Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/4/1985Wednesday, September 4, 1985 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, September 4, 1985, at 7:30 o'clock P.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Chairman Patrick B. Lyons was absent as he was still recuperating from recent surgery. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas, Intergovernmental Relations Director; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey K. Barton, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. Vice Chairman Scurlock called the meeting to order in the absence of Chairman Lyons, and Administrator Wright led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The Vice Chairman announced that the purpose of this meeting is to consider and adopt the Tentative Budget for fiscal year 1985-86 and explained to those present the procedure that would be followed during the hearings on the various funds. He explained that the maximum millage we can levy in each fund already has been advertised, and we cannot exceed that level. Vice Chairman Scurlock stated that since many who are present tonight are from Vero Lake Estates, we would take up that item first. He thereupon opened the public hearing on the Vero Lake Estates Municipal Service Taxing Unit and reported that the notice sent to property owners by Attorney Chester Clem unfortu- nately had contained an incorrect hearing date. OMB Director Barton informed those present that Notice of tonight's meeting has been legally publicized by the TRIM Notice which was mailed to all property owners in the county. Director Barton then reviewed in detail the proposed budget and millage for Vero Lake Estates, as follows: SEP 4 1985 BOOK P,, GE'953 SEP 4 BOOK UJB F'Al'JE VERO LAKE -ESTATES INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TAXING AUTHORITIES MUNICIPAL PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY 85-86 SERVICE ESTIMATED RECEIPTS & BALANCES - TAXING UNIT Federal Sources 191,225 State Sources Local Sources 7,200 Ad Valorem Taxes 198,800 Sub Total 206,000 Less 5% per F.S. 129.01(2)(b) (10,300) Net 195,70 Transfers Cash Balances Forward Oct. 1, 1985 195195 70D TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS & BALANCES 195,700 APPROPRIATIONS General Government 4,475 Public Safety Transportation 191,225 Economic Environment Human Services Culture/Recreation Interfund Transfers TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS 195,700 Reserve for Contingencies Cash Forward Sept. 30, 1986 TOTAL BUDGET 195195 70D Millage $50.00/Parcel Acre OMB Director Barton noted that those present had been provided with sheets representing last year's budget and this year's proposed budget. This is the first year for Vero Lake Estates MSTU., and the proposed millage levy is $50 per parcel/acre. The Vero Lake Estates MSTU contains a total of 3,976 taxable parcel acres, and this would generate a total of $198,800, including $7,200 interest that would be generated, or a net of $195,700 after deducting the 5% required by Statute 129.01. After the payments due the Tax Collector, this would leave $191,225 to be spent on transportation related projects, and it is anticipated this all would be spent, leaving no reserve for contingency. Public Works Director Davis then gave the history of the drainage problems in this area leading up to the creation of the Vero Lake Estates MSTU, referring to the fact that the outfall canal on the east side of CR 510 was not able to convey enough 2 M M r storm water to drain the 2,300 acres; so, in 1980, staff along with the Corrigan and Ansin families, recommended that the Board fund $13,000 to clean the canal out and this was done. At that time, staff realized there could be a major potential problem in terms of drainage capacity of the outfall as the subdivision at build out could have as much as 4,000 homes. They, therefore, recommended that an MSTU be set up to fund a drainage study and roads with the primary interest being in drainage. Director Davis then reviewed the creation of an advisory board to work with staff, emphasizing that it consisted of representatives from the Property Owners Association, interested owners who were not members of the Property Owners Association, and a representative of the Ansin family, which owns several thousand lots. He informed those present that after several meetings and further study, the emphasis shifted to road paving because staff was successful in having a drainage study funded by the government. Director Davis reported that the MSTU Advisory Committee recommended that an assessment of $100 per parcel/acre be levied to fund road construction, primarily paving of 87th St. from CR 510 to 101st Avenue and 101st Avenue from 87th St.to CR 512. This was considered by the Commission in July, and after hearing input from the public, the Commission decided to reduce the assessment from $100 per parcel/acre to $50 per parcel/acre. In discussion, it was stressed that it was the Advisory Committee, made up of members representative of the entire area, which recommended the $100 per parcel/acre assessment which the Commission found excessive, and that also came up with the recommendation that 87th St. and 101st Ave. be paved initially as it was felt those roads represented main arteries and were the most heavily traveled. Commissioner Bird felt it also should be pointed out that this is not a one year, one-shot deal, but will continue year after year until eventually all the roads are paved and the drainage problems solved. 3 BOOK FAGE y�� SEP 4 1985 SEP 4 1985 BOOK 61 FA'UE 956 Discussion ensued re the cost of paving the roads and how much could be accomplished in a year. Director Davis reported that our current cost of paving is about $100,000 a mile, and the modified budget would enable us to pave about two miles a year; 87th St. and 101st Ave. combined are about 2.3 miles. OMB Director Barton explained to those present that the per parcel/acre assessment means that for any part of an acre there is a charge of $50. If you own a lot which is less than an acre, you would pay -$50. If you have three lots together to which you have title as one unit and they total less than an acre, you still would pay just $50. If you owned three lots with a separate deed for each, you would pay $50 per lot. If you owned a piece of land that totaled 4.3 acres, you would be charged 5 x $50, or $250. Vice Chairman Scurlock further explained that each budget year priorities for the work to be done would be established, and the assessment could go up or down accordingly. The Vice Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Attorney Chester Clem came before the Board representing Edmund Ansin, owner of several thousand lots in Vero Lake Estates. He emphasized that the MSTU was originally conceived as something that would cost $5.00, "or possibly $10, a lot for the purpose of going forward with a drainage study. Attorney Clem quoted statements made in Minutes at that time which indicated that the primary purpose of the MSTU would be drainage; mainte- nance of roads was definitely secondary; and there never was any mention of paving except on a special assessment basis. Mr. Clem contended that what has been done now by jumping to an $100 assessment and then down to $50 is a complete change, and he felt that hitting people with a $50 assessment, plus an impact fee, and on top of that ad valorem taxation, is not only improper, but legally indefensible, and that to say it will be a benefit in the future is not enough. 4 Attorney Clem apologized for having sent out notice of this meeting for the wrong night, but noted that it did get the people out. He then read a letter from property owner Don Quintus opposing the proposed assessment and from Joseph Barbero also opposing the assessment and asking that a master plan be developed first. Vice Chairman Scurlock wished to point out that the actual vehicle for creating this MSTU did contemplate other things than drainage, and this was not initiated by the County Commission, but by people of the subdivision who were unhappy with the paving and the drainage. The action to change priorities and the assessment level did not originate from this Commission. Attorney Clem continued to argue that this would only benefit those who lived on the roads that would be paved. He also felt consideration must be given those who do not live there, but will build there eventually and who are paying ad valorem taxes. He further stressed that many people live in Vero Lake Estates just because it is a country area; there are no paved roads; and taxes are low. Discussion followed as to the present drainage study and when it will be completed, and Director Davis reported that the flood plain study which is being done by Gee & Jenson will be done sometime this year; it will not completely establish a recommended drainage improvement for the area, but it will define the existing conditions and tell us what background deficiences we must deal with. When that is complete, Director Davis believed it would be prudent to have a study using that information, but felt it would be a waste to do it now when we can benefit from the federal study. Director Davis then mentioned a letter written to him by Mr. Ansin dated January 20, 1984, in which he -requested that the priority be shifted to paving. Vice Chairman Scurlock stated that he would like to have that letter on the record. } 5 BOOK FAGE5 SEP 41985 BOOK 61 NMGE 958 Attorney Clem asked permission to read the whole letter from Mr. Ansin and quoted as follows: "The top priority in my view is paving the main collector roads, which are 87th Street and 101st Avenue between SR 510 and 512. While in your office yesterday, you estimated that through cooperation between the County and the MSTU the assessed cost to the property owners for this work would be approximately $206,000. Can the cost of this work be funded through a bond issue and repaid by the MSTU through a 10 year special assess- ment? If so, I would support creation of the MSTU at this time. Otherwise, it is unclear to me what creation of an MSTU would now accomplish." Attorney Clem noted that, in other words, the Ansins do support pavement of roads if it can be spread out over a period of time. Attorney Clem further stressed that the Board's past Minutes indicate that it was anticipated that the first action by the advisory board would be to select an engineering firm to perform a road and drainage study for the area, and then when that was done, a program would be developed to implement the study - and that study has not been done. Commissioner Bird asked Director Davis if we changed priorities and assessed and started collecting money to develop a master plan for drainage and a master plan for paving, how long he felt this would take and what approximate cost would he estimate. Director Davis believed a drainage study would take at least a year, but he did not feel it should begin until after we receive the results of the federal study which probably will be done the end of this calendar year. As to the cost of a drainage plan and a master plan for roads, he estimated possibly $60-70,000. He noted that the road right-of-ways are set unless it was desired to abandon some plats; the drainage canals have been established to some degree; and he believed the study would utilize what is on°the ground today. 6 L. B. Crocker, 7916 96th Court, ten year resident, agreed with everything Mr. Clem said, especially as to the priority of the drainage problem, and he felt the figures estimated for cost of roads would use up all the money generated and not leave anything for drainage. Mr. Crocker noted that years ago, they tried to get this area included in the Mosquito Control District, but were told they did not generate enough taxes. He spoke at length of the fact that all the culverts are blocked, and no ditch runs from one canal to the next. Truman Patterson, 8880 100th Ave., spoke in detail of drainage problems in the area and the poor way in which the County has dealt with them. Mr. Patterson felt that we should do one thing at a time and should start with the drainage. He emphasized that he moved out to Vero Lake Estates just to get away from city water and sewer bills and taxes; that he wants to raise his family in a country atmosphere; and that he doesn't care if the roads are ever paved. He also wished to know if the traffic count figures for those roads included just the people who live out there. Director Davis had no idea whether the people included in the traffic count live there or not, but he noted that the members of the MSTU Advisory Committee do not live on the roads that they recommended should be paved first. Mr. Patterson continued to emphasize that he made his home out there to get away from high taxes, and if the taxes are going to keep on increasing there year after year, he will sell. He also asked why the County has to hire people to do the study and can't do it themselves. Vice Chairman Scurlock explained that we hire consultants who have a particular expertise, but we do design our own roads and we are taking advantage of a free government study. Thomas Christianson, 94th St., spoke in opposition to the paving, which he felt will be $50 one year and then $200 another. He believed that drainage is the major problem but did not feel 7 BOOK 61 f'A,E' SEP 41995 SEP 4 1995BOOK 61 PAGE 96 it takes a consultant to figure out that if the culverts are blocked, the water will seek its own level. It was his opinion that all you have to do to solve the drainage problem is clean the culverts. Mr. Christianson also questioned the $4,475 shown in the budget for General Government, and Vice Chairman Scurlock explained that is to pay the Tax Collector his fees which are set by Statute. Thomas Waters, 8890 99th Ave., three year resident, stated that he has no drainage problem at his residence. Possibly the drainage might benefit him, but he does not want it. He also stressed that he moved to the country from the city because he didn't want sidewalks and paved roads, and if the road is bumpy, people will slow down. Mr. Waters stated that he would go along with the proposal if it were a one-time situation, but it won't benefit everybody; so why assess everyone. Herman Patterson, Vero Lake Estates resident, was concerned about taxes going up year after year. He also did not understand why the paving can't be handled by petition paving. Vice Chairman Scurlock agreed the County has that vehicle available, but the residents of this community came to the Commission - we didn't go to them - and the ones who came to us wanted the MSTU set up to handle the paving. Mr. Patterson emphasized that he just wants to live out there and be left alone, or pretty soon he won't be able to pay the taxes. The Vice Chairman pointed out that while this is a very rural area now, as people continue to move into the area, it will develop and eventually there won't be 700 cars, there will be 7,000. Mr. Patterson wanted to know how many people on the Advisory Committee are from Florida. The Vice Chairman stated they all are, but Mr. Patterson noted that they weren't born here, and it is the people from the north who come in here and then try to change the area into a town. 8 � r � Carlton Fulton, resident of Midway Estates, 1950 U.S.1 South,, questioned why his taxes are going up almost $4,000 and why everyone in the County has to pay to pave a street on the other end of the county which will not benefit them at all. It was explained to Mr. Fulton that only the people who live in Vero Lake Estates and are part of the MSTU will have to pay this tax. George Ireland, 9126 88th St., noted that if the plan is to start out paving two miles of streets a year, it will take about 38 years to benefit him as he lives at the extreme western end of the area. He agreed with the other residents that the culverts are filled in and all that is demanded is cleaning. Mr. Ireland did not see the importance of paving a road when it appears most of the people here tonight are opposed to it, and he felt probably the water from the improper drainage would destroy the road in any event. He noted that he bought ten acres in this area because of the reasonable price, and he does not want to be taxed out. He also bought there for the privacy and believed that the people enjoy the country atmosphere. Steve Davis reported that he is currently building on 8426 93rd Ave.,and he wished to know which canals would be given priority for cleaning. He was mainly interested in the major canals, the one on the north end and the one alongside 510. Director Davis pointed out that the canal on the east side of CR 510 is not a county canal. The County and the Corrigan and Ansin families all participated in an agreement to clean it, and this was done in 1981. He further reported that the County has worked on the 83rd Street canal and many others in this area, and mainly the crews start downstream and work upstream. Frances Betz, 87th St., complained of drainage problems and felt the first step would be for the County to get some competent help who know what they are doing and which way water flows. Mrs. Betz then spoke of the problem with people speeding up and down 87th St. and raising so much dust that the residents are 9 SEP 1 BOOK 61. P'u i SEP 4 1985 BOOK 61 FnE y 2 getting eye and lung trouble. She noted that some people are afraid paving would turn the street into a racetrack, but she was in favor of paving and getting rid of the dust and then dealing with the speeders. Carl Johnson, resident of 92nd Avenue, and member of the MSTU Advisory Committee, commented that he also went out to Vero Lake Estates to retire and he does agree that water dispersal is the number one priority and the easements must be cleaned. He believed the easements are owned by the county, but stated that he has never seen one cleaned in the five years he has been there. Mr. Johnson wished to justify the position taken by the Advisory Committee and their recommendation. He reported in detail the efforts taken to contact residents of the area and have them participate in the advisory committee meetings, stating that he personally handed out notices, but the only ones who ever attended were from the Property Owners Association, and John Bradley, Mr. Ansin's representative, has never come to a meeting or voiced an opinion. Mr. Johnson was happy to see that at last some interest has been aroused. He then reviewed how the Advisory Committee came up with their recommendation for an assessment of $100 per parcel/acre and objected that this amount was lessened and they were never notified. Mr. Johnson wished to go on record that greater emphasis should be put on cleaning the easements in back of everyone's property. He stated that no one has the right to stop free flowing water and talked about trees in the canal, noting that if they were cut out the water would drain into the estuary. Mr. Johnson was definitely in favor of paving 87th St. and 101st Ave., which he believed would benefit everyone in the area. Joe McBride, 9225 87th St., did not agree that paving 87th St. would benefit him because it is a racetrack as it is and this would just result in faster traffic. He concurred with Attorney Clem that the original intent was to assess $5.00 or $10.00 per parcel/acre for a drainage study, and that is what he would like 10 to see done. He then spoke of the plugged up culverts and the size of them, noting that he had spoken of this to Commissioner Bowman who promised to come out and look but has not done so yet. Rita Hudman, 101st Ave., noted that the assessment would cost her $100, and she did not want to pay $100 for paving which will neither solve the drainage problem nor benefit her. John Bradley, representative of landholder Edmund Ansin, explained that the reason he didn't attend the meetings was that he went the wrong night for the first meeting, and did not attend the second meeting because the figure of $100 per parcel/acre had been brought up and that wasn't Mr. Ansin's idea; $10.00 per parcel/acre was the only fee ever mentioned to him. The Vice Chairman noted that Mr. Bradley could have attended the meeting and opposed the $100 assessment, but Mr. Bradley stated that his one vote would not count. Commissioner Bird asked Public Works Director Davis if, in his professional opinion, we need a drainage study and plan for this area or whether he felt the existing drainage there would be adequate if it had additional work. Director Davis stated that the drainage is not adequate, and basically the reason is because of the constriction in the outfall canal which serves 23,000 acres of land that he knows of, which is a very large portion of the county. When you are draining that much water into a canal, you need to determine your pro rata share of that canal's capacity. Once that is determined, you then need a complete topography in order to determine the most feasible way to retain the water so you can pass only your pro rata share of capacity. We, therefore, need a study to determine what capacity the subdivision can benefit from and where the water should be retained before it goes to the canal. Director Davis further emphasized that there are 77 miles of roads in this subdivision that are unpaved; they are graded and crowned and when it rains, the silt does go into the culverts. 11 SEP 4 19 BOOKS FnE 9 SEP 4 1985 BOOK 1 m,E 964 For our crews to do the amount of work required to keep these culverts open would be very expensive. Vice Chairman Scurlock believed there has been a lot of miscommunication, but stated personally his first priority would be to keep his feet dry and his next priority would be to consider the roads. He emphasized that no matter what the present residents want, there will be more and more people moving into this area, and the roads eventually will become impassable. The Vice Chairman felt that Attorney Clem made a valid point about the impact fee which is to be recommended by consultants Barton-Aschmann this month. Certain monies will be generated from the new homes built, and he believed it would be inappro- priate to charge everyone unless we got a strong indication from the community that they wanted to move ahead in this direction. Commissioner Bird discussed the possibility of modifying the assessment to $10, which would generate about $40,000 and earmarking that for a drainage study to be commenced as soon as we get the results of the federal study, and Director Davis felt that would be a good idea; it wouldn't pay for the whole plan, e but it would get us started. -Vice Chairman Scurlock had a slightly different idea. Since the Public Works staff is stressed to a point where they cannot properly maintain all the roads in the county, he favored the idea of committing some of the funds for additional crew to go out to Vero Lake Estates and work on drainage. Commissioner Wodtke stressed his feeling that tonight's input indicates that we need to be able to fund the dollars needed to do a complete master plan for both drainage and roads, and he noted that $20 per parcel/acre would generate around $76,000 to be used for this purpose. The -Vice Chairman again expressed his preference to see some money earmarked for the study and some committed to cleaning up now to free up the flow of water. 12 M M M 0 Director Davis stressed that paving and drainage are not separate issues; we need a total management plan for the area. He pointed out that county crews have done substantial work in this area; they open culverts practically on a daily basis; and the culverts do fill back in. Because the area involved is almost as large as the City of Sebastian and has 200 homes, it would take quite a few crews to cover the whole area Director Davis noted that we have 600 miles of roads in the county and 77 miles are in Vero Lake Estates alone. Commissioner Bird felt the Public Works Director is saying that as long as there are dirt roads, they will continue to clog up the culverts and there will be a drainage problem. Thomas Waters wished to know if the Public Works Director had ever been to Vero Lake Estates and knew the number of ditches there were. Director Davis assured him that he has been out there many times over five years, but he did not know the exact number of ditches. Mr. Waters stated that there is only one ditch there that works out of all of them and that is on 89th St. which is not even a street. He then complained at length about the county crews stopping up the ditches, stressing that if there is a vacant lot, they'll dump the fill on there, but when there are homes on the lots, they'll just dig out the ditch to where the homes are, not out to the main ditch, because they won't pay the expense to put the dirt on dumptrucks and haul it off. The Vice Chairman believed the County has a need for fill and is looking for it all the time. Discussion ensued on closing the hearing if no one further wished to be heard. Attorney Clem wished to make a further statement. He informed the Board that all the ponds and lakes in the MSTU are owned and still retained by the Ansins. They are willing to cooperate and help with the drainage, but this is the first time a budget has been set for this MSTU. Originally $5.00 was talked 13 SEP 419 5 BOOK 1 NAGE 965 SEP 41995 BOOK 61 NaGF 966 about, and Attorney Clem felt that $10.00 still would be consistent with what was first talked about and could raise enough to fund a study and move ahead to solve the drainage problems. Mr. McBride commented that Mr. Johnson stated that nobody attended the Property Owners Association meetings, but he believed you had to be a member to have a voice and vote. He further did not feel it is fair that those whose homes were worth less than $25,000 do not have to pay. Vice Chairman Scurlock informed him that Mr. Johnson was referring to the Advisory Committee not the Property Owners Association, and he also explained that the per parcel/acre assessment method was used specifically to eliminate the problem with the Homestead Exemption. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE BY Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to reduce the levy for Vero Lake Estates MSTU for fiscal year 1985-86 from $50.00 to $15.00 per parcel/acre with the under- standing that the number one priority would be a drainage plan and -that any funds left over will be used for additional drainage maintenance work in the area. Commissioner Wodtke expressed concern over having a total plan for both drainage and roads as it seems the Motion is just for a drainage plan and then drainage maintenance. He wanted to know if we will be able to get to a point in a year where we can get into paving of roads. 14 Vice Chairman Scurlock believed that a lot of the road study can be done in-house and felt that if you make a drainage improvement, it is also necessary to pave the road next to it so it will drain. Commissioner Bird agreed that the road network is already pretty well established. Commissioner Wodtke was also concerned as to whether the money generated by the $15.00 assessment would be enough to do an effective drainage study because if it were not, the study would have to be done over two years. Commissioner Bird pointed out that this is the first budget hearing, and the second will be next Wednesday after the proposed $15 levy will be advertised. If anyone wants it lower or higher, they can make this known at the next meeting. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0), Chairman Lyons being absent. The Vice Chairman announced that the Board would now address the budget and millage for the following funds: 15 S E P 4 1955 L BOOK U� F,g;F 907 r co � INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TAXING AUTHORITIES PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY 85-86 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS & BALANCES o Federal Sources a° State Sources Local Sources Ad Valorem Taxes Sub Total Less 5% per F.S. 129.01(.2)(6) Net Transfers Cash Balances Forward Oct. 1, 1985 TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS & BALANCES APPROPRIATIONS General Government Public Safety Physical Environment Transportation Economic Environment Human Services Culture/Recreation Interfund Transfers TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS Reserve for Contingencies Cash Forward Sept. 30, 1986 TOTAL BUDGET Millage GENERAL FUND 21,420 1,265,500 1,869,606 10 849,498 14,0 6,024 (660,275) '13,345,749 2,159,176- 1,946,104 ,1 9,1 01,946,104 17,451,023 5,516,159 6,472,713 614,540 57,941 796,928 829,482 1,063,377 15,351,10- 1,349,883 750,000 7,451,023 3.5000 mills TRANSPORTATION FUND 639,380 75,000 714-,380- (35,719) 4, 8(35,719) 678,661 -3--2-5-22-, 36 898,000 5,099,030 4,314,030 -4,314,030- 285,000 ,3 ,03285,000 500,000 ,099,030 MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT 1,879,000 1,727,750 1,951.844 `5-,558; 594 (277,930) 5,280,664 l 1,2209502 6,5066 551,922 113,463 73;570 537,948 191,723 4,368;162 5,836,788- 214,378 ,836, 8214,378 450,000 6,501,166 1.22025 mills BEACH ACQUISITION G.O. BONDS 23,246 1.230:000 1;253,246 (-62,820) 1,190,426 177-500 -1, 67,926 1,247,664 1,247,664 20,262 .100,000 1,367,926 0.39679 mills TOTAL 21,420 3,783,880 3,695,602 14 031,342 21,532,244 (1,036,744) 20,495,500 ,681,539 4,242,106 30,419,145 7,315,745 6,586,176 688,110 4,851,978 57,941 796,928 1,021,205 5,431,539 269749,622 1,869,523 1,800,000 30,419,145 1 The Vice Chairman then opened the public hearing on the General Fund and asked that OMB Director Barton review it. OMB Director Barton informed those present that the proposed millage for the General Fund is 3.5, which is 20.01% over the rollback rate, rollback being defined as those people at their new value who were here a year ago divided into the total ad valorem dollars they paid into this fund last year. The proposed budget is $17,451,023. The Vice Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. Administrator Wright inquired about the Court Bailiff position requested by the Sheriff, and the Vice Chairman believed that if the Sheriff wants to fill this position, he will have to fund it within the present millage limits and within his budget limitations as discussed at this morning's meeting. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a tentative millage of 3.500 for the General Fund for the fiscal year 1985-86. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to approve a tentative budget of $17,451,023 for the General Fund for the fiscal year 1985-86. Administrator Wright asked whether the Federal Revenue Sharing money was moved out of this budget, and OMB Director 17 j6_ SEP 4 1985 BOOK 61 F,,cr ��9 SEP 41955 BOOK 61 PaIG; E 970 Barton explained that these numbers show a transfer in on the revenue side of $325,000 and the expense is on the appropria- tion side. The only alternate he felt the Board may want to address is not to transfer the money in here, and in that case, we would-be lowering the income side by $325,000 and lowering the expense side by $325,0001, and this would be consistent with how we have handled the Federal Revenue Sharing in the past. We can do it either way. Administrator -Wright stated that we are going back to the old method. It does not affect the millage, but he felt the Board should be aware of this because the figures may change. OMB Director Barton reported that, in that case, the budget for the General Fund would be $17,126,023 instead of $17,451,023. Commissioner Wodtke agreed that he would like to handle these funds separately, and it was agreed to go back to the old method. Commissioners Bird and Bowman reworded their Motion to reflect the changed budget figure for the General Fund of $17,126,023. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION ON THE MOTION AS CORRECTED. It was voted on and the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a tentative budget of $17,126,023 for the General Fund for the fiscal year 1985-86, as follows: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TAXING AUTHORITIES PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FYALS-86 '• 71 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS i BRLAdCF9 '' ': -_ Federal Sources X1;420 State Sources 1.26S.500 Local Sources 1.869.605 axef '• AO YeSub 10 . Total Less 5% per t.1.:129.11119U(b) 660 M), Not345.749 Tmufers" 1_,834.170 .. Cash Balances'Foard Oct. 1. 1985 1 946 104 rr TAL TOESTIMATED RECEIPTS 8 BALANCES • 174,19:,1123— APP11"1AT10HS enera vernment "' 3;298.447 Public Safety 6,472,713 Physical Environment 614.165 Transportation Economic Environment 57.941 Human Services 796.928 Culture/Recreation ' 729.247 Interfund Transfers 1 063 377 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS Reserve for Contingeneies i3;b3�,$IS 1.343.205 " GsA Forward Sept. 30. 1986 760.000 TOTAL BUDGET 14111490 '3.5000 wills 18 J The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing on the Transportation Fund. OMB Director Barton explained that there is no millage assessment for the Transportation Fund as it is funded by transfers in from both the General Fund and the MSTU. The proposed budget is $5,099,030. The Vice Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a tentative budget of $5,099,030 for the Transportation Fund for fiscal year 1985-86. The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing on the Municipal Service Taxing Unit. OMB Director Barton reported that the proposed millage is 1.22025, which is lower than the rollback rate, and the proposed budget is $6,501,166. The Vice Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a tentative millage of 1.22025 for the 19 198 SEP 4 BOOK Fa . 1 971 SEP 4 1985 BOOK 61 E1IE97 Municipal Service Taxing Unit for the fiscal year 1985-86. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a tentative budget of $6,501,166 for the Municipal Service Taxing Unit for the fiscal year 1985-86. The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing on the Beach Acquisition General Obligation Bonds. OMB Director Barton announced that this is the third year of this five year issue; the proposed mill -age is 0.39679, which is below rollback; and the proposed budget is $1,367,926. The Vice Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a tentative millage of 0.39679 for the Beach Acquisition General Obligation Bonds for fiscal year 1985-86. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a tentative budget of $1,367,926 for the Beach Acquisition General Obligation Bonds for fiscal year 1985-86. 20 The OMB Director informed those present that the next budgets to be considered are those of the Fire Districts: ,Estimated Receipts & Balances Local Sources Ad Valorem Taxes Sub Total Less 5% per F.S. 129.01(2)(b) Net Cash Forward October 1, 1985 Total Estimated Receipts & Balances North County. Fire District 31,100 165,000 19 16 00 (7,256) 188,844 122,200 SM, -0 -4 -4 - Appropriations & Reserves Fire Control 219,044 Total Appropriations i 19,044 Reserve for Contingencies 17,000 Cash Forward September 30, 1986 75,000 Total Appropriations & Reserves ' 311311 West County Fire District 600 44,500 45,100 (2,227) 42,873 2,127 45,000- 42,250 42,250 500 2,250 5,000 South County Fire District 95,022 3.312 800 3,40 ,822 3,407,822 424,000 -3,831,822- 3,050,989 ,050,989 176,200 604,633 ,831,8 2 Millage 0.5 Mills 0.30526 Mills 1.642 Mills Commissioner Bowman, as Chairman of the District Board of Fire Commissioners of the North Indian River County Fire District, opened the public hearing on North County Fire. OMB Director Barton reported that the proposed millage is 0.5 or 1/2 mill, which is less than last year's levy so there is no rollback requirement. The proposed budget is $311,044. Chairman Bowman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to approve a tentative millage of 0.5 for the North County Fire District for fiscal year 1985-86. 21 BOOK r1' N F 7 SEP 4 1985 BOOK 61 FA;E 9/4 4 Vice Chairman Scurlock wished to express his belief that the proposed millage is insufficient to fund the North County Fire District adequately, and his hope that in workshop sessions we can address some long range planning for the District. THE VICE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and approved unanimously (4-0). ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a tentative budget of $311,044 for the North County Fire District for fiscal year 1985-86. The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing on the South County Fire District. The OMB Director announced that the proposed millage is 1.642, which is an 18.64% increase above rollback, and the proposed budget is $3,831,822. Commissioner Wodtke noted that is 2/10 of a mill higher than last year, and the Vice Chairman believed we all have serious concerns about that. The Vice Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a tentative millage of 1.642 for the South County Fire District for fiscal year 1985-86. 22 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a tentative budget of $3,831,822 for the South County Fire District for fiscal year 1985-86. The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing on the West County Fire District. OMB Director Barton announced that the proposed millage is 0.30526, which is 12.18% above rollback, and the proposed budget is $45,000. The Vice Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a tentative millage of 0.30526 for the West County Fire District for fiscal year 1985-86. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a tentative budget of $45,000 for the West County Fire District for fiscal year 1985-86. The Vice Chairman announced that the Commission now would consider the various Street Lighting Districts, as -set out in the following memo: winV �IIIIIIIIIIIIII 23 BOOK 61 NvF �0 TH CID I LO ' 00 V_ CL W INDIAN RIVER COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICTS PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY 85-86 Rockridge Street Lighting District Laurelwood Street Lighting District Gifford Street Lighting 'District Vero Highlands Street Lighting District Estimated Receipts & Balances f Ad Valorem Taxes 1,930 7,686 32,120 53?600 Interest Income 200 200 1?500 21500 Less 5% per F.S. 129.01(2)(b) '(107) - (336) (j 740) (2 805 Sub -total 2-,023 7^;5500 33,030 5 95 Contributions ----R -<--- ------ ------ Cash Forward Oct. 1, 1985 `2,000 ''1,700 ' 31,070 1 712 Total Estimated Receipts & Balances 4023 9, 52 064-P-100- -14,000 5,00 Appropriations & Reserves f Utilities 2,200 6,600 46,200. 37,500 Professfonal Fees 400 600 1,300 4,176 Advertising .100 100 100 100 Maintenance 100 -- -- Total Appropriations,8 0000 /,JUU 47- , 41� Reserve for Contingency 200., 300 2,500 1,000 Cash Forward Sept. 30, 1986 '-1,023 '1,650 -14,000 12,231 Total Appropriations & Reserves 4,023T 9� 64,100, 55,007- Millage $5.00/Parcel Acre $23.00/Parcel Acre $12.00/Parcel Acre $25.00/Parcel Acre 1 1 Vice Chairman Scurlock opened the public hearing on the Rockridge Street Lighting District. OMB Director Barton announced that the proposed levy is $5.00 per parcel acre, the same as last year; there is no rollback requirement; and the proposed budget is $4,023. The Vice Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a tentative assessment of $5.00 per parcel/ acre for the Rockridge Street Lighting District for fiscal year 1985-86. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a tentative budget of $4,023 for the Rockridge Street Lighting District for fiscal year 1985-86. Vice Chairman Scurlock opened the public hearing on the Laurelwood Street Lighting District. OMB Director Barton announced that the proposed levy is $23.00 per parcel/acre, the same as last year; there is no rollback requirement; and the proposed budget is $9,250. The Vice Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. 25 SEP 4 19005 BOOK 61 PA1E 977 i BOOK 61 olu.918 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a tentative assessment of $23.00 per parcel/acre for the Laurelwood Street Lighting District for fiscal year 1985-86. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a tentative budget of $9,250 for the Laurelwood Street Lighting District for fiscal year 1985-86. Vice Chairman Scurlock opened the public hearing on the Gifford Street Lighting District. OMB Director Barton announced that the proposed levy is $12.00 per parcel/acre, the same as last year; there is no rollback requirement; and the proposed budget is $64,100. The Vice Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a tentative assessment of $12.00 per parcel/acre for the Gifford Street Lighting District for fiscal year 1985-86. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a tentative budget of $64,100 for the Gifford Street Lighting District for fiscal year 1985-86. 26 The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing on the Vero Highlands Street Lighting District. OMB Director Barton informed the Board that this is the first year for this District so there is no rollback requirement; the proposed levy is $25.00 per parcel/acre; and the proposed budget is $55,007. Commissioner Wodtke inquired about where the Property Appraiser's fee is shown, and it was explained he does not get paid on per parcel/acre levies; only the Tax Collector does. Commissioner Wodtke asked why General Government costs are shown on the Vero Lake Estates MSTU and not the Street Lighting District, and the OMB Director stated that those costs are shown under Professional Fees. The Vice Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a tentative assessment of $25.00 per parcel/acre for the Vero Highlands Street Lighting District for fiscal year 1985-86. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved a tentative budget of $55,007 for the Vero Highlands Street Lighting District for fiscal year 1985-86. The Vice Chairman announced that the Commission would next consider the budgets for "Other Operating Funds" as follows: 27 SEP 41985 BOOK on �J C-1 co Estimated Receipts & Balances Federal Sources State Sources Local Sources Less 5% per F.S. 129.01(2)(b) Transfers Cash Forward Oct. 1, 1985 Total Estimated Receipts & Balances APPROPRIATIONS General Government Public Safety Physical Environment Transportation Economic Environment Human Services Culture/Recreation Interfund Transfers TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS Reserve for Contingencies Cash Forward Sept. 30, 1986 TOTAL BUDGET INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - OTHER OPERATING FUNDS . PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY 85-86 FEDERAL 1980 & SECTION 8 RENTAL POLICE ACADEMY SECONDARY ROAD SPECIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PISTOL PERMITS PARKS DEVELOPMENT S 98,67 REVENUE SHARING 1981 BONDS -ASSISTANCE 'FUND : CONSTRUCTION FUND FUND FUND 50,000 500 29,290 ---- 56 ,60 .902,850 1,W71,925 400,000 `'29,100 53,1 598,679 -102 935 100 10,000 1 2,935 2,100 39,290 446,500 730,720 12,500 94,925 24,000 227,600 2,550 2,000 2,500 (44,533) (1,200) (100) 197640 - 930,500 1,4 1,92 S ig ' 30,300 51100 - 4 `320,000 8,320 =150 385 29935 200 2,100 -36 790 9,290 ,60 ,2 co N 97,411 519,075 P 14,000 10500 1 597,778 325,000 901 '2,500,000 44 2� 519,075 S 98,67 4,000 2-,5-00,000�----��-_- 143,196 50,000 ------- 10,000 200,000 50,000 500 29,290 ---- 56 ,60 .902,850 1,W71,925 98,6 9 `'29,100 53,1 `-2,575,320 5, D 8, 20 -102 935 100 10,000 1 2,935 2,100 39,290 1 The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing on Federal Revenue Sharing, as well as all the other operating funds listed. Commissioner Wodtke inquired about the $325,000 in Federal: Revenue Sharing which we took out of the General Fund, and Director Barton explained the total FRS budget, which is $565,607 does not change; the interfund transfers will be zeroed and the $325,000 is going to go on a multitude of lines which he will have to work out before the final budget is considered. The OMB Director noted that there are no millages involved with these operating funds and, therefore, no rollback requirement. He then stated that the proposed budgets are as follows: Federal Revenue Sharing $ 565,607 1980 & 1981 Bonds 1,471,925 Section 8 Rental Assistance 598,679, Police Academy Trust Fund 53,100 Secondary Road Construction 5,278,320 Special Law Enforcement Fund (Confiscated Property) 152,935 Pistol Permits Fund 2,100 Parks Development Fund 39,290 The Vice Chairman inquired about the Housing Authority budget as he would like to vote against it, but Director Barton noted that the Commission does not approve their budget. The Vice Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. and the Vice Chairman thereupon declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the tentative budgets for the above listed budgets as stated by the OMB Director. The Vice Chairman announced that the Commission would next consider the budgets for the Enterprise and Internal Service Funds, which are set out as follows: 29 SEP 41985 BOOK 61 Fa,E 98 F_ CQ W 0 0 an CL W Cly INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ENTERPRISE AND INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY 85-86 Sanitary Water.& Sewer Impact Fleet Building Landfill Utilities Fees- Management Department Revenues: User Fees 1?252,275 3x5341'609 650,000 1,034?640 585,000 InterestIncome TotalRevenues 72 -5 4 �6 13-300 N0-3;300 T 0$OOO 00 a034,4� Expenses: Vehicle Maintenance 1?306,327 Garbage/Solid Waste 947,326 Water Sewer Combination Services 2,7610034 Protective Services 510,597 Cash Forward Sept. 30, 1986 `'376;949 833,575 -:803 300 (271 687) 84,403 Total Expenses 1,324,275 3,594, 0903,3 595P00 ,034,640 1 1 OMB Director Barton noted that these are the last group of accounts to be considered and their proposed budgets for these various accounts are: Sanitary Landfill $1,324,275 Water 8 Sewer Utilities 3,594,609 Impact Fees 803,300 Fleet Management 1,034,640 Building Department 595,000 Commissioner Wodtke raised a question about the negative Cash Carry Forward shown in Fleet Management, and Administrator Wright assured him that is not going to happen; it is simply a budgetary thing. Commissioner Wodtke asked if we have a legal problem with approving a budget that we are saying will operate in the red. OMB Director Barton noted that it is an Inter Service Fund, and we will make up the deficiencies by charges; Attorney Vitunac explained that if this were a separate fund, we couldn't do that, but it is part of a bigger one and other surpluses will average it out, The Vice Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were none. and the Vice Chairman thereupon declared the public hearing closed. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the tentative budgets for the above listed Enterprise and Internal Service Fund budgets as stated by the OMB Director. Vice Chairman Scurlock wished to point out that our Cash Carry Forward for Utilities has risen from $187,305 to $833,575, which indicates that our system is extremely healthy; rates are stabilized; and our expansion program is on the move and being paid for as it goes. 31 SEP 4 1985 BOOK1 A SEP 4 1995 BOOK I Na G F 9 There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 9:55 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk ft 32