HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/10/1986SPECIAL CALL MEETING
Tuesday, June 10, 1986
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 Tuesday, June
10, 1986, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock,
Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird;
Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were
L.S. "Tommy" Thomas, Acting County Administrator; Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph
Baird, OMB Director; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Chairman
Scurlock gave a brief rundown of how Administrator Thomas, OMB
Director Baird, Utilties Director Terry Pinto and the Finance
Advisory Committee put together a great team effort in reviewing
the various capital projects already committed to in this county.
The first process was to identify the various outstanding bond
issues. Heading the list is the $9.2 million FmHA Gifford Sewer
Project where we are looking at validating those bonds within the
next 60 days, and the team red flagged that for 8-18-86. Next we
have the $8.2 million library issue which needs to be placed on
the ballot for September 2, 1986, and determine the wording of
the ballot. Since it is such a large issue and we could not
spend all those monies in the first 3 years, it would require
some sort of series bonds so that we could issue and then come
back and reissue when additional, needed construction takes
place:
Validation times need to be set and bond counsel bas been
JUN 10 1986 BOOK 64 Fn,, 647
JUN 10 1966 BOOK 64 Fa,E648
advised to maintain as much flexibility as possible so that if
there is a desire in the future to go to the district, we could
do so. One of the thoughts has been that we could lease back the
improvements that the general fund has funded, and we are working*
on that. They also talked about the Sheriff's Building and red
flagged it for around October 1st. Further, they discussed
refinancing the SR -60 water and sewer projects and came up with
appropriate figures.
Chairman Scurlock suggested setting up a team concept where
the team would set up a flow chart in a critical path so that we
can identify who is responsible for what along with the key times
so that we will be able to track all the projects in a very quick
form rather than having to read a 25 -page narrative. The flow
chart would be available on a monthly basis. The recommendation
is to use the Finance Advisory Committee to a much larger extent
so the process would be that the team would work on this, make
presentations, develop the necessary data, and have it reviewed
by the Finance Advisory Committee before bringing it to the
Board. In addition, they discussed putting potential projects on
the chart which would trigger the think tank.
Commissioner Lyons felt it was a great idea and noted that
we have a flow chart on the Jail which really tells the story of
where everything was supposed to happen and whether or not it
happened.
OMB Director Joe Baird reviewed the following memo dated
6/9/86 re funding of the Golf Course.
0
� a �
TO: Honorable Board of County
DATE: June 9, 1986 FILL:
Commissioners
�T(ho;asSUBJECT:
THROUGH: Tommy Financial Information
County Administrator on Golf Course
FROM: JosephTA. Baird REFERENCES:
OMB Director
Below is a summary of source and use of funds on the $2,720,000 Golf Course
bond issue. I have attached a copy of the architect's construction cost estimates
and the draw schedule. The only variance we have is the total architectural fees
will be $112,400, all other costs are within the estimate at this time.
GOLF COURSE
$2,720,000 BOND ISSUE
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
SOURCES
Par Amount of the Bonds $2,720,000,00
Accrued Interest 15,102.00
Contribution from County 300,000.00
TOTAL SOURCES $3,035,102.00
USES
Deposit to Construction Fund 2,400,000.00
Estimated Cost of Issuance (1) 123,693.85
Deposit to Sinking Fund (2) 486,620.00
Original Issue Discount 24,788.15
TOTAL USES $3,035,102.00
(1) Includes Bond Insurance Premium and Bond Discount.
(2) Includes Accrued Interest and Capitalized Interest.
SANDRIDGE GOLF COURSE
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Architect
$ 110,000
Site Work
135,000
Construction of Golf Course
1,300,000
(Irrigation - $300,000)
Clubhouse
250,000
Maintenance Building
100,000
Golf Cart Equipment Building
75,000
Equipment
200,000
Grow -in Costs
175,000
Contingency
55,000
TOTAL COST
$2,400,000
Less Utility Contribution
- 300,000
Net Amount Borrowed
$2,100,000
3
BOOK D4 FD.Gc ��
JUIN 10 1986
JUN
10
1996
BOOK
64
650
Director Baird explained that
the contribution from
the
County for $300,000 is for the irrigation system, and Chairman
Scurlock suggested that we identify that item as either effluent
disposal or well source, because that way it is still flexible
and open. If we say irrigation, that is actually in the range of
$273,00 as opposed to $300,000.
Commissioner Bird had no problem with earmarking it for
future utility needs in general, but to be technical about it, he
believed that if you add in the cost of the lake that is being
constructed for irrigation, it will come out over $300,000.
County Administrator Tommy Thomas explained that the initial
estimate for irrigation itself was $300,000, but it appears that
it is going to be around $270,000-$273,000. We don't want to be
restricted to the use of that money because later on it might be
of much more value than $300,000 if we get into effluent
disposal, which seems to be the direction we are heading.
Chairman Scurlock inquired whether the site work includes
the entrance way and the club house, and General Services
Director Sonny Dean confirmed that it did. It also includes the
parking lot for the club house, landscaping, etc.
Administrator Thomas advised that because there was a
question as to whether there would be some additional costs for
moving additional dirt, he, Director Baird and Rex Hailey met
with Tommy Guettler and were pretty well assured that it will
come out, but there might be a little additional cost for new
sand for the sand traps.
Chairman Scurlock explained that they instructed Mr.
Guettler to notify us if they get to the point where they need to
move more sand than what has been authorized. We don't want any
surprises.
Director Baird noted that the architectural fees for the
club house are included in the $250,000 estimate. The other
architectural fees are just for the golf course itself.
M
Director Baird continued to review the golf course
construction costs and explained that we don't have any actual
costs on some these items because we have not awarded any
contracts as yet.
Commissioner Bird reported that he is presently in the
process of working with staff to develop a small brochure so that
we can get more donations for the golf course.
Chairman Scurlock felt that, basically, it looks like we are
in pretty good shape on the golf course project, and Director
Baird confirmed that at this point we are, but he would keep the
Board advised on any changes. He noted that we are also doing
very well on the draw schedule at this time. We expected to draw
down $590,000 through the month of May, but it is only around
$200,000, which gives us good results on our interest earnings.
Director Baird reviewed the following memo dated 6/9/86:
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: June 9, 1986 FILE:
Commissioners SUBJECT: Proposed Capital Projects -
THROUGH: Tbmmy Thomas a for Indian River County
County Administrator
FROM: Josep A. Baird REFERENCES:
OMB DZ ector
For information purposes, staff has compiled a list of the expected
capital projects for the 1986/87 fiscal year. A detailed budget and
other pertinent information will be forwarded to the Honorable Board of
County Commissioners at a later date.
PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS
FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Library
$8,200,000
Minimum Security Facility
3,000,000
Sheriff's Building
4,500,000
Health Facility
3,500,000
Landfill
4,500,000
Utilities
Gifford Sewer Project
9,200,000
West County (Assessment)
4,000,000
North County (Assessment)
5,000,000
Grand Harbor (Assessment)
7,000,000
TOTAL $48,900,000
5
JUN 10 1986 BOOK 6F,4�E�J1
JUN 10 1986 K �� F��GE 6=��
B00
TO: Honorable Board of County DATE: June 3, 1986 FILE:
Commissioners
r* --V
THROUGH: Tommy Thomas. . I
County Adminis rator
Via Sonny D
General Sery e Director
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
SUBJECT: Financial Status of Jail,
Minimum Security Facility
and Sheriff's Building
REFERENCES: $9,855,000 Bond Prospectus
Below is a summary of all revenues and expenses on the Jail and Minimum Security
Facility. We have also included information on the Sheriff's Building, but at this
time we are unable to estimate the total cost of the facility. Money was borrowed to
fund the projects in the $9,855,000 bond issue and is shown as. loan proceeds in the
breakdown.
JAIL - PHASE I
156 BED FACILITY
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT
REVENUES AND EXPENSES
REVENUES
One cent Sales Tax $4,168,332
Loan Proceeds 1,200,000
Interest Income 121,512
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENSES
Land
139,946
Soil Monitoring
16,000
Jail Building
3,774,845
Architect Fee
257,445
Installation of Underground Utilities
55,350
Water Meter, Pit & Backflow Preventer
13,000
Site Work (Parking Lot)
229,520
Impact Fees - Water & Sewer
29,440
Inspection
38,000
Furniture & Equipment
250,000
Miscellaneous
8,959
Interest Expense
101,679
Issuance Expense
24,000
Contingencies
79,915
TOTAL EXPENSES
UNANTICIPATED SURPLUS
PHASE II
MINIMUM SECURITY FACILITY
120 BEDS
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT
REVENUES AND EXPENSES
REVENUES
$5,489,844
5,018,099
471,745
Loan Proceeds $1,300,000
Surplus Funds from Phase I 471,745
Interest Income 145,000
TOTAL REVENUES $1,916,745
6
EXPENSES
Building
1,906,700
Architect's Fee
133,707
Site Work
145,000
Impact Fee
60,240
Water Meter, Pit & Backflow Preventer
13,000
Inspection
38,000
Furniture & Equipment
125,000
Miscellaneous
8,000
Interest Expense
271,398
Issuance Expense
56,100
Contingency (10%)
207,000
TOTAL EXPENSES
2,964,145
UNANTICIPATED DEFICIT
(1,047,400)
SHERIFF'S
OFFICE AND
COMMUNICATION CENTER
PROJECT
SUMMARY
REVENUES
Loan Proceeds
1,500,000
TOTAL REVENUES
1,500,000
EXPENSES
Administration Building (33,000 Sq. Ft.)
1,502,490
Site Work (Including Parking)
297,990
Confiscated Property Building (20,000 Sq.ft.) 300,000
Maintenance Shop Building
65,625
All Equipment & Relocation
300,000
(est.)
Shop/Maintenance Equipment
20,000
(est.)
Loop Road (Jail & Sheriff's Building)
30,000
Landscaping
15,000
Emergency Generator & Transfer Switch
36,500
Gas Pumps and Tank
32,000
Miscellaneous Equipment
5,000
TOTAL EXPENSES
2,604,605
UNANTICIPATED DEFICIT
(1,104,605)
EXPENSES NOT INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE DEFICIT (NO
ESTIMATES AT
THIS TIME)
Telephone System
911 System
Impact Fees
Furniture & Equipment
Additional Landscaping
Sewer Improvements
Engineering
Interest Expense
Loan Issuance Cost
PLEASE NOTE: THE DEFICIT OF $1,104,605 DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL EXPENSES THAT WILL BE INCURRED.
After consolidating the Jail, Minimum Security Facility and some of the Sheriff's
Building expenses, we show a deficit of $2,152,005. The total short -fall will defi-
nately be more.
In addition to the above mentioned projects the County is looking into construct-
ing a Health Facility. Sonny Dean and I are calculating the total cost of the project
and will present it to the Honorable Board of County Commissioners at a future meeting.
7
BOOKS
jUN
10
1966
Bou
64
Director Baird explained that
the above memo is
for
information purposes only and all the numbers are subject to
change because they are very preliminary.
Chairman Scurlock noted that the list does not include any
bond anticipation notes. For example, we will need some interim
financing for the Gifford sewer project.
Director Baird advised that was listed under Utilities as a
Gifford sewer project. The bans will roll into the permanent
financing from FmHA.
Chairman Scurlock just wanted the Board to understand that
on some of these projects we are going to have something other
than just permanent financing. We have looked at the pool
concept and analyzed it to the point that the pool or local banks
are just not competitive, and feel the best approach would be a
bond anticipation note.
Director Baird explained that the assessments mentioned
under Utilities is the mechanism we will use to raise the funds
for a particular project, such as the SR -60 water and sewer
assessment liens.
Commissioner Wodtke emphasized that the Landfill and
Utilities are really enterprise accounts, and Director Baird
pointed out that the Landfill figure of $4.5 million is very
subject to change, because it depends on the ever-changing DER
requirements.
Chairman Scurlock understood that basically all we are
looking at for tax support is the library, the minimum -security
facility, the Sheriff's building, and the health building, and if
we are going to build these projects as listed, we are going to
need monies beyond the $9.85 million. The other options,
obviously, are to curtail a project or not build it at all.
Since the minimum -security facility is already designed and the
contract is ready to be signed, the flexibility there is not
great. There is a little flexibility in the Sheriff's Building
with the ancillary facilities such as the evidence area of
8
approximately 50,000 square feet for the storage of vehicles and
confiscated goods, and to some extent the 911 portion of that
building. He assumed, however, that if we are going to redo it,
we would have to redesign it.
Commissioner Lyons felt we should not let ourselves get
stampeded into shortcuts for buildings that will last 50 years.
If we need these buildings, let's find a way to build them, and
build them right the first time.
Commissioner Bird wished for staff to go back and take a
harder look at the Sheriff's Building and the Health Building to
make sure that what we are building is done the most cost
effective way.
Commissioner Lyons did not have a problem with that. He
just did not want to see any projects deleted.
Chairman Scurlock felt that sometimes we fail to realize
that these various bond issues are 30 year issues in most cases,
and we can roll them together, refinance, and reduce the debt
service to some extent, but the bottom line is that we are going
to experience some debt service for 30 years.
Commissioner Bird asked if Finance is in the process of
giving us some kind of projection as far as debt service is
concerned, and Director Baird advised that he prepared a chart a
couple of months ago, but it changes constantly due to market
fluctuations.
Administrator Thomas pointed out that of the $45 -million
committed to the various capital projects, only $16 million is
either directly or indirectly related to ad valorem taxes.
Generally, the balance is all revenue from utility or similar
type operations.
Commissioner Bird asked if the $4.2 million raised through
the sales tax for the Jail is on deposit,and Director Baird
explained that at present we have $3.9 million on deposit gaining
interest. However, we are $260,000 off. The problem is that we
are not sure how much revenue we are going to receive from the
9
JUN 10 1966 BOOK 64 FFnJE 655
I
JUN
0 1986
Box 6
F G 656
State.
He is concerned about the State asking for monies
back
rather than giving us more. However, the receipt of delinquent
taxes will give us additional income, and Director Baird felt it
was safe for us to go with the money we have right now, the $3.9
million.
Director Baird advised that staff is presently developing a
information system where each project has a line item budget so
that we have a cost center to track, and every time there is a
change, we would notify the Board. In addition, there would be a
line item budget prior to going in and approving any contracts,
except for the architect and engineer, because they have to
design the project before we know what the costs are. He felt it
would be worth the money to have a feasibility study done on each
for $1,000-$2,000 a piece to get a total breakdown so that we can
track if from that point and see where we stand at all times.
Commissioner Bird believed it would be extremely helpful to
develop some ceiling figures on these major projects so that
right away we start working within those perimeters and instruct
the architects to stay within that limit.
Chairman Scurlock believed that we went out for our money
way too early, rather than having some kind of interim financing
and then coming back with some permanent financing.
Commissioner Wodtke emphasized that we don't want to pay 10%
to the architect and general contractor on bids for furnishings,
equipment, etc., such as we did on the 4th Courtroom, and
Director Baird stated that the architect gets a percentage on
just the Jail building itself.
Chairman Scurlock noted that by diverting monies from the
Utilities enterprise funds to other general projects, such as
$250,000 for the Jail, these projects actually are being paid for
by the users of the utilities, not the general taxpayers. He did
not feel that was right.
Commissioner Lyons felt that we should find some way to
credit the Jail because that cost was based on oversizing the
10
M
lines to serve the Jail's fire needs and other needs in that
area, but Chairman Scurlock stated that he is not talking just
about oversizing charges. He would like to see Directors Baird,
Pinto and Davis get together on this and come up with a
reasonable number, which would be a part of the project.
Director Baird stated that he left out both the 911 income
and expense from the Sheriff's Building because he did not know
as yet whether the revenues would exceed the costs and was
reluctant to make any projections on revenues.
Commissioner Lyons understood that the architect for the
Sheriff's Building has shown only a room for the 911 system, and
we will go ahead and get the necessary engineering out of the
funds that come from the 911 charge on the phones to design and
construct that portion of the Sheriff's Building. However, we
don't know yet what those revenues will be.
Director Dean explained that the design of the 911 center is
part of the architect's contact, but the architect does not have
the expertise in house, as far as the interior design and
location of equipment. He suggested retaining a consultant to
design the 911 system.
Commissioner Bird asked if only the Sheriff's employees
would be assigned to that duty or would other agencies have some
representation on the system, such as the fire department,
ambulance squad, etc.
Director Dean stated that their concept at the present time
is that the Sheriff's Dept. will operate the 911 and central
dispatch, and Commissioner Lyons advised that they would come
back to the Board on this.
Chairman Scurlock wanted to discuss the Budget Office itself
and how we want to handle it in the future. There has been two
suggestions: 1) Hire an internal auditor, or 2) have the
Budget Office report directly to the Board of County
Commissioners.
11
BOOK 64 FAGE 65
I
JUN 10 1986
BOOK 64 u'u- 658
Director Baird felt that the Office of Budget Management
should report directly to the Board, as far as financial
information is concerned, but right now, his problem is that
there is just himself and his secretary and he would need more
staff, especially an analyst.
Administrator Thomas explained that he might change his mind
after reviewing data from other counties, but at present,'he
favored having an internal auditor reporting directly to the
Board, someone who can walk into any department under the Board
and does not have to answer to anyone other than the Board.
Commissioner Lyons asked if the OMB Director in his role as
the keeper of the budget would be able to do his job and keep the
flow charts on the proposed capital projects up to date.
Administrator Thomas felt that from a practical point of
view, he did not see how one person could do both jobs and do
them properly. While he did not have any problem with the OMB
Director reporting directly to the Board, he recommended that the
Board hire an internal auditor.
Director Baird said that we have an internal auditor right
now. State law states that the Clerk is the auditor and Freda
Wright has an internal auditor in Finance Director Ed Fry. He
felt there would be duplication.
Administrator Thomas asked if there was anything written in
the law that states that the Board cannot have an auditor also,
and Attorney Vitunac noted that is the bone of contention with
the Clerks as they feel they are the auditors.
Administrator Thomas gave an example where an auditor has
certain information but might not feel a particular piece of
information is serious enough or that they have any
responsibility in that circumstance to pass it on to the Board.
Chairman Scurlock was concerned that all the information
gets directly to the Commission, and whoever the auditor is or
12
1
whatever department it is, he felt that they should not be
inhibited in any way or pressured into not bringing something to
this Board.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Office of Budget
Management report directly to the Board of County
Commissioners and authorize the County Attorney to
prepare an ordinance to this effect.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird asked how this would
change the procedures, and Administrator Thomas explained that
basically the OMB Director would feel free to report anything
that he feels is of financial interest directly to the Board. He
can go through the Administrator first, but he is not bound to if
he feels the Administrator is inclined to stop it. This does
not mean that hewon't work with the Administrator.
Commissioner Bird wondered if that position became open in
the future whether it would be filled in the same procedure as
the County Attorney and County Administrator, and Attorney
Vitunac felt it was on the same level, and the Administrator
would make a recommendation with regard to hiring and firing an
individual.
Commissioner Bird asked if there was some way Administrator
Thomas could get involved in this and establish a workable
relationship between this office and the auditor on the Clerk's
staff so that we don't step on her toes and get crossed up in a
duplication of effort, and Administrator Thomas assured him that
they would work with the County Attorney and report back to the
Board when everything is put together or when the ordinance comes
back to the Board.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
13
IJUN 10 1986 aooK 6 4 P,�cF 659
JUN 10 IS86 BOOK 64 ulu, 660
Chairman Scurlock advised that Administrator Thomas would
like some direction from the Commission as to how the monies
received from the 64 gas tax should be used. Based on the
budgets that have been submitted so far, we have a substantial
amount of money to be raised this year. The question is when we
get to Road 6 Bridge and start setting priorities, are we going
to gear ourselves more to projects in those areas where we can
use the gas tax monies or are we going to let the gas tax money
just sit there and go to ad valorem taxes to raise the additional
money. He did not feel that there were as many strings attached
to the use of the gas tax monies as first thought, as they can be
used for for maintenance, capital, or anything that is directly
related to constructing and improving roads. The Commissioners
indicated that they would like to have Attorney Vitunac check
into this further.
Chairman Scurlock just felt that since this will be a real
tight budget year, perhaps we want to gear ourselves to those
type of projects where we have a source of revenue rather than
raising the taxes a mill and a half, because right now, looking
at the constitutional officers, the medical officer, etc., we are
talking about $3.2 million, which does not even include the
Board's employees, and that would take about 1 mill plus about
3/10's of a mill for debt service. If nobody's budget is cut, we
would have to raise taxes by about a milt and a half.
Commissioner Lyons felt that the gas tax money was intended
for roads, and that we have to define what we mean for roads.
Administrator Thomas recalled that back in 1971 the budget
was printed on one-half page and has grown each year. Of course,
there is more involvement with the other constitutional officers
budgets. He would like to see the Finance Advisory Committee
expanded to the Finance Advisory and Budget Review Committee and
have the Chairman and one other member form a sub -committee along
with the OMB Director and the Administrator and whoever else that
the Board may want from time to time as ex officio members. In
14
addition, in order to improve the flow of information, he would
like to see the Clerk's Finance Director Ed Fry as an ex officio
member. He felt that revenues were often overlooked at budget
time, and a committee such as this could help us a great deal in -
that area. If a division head or a department head felt that
this committee or the Administrator was wrong, they still would
have the right to bring it to the Board at the regular public
budget hearings. He felt this could cut the budget meetings in
half. It would eliminate the discussion of each line expense,
but would not eliminate anything that calls for a decision from
the Board. Administrator Thomas felt that under our present
system that staff is not doing their proper homework and that
some items should not even be included. The point is that the
review committee would provide necessary assistance.
Director Baird felt that sometimes a committee can slow down
things even more, and pointed out that the Budget Director's role
is to review the budget where an internal auditor looks at
expenses after the monies are spent.
Administrator Thomas just wanted to have some support when
he tells the different division heads to cut their budgets back,
especially since it appears that the former Administrator told
the division heads to increase their budgets.
Administrator Thomas raised the question of his salary
during the interim period he is serving as Acting County
Administrator.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the same pay rate for L. S. "Tommy" Thomas as
that paid to the former County Administrator during the
period he serves as the acting County Administrator.
Director Baird advised that we are thinking of scheduling
the budget workshops during the last two weeks in July, beginning
15
JUN 10 1986 Boa 64 FnE 661
J
Monday, July 14th. He believed that would give him enough time
to get all the figures in order.
Commissioner Lyons asked when the bid runs out on the
minimum security facility, and Chairman Scurlock asked if the
Board wants to go ahead and authorize him to sign the contract
contingent on the fact that we are going to go out for additional
money. We have enough money, as far as our cash flow is
concerned, but it is going to require a commitment that we are
going to seek additional funding. He explained that we have just
enough with the $1.9 million, but when you get to the site work,
the furnishings, equipment, etc., we do not. That is why he has
withheld his signature on the contract until the Board either
confirms their commitment of going ahead and seeking money, or if
not, rejects the bid.
The Commissioners agreed that there was no other alternative
than to go ahead and authorize the Chairman to sign the
construction contract approved at the meeting of May 28, 1986.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized the Chairman to sign the contract with
Shopke Construction and Engineering on the construction
of the minimum -security facility with the understanding
that this Board is committed to long term financing.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:35 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
16
Chairman