The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9/7/1988Tentative Budget Wednesday, September 7, 1988 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 7, 1988, at 6:01 o'clock P.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; and Carolyn K. Eggert. Absent was Margaret C. Bowman, who later entered the meeting at 7:15 P.M. Also present were William G. Collins, Il, Acting County Administrator; Charles Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. Chairman Scurlock called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Chairman Scurlock announced that the purpose of this meeting, which is one of the two budget hearings- that will be held, is to consider and adopt the Tentative Budget for fiscal year 1988-89. He explained to those present the procedure that would be followed during the hearings on the various funds, noting that we have a new Solid Waste Disposal District which was created this year and is new to everyone. He noted that we realize there are some glitches to any new system and that more discussion needs to take place re some questions that have arisen. The Chairman believed there has been some confusion in terms of.the last day that we will accept appeals to the Solid Waste District assessment. Some were under the impression that September 23rd would be the last day to make a formal appeal, but that is incorrect. Yesterday was actually the final date for that to occur, but the Chairman felt it would be reasonable for the Board to consider extending that time period because there has been some legitimate concern and confusion over this. It has S Err" 7 1988 BooK 7 been suggested that we extend that period for 11 weeks or so, but we still have to have time to react to whatever that appeal process does to us in terms of getting that adjustment made; so, he did not believe it can be as late as September 23rd. t Commissioner -'Eggert suggested that 5:00 P.M. on Friday, September the 16th, be set as the deadline for a formal appeal, and also that 1:00. P.M. Thursday, September 22nd be set for the hearings on those appeals. In discussion, those dates and times were generally agreed upon, and Chairman Scurlock announced that the appeal period for the Solid Waste assessments would be extended to September 16th at 5:00 P.M. and the hearings would be held at 1:00 P.M. September 22nd. Commissioner Eggert asked that everyone who called in about this be contacted and advised of the new dates, and Utilities Director Pinto informed those present that the appeal forms can be picked up in the Utilities office and filed with the Clerk at a charge of $25.00 per parcel. He asked that before anyone files an appeal they talk to the Utilities staff. Commissioner Eggert felt there should be a display ad - similar to the one put in the paper by the Property Appraiser setting out the appeal dates, hearing dates, etc., and the Board directed the Director of Utilities to publish such an ad. Chairman Scurlock explained to those present that tonight is a budget hearing and not as to whether someone's assessment is valid or not, which is dealt with by a separate board. This evening we will be talking about the next budget year; the Board already has had two weeks of budget workshop sessions and did make a number of reductions. The Chairman then reviewed in detail the procedure to be followed whereby the millage, roll- back, and budgets for all the various funds will be announced and opened up for public discussion. He advised that notice of tonight's meeting has been legally publicized by the TRIM Notice which was mailed to all property owners in the county. SEP 71988 2 BOOK 74 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TAXING AUTHORITIES PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY 88-89 0' GENERAL VERO LAKES Q PURPOSE ESTATES La cc MUNICIPAL MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE N = 00 TRANSPORTATION SERVICE SERVICE MANAGEMENT M GENERAL FUND FUND TAXING UNIT TAXING UNIT DISTRICT TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND BALANCES: Federal Sources 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,+ �• State Sources 962,437 628,648 2,720,445 0 0 4,311,530 m local Sources 2,140,626 126,481 2,765,000 4,000 3,514,939 8,551,046 d Ad Valorem Taxes 18,940,862 0 4,260,875 59,700 0 23,261,437 c<i -------------- --------------- ----------- ---------------------- -------------- .............. _s -0 Sub -Total 22,043,925 755,129 9,746,320 63,700 3,514,939 36,124,013 0 Less 5% per F. S. 129.01(2)(b) (1,102,196) (37,757) (487,316) (3,185) (175,747) (1,806,201) ai cnD Net 20,941,729 717,372 9,259,004 60,515 3,339,192 34,317,812 cD Transfers 4,689,180 4,308,191 0 10,000 0 9,007,371 0 m Cash Balances Forward October 1, 1988 2,397,294 1,779,334 855,845 38,185 535,130 5,605,788 Q CL ---- ------- ------- N e+ TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND BALANCES 28,028,203 6,804,897 10,114,849 108,700 3,874,322 48,930,971 N 0 w APPROPRIATIONS: n fD < General Government 6,566,163 224,710 667,007 0 0 7,457,880 0 Public Safety 12,294,261 0 152,360 0 0 12,446,621 Physical Environment 167,416 0 77,501 0 3,258,620 3,503,537 - '+ Transportation 0 5,407,147 79,781 81,700 0 5,568,628 0 0 Economic Environment 92,743 0 0 0 0 92,743 -0 Human Services 1,207,940 0 0 0 0 1,207,9400 v O Culture/Recreation 1,553,129 0 328,761 0 0 1,881,890 cfs -0 Interfund Transfers 2,868,853 0 7,228,438 0 0 10,097,291 su con ----------- --- --------------'- ----------- `� ---------------------- -------------- -------------- a TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS 24,750,505 5,631,857 8,533,848 81,700 3,258,620 42,256,530 C CD Reserve for Contingencies 1,652,698 300,000 760,782 27,000 0 2,740,480 - -• Cash Forward - September 30, 1989 1,625,000 873,040 820,219 0 615,702 3,318,259 0 _ -------------- --------------- ----------- ---------------------- -------------- -------------- tv KQlb TOTAL BUDGET 28,028,203 6,804,897 10,114,849 108,700 3,874,322 48,930,971 N La (D u1 Proposed Millage 4.9673 milts 2.0702 mills $15.00 PER PARCEL/ACRE $31.50 PER EQUIVALENT CL Rollback Millage 4.7137 mills 2.2478 mills RESIDENTIAL ® UNIT Cn i� i.� INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICTS PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY 88-89 (30 co NORTH COUNTY WEST COUNTY SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT FIRE DISTRICT FIRE DISTRICT ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND BALANCES: local Sources 46,000 1,500 195,000 Ad Valorem Taxes 471,344 ------------- 62,000 ------------- 4,237,825 ......... Sub-TotaL 517,344 63,500 4,432,825 Less 5% per F.S. 129.01(2)(b) (25,868) ------------- (3,175) ------------- (221,641) ------------- Net 491,476 60,325 4,211,184 Transfers In 0 0 16,744 Cash Forward October 1, 1988 120,072 ' ------------- 3,525 ------------- 900,000 ------------- TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND BALANCES 611,548 63,850 5,127,928 APPROPRIATIONS AND RESERVES: t Fire Control 392,563 ------------- 63,850 ------------- 4,446,992 ............. TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS 392,563 63,850 4,446,992 Fund Transfers out 4,565 0 41,091 Reserve for Contingencies 134,420 0 25,000 Cash Forward September 30, 1989 80,000 0 614,845 TOTAL.APPROPRIATIONS AND RESERVES ------------- 611,548 ------------- 63,850 ------------- 5,127,928 o 0 Proposed Millage 1.000 mills .3142 mills 1.6580 mills Rollback Millage .9845 mills .2769 mills 1.6580 mills REVISED: 08-30-88 1 1 1 Un ao 0 0 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND BALANCES: Ad Valorem Taxes Local Sources Less 5% per F. S. 129.01(2)(b) Sub -Total Contributions Cash Forward October 1, 1988 TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND BALANCES APPROPRIATIONS AND RESERVES: Utilities Professional Fees Advertising Maintenance TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS Reserve for Contingencies Cash Forward -September 30, 1989 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESERVES Proposed Millage (Per Parcel/Acre) 1 1 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICTS PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY 88-89 REVISED: 08-30-88 GIFFORD LAURELNOOD ROCKRIDGE VERO HIGHLANDS PORPOISE SINGLE LAUREL COURT TERRA LINDA VERO SHORES IXORA ROYAL POINCIANA STREET STREET STREET STREET POINT LIGHT STREET STREET STREET STREET STREET LIGHTING LIGHTING LIGHTING LIGHTING LIGHTS DISTRICT LIGHTING LIGHTING LIGHTING LIGH9ING LIGHTING DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT 6,072 1,935 20,045 1,320 0 624 0 6,480 6,348 11,892 29,322 2,550 320 195 3,100 80 0 0 0 100 200 500 (1,594) (320) (107) (1,158) (70) 0 --------- (31) ------------ 0 ----------- (330) ----------- (327) --------- (619) --------- 30,278 ---------- 6,072 ---------- 2,023 -------------- 21,987 --------- 1,330 0 593 0 6,250 6,221 11,773 0 0 0 0 0 1,380 0 2,694 0 0 0 20,802 4,428 2,000 32,147 270 600 -- 181 ------------ 0 ----------- 150 ----------- 2,442 --------- ---------------- --------- 51,080 ---------- 10,500 ---------- 4,023 -------------- 54,134 --------- 1,600 ---- 1,980 774 2,694 6,400 8,663 11,773 40,067 6,200 2,000 34,665 775 1,170 374 1,541 4,028 5,463 10,164 2,000 600 400 2,376 350 300 125 300 500 500 900 100 100 100 100 0 0 25 0 100 100 50 0 0 .200 0 0 0 0 0 ----------- 0 ----------- 0 ----- 0 --------- 42,167 ---------- 6,900 ---------- 2,700 -------------- 37,141 --------- 1,125 --------- 1,470 ------------ 524 1,841 4,628 6,063 11,114 2,913 600 300 3,000 125 0 100 184 443 600 100 6,000 3,000 1,023 13,993 350 510 150 ------------ 669 ----------- 1,329 ----------- 2,000 --- ------------559- --------- 51,080 ---------- 10,500 ---------- 4,023 -------------- 54,134 --------- 1,600 --------- 1,980 774 2,694 6,400 8,663 11,773 $9.00 $23.00 $5.00 $12.50 $30'.00 N/A $20.00 N/A $30.00 $23.00 $36.00 1 1 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND BALANCES: Federal Sources State Sources Local Sources Less 5% per F. S. 129.01(2)(b) Transfers Cash Forward October 1, 1988 TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND BALANCES APPROPRIATIONS: General Government Public Safety Physical Environment Transportation Economic Environment Human Services Culture/Recreation Interfund Transfers TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS Reserve for Contingencies Cash Forward September 30, 1989 TOTAL BUDGET INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - OTHER OPERATING FUNDS - PROPOSED FOR FY 88-89 REVISED: 09-07-88 1 1 1 ROUTE 60 ROUTE 60 FEDERAL 1985 REF. SECTION 8 HOUSING SECONDARY SPECIAL LAW PARKS SEWER WATER REVENUE & IMPROV. RENTAL AUTHORITY ROADS CONST. ENFORCEMENT 911 DEVELOPMENT TOURIST ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT SHARING BONDS ASSISTANCE FUND TRUST FUND FUND SURCHARGE FUND TAX BOND BOND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,403,955 0 13,795 762,240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 880,148 0 4,015,843 948 292,000 3,100 210,000 882,105 94,917 0 (75,198) 0 (689) (238,905) (48) (14,600) (155) (10,000) (44,105) (4,746) 0 0 0 57,160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168,000 10,000 0 0 2,655,891' 28,000 100,000 5,510 0 ------------ 0 ------------ 0 --------- --------- 168,000 ------------ 1,438,757 ---------- 880,148 ---------- 70,266 ------------ 7,195,069 ------------ 28,900 --------- 377,400 ----------- 8,455 200,000 838,000 90,171 0 1,438,757 0 0 0 0 322,000 0 0 838,000 90,171 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70,266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 880,148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,055 144,425 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,294,007 0 0 0 55,575 0 ------------ 0 --------- --------- 168,000 ------------ 1,438,757 ---------- 880,148 ---------- 70,266 ------------ 6,294,007 ------------ 0 --------- 322,000 ----------- 3,055 ------------ 200,000 8381000 90,171 0 0 0 0 600,000 28,900 55,400 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 •0 0 301,062 0 0 3,400 0 0 ------------ 0 --------- --------- 168,000 ------------ 1,438,757 ---------- 880,148 ---------- 1 70,266 ------------ 7,195,069 ------------ 28,900 --------- 377,400 ----------- 8,455 ------------ 200,000 838,000 90,171 1 1 1 v 0 0 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - OTHER OPERATING FUNDS - PROPOSED FOR FY 88-89 REVISED: 08-30-88 1 1 F� POLICE TREE ENVIRONMENTAL COURT PETITION ROAD ACADEMY FINES CONTROL FACILITIES PAVING IMPROVEMENT FUND FUND FINE FUND FUND FEES ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND BAi.ANCES: Federal Sources 0 0 0 0 0 State Sources 0 0 0 0 0 p Local Sources 70,000 8,000 10,274 89,053 113,948 0 963,000 Less 5% per F. S. 129.01(2)(b) (3,500) (400) (514) (4,453) (5,698) (48,150) Transfers 0 0 0 0 1,544,007 0 Cash Forward October 1, 1988 0 53,000 --------- 23,000 60,000 5,000 2,100,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND BALANCES 66,500 60,600 ------------- 32,760 --------- 144,600 1,657,257 ----------- 3,014,850 APPROPRIATIONS: General Government 0 0 0 43,530 0 0 Public Safety 65,500 0 27,550 0 0 0 Physical Environment 0 0 0 0 Transportation 0 0 0 0 0 1,657,257 p 1,785,000 Economic Environment 0 0 0 0 Human Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 p CULture/Recreation 0 20,000 0 0 0 p Interfund Transfers 0 0 0 0 ------ --------- 0 0 460,000 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS 65,500 20,000 ------------- 27,550 --------- 43,530 ---------- 1,657,257 ----------- 2,245,000 Reserve for Contingencies 1,000 20,600 5,210 89,670 0 500,000 Cash Forward September 30, 1989 0 ------ 20,000 ----;---- 0 ' 11,400 0 269,850 TOTAL BUDGET 66,500 60,600 ------------ 32,760 --------- 144,600 ---------- 1,657,257 ----------- 3,014,850 REVISED: 08-30-88 1 1 F� 00 P O 0 1 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ENTERPRISE AND INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY 88-89 REVISED: 08-30-88 UTILITIES WATER & SEWER IMPACT FLEET BUILDING CITRUS GOLF UTILITIES FEE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT GROVE COURSE REVENUES: User Fees 4,183,750 1,000,000 944,294 659,500 65,000 1,171,100 Interest Income 150,000 320,000 0 50,000 2,000 9,ODO- Less 5% per F. S. 129.01(2)(b) 0 0 0 0 (3,350) 0 Cash Forward - October 1, 1988 696,442 7,248,602 0 81,648 25,000 178,826 TOTAL REVENUES ------------- 5,030,192 ---------- 8,568,602 ---------- 944,294 ---------- 791,148 --------- 88,650 ---------- 1,358,926 EXPENSES: Golf Course Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 1,358,926 Grove Maintenance 0 0 0 0 80,000 0 Vehicle Maintenance 0 0 944,294 0 0 0 Garbage/Solid Waste 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water/Sewer Combination Services 4,423,485 0 0 0 0 0 Protective Services 0 0 0 732,745 0 0 Transfers 0 0 0 16,744 0 0 Cash Forward - September 30, 1989 606,707 ------------- 8,568,602 0 41,659 8,650 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 5,030,192 ---------- 8,568,602 ---------- 944,294 ---------- 791,148 --------- 88,650 ---------- 1,358,926 c0 0 0 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND BALANCES: Local Sources Less 5% per F. S. 129.01(2)(b) Transfers Cash Forward - October 1, 1988 TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND BALANCES APPROPRIATIONS: General Government , Public Safety Physical Environment Culture/Recreation Transportation Interfund Transfers Reserve for Contingency Cash Forward - September 30, 1989 TOTAL BUDGET INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CAPITAL PROJECTS PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY 88-89 GIFFORD INDIAN COUNTY GOLDEN NEW COUNTY GIFFORD ROAD RIVER BLVD. HEALTH DEPT. SANDS LIBRARY JAIL SEWER IMPROVEMENT NORTH BUILDING PARK CONSTRUCTION PHASE III PROJECT 0 0 0 4,420 78,947 0 250,000 0 0 0 (221) (3,947) 0 0 550,000 4,650,000 0 143,991 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 75,000 10,000 1,000,000 68,000 5,000,000 ----------- .......... ---------- --------- ............ --------- ----------- 550,000 4,650,000 75,000 158,190 2,075,000 68,000 5,250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,250,000 0 0 0 158,190 2,052,000 0 0 500,000 4,470,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 180,000 75,000 0 23,000 4,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 550,000 4,650,000 75,000 158,190 2,075,000 68,000 5,250,000 1 1 The Chairman advised that the first millage quoted will be the aggregate millage which is arrived at by adding all the ad valorem taxes levied by the governing body for countywide purposes plus the ad valorem taxes levied for all dependent districts divided -by the total taxable value of the county. Rollback is the rate which is exclusive of ad valorem taxes on new construction and annexations. The proposed aggregate millage is 7.4235; which is a 3.7% increase over the rolled back millage which was 7.1634. The Chairman then addressed the General Fund and informed those present that the millage reflected on the TRIM Notice is 5.0386. This has since been reduced to a millage of 4.9673, which is a 5.4% increase over the rolled back millage of 4.7137. The proposed budget for the.General Fund is $28,028,20-3. The major reasons for the increase over rollback in the General Fund are: A) $1,000,000 for construction of Libraries. B) The Sheriff's budget is up $799,885 due to a full year's effect of the officers phased in for operation of the new phase of the Jail. C) Transfers Out - $310,249 increase, the majority being for Road and Bridge. D) Salary Reserve - $852,698 increase. This is for salary increases for the Board of County Commissioners and Sheriff's employees arising from the salary study which is yet to be fully implemented. There is also an increase in our health insurance program which provides medical coverage for employees. E) Cash Carry Forward - a $200,000 increase. The Chairman explained that this is money to hold us over so we can meet current expenses from October 1, 1988, to December of 1988 when the tax revenue begins to flow in. 10 1900K 74 D'UE117 M M Chairman Scurlock believed this reflects the additional decreases we asked the Administrator and OMB Director Baird to go over, and OMB Director Baird agreed that it does include that $200,000 decrease and it also reflects about $120,000 we received from time sharing units to date. Director Baird further advised that he also adjusted the Health Department budget by reducing the lease for two months because they cannot move in their facility before that, and he also increased the Library budget because they made an error on a new employee. Chairman Scurlock asked if anyone wished to be heard on the General Fund, noting that this is something that is paid by everyone. There were none. Chairman Scurlock informed those present that we don't adopt anything finally tonight. This is just the first of two public hearings, and at the final hearing we adopt each of these funds by Resolution. This is just a formal process that we have to go through reading all these numbers. The Chairman next addressed the Transportation Fund, advis- ing that there is no millage assessment for this fund and, there- fore, no rollback. The proposed budget of $6,804,897 is an in- crease of $537,447 over the current year's budget of $6,267.270, the reasons being an increase in road and drainage projects, purchase of additional equipment and salary contingency. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard on the Transportation Fund. There were none. 11 BOOK 74 P L;E 118 Chairman Scurlock advised that the millage reflected on.the TRIM Notice for General Purpose Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) was 2.1000 and this has since been reduced to 2.0702. Our proposed millage is less than the rolled back millage. The 3 proposed M.S.T.0 budget is $10,114,849, and the current year's budget is $9,666,199. There is no increase over rollback. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard in regard to the General Purpose Municipal Service Taxing Unit. There were none. The Chairman then addressed the Vero Lake Estates M.S.T.U., advising that it is assessed on a per parcel basis and is the same charge as last year or $15.00 per parcel/acre. Rollback does not apply per parcel/acre. The proposed budget is $108,700, and the current year's budget is $107,665, which is a $1,035 increase. The Chairman felt there may be some discussion on this in that the Vero Lake Estates Advisory Committee at one point was in favor of this charge being raised to $100 per-parcel/acre, but since there is one large land owner who owns most of the parcels, there was some opposition. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard in regard to the Vero Lake Estates M.S.T.U. There were none. Chairman Scurlock next addressed the various Fire Districts and advised that the millage reflected on the TRIM Notice for the North County Fire District is 1.000, and our proposed millage is 1.000, which is a 1.6% increase over the rollback millage. The proposed budget is $611,548, and the current year's budget is $503,390, which is a $113,158 increase. The reasons for the increase are an additional employee - a Fire Inspector, increased liability insurance costs, and building of -reserves to purchase fire equipment - pumper trucks, etc. 12 BOOK 7 4 Fn,�E 119 The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard in regard to the North County Fire District. There were none. s The Chairman announced that the millage reflected on the TRIM Notice for the West County Fire District is .3528, and our proposed millage has been reduced to .3142, which is a 3.4% increase over the rollback millage of .2769. The proposed budget is $63,850, and the current year's budget is $63,638, which is a $212 increase. The reason for the increase is that more money is being transferred to the North and South County Fire Districts for the inspector they will share. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard in regard to the West County Fire District. There were none. Chairman Scurlock addressed the South County Fire District, advising that the amount of millage reflected on the TRIM Notice is 1.658, and our proposed millage is 1.658 which is the same as the rolled back millage. The proposed budget is $5,127,928, and the current year's budget is $4,654,264, which is a $473,664 increase. Basically that is to implement the salary increases we have had under the contract and also Cash Carry Forward. Commissioner Eggert commented that Central Dispatch is taken care of in that budget. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard regarding the South County Fire District. There were none. Chairman Scurlock next announced the proposed assessments and budgets for the following Street Lighting Districts: Gifford Street Lighting District - a proposed assessment of $9.00 per Parcel/Acre, the same as last year, with a tentative budget of $51,080. P 7 1988 13 BOOK 74 F46E 1?0 Laurelwood Street Lighting District - a proposed assessment of $23.00 per parcei/acre, the same as last year, with a tentative budget of $10,500. Rockridge Street Lighting District - a proposed assessment of $5.00 per Parcel/Acre, the same as last year, with a tentative budget of $4,023. Vero Highlands Street Lighting District - a proposed assess- ment of $12.50 per Parcel/Acre, the same as last year, with a tentative budget of $54,134. Porpoise Point Lights - a proposed assessment of $30.00 per Parcel/Acre, down $10.00 per Parcel/Acre.from last year's assess- ment, with a tentative budget of $1,600. Single Light District - there is no per Parcel/Acre assessment because they just pay their bills, and the -tentative budget is $1,980. Laurel Court Street Lighting District - a proposed assess- ment of $20.00 per Parcel/Acre; the same as last year, with a tentative budget of $774. Terra Linda Street Lighting District - there is no per Parcel/Acre assessment because they also just pay their bills, and the tentative budget is $2,694. Vero Shores Street Lighting District - a proposed assessment of $30.00 per Parcel/Acre, the same as last year, with a tentative budget of $6,400. Ixora Street Lighting District - a proposed assessment of $23.00 per Parcel/Acre, down $7.00 per Parcel/Acre from last year, with a tentative budget of $8,663. Royal Poinciana Street Lighting District - a proposed assessment of $36.00 per Parcel/Acre, with a tentative budget of $11.773. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard in regard to any of the above Street Lighting Districts. There were none. S E I 7 1988 14 FQQK F'k4f E Chairman Scurlock then announced the proposed budgets for the remaining non -taxing entities - the other operating funds, enterprise and internal service funds, and capital projects, as follows: s Other Operating Funds Federal Revenue Sharing $ 168,000 1985 Ref. 8 Improvement Bonds 1,438,757 Section 8 Rental Assistance 880,148 Housing Authority Fund 70,266 Secondary Roads Const. Trust Fund 7,195,069 Special Law Enforcement Fund 28,900 911 Surcharge 377,400 Parks Development Fund 8,455 Tourist Tax 200,000 Route 60 Sewer Assessment Bond 838,000 Route 60 Water Assessment Bond 90,171 Police Academy Fund 66,500 Tree Fines Funds 60,600 Environmental Control Fines 32,760 Court Facilities Fund 144,600 Petition Paving Fund 1,657,257 Road Improvement Fees 3,014,850 Enterprise and Internal Service Funds Water & Sewer Utilities 5,030,192 Utilities Impact Fee 8,568,602 Fleet Management 944,294 Building Department 791,148 Citrus Grove - 88,650 Golf Course 1,358,926 Capital Projects Gifford Road Improvement 550,000 Indian River Blvd. North 4,650,000 County Health Dept. Building 75,000 Golden Sands Park 158,190 New Library Construction 2,075,000 County Jail Phase III 68,000 Gifford Sewer Project 5,250,000 Commissioner Bird asked about the Parks Development Fund, and OMB Director Baird explained that when we sell a piece of property the county owns, we put the proceeds in that fund and use it to buy new property for parks. We did have over $100,000 in this fund, but used the money as an in-kind contribution to Golden Sands Park and $8,455 is the remaining balance. Commissioner Bird noted that there is quite a large sum in the Tree Fines Fund. He continued that in some cases over the P ? 1988 15 BOOK 74 FAGF r � � last few years, we have levied some high fines but given the violator a way to mitigate, and he wished to know if the $60,600 is what we have actually received in cash. Director Baird explained that we have received over that amount; however, some of it had to be escrowed until the time frame for mitigation has expired. We have had three big fines over the last three years, and the main revenue we are showing is cash forward. The majority of this money will be left in contin- gencies so that if the Board wishes, they can transfer the money during the year to landscape county property, buy trees, etc. Chairman Scurlock believed the Commission has indicated they feel some of our main entranceways and boulevards look rather shabby, and Commissioner Eggert stated that she would like to use some of these funds to improve Indian River Boulevard South. OMB Director Baird noted that the Board authorized $20,000 for landscaping at parks during the budget hearings; so, there is $20,000 to landscape park areas plus $20,000 contingencies. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard in regard to any of the proposed budgets.for the Other Operating Funds, Enterprise or Internal Service Funds, or Capital Projects just announced. There were none. DISCUSSION RE THE SOLID WASTE DISTRICT At this point, Chairman Scurlock informed those who came into the meeting late that there has been some confusion about the SWDD (Solid Waste Disposal District) and the Board now has set the final date to appeal the assessment as of the close of business on September 16th and would encourage those with complaints to meet with Mr. Pinto prior to filing an appeal. Chairman Scurlock then turned the floor over to Utilities Director Pinto to make an explanation of the SWDD and its proposed budget and answer any questions posed by the public. Utilities Director Pinto informed those present that at the last Board meeting, the final transfers of all funds from the SEP 7 1 16 mor 74 F�vr,E 193 L_I county utility operation were made over to the SWDD, and this will be the first year for operation of the Landfill under the new District. He then proceeded to review the funds covered through the bond issue. Mr. Pinto advised that construction of Segment 2, the second cell of the Landfill, which is under way right now, will require about 2.4 million. Closure of Segment 1, which was built some time back in the early 170's and in which we d are operating presently. is estimated at 1.658 million. That has not been bid out yet and will not be until we finalize the cell and move into the new cell, and then we will move along with the design for the closure of the first cell. Mr. Pinto noted the permitting of that is going to be somewhat difficult as the requirements are changing daily. He continued that the Mainte- nance and Administration Building, on which we just rejected some bids, is estimated to be $365,167. The pathogenic incinerator, which will be used to burn dead animals and pathogenic materials from medical facilities, is estimated at $81,000, and $467,000 is estimated for the renovation of Collection Centers located at Oslo, Gifford, Winter Beach, Roseland and Fellsmere. Commissioner Bird asked what renovation of those centers includes, and Mr. Pinto explained that they will be improving the roads into the convenience centers, putting guard rails in, changing the wall structure that you dump over, and at the same time, changing the green boxes into compaction boxes so it won't be necessary to haul as often and also it will be easier to handle the compacted material at the Landfill. Mr. Pinto further advised that the other thing we have to do that we really didn't figure in these numbers,but he did not feel will be a major expense, is that it is now mandated that there has to be some sort of recycling provision at each of the convenience centers. The state says the responsibility for this recycling is ours; so, we have to determine what method we are going to use. Mr. Pinto believed the only cost effective way is to have the user do it, but where we get them to do it is something we have to work on. SEP 7 1988 17 BOOK 74 FA,E 12 He noted that we have three types of collections - the convenience centers where people bring their own garbage and some separation will have to take place there; the City of Vero Beach collects their own and some separation will to take place there; and then there are the private haulers. In discussion, it was felt that the closer you can get to having the sorting and separation done at the home, the more cost effective it will be. Commissioner Bird noted that he has read that in the future you will have three separate trash cans - one for paper items, one for glass, etc., but he wondered how you keep the materials segregated when they are hauled away. Chairman Scurlock advised that there is equipment specifically designed for that purpose. Director Pinto noted that in the new state legislation the recycling mandate is a strong mandate, and we have to get into it or face substantial fines. He also believed it is the right thing to do, noting that it is not that much of a problem where you have required collection in your entire county, but when you have three types of collection as we do, it is very difficult to deal with. Commissioner Bird asked if we are now going to have some restrictions as to what you can dump at the convenience centers or will we accept pretty much of anything. Director Pinto stated there will be some restrictions. We cannot take hazardous materials. One of the objections we had in the past was people bringing such things as large refrigerators into the convenience centers where they did not have to pay. When we told people they had to take them to the Landfill and pay, they did not like that but now there will not be any tipping fee because it is in the new rate structure. Mr. Pinto felt there will be some items that will have to go to the Landfill, but we want the convenience centers to be true to their name and make the disposal of garbage as convenient as possible so it does not end up being dumped where it should not be. He noted that 18 BOOK 74 r,1 115 SEP 19'8 L_ I another very large problem coming down the road is that in about three years, you will not be allowed to mix any vegetated matter such as grass clippings and tree limbs with your normal garbage. This material will have to be separated and dumped in a different area at the Landfill. Commissioner Wheeler was concerned that people do not now and probably will not follow the rules at the convenience centers, and Director Pinto agreed that most do not follow the rules, but each convenience center will have an attendant. He stressed that these centers are set up for residential use - not for commercial use or for non -county commercial use, and we have a tremendous amount of commercial use going .to these centers and non -county commercial use, particularly at both ends of the county. Staff, therefore, feels that it is'both necessary and cost effective to have attendants there, and now added on top of that, there will be the added requirement for separation of types of trash, and someone will have to instruct the people. Chairman Scurlock discussed the need for educating the public. He believed the Press Journal has a specific policy covering travel for their people, and at some point he wou-Id like to provide some funds for some of the media to go to a conference on the solid waste disposal problem and bring back material to inform the public on this problem. He noted that in some communities, it is costing in excess of $100 a ton to dispose of this material, and there are dire predictions nationwide which say the cost of disposing of waste eventually will exceed the cost of electricity for your home. The purchase of the property for our landfill and equipment for the establishment of the first cell for 1.8 million was the very first debt of this county, and now with all the new requirements, the cost just to close out that cell and open our next phase is triple that cost. The Chairman felt there are several major areas involved where the public needs to be educated - first, the reason for the increased costs and the fact that we cannot continue to subsidize 9 Boa `74 F�acE 12f SEP 7 1988 that person who has never ever paid to dump his waste. Last year it cost the taxpayers $600,000 for those people who never paid a fee. He believed the next question we are going to get, which is not for tonight, is the generation numbers. He stressed that we have compared our figures with other counties and tried to do this fairly, but these numbers are not perfect and that is why we have an appeal procedure. He felt the third major question will revolve around the leasing situation where a number of people in the community who have long terms leases feel they are not able to pass on a user fee. The Chairman emphasized that we want to work with the community so those can be flowed through properly. Director Pinto agreed and noted these are the problems you face when you start something that is new to the community. We have sent out 34,000 bills on the tax bills that were never sent out before. We have the cost of the Landfill that is there; so, we know what we have to raise. Director Pinto firmly believed that the method we chose, even though it has some kinks in it that we can work out, probably saved at least a point on the financing of this project, and on 8 million doll -ars, you are talking about a major amount of money. There is another way this could be done, but it would involve going to General Obligation Bonds which are guaranteed by the General Fund, and he did not believe anyone wants that. Chairman Scurlock also felt that what we have is a more equitable situation where everyone pays their fair share, and it enables us to continue to be able to dispose of waste products without being concerned about the environment and the long haul. Director Pinto advised that after attending various conferences on this subject, it has become clear that we should be very grateful that we are far along toward solving this problem as we are because a lot of communities are in deep trouble, and they are talking about rates around $65 a ton. If we had maintained our old system, we probably would have been talking about $60 a ton to get into the Landfill, and now because 20 S E P 7 1988 BOOK 74 Pv E l? 7 everyone is paying their share, we are talking $24 a ton, which equates to $31.50 per Equivalent Residential Unit. The Chairman wondered if everyone realizes we now are re- quired to collect all the leachate (runoff) off the Landfill so a that it does not*seep down into the water table, and must treat it through an advanced wastewater treatment plant. Director Pinto further advised that we also had to drill 34 wells on the perimeter lines of the Landfill and it will cost $137,000 annually just for monitoring and testing those wells. Commissioner Bird noted that when you think of all the years we have had rain water filtering down through garbage and going into our aquifer, you would think someone would have realized sooner that was not a good idea. Utilities Director Pinto continued to review the -expenses considered for the bonds, advising that the land for Segment 3 was estimated at $500,000; engineering for the entire project was $600,000; and the equipment necessary for operation was 1.230 million, which totals up to an estimated $7,666,225. By the time you bond that and prepare all the proper reserve -s, you are looking at a bond issue of 8.240 million amortized over 14 -years. Chairman Scurlock emphasized that he was very concerned that we didn't float bonds for 30 years on something that was only going to last five years because then when you have to go to the next cell, you are still paying for the first cell. He asked Director Pinto to explain how we arrived at the 14 year life. Director Pinto explained that we took an average life of each piece of material and equipment we are buying, including the Landfill, the buildings, etc., and equated that into a life span of 14 years. They estimated only five years of life for the cell itself, but the next time we build a cell, there are some things we will not have to rebuild. Commissioner Wheeler asked if that 5 year life of the cell takes the new laws, the recycling, etc., into consideration, and that was confirmed. 21 BOOK 74 F, CH 1?8 I In further discussion, it was noted that there are new technologies, and sometimes the DER will let you go higher. Mr. Pinto noted that the regulations have already changed, and for the next cell we will have to put in a double liner or a liner with a clay base, and that will be $700,000 more. There is no easy answer. Director Pinto continued his review of the Landfill budget, noting that the actual budget numbers themselves were reduced somewhat to $3,874,322, which equates to a charge of $31.50 per equivalent residential unit (ERA). He cautioned that until we get through the appeal process and get started operating, the cost may be less or it may get to be more. The regulations on Landfills are changing daily. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard in regard to the Solid Waste Disposal District. Attorney Bruce Barkett came before the Board representing Ed Schlitt, owner and manager of several properties which would be included in the third concern brought up by Chairman Scurlock, i.e., leases where these costs cannot.be passed -through. The so-called glitches and kinks in the proposed assessment method represent a cost of about $90,000 to Mr. Schlitt. Attorney Barkett explained that when you have a tenant such as Walgreen's, Eckerd's, Woolworth's, or Winn Dixie, they have long term leases, 30 to 40 years, and ten years ago assessments such as this were unheard of. These long term leases are pretty ironclad and do not allow the landlord to pass these costs through. Mr. Barkett questioned whether much consideration was given to this problem when developing the assessment, and he felt the notices sent out about setting up the SWDD certainly did not cause people to think that they might have such tremendous increases on their property taxes. As far as there being a savings because the waste collectors should reduce their bills, he pointed out that the landlord doesn't pay the collector, the tenant does, and the J tenant does not pay the assessment. He, therefore, suggested 7 1988 22 Boor 74 PiUF 1 ? 9 J that the county bill the tenant, because he is the one using the Landfill, but Utilities Director Pinto says that is too diffi- cult. Mr. Barkett, however, felt that is an administrative problem. s Attorney Barkett continued that he did understand the problems involved with the Landfill and was very aware of the need for protecting the environment and the fact that it is going to cost a lot of money to do this, but he felt what is proposed is penalizing the landlords. He confessed that he had no concrete solution, but one of his suggestions would be to reduce the budget for this district by the amount of money that is anticipated coming from non -owner occupied properties unless the county can bill the tenant. Commissioner Bird did not see why we should give the landlords a free ride just because they have a lease that they are having a hard time living with. Commissioner Bowman entered the meeting at 7:15 o'clock P.M. Chairman Scurlock pointed out that there are bond covenants that must be considered, and they cannot be violated. Attorney Barkett noted that as an attorney and a citizen he recognizes that the county chose to fund this with a bond and couldn't find an underwriter to support the bond unless they had a concrete way to collect. Chairman Scurlock stated flatly that is not true. The fact is that this was the most effective way to finance it, and we get a better interest rate by using this mechanism. Director Pinto also confirmed that we think the method we chose is in the interest of the people Mr. Barkett represents and that it is the best method because we are saving literally hundreds of thousands of dollars for the entire community. He assured Mr. Barkett that we recognize his concern and we recognize that his client and people who lease property have 23 BOOK �C� FAGF�3® SEP 7 1988 signed away rights that they have to get reimbursement for expenses to their property. Mr. Pinto felt that one of the things that is misunderstood is the type of assessment that it is. There are two different types of assessment that take place. One is based on an improvement that improves the value of your property, and that probably shouldn't be passed on to a short term tenant, but an assessment that is based on use and the availability of a benefit is something that should be passed on. We would be willing to try to help them do that, but at the same time, we can't jeopardize the buyers of the bonds and the rest of the people who don't have that problem. Mr. Pinto noted that he only pays a $31 charge on his house, but when you compare his household operation to a multi-million dollar operation, it relatively is probably even a higher charge. Attorney Barkett did not disagree with that, but stressed that his point is that this is a user fee; it is not going to the user, and they are the ones who should be billed.. Commissioner Wheeler agreed with some of what Mr. Barkett is saying and would like to help, but he pointed out that some years back individuals who made long leases and did not include escalation clauses to provide for inflation were caught in the same glitch. Commissioner Bird noted that we cannot restructure this whole thing and give a free ride to landlords caught in this situation. He did feel, however, that we do want to pass this on to the users somehow if there is any possible way, and as far as he is concerned, Attorney Barkett has between now and the Septem- ber 16th hearing to figure out some ingenious way to do this. Discussion continued at length about various ways to make the tenant pay, and Attorney Barkett continued to urge that the County bill the tenants and just don't collect the garbage if they don't pay. Attorney Vitunac informed the Board that Mr. Schlitt was kind enough to send him a copy of his lease with Winn Dixie, S E P 7 1988 24 MCK 74 P EE 131 which he felt is a typical lease, and it says the landlord is responsible for taxes, property charges and also assessments, but the tenant would be responsible for gas, oil, electric, and other utility type bills. He felt Mr. Barkett could make a good argument anywhere that it is a utility bill. It is not a special assessment for improvement to that property; it replaces the monthly utility bill. It is a user type charge, a utility bill collected by the assessment method. Attorney Vitunac felt this was not in the contemplation of either the landlord or the tenant 20 years ago, and he noted that the law allows reformation of contracts when neither party even thought of it. Attorney Vitunac believed that one court case would settle this question for everyone in the county. However, the landlords are not willing yet to go to court; they want us to make it easy for them. Commissioner Bird agreed with Attorney Vitunac and felt that common sense would tell you that Winn Dixie expects to pay for the disposal of their garbage. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bird, the Board unanimously directed staff to pursue looking into other methods of double billing or some means of passing the charge along to tenants as discussed. Commissioner Eggert left the meeting at 7:25 o'clock P.M. Attorney Barkett had several more suggestions. He noted that the county covered itself in the ordinance by saying this is a benefit to the assessed property, and throughout the ordinance calls the charge a user fee and an assessment. Also, this charge is on the property tax bill, and because of this, he felt it 25 BOOK 74 PAGE 132 SEP � 19 818' J would be very difficult for him to go to a judge and say it is really a utility bill. Secondly, he suggested that the county be continue to be a leader and have mandatary separation at the curb now. In Tallahassee and some other communities in the state, they already have -to put glass, cans and paper in separate bins. Thirdly, he suggested that commercial users be required to compact their garbage. Director Pinto advised that supermarkets are already doing this; as soon as compacting becomes cost effective, they do it, and Chairman Scurlock brought up the "Bottle" Bill. Director Pinto stressed that we are willing to try to work out this problem with leases. He still felt it is a benefit to the owners of the property to have the Landfill whether they utilize it or not, and pointed out that under a D.R.I.-, you can't build a new shopping center if you don't have a Landfill available that can provide the service. Mr. Pinto felt we must keep in mind that there are 34,000 customers and and a very small percentage have this problem. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to --be heard. There were none, and he thereupon declared the public hearing closed. Chairman Scurlock announced that the Final Budget hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 14, 1988, at 5:01 P.M., and the appeals to the Solid Waste Disposal District assessments will be heard at 1:00 P.M. on Thursday, September 22, 1988. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board unanimously adjourned at 7:30 P.M. ATTEST: Clerk Chairman E P 7 1988 26 BOOK 74 PACE 1033