9/17/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

G. Modification to Premium Conversion Plan - Payment of Health Insurance Payments The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 5, 1996: TO: The Board of County Commissioners FROM: William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney DATE: September 5, 1996 SUBJECT: Modification to Premium Conversion Plan The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County adopted a Premium Conversion Plan effective January 1, 1995 which qualifies the County under IRS rules for the use of pre-tax dollars for the payment of health insurance premiums. Our new stop loan underwriter, John Alden insurance Company, requires that new individuals added to the plan as new dependents through other.,'than a change of familial status must undergo an individual medical evaliafion to determine adjustments if any to underwriting premiums for those new dependents being added to the plan. It has been recommended by Mackie Branham, our insurance consultant, that this rule of the stop loss underwriter be specifically incorporated into our Premium Conversion Plan. The rule is consistent with current policy of requiring new insureds to present evidence of insurability before being added to the County self-funded health insurance plan. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Modification to the Premium Conversion Plan adding as Article 7.09, an "Insurance Control" Clause, under Article VII, Administration of Plan. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the Modification to Premium Conversion Plan for Indian River County, as recommended by staff. H. Gifford School Park - Release of Drainage Easements The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 10, 1996: TO: The BoardofCty Commissioners FROM: William G las II - Deputy County Attorney DATE: September 10, 1996 SUBJECT- Gifford School Park - Release of Drainage Easements In 1994 Gifford Groves, Ltd. granted Indian River County three easements for drainage across Blocks 2, 3 and 4 of Gifford School Park Subdivision. Apparently the intent of the three drainage easements was to establish a drainage plan for Blocks 2, 3 and 4 of the subdivision, creating a 20-foot- wide 0-footwide drainage easement running north and south along the center of Blocks 2 and 4 (10 feet on each side of the rear lot lines) and the west 20 feet of Block 3. However, in an attempt to secure permanent financing for 23 homes in the subdivision, the developer has discovered that the legal description contained in each drainage easement does not accomplish what was originally intended, but rather the easements run through three lots in which homes have been subsequently built over the easements. The developer's attorney has requested that a determination be made as to whether the three drainage easements granted to Indian River County can be terminated and whether substitute easements will need to be created, so that the developer can continue to pursue permanent financing. SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 11 BOOK 99 MUM