HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-99-38
RESOLUTION NO. R-99- 3 8
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER
COUNlY, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE 1999 APPORTIONMENT
PLAN OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNlY METROPOLITAN
PLANNING ORGANIZATION; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS
HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR RECORDING; PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
was established pursuant to an interlocal agreement executed on April 12, 1993, and filed
with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County;
WHEREAS, the Indian River County MPO is the designated and constituted body
responsible for the urban transportation planning and programming process for the Vero
Beach Urbanized Area;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 339. 175(3)(a), Florida Statutes, the Indian River.
County MPO executed an apportionment plan in 1993 which defined the voting
membership of the MPO Board;
WHEREAS, the Indian River County School District is currently a nonvoting
MPO Board member and has recently requested voting membership on the MPO Board;
WHEREAS, Section 339. 175(2)(a), Florida Statutes provides that the MPO may
include among its voting members agencies which operate or administer major modes of
transportation;
WHEREAS, the Indian River County School District provides a greater number
of trips over a greater number of miles with a large fleet than any other transportation
provider in Indian River County;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 339. 175(2)(a), Florida Statutes, the MPO
approved its 1999 apportionment plan at its February 10, 1999 meeting which provides
the Indian River County School District with voting membership on the MPO Board;
WHEREAS, the addition of the Indian River County School District to the MPO
Board will not affect the population or percent distribution of the MPO's 1993
apportionment;
WHEREAS, pursuant to state requirements, each local government within the
MPO shall accept or reject the MPO' s 1999 apportionment plan by resolution.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SEBASTIAN, as follows:
Section 1. Findings. That the City of Sebastian accepts the MPO's 1999
apportionment plan which provides the Indian River County School District with voting
membership on the MPO Board.
That three originals or certified copies of this resolution will be provided to the
Indian River County MPO.
Section2. CONFLICT. All resolutions or parts of resolutions m conflict
herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 3. RECORDING. This resolution shall be recorded m the
public records oflndian River County, Florida.
Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
effect immediately upon its adoption.
This resolution shall take
Resolution was moved for adoption by Councilmember
The motion was seconded by Councilmember
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Mayor Martha S. Wininger
Vice-Mayor Chuck Neuberger
Councilmember Joe Barczyk
Councilmember Ben A. Bishop
Councilmember Edward 1. Majcher, Jr.
he Mayor thereupon declared this Resolution duly passed and adopted thiS~
1999
CITY P, SEBAST~AN, FLORIDA
~'
By!t. / !cb~
M~rtha S. Wininger, Mayor \
ATTEST:
/ /
<-==t1 {JfT~.n; f)1! {Y Pf~ 0--
Kathryn . O'Halloran, CMC/ AAE
City Clerk
Approved as to form and legality for
reliance by the City of Sebastian only:
"
\.
Rich Stringer: City A
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MPO
1999 APPORTIONMENT PLAN
I Indian River County i
M~Q
~ ru-uhr..1
,'." 'u . u I
~~ I'
'-- ~-tb,
Indian River County
Metropolitan Planning Organization
(Vero Beach Urbanized Area)
--..... ~
Iii c, -(~;t' 1'----)
John W. Tippin, Chairman
ADOPTED: February 10, 1999
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
METROPOLIT AN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
1999 APPORTIONMENT PLAN
Background
Based upon 1990 Census data, the City of V ero Beach and the densely populated land surrounding
the City was designated as a Census urbanized area. With a total 1990 population of 64,707, the
urbanized area includes three general purpose local governments. These are: the City ofVero Beach,
the Town ofIndian River Shores, and the Board of County Commissioners (unincorporated area).
While the Vero Beach Urbanized Area includes only those areas in and around the City of Vero
Beach, the area expected to be ~lrban within twenty years includes much of the land within the
County east of 1-95. Considerea as the transitioning urbanized area, that portion of the County
includes four ofthe county's five incorporated areas. The only municipality within the County which
is not within the transitioning urbanized area is the City of Fellsmere.
As per the requirements of23 USC 134(c) and 23 CFR 450.308, the metropolitan (PL) area shall at
a minimum include the existing urbanized area and the area expected to become urbanized within
twenty years. According to federal regulations, the PL area may include all or part of a county.
Accordingly, the metropolitan (PL) area boundary was established pursuant to those requirements.
As established, the metropolitan (PL) area includes all land within the transitioning urbanized area
as well as the City ofFellsmere, the area around the City of Fellsmere, and a corridor along CR 512
extending from the transitioning urbanized area boundary to the City of Fellsmere.
Description
The MPO (PL) area is depicted on Map 1. As shown on that map, the MPO area includes only the
easternmost portion of the county, comprising approximately 25 percent of the land in the county.
While the MPO area incorporates only 25 percent of the county's land area, it includes virtually all
of the county's population.
According to the 1990 Census, the County's 1990 population was 90,208. Of that number, 64,707
were within the Census urbanized area. Most of the land outside of the metropolitan area boundary
is undeveloped marshland, agricultural land, or natural areas, with only scattered home sites, farms
and ranches. For this reason, it is assumed that the entire County population is within the
metropolitan area boundary.
Besides showing the MPO boundary, Map 1 also depicts municipal boundaries as well as County
Commission district boundaries. The 1990 population for each 0 f these areas is also shown on the
map.
As indicated, all five of the county's municipalities are within the metropolitan (PL) area. The five
incorporated areas are: City of Vero Beach, City of Sebastian, Town oflndian River Shores, City
ofFellsmere, and Town of Orchid. Of these, Vero Beach is the largest; it is also the County seat.
With a 1990 population of only 10, the Town of Orchid is the smallest. Table 1 identifies existing
(1990) and projected population for the County and each of the municipalities.
Besides size, there are other differences among the county's municipalities. Probably the most
significant are geography and affluence. Both the Town of Orchid and the Town ofIndian River
Shores are located entirely on the barrier island. These communities have limited transportation
facilities within their jurisdictions, with SR AlA being the only state maintained roadway within the
two communities. Both towns are predominately residential, with only minor retail commercial
uses, and both have affluent residents and high median family incomes.
Vero Beach is not only the largest municipality in the county; it is also the most diverse. Including
both mainland and barrier island areas, Vero Beach has significant residential and non-residential
areas. While almost built-out, the City has a significant amount of redevelopment activity. Various
state roads (SR 60, SR AlA, US 1), non-state arterials, a limited public transportation system, a
public use airport, and the railroad constitute the major components of the transportation system
within the City.
Both Sebastian and Fellsmere are completely mainland communities. Fronting on the Indian River
Lagoon, Sebastian is the larger of the two, and the fastest growing of the county's municipalities.
With more than 10,000 vacant platted lots, Sebastian is expected to continue to grow at a rapid rate.
Sebastian has a public use airport and a portion of US 1 within its boundaries. Fellsmere is the only
municipality located west ofI-95, and the only municipality without any state roadways within its
boundaries.
1993 Apportionment Plan Alternatives
Section 339.175, Florida Statutes identifies MPO apportionment requirements. Of these
requirements, the three most important are: the size requirement; the proportionality requirement;
and the requirement that (with minor exceptions) only elected officials of general purpose local
governments may serve on the MPO Policy Board.
When the MPO was formed in 1993, an apportionmefit plan was developed for the ~lPO Policy
Board in accordance with Section 339.175, F.S. The development of the apportionment plan
involved an alternatives analysis regarding the number and geographic distribution of the MPO
Board members. In order to provide for a manageable governing body in relation to the relatively
small population included within the MPO, alternatives were considered which limited the size of
the MPO Policy Board to 7, 8, or 9 members. In assessing the board membership alternatives, a
major consideration was the proportionality requirement. From a proportionality perspective, the
most equitable alternative in terms of population and geographic representation was found to be the
nine member option.
The nine member option, which was subsequently adopted, consisted of an MPO Policy Board with
four County Commissioners, two Vero Beach City Councilmen, one Sebastian City Councilman,
one Fellsmere City Councilman, and one Indian River Shores Town Councilman. Besides those
voting members, two nonvoting members were appointed to the MPO Board. These were
representatives of the Town of Orchid and the Indian River County School District (IRCSD). With
this option, the unincorporated County representation (based upon the four County Commission
2
representatives) was close to the unincorporated proportion of the total County population. Another
advantage of this alternative was that the smaller municipalities, with the exception of the Town of
Orchid, had direct representation on the MPO Board.
Each of the other options considered resulted in inadequate representation on the MPO Board for
the smaller municipalities. While the seven member option would have included the three smallest
municipalities (Town of Indian River Shores, City of Fellsmere, and Town of Orchid) with
unincorporated residents and provide them representation through County Commission
representatives, eight and nine member alternatives would have assigned a shared representative for
the three smallest municipalities. Because of the dissimilarities among these municipalities, it was
determined that a shared representative approach would not be feasible. After careful consideration,
it was determined that all municipalities except Orchid should have voting representation on the
MPO Board.
When the initial MPO apportionment plan was developed in 1993, an important consideration was
whether the IRCSD could be represented as a voting member of the MPO Policy Board. Although
representatives of the general purpose local governments within the MPO area agreed that the
IRCSD should have voting representation on the MPO Board, FDOT disagreed. According to
FDOT, Chapter 339, F.S. specifically listed criteria for MPO membership and that criteria would
not allow a school board to have voting representation on an MPO Board.
1993 Apportionment Plan
Table 3 depicts the MPO Policy Board structure established by the 1993 Indian River County MPO
apportionment plan. As indicated in that table, the MPO Policy Board had nine voting members.
These included four County Commissioners, two Vero Beach City Councilmen, one Sebastian City
Councilman, one Fellsmere City Councilman, and one Indian River Shores Town Councilman. The
MPO Board also included as nonvoting members one representative of the Town of Orchid and one
representative of the IRCSD. As structured, the MPO Board had direct representation from five of
the six general purpose local governments within the MPO area. Only the Town of Orchid, which
had a 1990 population of 10, did not have direct representation on the MPO Board.
1999 Apportionment Plan Analysis
Since 1993, FDOT's position regarding school board voting representation on MPO Policy Boards
has changed. For example, FDOT, in addressing initiatives by the Broward MPO to add a school
board member to its MPO Policy Board, has interpreted Chapter 339, F.S. to allow school board
representatives to serve as voting members of MPO Boards. This is based on Chapter 339's
provision that representatives of agencies operating major modes of transportation may have voting
representation on MPO Boards, and a recognition that school boards are agencies operating a major
mode of transportation.
As written, Chapter 339.175(2)a, F.S., states that an MPO "may include, as part of its apportioned
voting members, an...official of an agency that operates or administers a major mode of
transportation." In Indian River County, the Indian River County School District (IRCSD) provides
a greater number of trips over a greater number of miles with a larger fleet than any other
transportation provider, including the County's public transportation provider. Unlike the County,
3
municipalities, and other major transportation providers, such as the Community Coach public
transportation system and the County's three public airports, all of which have direct or indirect
voting representation on the MPO Policy Board, the lRCSD does not have direct or indirect voting
representation on the MPO Board.
Although adding an lRCSD voting member to the MPO Board does not affect the population or
percent distribution of the MPO's 1993 apportionment, it does require updating the MPO's original
1993 apportionment plan because it changes the structure of the MPO Board. This 1999
apportionment plan addresses the addition of an lRCSD voting member to the MPO Board and
contains the information required in an apportionment plan by Chapter 339.175, F.S.
Table 4 depicts the Policy Board structure established by the Indian River County MPO's 1999
apportionment plan. The 1999 plan differs from the 1993 plan by the addition of one voting member
from the IRCSD. As a comparison of Table 4 and Table 3 indicates, providing the IRCSD with
voting representation on the MPO Policy Board does not affect the population or percent
distribution of the MPO's 1993 apportionment. This is because the IRCSD serves the entire County
rather than a geographic subarea. Therefore, the geographic population and the percent
representation served by the MPO Board's 1993 members will not change. In fact, the MPO Board
will more accurately represent and reflect the major transportation providers in the County without
reducing the representation of the current MPO Board members.
1999 Apportionment Plan Approval
In accordance with Chapter 339.175, F.S. and FDOT policies and procedures, the MPO unanimously
approved the 1999 apportionment plan at its regularly scheduled February '10,1999 meeting. Once
approved by the MPO, the 1999 apportionment plan was then approved by resolution by each
member local government and subsequently transmitted to FDOT District Four and the Governor's
Office.
4
Table 1
Existing (1990) and Projected Population
1990
1995
Population Percent Population Percent
Indian River County 90,208 100 104,501 100
City of Vero Beach 17,360 19.2 18,388 17.6
City of Sebastian 10,206 11.3 13,036 12.5
Town of Indian River Shores 2,278 2.5 3,029 2.9
City of Fellsmere 2,179 2.4 2,559 2.4
Town of Orchid 10 .01 254 .24
Unincorporated 58,175 64.5 67,235 64.3
Sources:
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census University of Florida, Bureau of
Economic and Business Research
Indian River County, Community Development Department
5
Eo-
Z
~
U
~
Q"\ ~
Q..
-...
:;;
~
:;;
Eo-
Z
~
U
~
Q"\ ~
e:
:;;
~
I :;;
Eo-
Z
~
U
'" ~
Q,j ~
... QO
.. ~
...
~
=
... ~
Q,j :;;
...
-
< Eo-
...
= z
Q,j ~
M e U
Q,j = ~
- 0
.c .. r--- ~
~ ... ~
E-- ...
0
Q.,
Q., ~
< :;;
~
0\
0\ Eo-
..... ZZ
0 O~
~ ....U
:E Eo-~
=1~
Q"\~
Q"\~....l
.....Q..~
o Eo-
Q..O
Eo-
0 \0 M - -
0 tri M ..... -
..... If) M ..... .....
0\ If) M - .....
0 If) ~ ..... ..... .....
0 ""1' M ..... ..... .....
..... ""1' M ..... ..... .....
0\ ""1' M ..... ..... .....
0 0 If) II! II!
0 If) M M M
..... ..... .....
00 ""1' M ..... .....
0 ..... ~ 1"'1
0 r..: 00 ""1'
..... If) M .....
t- ""1' M .....
0 If) M 1"'1 If) ~ .....
0 ~ 0\ ..... M c;
..... \0 ..... ..... M
00 If) 0 '\0 00 0\
0 t- \0 0 t- t- O
M ..... ~ M M ..... .....
0 ~ r.: 0 M ~
0\ If) ..... ..... M
'"
Q,j
...
0
-=
00
...
Q,j
-= ...
CJ = Ci: Q,j
'0 ~ ... :E
Q,j ~ = Q,j
Q,j = ..
0 ... ... ~ e -=
~ '" .. CJ
~ ... 0 ~ '0 '" ...
... .c = -
0 - 0
:E Q., Q,j Q,j - Q,j
-- ... > 00 '- ~ '-
;;.., 0 '- '- 0 '- 0
... CJ 0 0 = 0 =
= .5
::: ;;.., ;;.., ~ ;;.., ~
0 = .".:: ;<:::: 0 ... 0
..
U ;:l U U E-- U E--
\0
~
~
...:l
=
<
E-o
oz
Q.<
~...:l
~Q.
E-oE-o
ZZ
;;;J~
o~
uZ
~9
~E-o
>~
~o
Q.
ZQ.
<<
-~
00'\
ZO'\
- -
=
.S: 0
';~
:;:::;
Q."",
o <lJ
~~~
=
o
;::
C':
oc~
~ <lJ
:::; ~
"'"
Q.-
<lJ
~....
E--
'e
<lJ
....-
=
<lJ
ell
~~
Q.o
~~
~=:::;
Q'\ 0
-;a::
C':
:;-
Q.
o
~E--
<lJ
::
...
C':
....
=
<lJ
ell "1' 0 '" 00 0\
<lJ "1' 0
~ trl 00 N r- r-
~ '" 0 l"i -
<lJ ~ N
- - M
....
=
<lJ --.a N - - -
C.J
"'" "1' N .
<lJ - - -
"1' N - - -
C':
0
"1' N - - -
I "0
~
0 trl N ~
't: "1'
"1' 0\ - M
'" - - N
=
trl 0 '" 00 0\
C': r- \I:) 0
.... - ~ N r- r-
0 ~ r: 0 N~ -
trl - - N N
'"
Q.i
loo
0
>. .c
..... 00
C loo
= Q.i
0 .c ;,
U I:J C ~ Q.i
~
"l:l Q.i ~ C loo
Q.i = ',= Q.i
..... .~ E
C': '"
<lJ loo 0 C': "0 .:!;
loo ,Q C
.... 0 Q.i ~
= C. Q.i -
.... ~il ...
C.J ... ,.... -
ell 0 '- '- 0 '-
<lJ
~ I:J 0 0 C 0
c >. >. ~ >.
<lJ .-
C ..... ..... .....
U .- 0 U
~ U E-o
ell
"0 Q.i
loo
loo CIl 0
~ loo .c
0 Q.i 00
= C
>. .~ loo
.... Q.i
..... CIl ;,
= C .~ .c ~
<lJ g S I:J
E ~ C Q.i
loo
= U S Q.i C': C Q.i
= .-
"'" - ~ S
<lJ loo 0 CIl .-
;, Q.i U 0 C': "l:l ==
0 ;, loo ,Q C
~ ~ >. Q.i Q.i - Q.i
..... > 00 ~
'; C '-
'- '- 0 '-
C.J C = 0 0 0
0 ~ 0 c
.....l :a u >. >. ~ >.
;::: .".:: .....
c '- 0 U
- 0 u U E-o
r--
C':
<lJ
"'"
<
C.J'e
:a
~
C':
"'"
OJ)
o
<lJ
~~
~
~
..J
~
<
E-i
OZ
~<
~..J
~~
E-iE-i
zZ
~~
o~
uZ
,,8
~E-i
;;,,,
C20
~
z~
<<
-0'1
~O'I
ZO'I
- ....
C.I
.:::
-
= ~
.= 0 ==
-; ~ C.I
=:;~
'" a..
o~fr
~~"
-
= ~
.S: Cj
_ a..
~ C.I
o=~
~ C.I
:; ~
a..
Q..-
C.I ~
,,'0
Eo-<
't:l
C.I .
- Q..
= Q
C.I~
~o
a..~
fr:;
<= ~ c
Q\=~
Q\ Q
..... ...
-
~
--
:::I ~
Q..-
Q Q
~Eo-<
~
C.I
a..
~'t:l
.:: ~
.c-
n,z:
~ '"
a.. C.I
eJla..
Q Q..
C.I C.I
c;l~
-
=
C.I
8
=
a..
C.I
i'
Q
c;l
14,544 8,68(10,20&,2782,179 N/A
40.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
4 2 1 1 1 1
64.5 19.2 11.3 2.5 2.4 10l
trl 0 ~ 00 0'1
t-- ~ 0 t-- t--
.... ~ M M~ -
00- r: 0 ~ 90,20
trl .... .... M M
'"
~
100
0
~ .c
..... rJ'J.
= 100
= ~ ~
0 .. .....
U .c .. =
CJ = " ~ =
~
"0 ~ ~ = 100 0
~ ~ .. ~ u
..... ..... .:: 8
~ '" 100
100 0 ~ "0 ~ ~
100 .c =
0 ~ ~ ..
c.. ~ - ~
100 >- en "".., r...
0 c- c- o c- =
CJ 0 0 = 0
= ~ ~ ~ ~ .::
.. "0
= ..... ..... 0 .':::
.. .. =
~ u U E-i U -
'"
"0 ~
100
100 '" 0
~ 100 .c
0 ~ rJ'J.
~ =
~.~ 100
~ ~
..... '" .. .....
= .~ .c .. =
= 8 CJ = " ~ =
~ 100 0
8 8 ~ .:: = ~ u .....
~ ..... .:: 8 CJ
100 0 '" 100 'i:
~ U 0 ~ "0 ~ ~
100 .c = .....
.. ~ ~ ~ .. '"
Q2 ~ - Q2Q
..... ;;, rJ'J. c- ~
= c- c- o c-
= = =-
~ 0 0 0 = 0 ~ 0
:a u ~ ~ ~ ~ .. 0
:::: ..... .'::: "O.c
= c- .. 0 = CJ
- 0 u U E-i U _rJ'J.
-
~
Cj
Q
~
eo:i
.~ ~
- ~
.:! ..c
'" :::I
t:; '"
.- Cj
~:a
o~
Q J.
.c OIl
~ ~
;....0Jl
C ~
~o
U c
'" .;.
...-
> c
~ ~
cU
~ ...
:s .::
.:C
... ...
-5~
;....-
..c ~
-e t
~ ~
!:C'OJ
,., . i:
Cj -
.- '"
oQ
Q..-
o g
Q...c
~~
... ...
.c.c
- -
c ...
Q '"
c ;
Q Cj
.~ ]
c~
~ C
<:.l Q
'" .-
frt:
J. &.
0JlQ.
.5 ~
- -
Q Q
;;.. ==
~
-
Q
Z
00
oIi
:::I
'"
==
...
U
rJ:J
~
Q
0'\
0'\
.....
e
Q
.::
...
J.
~
'"
...
J.
:::I
OIl
t::
==
.S:
-
~
:;
Q.
Q
Q..
o
0..
~ Cd
c~
-a~
Q. 0
~~
:;.~ 0
0:::0..
=~
Cd
.-
"'0
,.....
-
-
--
.....:l"'O
0.. C
"'--' Cd
=
o
.-
.-
Cd
-
=
Q..
o
0..
o
0-..
0-..
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
-' ,
"-~------ ,
"~'" -..... -......,.. t.-
----- ,~ :7\
~\
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,--:. .-.:..
...-..........~
.-..... .............-.- --....... __ c
e ~O\ e OJ L.()
c: ~ e r-- .-i r-- r--
0
0';: ("j ~rl ','1
ru Ol~
Q.J Ol:o r-- eN :'1 OJ
'-' _Co Ltl
<:l:: 0 .-i ,-,
0..
....:i c/) .I:. ....(f) -0
P-. Q) u a> a> a>
ell c: a> >.... -
ell .... '- 0 co
'" a> a> cr:.c ....
c. CD (f) E ~ c: en 0
0 c.
u 0 ell (f) .c co ....
ll. c: .... .0= (J .- 0
~ a> a> Q) ....-0 U
~ > enLi.. OE c:
I ccm.o c:
::l
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
j
-
-
,
-
;
,
-
,
-
.
,.-
/~~
/ ~,.,.
-r ....'<""'
('
..
..
c:
o
0';:
c: Ol~
o OJ:o
(/) _Cl.
.~ ~ cf
E ,~
E ....
0;
()5
>.
-
c:
:::l
o
()
,
,
~
~ r-- Lfi N OJ
"1'N:'1L'iL.()
~ "1'C~ ~
:?\~OJO\~
,...--.i~r---iM~
,~
.....C\lC')~1O
c/)
o
oc"C?\~
,
,
~ "--.J
,oo' ,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
~
i
en
--------~~__l
,
,
,
,
, ,
,
/~ ". ,
-----==
..., -
. -~
.......L..J
~z-_