Laserfiche WebLink
b <br />d <br />Chairman Scurlock questioned the figures on Page 2 of the <br />proposed agreement for each county's pro -rata share, which show <br />only a 1% difference between Indian River County and Martin <br />County since he believed there is a significant difference in <br />population. <br />Attorney Brennan advised that a month ago the formula being <br />used was the same we were using for the Medical Examiner <br />Agreement. <br />Chairman Scurlock pointed out that the Medical Examiner <br />formula is based on cases not population. It would be hard to <br />convince him that Martin County does not have a good deal more <br />population than Indian River County, and he would like this <br />checked. <br />OMB Baird had one concern. He wished to know, in the event <br />we are dissatisfied with this arrangement as we were with the <br />Medical Examiner, and all the other counties voted on it, are we <br />then automatically bound to pay our share when we feet we didn't <br />get the services. He realized we did not have any problems in <br />this area now, but felt we should protect ourselves for the <br />future. <br />Attorney Brennan advised that we can get out of the <br />agreement, but we must give twelve months' notice. She further <br />noted that.the Agreement is with Bruce Colton, not with the State <br />Attorney's Office; so, if there should be a change in personnel, <br />we would have to enter into a new agreement. <br />Administrator Balczun informed the Board that the Planning <br />Department has advised that the most current official population <br />data they have is for the period ending 1985, and it indicates <br />Indian River County at 76,000 and Martin County at 80,000. <br />ON MOTION,by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- <br />sioner Bowman,(Chairman Scurlock voting in opposition <br />and Commissioners Eggert and Wheeler being absent), <br />the Board by a 2 to 1 vote, approved the Interlocal <br />22 B®OK 73 f a d 46 <br />JUN 141989 <br />