO
Gary C. Wheeler, Sherill
BACKGROUND
II to Indian River County Sherlirs Deputies respond to
I
ver 10,000 alarms each year. False Naas legislation
was adopted because of concerns over officer solely
and In Pllndnals the ndsuse of law enforcelnenl
rPsrnnrCOs, wldGl w!"ates Ie six lull lima depulys per
year Ihdorurfed alar caps reduce the Shanrs
c nfil n s ellocilvaless and hnuierminea our ability to
IPsmunrll In nuns critical ,•ails.
I'AI SE ALARM REDUCTION OFFICE
[I,'- I also Alam Iiedurillsn Ounce, (FARO), of Ole
bnli:a Inver ClnOdy Sledlrs Olfiee was cleated to
:Pbn! deter 010 (,•Cody's Alarm Ordinance. The
t 11Ib11ance. 09 10• allows lor Ole Issuance of permits,
uslahlishes 1004. peovides irenallles for vidanons.
establishes a system of admWsbaton, and sets
I olhhbnnrs Idr suspension or loss of pamdts.
Ilan 'AIIO*s nlaln Itn'0011 Is to educate and
annnaage alarm users and alarm buslnsssos to
nl.lbd cul Urs ePmladlmai latabL'Hy of alarms by proper
as'• ul ,dam, sysienns and to reduce or eliminate false
,b .paint ler•,Ilesls.
WHAT IS A FALSE ALARM?
I Ise lapse alarm ordinance defines a (also alar as
"Ir . ataon�iaa?tLtIIsI clicitr a ra0nnrc br law
fri101afnlf(LLPtpaallri and which Ihrre la tie erl�ence
nI..SILI110dACAiYfILIeinrtib a tan enforcement
I(IPsnlr'. This simply means Thal if a law
Pnlorcehnunl oltiar resprmds to an alarm signal and,
alter InvesllgaluCm (Tres no evidence that criminal
ad!vily e1111er had occulted or was ocpudng, the
Offir 1 will designate 018 alarm signal as a (also alarm.
!acre alarm may he caused by factors such as
Innarm ebur or equipment malfunction.
II an alarm dispalrb Is canceled by the edann company
Im.n 110 1119 time Ilia losprrhding officer readies the
i11. rrr sea, It shill not be considered a false alarm
digl•akh
ALARM USER REGISTRATION
WHAT YOUR ALARM COMPANY
SHOULD DO FOR YOU.
r Every burglaralarm met be reglslered Will
the Indian River County Shedfra FARO
In an effort to reduce His false alarms, your alaun
BEFORE lite system Is placed Into service.
company Is requited, by law, to lake ceilaln ptnacave
Registration does NOT apply to elther His or
measures.
emergency medical alarm systems.
1. You; alatintmonllairng company must allengd
• It Is your slernJmadloring company's
to verily every alarm signal, except duress ra
respomibitily, to provide you wit burglar
hold-up. BEFORE requesting law enlorenronl
alarm registration Information at the tiles of
dlspaict.
sale or Installation of your alarm system.
Every almmhnordtodng company that
2. II its delemdried that an alarm signal Is false
aatdhadsbusiness wtdhkhlndlimRiver County
you ala11Nmtnitoiltng company MIISI
must be licans Wi and provide their license
hmnedlately, attempt to Gnarl the writ n
number said your registration Information to
dispahli. PolloLYitir Pimin rqr npeny tell
the FARO Administrator when requesting a
yPlLlllAl�hlti�illlLLLt!!.lfi!!!!, You r.trn..l
paimil for scivaion.
personally cancel a police dispalch unlr�t Vim
Itmaled the call.
• It you do not have an slamilmonlloring
company. you must obtain registration
3. Your alarm company must ant taq:tu .t a
Information directly from the FARO.
police dispatch to an alae» artMil o uu1t1 the
alarm system Is pwpedy ntgisleted
• A registration lee of $30.00 runt accompany
each application form. A separate
4. When you have a new aianu system hslalte i
registration must be obtained lar each alarm
In your home at business. your 81.19111 u9111411sr
user sector location.
runt provkle you wish a txsnpleled and stilowl
Instaiaion Ceil icals. T his Cetlifi• ale vil uaa
• II you chanps, matt g address or contact
Thal:
Information; or maks changes that aliens this
alglml permit Information; you mel submil
■ the system nteels w u-. weds
than campss In willing to the FARO wttidn
Instaiatttm slawlai,ls
e days of this change.
1tr•
■ all persons tespnmsihie tut 11-i-
0You odor your alarm company awl notify
operation of hue sysirm have I urn
the FARO Wilda 15 days when Owe N a
hilly trained In Its liml,et use. a-1
lake -aver In ownership or a new Installation.
■ the alarm business has explanted
the rettakwarmis fix rttglahatirnt awl
• Residents of go Cities of Vero Beaeh;
has conipleled/pmvlded Ile atat:u
Sebastian; Man River Shores and On Town
user win a copy of Ilia tagla+r.dlnn
of Feiemnrs, we exempt from the
form
provisions of Oda ordinance.
MAY 189 1999
BOOK,
F�{Gr
-67-
BOOK 10 9 P,�Gc 1151 -3
Discussion ensued regarding the regulations as set forth in the brochure, some of
which contradicted the understandings of the Board.
Commissioner Adams noted that many telephone calls in opposition to the ordinance
have been received, making it clear that users were not aware of the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board
unanimously agreed to hold a second public hearing
and adopted Ordinance 99-015 establishing an
amended effective date of October 1, 1999 for
regulations governing alarms responded to by law
enforcement agencies in Indian River County.
ORDINANCE 99 - _L5
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING AN
AMENDED EFFECTIVE DATE OF OCTOBER 1,
1999 FOR REGULATIONS GOVERNING ALARMS
RESPONDED TO BY LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
WHEREAS, up to 99 percent of alarm signals are false alarm signals; and
WHEREAS, responding to these false alarms is a waste of manpower, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 99-
10 to regulate false alarms with an effective date of June 1,1999; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has received many inquiries
concerning the operation of the ordinance and it appears that additional time is
necessary to get further public in put,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, that:
SECTION 1. EMERGENCY.
The information set forth in the "Whereas" clauses is adopted and incorporated
herein and the imminent effective date of June 1, 1999 constitutes an emergency.
SECTION 2. AMENDMENT,
1999.
MAY 189 1999
The effective date for Ordinance No. 99-10 is hereby amended to October 1,
-68-
O
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, or any 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 of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been
the legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or
inoperative part.
A certified copy of this ordinance, as enacted, shall be filed by the Clerk with
the Office of the Secretary of State of the state of Florida within ten days after
enactment, and this ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, on this 18' day of May, 1999.
This ordinance was not advertised for a public hearing but was passed as an
emergency ordinance on May 18, 1999 at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Adams, seconded by Commissioner Tippin, and adopted by the
following vote:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice Chairman Fran Adams Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this
18`h day of May, 1999.
Attest:
Jeffr on, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
/TZenneth R. Micht, Chairman
� r?
Effective date: This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on day of
, 1999 and became effective that date.
MAY 189 1999
1*1
corm Rhe U Approved Dale
Admin
Legal
Budget
Dept
Rlsk Mgr.
BOOK
•
r 1
BOOK
13.A.2. CHAIRMAN KENNETH R MRCHT - COMMENTS
REGARDING RECENT RELAY FOR LIFE CANCER
FUND RAISER
Chairman Macht stated that this event was an amazing mixture of sadness and fun.
He and City of Vero Beach Mayor Art Neuberger were judges for the competitions which
were very humorous. They received several bribes and were sent to jail to be bailed out. He
was charged with unlawful receipt of fire department equipment. Mayor Neuberger was
charged with unlawful association with Mr. Zorc. The serious and unfunny part of the
ceremony was viewing of the luminaries, each dedicated to the memory of someone lost to
cancer, including his own dear late wife. The luminaries went entirely around the inner
circle at the Citrus Bowl and almost entirely around the outer circle. He felt that next year
more should be done to support this event and asked for an interim report on the study being
conducted by the Health Department on the incidence of various cancers in the local area.
He also commented that he had purchased a chance on a bicycle being raffled and won. This
bicycle is available to the Samaritan Center or any other organization having a need for it.
Commissioner Ginn volunteered to speak with Jean Kline of the Health Department
and have her prepare an interim report to be brought to the Board.
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
B.C. COMMISSIONER CAROLINE D. GINN - BEACH &
SHORE PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE -
ADDITIONAL MEMBERS - TOWN OF ORCHID, TOWN
OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES AND CITY OF VERO
BEACH
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 11, 1999:
MAY 189 1999
To: SCC Chairman, Ken Macht
/1
From: Commissioner Caroline Ginn U31"
Date: May 11, 1999
Subject: Additional members
Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee
Three municipalities in Indian River County who have beachfront property
within their jurisdictions have requested membership on the Beach and Shore
Preservation Advisory Committee. Specifically, Orchid, Indian River Shores
and the City of Vero Beach. Each has submitted its request in writing.
At the Town of Orchid meeting on Wednesday May 5, 1999 when I appeared
before their Council to request passage of a resolution in support of the one
cent options sales tax, I was questioned as to why Orchid's membership on
this Committee had not been addressed.
I am requesting that you please put this on the agenda for the May 18, 1999
meeting for discussion by the full Board.
Thank You.
Discussion was held regarding having a representative of each municipality in the
County appoint a representative to the Committee and Commissioner Adams suggested that
it might also be good to appoint representatives from some of the homeowners' associations.
After further discussion, it was determined that only municipalities would appoint
representatives and Chairman Macht noted that the beach problem affects everyone in the
County.
MAY 189 1999
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously
approved a request to each municipality. in the
County to appoint a representative to the Beach &
Shore Preservation Advisory Committee.
-71-
BOOK
gC1nK ��Gr j
DOCUMENTS TO BE ADDED TO THE RECORD -
PROCLAMATION IN SUPPORT OF THE COALITION FOR THE
HOMELESS FUND-RAISER. MAY 27,1999
This document is being added to the record under today's date:
1. Proclamation in Support of the Coalition for the Homeless Fund -Raiser, May
27, 1999 (approved by the Board on May 13, 1999).
PROCLAMATION
IN SUPPORT OF THE
COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS
FUND-RAISER, MAY 27,1999
WHEREAS, The Coalition for the Homeless of Indian River County will hold a fund-
raiser at Riverside Theatre on May 27, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the fund-raiser will be a concert called "CELEBRATION" and will include
the Vero Beach Jazz Chorus, Vero Beach Choral Society, advanced students from the Academy of
the Performing Arts, Exultation (instrumental/choral), Tania Jones (vocalisttcomposer), Jesus Wept,
"Annie" and Bennie, the Humane Society Mascot Dog, Fred Astaire Studio Dancers, Alex Flores and
Bridget Barnwell, St. Edwards students and Gretchen Rose, Vocalist; and
WHEREAS, all of the performers are donating their time and talents to make this event
successful; and
WHEREAS, The Coalition for the Homeless of Indian River County is dedicated to end
homelessness through providing for the imminent needs of the indigent, combined with offering
continued education and skills necessary for the participants to develop healthy lifestyles; and
WHEREAS, The Coalition offers a wide range of services to help the needy avoid
homelessness and to help them return to a productive role in society; and
WHEREAS, The Coalition for the Homeless of Indian River County is supported
primarily by contributions:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED • BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Board congratulates
The Coalition for the Homeless of Indian River County for their hard work in attemption to
eradicate homelessness in this County, and the Board further urges all citizens of Indian River County
to support the fund-raising efforts of this worthwhile organization.
Dated this 13 day of May, 1999.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
eth R. Macht, Chairman
MAY 189 1999
•
U.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the Board would
reconvene as the 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 11:02 a.m.
ATTEST:
J.Aanon, Clerk enneth R Macht, Chairman
Minutes Approve o l919
MAY 189 1999
BOOK
-73-