Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/5/1991BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA SEPTEMBER 5, 1991 5:01 P.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 18025th STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA County Commissioners Richard N. Bird, Chairman Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Carolyn K. Eggert Don C. Scurlock, Jr. 5:01 P.M. 1. Call to Order James E. Chandler, Administrator Joseph A. Baird, OMB Director .Charles Vitunae, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 2. Tledge Of Allegiance - Richard N. Bird, Chairman 3. Adoption of Procedure to conduct Hearings on Ad Valorem Taxing Districts Recommend adoption of following procedures for each fund in agenda item 4: "A. Open Hearing B. Announce % increase in Millage over Rolled Back Rate necessary to fund the Budget, if any, and Specific Purposes for which Ad Valorem Tax Revenues are being increased C. Receive comments from the Public D. Consider any Proposed Amendments to Tentative Budget and Calculate Revised Tentative Millage Rate (if revised) E. Adopt Tentative Millage Rate F. Adopt Tentative Budget G. Announce %, if any, by which Recomputed Tentative Millage Rate Exceeds the Rolled Back Rate" EP 5 11 Poon' 4. AD VALOREM FUNDS Aggregate Nlillage a. General Fund b. Transportation Fund BOOK 84 FPt `c C. General Purpose Municipal Service Taxing Unit d. Library Bonds e. South County Fire District f. North County Fire District g. West. County Fire District 5. Adoption of Procedure to conduct Hearings on Non -Ad Valorem Assessment Districts. Recommend adoption of following procedures for each fund in agenda item 6: A. Announce 1991/92 proposed charge and total budget for each Non -Ad Valorem Assessment District B. - . Receive comments from the Public C. Consider any Proposed Amendments to Tentative Budget and Calculate Revised Charge D. Adopt Tentative Charge E. Adopt Tentative Budget" 6. NON -AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS a. Vero Lake Estates M.S.T.U. b. Solid Waste. Disposal District C. Gifford Street Lighting District d. Laurelwood Street Lighting District e. Rockridge Street Lighting District f. Vero Highlands Street Lighting District g Porpoise Point Street Lighting District h. Single Light Districts L � � r 6. NON -AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS -CONTINUED i. Laurel Court Street Lighting District j Tierra Linda Street Lighting District k. Vero Shores Street Lighting District l.. Ixora Park Street Lighting District m. Royal Poinciana Street Lighting District r n Roseland Road Street Lighting District 7. Adoption of Procedures to conduct Hearings of Enterprise Funds, Other Funds and Capital Funds Recommend that the following procedures be adopted for use with the funds in agenda items 8, 9, and 10: "A. Announce total dollar budget of each fund. B. Receive comments from the Public C. Consider any Proposed Amendment to Tentative Budget D. Adopt Tentative Budget" 8. ENTERPRISE AND INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS: a. Golf Course b. Building Department c. Water and Sewer Utilities d. Utilities Impact Fee e. Fleet Management f. Self Insurance Trust Fund 9. OTHER DEBT FUNDS a. 1985 Ref. & Improvement bonds b. Route 60 -Sewer Assessment Bond c. Route 60 Water Assessment Bond d. Rockridge Special Assessment Bond e. North County Sewer Assessment Bond SES BOOK rp- BOOK 10. SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS a. Road Impact Fees b. Police Academy Trust Fund c. Court Facilities Fund d. Housing Authority Fund e. Section 8 Rental Assistance f. Secondary Road Construction Trust Fund g. Special Law Enforcement Fund h. Parks Development L Tree Ordinance Fine Fund j. Tourist Tax Fund k. 911 Surcharge 1. Drug Abuse Fund m. Local Government Criminal Justice Fund n. Petition Paving 11. CAPITAL PROTECTS a. Gifford Road Improvements b. Indian River Boulevard North c. Treasure Shores Park d. Discretionary Sales Surtax e. New Library Construction 12. Announce Time and Place of Final Budget Hearing FINAL budget hearing will be held at 5:01 p.m. on Wednesday, September 11, 1991 at the County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. 13. ADJOURN IF ANY PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE ON THE ABOVE MATTERS, HE/SHE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSES, HE/SHE MAY NEED TO INSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE APPEASED. Thursday, September 5, 1991 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 Thursday, September 5, 1991, at 5:01 o'clock P.M. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present were James E. Chandler, 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 led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Chairman Bird announced that this Special Meeting is for the purpose of adopting the Tentative Budget for Fiscal Year 1991/92. He advised that Administrator Chandler will review the budgets, announce increases, millages, etc. and the first action will be to adopt the procedure to conduct hearings on the Ad Valorem Taxing Districts, which is as follows: SEP 5 1991 00k 8-4-f*170 I SEP 5 1991 "A. Open Hearing B. Announce % increase in Millage over Rolled Back Rate necessary to fund the Budget, if any, and Specific Purposes for which Ad Valorem Tax Revenues are being increased C. Receive comments from the Public D. Consider any Proposed Amendments to Tentative Budget and Calculate Revised Tentative Millage Rate (if revised) E. Adopt Tentative Millage Rate F. Adopt Tentative Budget G. Announce %, if any, by which Recomputed Tentative Millage Rate Exceeds the Rolled Back Rate" ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted the above procedures for conducting hearings on the Ad Valorem Taxing Districts. The following are the proposed budgets for the Ad Valorem Taxing Districts for FY 1991/92: 2 M L r; - AD VALOREM TAXING AUTHORITIES I", GENERAL PURPOSE SOUTH NORTH WEST TRANSPOR- MUNICIPAL COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY GENERAL TATION SERVICE LIBRARY FIRE FIRE FIRE t� FUND FUND TAXING UNIT BONDS DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND BALANCES: State Sources 2,348,552 514,675 2,358,298 0 0 0 0 5,221,525 Local Sources 4,019,990 200,000 3,571,050 22,500 384,117 157,030 11,000 8,365,687 Ad Valorem Taxes 23,325,690 0 4,245,119 1,648,852 5,936,897 920,584 239,315 36,316,457 Sub -Total 29,694,232 714,675 10,174,467 1,671,352 6,321,014 1,077,614 250,315 49,903,669 Less 5% per F. S. 129.01(2)(b) (1,484,711) (35,734) (508,724) ' (83,568) (316,051) (53,880) (12,515) (2,495,183) Net 28,209,521 678,941 9,665,743 1,587,784 6,004,963 1,023,734 237,800 47,408,486 Transfers 5,748,061 6,488,947 0 0 0 0 0 12,237,008 Cash Forward -October 1, 1991 6,626,795 1,343,128 2,750,000 138,068 604,400 404,971 10,000 11,877,362 TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND BALANCES 40,584,377 8,511,016 12,415,743 1,725,852 6,609,363 1,428,705 247,800 71,522,856 APPROPRIATIONS: General Government 9,121,199 283,456 852,818 1,639,852 0 0 0 11,897,325 w Public Safety 19,468,549 0 218,136 0 5,938,481 1,123,843 206,500 26,955,509 Physical Environment 206,263 0 50,838 0 0 0 0 257,101 Transportation 0 7,144,602 230,131 0 0 0 0 7,374,733 Economic Environment 143,852 0 0 0 0 0 0 143,852 Human Services 1,762,667 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,762,667 Culture/Recreation 2,793,875 0 809,987 0 0 0 0 3,603,862 Interfund Transfers 3,541,457 0 9,082,977 0 0 0 0 12,624,434 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS 37,037,862 7,428,058 11,244,887 1,639,852 5,938,481 1,123,843 206,500 64,619,483 RescNe for Contingencies 1,446,515 207,958 396,460 0 420,482 74,862 0 2,546,277 Cash Forward -September 30,1992 2,100,000 875,000 774,396 86,000 250,400 230,000 41,300 4,357,096 TOTAL BUDGET 40,584,377 8,511,016 12,415,743 1,725,852 6,609,363 1,428,705 247,800 71,522,856 Proposed Millage 4.6423 MILLS 15093 MILLS .3282 MILLS 1.7996 MILLS 13500 MILLS .7791 MILLS Rollback Millage 4.8054 MILLS 15121 MILLS N/A 15495 MILLS .9190 MILLS .2304 MILLS D:\ 123R3 W D9192 \PAGE 1 :u REVISED: 08-26-91 the aggregate millage and asked Administrator Chandler to proceed. Administrator Chandler informed those present that this is the first of two public hearings to consider adoption of the proposed Budget for FY 91/92 which begins October 1st. We will go through each of the funds, and as we do, he will give a brief overview of that fund. As relates to those funds involving property taxes, there are certain points he needs to make in terms of the millage rate to be in accordance with the TRIM Notice (TRUTH IN MILLAGE NOTICE), and they will be addressed as we get into each of the funds. Administrator Chandler stated that the proposed budget of $133,909,981, an increase of 2.-80 over last year, reflects some reductions made since the July workshops. Those reductions have resulted in changes in some of the amounts specified on the TRIM Notices. OMB Director Baird explains those changes in the following memo dated 8/29/91: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: August .29, 1991 SUBJECT: 1991/92 FISCAL. YEAR BUDGET UP -DATE FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director At the workshop on July 17, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners decreased the county's budget by an additional $470,107. Of this amount, the General Fund was decreased $120,497, G & A charges totalling $301,610 reduced balances in the Fire Districts and $48,000 was reduced in the Law Enforcement Trust Fund. In addition, in a separate public hearing held July 16, 1991, Vero Lakes Estates' per parcel acre charge was increased from $15.00 to $50.00. A chart enclosed with this memo provides greater detail of these changes. Since the hearings three major changes resulted in a further reduction of the budget. o In a memo to the Board, Ann .Robinson indicated that the Supervisor of Elections Budget was overstated by $11,629. o Eleven employees of the South County Fire District are still covered by- the City of Vero Beach Fireman's Relief and Pension Fund and $76,000 was budgeted for anticipated increases in the retirement benefits. However, on August 20, 1991 the Board of County Commissioners approved a recommended increase of $13,706, thus reducing the South County Fire District budget by $62,294. 4 BOOK Chairman Bird announced that the first item to be reviewed is the aggregate millage and asked Administrator Chandler to proceed. Administrator Chandler informed those present that this is the first of two public hearings to consider adoption of the proposed Budget for FY 91/92 which begins October 1st. We will go through each of the funds, and as we do, he will give a brief overview of that fund. As relates to those funds involving property taxes, there are certain points he needs to make in terms of the millage rate to be in accordance with the TRIM Notice (TRUTH IN MILLAGE NOTICE), and they will be addressed as we get into each of the funds. Administrator Chandler stated that the proposed budget of $133,909,981, an increase of 2.-80 over last year, reflects some reductions made since the July workshops. Those reductions have resulted in changes in some of the amounts specified on the TRIM Notices. OMB Director Baird explains those changes in the following memo dated 8/29/91: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: August .29, 1991 SUBJECT: 1991/92 FISCAL. YEAR BUDGET UP -DATE FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director At the workshop on July 17, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners decreased the county's budget by an additional $470,107. Of this amount, the General Fund was decreased $120,497, G & A charges totalling $301,610 reduced balances in the Fire Districts and $48,000 was reduced in the Law Enforcement Trust Fund. In addition, in a separate public hearing held July 16, 1991, Vero Lakes Estates' per parcel acre charge was increased from $15.00 to $50.00. A chart enclosed with this memo provides greater detail of these changes. Since the hearings three major changes resulted in a further reduction of the budget. o In a memo to the Board, Ann .Robinson indicated that the Supervisor of Elections Budget was overstated by $11,629. o Eleven employees of the South County Fire District are still covered by- the City of Vero Beach Fireman's Relief and Pension Fund and $76,000 was budgeted for anticipated increases in the retirement benefits. However, on August 20, 1991 the Board of County Commissioners approved a recommended increase of $13,706, thus reducing the South County Fire District budget by $62,294. 4 o Insurance costs, originally anticipated to rise 30% over last budget year are now expected to rise 22% based on the insurance bids received. As a result, each departmental budget containing employees was adjusted downward. This reduction amounted to $302,268 throughout the budgets. (Full details of these three changes are shown on the chart "Summary of Additional Changes Made After the Budget Workshops", attached to this memo.) A third chart shows how these new changes affected the rates after the workshops. While the M.S.T.U. showed a minimal decrease, both the General Fund and the South County Fire budgets were affected rather significantly, the latter in particular because of the retirement reduction. The last page shows the new millage being compared to rollback. On this chart it can be seen that the aggregate millage now stands at 6.8996 (1.36% above the rollback aggregate millage of 6.8075). Lastly, it should be noted that the final budget is currently at $133,909,981, which is 2.82% higher than last year's budget of $130,238,633. JAB:kim Administrator Chandler noted that the 2.8% increase in the total budget is primarily related to four areas: 1) New facilities that will be coming on line next fiscal year such as Treasure Shores and South County Parks; 2) Contractual commitments such as Fire Fighters' Contract; 3) Implementation of the Emergency Services Equalization Plan that was approved by referendum last March; and, 4) A substantial increase in employee health insurance. As to property taxes, the aggregate millage rate proposed is 6.8996, which represents a 1.36% increase over rolled -back millage or an increase of $462,407 above roll back. That aggregate millage rate is a combination of the proposed tax rates within each of the individual tax funds, and we will address these as we address each individual fund. Administrator Chandler wished to make it clear that the function of County government does not include the Hospital District, the School Board, the Mosquito Control Districts, the municipalities, etc., all of which have separate taxing powers. We are only talking about the part of the taxes for which we are responsible. 5 BOOK 84 f'* uc fj SEP ro, 1991 I SEP 5 199 ltd Commissioner Scurlock felt that sometimes people get confused and think that these budget hearings are the forum for objecting to their individual assessments on their home or property; however, the tentative and final budget hearings offer the taxpayers an opportunity to discuss or object to the proposed budgets of the various funds in the county, such as the General Fund, Transportation Fund, General Purpose Municipal Service Taxing Unit, Library Bonds, the three Fire Districts, Street Lighting Districts, Solid Waste Disposal District, etc. Ed Valentine asked the proper procedure for appealing his property assessment, and Deputy Clerk Barbara Bonnah advised that petition forms may be obtained in the Property Appraiser's Office and filed in the Office of the Clerk to the Board by Friday, September 6, at 5:00 P.M. There is a $15 filing fee for each parcel. The first hearing of the Value Adjustment Board (VAB) will be held Monday, September 16, at 9:00 A.M. Mr. Valentine also asked when he might file an objection to his assessment for the Solid Waste Disposal District, and Chairman Bird advised that the SWDD assessment appeals are scheduled to be heard on Monday, September 9, at 9:00 A.M. in these chambers. The deadline for filing those appeals was Monday, August 26. GENERAL FUND Administrator Chandler announced that the total proposed General Fund budget for next fiscal year is $40,584,377, which reflects an expense increase of 2.4%. To fund those expenses and that portion from ad -valorem taxes, the proposed,General Fund millage rate for next fiscal year is 4.6423, which is 3.4% below the rolled -back millage of 4.8054. The basic changes within the General Fund budget relate again to the new facilities and parks coming on line, the implementation of the Emergency Equalization Plan, increase in health insurance, salary contingencies, and the 6 annualized operating cost for the new phase of the Jail which will be coming on line. Chairman Bird opened the public hearing on the General Fund. John Welton of Winter Beach wanted to go on record that he is opposed to any tax increase whatsoever in view of the economy and the unemployment situation. Gerald Green, resident of Indian River County, also opposed any tax increase, and wished to point out that while 2.8% doesn't sound like much of an increase, it amounts to close to $1 -million. Eleanor Ebbinger of Vista Royale had a question concerning the calculation of the solid waste generation units, and Chairman Bird requested that she raise her question during the public hearing on the Solid Waste Disposal District. Fred Mensing of Roseland suggested that the Board consider a substantial change in the cash forward reserves, but Administrator Chandler stated that it would be foolhardy and shortsighted to cut the cash forward or any other portion of the budget in order to make up the difference in future years. Delores Hill of Indian River County complained about seeing county workers leaning on their shovels and about Sheriff's squad cars being taken home overnight by deputies. She felt those matters need to be looked at in order to shave some money from the budget. Chairman Bird explained that the Sheriff has the right to decide the manner .in which the squad cars are put in use. That issue has been discussed many times in the last few years, and Sheriff Dobeck is convinced that having the deputies take their cars home during off-duty hours provides a longer life for the vehicles. He noted that while the Board of County Commissioners approves the Sheriff's budget, the Sheriff has the ability to - appeal that decision to the Governor and Cabinet. As for county workers, Chairman Bird emphasized that we try to run this county as a business, and county employees who fail to diligently do � a BOOK 7 SEP '1901 r- V SEP a9 BOOK ©4 P,�,-ElI' their jobs will be replaced. He explained that sometimes, during construction work, laborers must wait around on the job site while equipment is moved or a specific task is completed. Edward Waddell of Vero Beach wished to inquire about having his agricultural exemption removed, and Commissioner Scurlock advised him to discuss his exemption with Property Appraiser David Nolte, and that if it is not resolved, to file an appeal to the VAB by tomorrow at 5:00 P.M. The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard and closed the public hearing on the General Fund. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved a tentative millage rate of 4.6423 (3.40% under roll- back) for the General Fund for FY 1991/92. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved a tentative budget of $40,584,377 for the General Fund for FY 1991/92. TRANSPORTATION FUND Administrator Chandler explained that the Transportation Fund budget essentially is comprised of Road 8 Bridge, Public Works, County Engineering and Traffic Engineering. It does not have a millage, but is indirectly funded by taxes to a certain extent through our General Fund as well as the General Purpose Municipal Service Taxing Unit (GPMSTU). The total proposed budget is $8,511,016 and contains an expense increase of $254,589 or 3.08%. 8 r The primary areas of increases within this budget are funding for bridge replacements, equipment replacement, health insurance increase, and a cost of living contingency. Commissioner Scurlock asked if a safe route has been established for citrus haulers and if that has been included in the program. Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that a few years ago we met with the Citrus League and developed citrus hauling routes throughout the county, and we have worked with the citrus industry to make sure that they have available corridors and bridges that are not posted, which we inspect more frequently to accommodate that need. We will be meeting soon with the Citrus League to look at establishing a citrus transportation corridor out west in the 3 -county area, Martin, St. Lucie and Indian River. Chairman Bird opened the public hearing on the Transportation Fund and asked if anyone wished to be heard. Glenn Legwen, 59th Street, S.W., asked if there are any future plans for providing public transportation such as busses, and Chairman Scurlock advised that we already participate in public transportation by funding programs such as the Council on Aging, volunteer ambulance service, Veterans Services, Health Department, etc. He assumed that at an appropriate time we will be continuing to look at public transportation in an effort to reducing traffic loads on roads so that we can keep our service levels adequate. Administrator Chandler explained that the question of moving into public transportation was addressed in the transportation element of the Comp Plan hearings, but there was not a demonstrated need, from a cost benefit basis, for a public bus system in the next few years. There being no others who wished to be heard, Chairman Bird closed the public hearing on the Transportation Fund. 9 SEP 1 Sao ���UL J SEP K 1991 111K 84 3� PAGE„ ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved a tentative budget of $8,511,016 for the Transportation Fund for FY 1991/92. GENERAL PURPOSE MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT Administrator Chandler stated that the total proposed budget for the General Purpose MSTU is $12,415,743 and contains an expense increase of $34,728. The proposed millage rate is 1.5093, which represents a .19% decrease below the rolled -back rate. The primary area of change within this budget is funding for new employees at the Recreation Department and the South County Park, and health insurance increase. Chairman Bird opened the public hearing on the General Purpose MSTU and asked if anyone wished to be heard. Gerald Green wished to know what efforts have been made, if any, to lower this budget, and Administrator Chandler explained that last year and this year the millage is less than roll -back. Mr. Green felt that hearing these millage rate figures for rollback are very nice, but rather misleading. He preferred to know the actual dollars being spent. Chairman Bird assured him that belt tightening has been going on all through the budget workshops during July and in the budgets staff brought to the Board, and Commissioner Scurlock interjected that during the July workshops the Board goes through the budget line item by line item. Odessa Clark, 4776 34th Avenue, opposed any increase in property taxes because nothing is being done about the lack of drainage in Gifford. The water is high and you cannot walk in your yard, and after she complained about it, the County came out and looked at it but didn't do anything about the problem. Director Davis confirmed that the County has been spending quite a bit of time in the area. Basically, the problem is that 10 L� this year's rainfall is 27 inches above the norm. We are doing certain things and planning for some improvements particularly on North and South Gifford Roads east of U.S. #1 and along the western side of the U.S. #1 corridor. Mrs. Clark lives west of that area and we have discussed this with her. Her residence is not really in a low elevation area, but she is at a remote point and we are working on it. It is not a situation of a large capital expenditure, but more of a situation of trying to get the facilities open to the sub -lateral canal which is maintained by the Indian River Farms Water Control District. Chairman Bird explained that unless her property assessment had been increased by the Property Appraiser, Mrs. Clark's taxes wouldn't go up this year because we are not applying a higher millage than we did last year. We are concerned about the drainage problem in that area and we are working through our Public Works Dept. to try to do something. Unfortunately, most of that area was laid out in subdivisions many, many years ago and the subdivisions didn't have adequate drainage when they were put in, and now that there is more and more run-off, the system is Aft overloaded. So, without going in and spending mullions and millions of dollars, there won't be a perfect drainage system up there, especially when we get the unusually high levels of rainfall that we have had in the last two months. Chairman Bird felt that you will see some changes and improvements taking place up there, and Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the budgets we are approving tonight for next fiscal year beginning October 1st will fund those improvements. There being no others who wished to be heard, Chairman Bird closed the public hearing on the General Purpose Municipal Service Taxing Unit. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved a tentative millage rate of 1.5093 for the General Purpose Municipal Service Taxing Unit for FY 1991/92. 11 SEP 5Ij991 BOOK (a� FAGEC� ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved a tentative budget of $12,415,743 for the General Purpose Municipal Service Taxing Unit for FY 1991/92. LIBRARY BONDS Administrator Chandler announced that this is the proposed millage levy to fund our debt service on Library construction, and the proposed rate is .3282. Rolled -back millage does not apply to voter approved debt. If it did, this would be a 2.11% decrease. The proposed budget is $1,725,852, a $21,958 increase over last year. Commissioner Scurlock wished to point out that the debt service will be paid off in another two years and the millage will drop. Chairman Bird opened the public hearing on the Library Bonds and asked if anyone wished to be heard. There being none, he closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved a tentative millage rate of .3282 for the Library Bonds for FY 1991/92. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved a tentative budget of $1,725,852 for the Library Bonds for FY 1991/92. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT Administrator Chandler noted that the three fire districts all have an increase over rolled -back millage. In all three 12 L districts the reason for the increase is the Emergency Services Equalization Plan that was presented and approved by the voters in March. In terms of expense and millage, the recommendations for the three districts are consistent with what was presented to the voters at that time. There has been no increase above what was presented. The proposed South County Fire District budget o.f $6,609,363 contains an expense increase of $634,406. The proposed millage rate of 1.7996 represents an increase of 16.140 over rolled -back millage. The primary areas of increase within this budget are compliance with the Emergency Equalization Plan that was approved by the voters; three new Lieutenants for minimum manning per ISO for second ladder company to maintain insurance rating; pension increase of $13,706 for the employee under the old City of Vero Beach retirement plan to be brought to parity with the State plan; increase in reserve for salaries of $390,482 to comply with union contract of 6% salary increase; and $86,530 in increased health insurance costs over last year. Commissioner Scurlock wished to point out that approximately 41% of the overall budget goes towards law enforcement, and that doesn't include the budgets for the agencies connected with the judicial system. When you add the funding for fire protection service, paramedics and advanced life support, he would estimate that 65-70a of the total budget is going towards those activities, which is scary. Chairman Bird opened the public hearing on the South County Fire District and asked if anyone wished to be heard. There being none, he closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved a tentative millage rate of 1.7996 for the South County Fire District for FY 1991/92. 13 MOCK C F,1;E I J� SEP c) SES 6 1991 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved a tentative budget of $6,609,363 for the South County Fire District for FY 1991/92. NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT Administrator Chandler noted that this budget is consistent with what was presented to the public on the March referendum regarding the Emergency Equalization Plan. The proposed budget of $1,428,705 contains an increase of $394,051. The proposed millage rate of 1.3500 represents an increase of 46.900 over rolled -back millage. The primary reasons for the increase is funding to comply with the Emergency Equalization Plan approved by the voters; annualized cost associated with the nine positions added this year to provide full-time manning and response from Station 20; a $21,686 increase in health insurance costs; and salary contingency of $54,862. Chairman Bird opened the public hearing on the North County Fire District and asked if anyone wished to be heard. There being none, he closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved a tentative millage rate of 1.3500 for the North County Fire District for FY 1991/92. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved a tentative budget of $1,428,705 for the North County Fire District for FY 1991/92. 14 SEP WEST_ COUNTY_ FIRE_ DISTRICT Administrator Chandler explained that the total expense for the West County Fire District is $247,800. In e°ffect, the funding that is provided from the West County Fire District is to fund the South and North District firefighting operating expenses. The budget being presented is consistent with the projects presented and approved by the voters in the March referendum. Part of that plan was that there would be a phase-in with the increased millage this year as opposed to a total impact in FY 92/93. The proposed West County Fire District budget of $247,800 contains an increase of $174,863. The proposed millage rate of .7791 is 238.150 over rolled -back millage. Chairman Bird opened the public hearing on the West County Fire District and asked if anyone wished to be heard. There being none, he closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved a tentative millage rate of .7791 for the West County Fire District for FY 1991/92. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved a tentative budget of $247,800 for the West County Fire District for FY 1991/92. NON -AD VALOREM ASSESSING DISTRICTS Chairman Bird informed those present that we would now - address the Non -Ad Valorem Assessing Districts, which include the Solid Waste Disposal District, the Vero Lake Estates M.S.T.U., and all the Street Lighting Districts. He noted that these assessment SEP BOOK districts and special districts make up only 5-100 of your tax bill, and at this point the Board has adopted 90-950 of the overall budget. He asked that the Board adopt the procedure to conduct the hearings on the Non -Ad Valorem Assessing Districts. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted the following procedure to conduct hearings on the Non - Ad Valorem Assessing Districts: A. Announce 1991/92 proposed charge and total budget for each Non -Ad Valorem Assessment District B. Receive comments from the Public C. Consider any Proposed Amendments to Tentative Budget and Calculate Revised Charge D. Adopt Tentative Charge E. Adopt Tentative Budget" i 16 M M sp BOOK 84 PAGE 187 VERO LAKE ESTATES MUNICIPAL SERVICE—TAXING-UNIT Administrator Chandler announced that the total proposed budget for FY 91/92 is $193,800, a $34,150 decrease over the current year. He explained that this MSTU was created a number of years ago to provide paving and drainage in the Vero Lake Estates area and is funded on a per parcel/acre basis. The current year's charge is $15.00 per Parcel/Acre and the proposed charge for FY 91/92 is $50.00. During the BCC meeting of June 4, 1991, the Vero Lake Estates Property Owners' Association brought a request before the Board to increase the MSTU assessment per parcel/acre charge from $15.00 to $50.00 for the next two years to generate funds (approximately $400,000) for the paving of the fol.lowing roadways: 91st Ave. - 87th St. to 77th St. (1.0 mile) 79th St. - 91st Ave. to 101st Ave. (1.25 mile) 101st. Ave. - 79th St. to 87th St. (1.0 mile) Their feeling was that with the addition of the above paved roads in the subdivision, a paved loop roadway network would exist to benefit the entire subdivision. The Board scheduled a public hearing to be held on July 16, 1991, at 7:00 P.M. at the North Indian River County Library in Sebastian. After two hours of public input at that meeting, the Board approved the proposed increase of assessment for the Vero Lakes MSTU to $50 per parcel/ - acre for a 2 -year period and also the proposed assessment of $2.00 per front foot for the properties on the roads being paved. Those assessments have been included in the budget being considered tonight. The Board reviewed the following memo dated 8/29/91: 18 The following are the proposed budgets for the Non -Ad Valorem Assessing Districts: U t1ON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND BALANCES: Federal Sources State Sources Local Sources Non—Ad Valorem Assessments Sub—Total Less 5% per F. S. 129.01(2)(b) Net Transfers Cash Forward—October 1, 1991 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, 1992 TOTAL BUDGET 1991/92 PROPOSED CHARGE: DA123R3WD9192U'AGE2 REVISED. 08-26-91 17 S E P 5 jj L VERO LAKES ESTATES MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT 0 0 5,000 199,000 204,000 (10,200) 193,800 0 0 193,800 0 0 0 183,060 0 0 0 0 183,060 10,740 .0 193,800 $50.00 PERIPARCEL ACRE P011K SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT 0 200,000 1,619,000 4,186,230 6,005,230 (300,262) 5,704,968 0 2,014,339 7,719,307 0 0 6,396,170 0 0 0 0 0 6,396,170 74,366 1,248,771 7,719,307 $3532 PER WASTE GENERATION UNIT rin BOOK - 84 F'a:GE1 y generally slopes easterly from the 10-mile ridge to the Sebastian River south prong floodplain. Basically, all of the drainage watershed basins are east of that 10 -mile ridge, which was the reason staff included the unincorporated enclave within Vero Lake Estates and Pine Lake Estates in the District. The improvements that are made along with the road paving improvements include major drainage structures which accommodate the whole watershed area. In his opinion, it would not be advisable to exclude certain parcels of land in that area from the District. Attorney Vitunac asked if Director Davis could say profes- sionally that the benefits Mr. Cooper's property receives are equal to the charge of $175, or in other words, does his property benefit in at least the.amount he is being assessed even though he is far away from the roads to be paved. Director Davis stated that he would benefit to that extent because if you look at the total program, which is developing a master drainage system and a road network to serve that area, it is our feeling that the land within the District equally benefits from the total program. Of course, certain projects within the program will benefit more than others. If you look at a compre- hensive program approach to the whole area, the whole area is receiving the same basic drainage benefits and improved access benefits. Chairman Bird then asked Director Davis to explain the formula that was used to apply against the acreage and what the justification is for an increased price on Mr. Cooper's assessment because of his 5 acres. Director Davis explained that the formula used in the MSTU is similar to what is used by most drainage districts throughout the state. After developing a work program, a budget is determined from looking at the number of per parcels in the district. If you have a piece of land that is between zero and 1 acre, that is considered one parcel/acre. If you have a piece of land from 1-2 20 �J TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Proposed Increase in Vero Lake Estates Subdivision MSTU Assessment for Road Paving and Drainage Improvements Ref. Memo: James W. Davis to James Chandler dated July 8, 1991 DATE: August 29, 1991 FILE: vleincrs.aug Attached herewith is a copy of the July 8, 1991 staff report on the Vero Lake Estates MSTU Assessment increase which was discussed during the July 16, 1991 Special Meeting held by the Board of County Commissioners at the North County Library Meeting Room. In addition, the minutes of the meeting are attached. At the above mentioned July 16, 1991 meeting, the Board received comments from the property owners in the MSTU Assessment area. Approximately 2/3's of the attendees were in favor of paving and 1/3 of the attendees were against the paving. Seven property owners spoke against the paving and ten(10) spoke for paving. A recent petition signed by approximately 100 property owners was received objecting to the proposed paving and assessment increase. Administrator Chandler noted that if there is a need to cover all aspects of the project, we will do it, but he felt it had been covered intensely at the July 16th public hearing. The Chairman opened the public hearing on Vero Lake Estates MSTU and asked if anyone wished to be heard. Jack Cooper, 8940 106th Avenue in Less Pine Lake Estates, opposed the project and the increased assessment. He had not attended any of the previous meetings because the notices seemed to indicate that it was only for Vero Lake Estates. He didn't feel he would receive any benefit from the roads that are to be paved. Director Davis stated that the drainage system that has been master planned and is implemented along with the paving of the roads does accommodate the drainage for the whole area. The area 19 'SEP 5 iM` BOOK - 84 NAGE Jb with the millage rate that is being assessed against them when other sections of A-1 are not being assessed. He could see where drainage could be a benefit, but couldn't see any benefit from the _ paving of roads that are three miles away from his house. He advised that they have approximately 150 signatures on petitions against this assessment. Administrator Chandler advised those petitions were circulated to the Commission through tonight's backup material. Mr. Cook stressed that the notices for the public hearing stated that it was for Vero Lake Estates, but when they found that it pertained to Less Pine Lake Estates, they began to collect signatures on petitions opposing the increased assessment. Director Davis felt that the type of drainage that is planned will benefit agricultural more than residential. Chairman Bird pointed out that with his 1 unit per 5 acres, Mr. Cook has the potential of coming in for 1 unit per acre and building 4 more houses, but Mr. Cook stated that he never would do that. Chairman Bird commented that while we are getting mixed signals from the people out in that area, the Board recognizes that we have to do some improvements out there. Coming up with a 'fair formula to assess is not an exact science, but we are trying to work out the inequities. Mr. Cook stated he would be very glad to see the inequities worked out, but maintained that there are more people against this project than for it. Commissioner Scurlock felt that the contacts he has had and the petitions that have been submitted to the Board indicate that there is a small majority in favor of the project. He was concerned about the question Mr. Cook raised regarding the exclusion of Mr. Ansin's property, because, obviously, if another piece of property is included in the assessment, it decreases each individual assessment to some extent. He asked if Mr. P_nsin's 22 _I acres, that is considered two parcel/acres, and so forth. Basically, the per parcel/acre charge is calculated by dividing the budget that is developed by the number of parcel/acres within the District. The budget was determined after the public hearing that was held on July 16 for the improvements that were requested. Mr. Cooper still maintained that his property would not benefit from the project, and Director Davis reiterated that he would benefit by the comprehensive drainage improvements. The actual cost of the drainage program is approximately half of the cost of the project. Usually, when you pave a road, the actual cost of road materials within the 70' right-of-way, or whatever right-of-way you are working with, translates into about one half the cost of the project. Putting in drainage pipes, grading swales and the related work accounts for 500 of the budget. The Vero Lake Estates MSTU is only one of several revenue sources that we are blending to make the paving project feasible. Other revenues are coming from a front footage assessment along those roads that are being paved because the philosophy is that if you live right on that road that is to be paved, you receive a little more benefit in that you don't have the inconvenience of traveling on a portion of unpaved road to access your property. Commissioner Scurlock asked if there is an equalization board in situations such as this, and Attorney Vitunac advised that this is it. Tonight's meeting is one of the two public hearings on the special assessment. The final budget hearing will be held next Wednesday, September 11, at 5:01 P.M. The Board has to declare that there is a benefit more than the assessment by having improved drainage and/or having a paved road near your home. Director Davis felt that the entire area is going to benefit from the program that has been put together for this year and the following year. Richard Cook, owner of a 5 -acre parcel in Less Pine Lake Estates, was opposed to the increased assessment. He disagreed 21 SEP 5 MI �Ufi� F,q,r.Ju EP 5 199t BOOK '4 F,9fr �1 Susan Peters of Less Pine Lake Estates stated that 100% of the people in Less Pine Lake Estates and Pine Lake Estates are opposed to the increased assessment of $50. They are not against the $15 they have been paying, just the increase. They don't feel that this additional $35 per parcel/acre will benefit them. She wished to emphasize that they are already zoned residential even though they have 5 acres. They had their parcel subdivided into two plots of 21 acres and pay 3 assessments on each plot for a total of 6 instead of 5. When she and her husband requested their property be rezoned to residential, it was with the thought of putting 3 houses on that acreage, but they found out after it had been approved by the Commission that they couldn't do it because they didn't have enough frontage to divide it equally into 3 parcels. They could put in more than 3 houses, but they would have to build a road at a cost of $18,000, put in a cul-de-sac, and then turn it over to the County. She was sorry, but she wasn't that foolish. Continuing with her arguments against the project, she poin-ted out that the residents from these areas have no access into the area to the south. There are no cross -overs over the canal and to get any benefit from the roads slated to be paved, they would have to go out onto CR -512 and go back into that southern area. She admitted they would benefit from the drainage, but if the roads were not paved, they still would be paying only $15.00 per parcel/acre. Director Davis reemphasized that drainage improvements will account for 50% of the cost of the project and that the entire area will benefit from the drainage program. Mrs. Peters continued to argue against the increased assessment, and after considerable debate, she stated she would like two things: 1) The County to prove to her how this plan will benefit their area, and 2) A tally of the petitions for and against the project. Commissioner Scurlock advised that an informal count indicates we have received 134 petitions in favor of the project 24 property to the south was considered when the assessment roll was drawn up. Director Davis explained that the canal which runs along 77th Street to the south where Mr. Ansin's groves are located is actually part of Mr. Ansin's Vero Lake Estates drainage district. He actually owns that canal which the subdivision benefits from, and he wasn't included in this platted subdivision MSTU due to drainage divides and basins. There are good reasons why that unplatted land is not included. Mr. Ansin also owns the canal along 89th Street and the drainage divide is the canal itself. His property drains into that canal which he owns. Commissioner Scurlock felt the point is that Mr. Cook's property drains into the canal behind him and that canal drains into Mr. Ansin's canal. He emphasized that Mr. Ansin is being taxed on all the property he owns within the Vero Lake Estates MSTU, which is substantial. Melanie Manning, resident and secretary of the Vero Lake Estates Property Owners' Association, stressed that since the $15 a year assessment must go towards road paving, the proposed project would save money in the long run because of inflation. The increased assessment for 2 years would allow the roads to be paved in 4 years instead of 11 years. She further stressed that the drainage plan will be a benefit to the total area. Mrs. Manning understood that when the MSTU was created, Less Pine Lake Estates was not included and that they had begged to be included in the $15.00 assessment for road paving. The whole idea of this was to create a better community, not to hurt anyone. We all have to give and take a little bit, and everybody will benefit by the drainage improvements and by having a higher value on their property. Mrs. Manning asked Chairman Bird if the Board feels this is a fair project, and Chairman Bird advised that the Board spoke to them when they voted unanimously in favor of the project at the public hearing that was held July 16th. 23 Ir 6 1,90 I SEP 911-' BOOK '4 F''E ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved a tentative assessment of $50.00 per Parcel/Acre for the Vero Lake Estates Municipal Service Taxing Unit for FY 1991/92. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved a tentative budget of $193,800 for the Vero Lake Estates Municipal Service Taxing Unit for FY 1991/92. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT Chairman Bird advised that you have an individual problem with your assessment, the time to approach the Board on that is next Monday at 9:00 A — M. If you have a general question about the District or how assessments are calculated, you may ask your questions during this public hearing. Administrator Chandler announced that the proposed budget is $7,719,307 and -contains an overall increase of $1,754,161. This budget is funded by our assessment of WGUs (Waste Generation Units), and the proposed WGU for FY 91/92 is $35.32, an increase of $2.32. To arrive at the total solid waste assessment for individual properties, that base is multiplied by a tonnage figure. In the case of single-family residential, the $35.32 is multiplied by a tonnage factor of 1.6, which amounts to $56.52 this year, an increase of $3.72 over last year. The primary reason for the increase is associated with our recycling activities with improvements at collection centers, continuation of recycling programs, implementation of a residential bi-weekly recycling pickup scheduled to begin April 1, 1992, expansion of igloo sites, seven new positions, and as with our other budgets, the health insurance increase. 26 that are signed by one person per household, and have received 150 petitions against the project that appear to have been signed by two or more individuals in the same household. Chairman Bird assured Mrs. Peters that staff would get that data together before the next public hearing on September 11th. Frances Betz of Vero Lake Estates recalled how wet that entire area had been many years ago when even the cattle didn't want to stay in there. If this drainage project falls through, she dreaded to think what would happen to the area if next year is as wet as this one has been. Mrs. Betz felt the residents of Less Pine Lake Estates and Pine Lake Estates do not understand what the agreement was back when the MSTU was first established. Mr. Neroni of Port St. Lucie stated that he owns 3 lots in Vero Lake Estates and is opposed to the project. Bob Peters of Less Pine Lake Estates strongly objected to the project. It seemed to him that all the discussion tonight has centered on the drainage benefits, and he wished to point out that they have been paying for drainage and will continue to pay for drainage with the $15 assessment. He felt it is very unfair to ask them to pay for paving roads for other people's use. Glenn Legwen inquired about any plans for bringing in water and sewer, and Chairman Bird advised that it would not be anytime in the near future, but when service is extended to that area, there will be substantial charges to the residents for the project assessment itself,.impact fees, connection fees, installation of meters, etc. Mrs. Betz strongly suggested that the residents of Pine Lake Estates and Less Pine Lake Estates read over the initial agreements that were entered into when the Vero Lake Estates MSTU was established. It was determined that no one else wished*to be heard, and the Chairman closed the public hearing on the Vero Lake Estates MSTU. 25 SEP -5 1991 � mor 64 F .0 � . ��c M M M Commissioner Scurlock wanted to go on record in renewing his concern about the commercial side of the solid waste assessment. He would like to see the Board consider a split fee for commercial where we would have a basic base facility charge for having that facility out there, which could go up and down, and that would appear on the tax roll like our current assessment does. In. addition, however, we would have another factor to make up the total dollars needed and that would be determined either by container size, frequency of pickup and container size, or tonnage. He wasn't saying that he was absolutely convinced that it would be the right way to go, but, as one Commissioner, he would like to take a look at it because it might bring a little more equity to the assessment. Administrator Chandler confirmed that we are looking into a split fee and a fee based on tonnage, but pointed out that if any changes are made, they would not be effective this fiscal year. Chairman Bird opened the public hearing on the Solid Waste Disposal District budget, and asked if anyone wished to be heard on the matter. Mark Tripson, 5020 12th Street, Vero Beach, was concerned about farm property and why some parcels were being assessed and some were not. Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that vacant/ unimproved property is not assessed. Parcels with buildings on them are assessed. If you don't have any structures on your property and are being assessed, that has to be straightened out with the Property Appraiser. Glenn Legwen, 5900 5th St., S.W., explained that he is in the nursery business and objects to the document used to assess nurseries. They have used Code 30 of the Property Use Code - Classification which includes florists as well as wholesale and retail nurseries. He felt that assessing nurseries on a square footage basis is very inequitable. There is no consideration for 27 IOOK .•, 'r. SEP 5 a91 SEP 5 1991 BOOK Cao f'Aa. b,7 the possibility that a nursery having 2000 square feet could produce more waste than a nursery having 8000 square feet. A smaller greenhouse operation might have more pots and debris than a nursery with just outdoor plantings. Further, a nursery firm in the landscaping and debris removal business would produce more garbage than those that aren't. Mr. Legwen urged the Board in their consideration of approval of this budget to consider the actual flow stream generated. Chairman Bird advised that we will continue to work with our staff to make it as perfect as we can. Eleanor Ebbinger of Vista Royale questioned the WGU formula for condominium units. She didn't think that all condominiums are the same or that the people who live in them are all senior citizens. Most of the units in Vista Royale are occupied by one or two people. In addition, most or all the units in Vista Royale have garbage disposals. She felt that condominiums should be charged less than other multi -family residences and single-family residences. Commissioner Scurlock noted that one year ago we did a study and found that single-family residences were generating more solid waste than multi -family residential and increased their tonnage multiplier from 1.2 to 1.6. Condominium apartments fall under the multi -family residential and are charged 1.2 also. Mrs. Ebbinger commented that she just likes to understand these things and feels that she has learned a lot tonight. Director Pinto offered to give Mrs. Ebbinger a cook's tour of the solid waste disposal operation and show her where every penny is spent. He gave her his card and asked her to call him and arrange for an appropriate time at her convenience. Mrs. Ebbinger said she would enjoy that and appreciated everyone's concern. Fred Mensing of Roseland wished to see the Commission and the Utilities Department eliminate the confusion about the WGU. He suggested having a set amount like the ERUs, which the people seem 28 to understand, rather than multiplying a base amount by a tonnage figure. Delores Hill also wondered why her assessment has changed since nothing has changed at her house; they still take just two cans a week to the Landfill. She objected to anything added to her tax bill except property taxes, and didn't appreciate her taxes going up and up. It seemed to her that the only control the taxpayer has is their vote. Commissioner Wheeler noted that every time the Commission votes to raise your taxes, they are voting to raise their taxes also. At least with the Solid Waste Disposal District, the approach that we have taken is correct in that everybody pays a fair share compared to property taxes being paid on an appraised amount. Lengthy discussion ensued.regarding the recycling issue. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that right now the County is stockpiling some recyclable items while waiting for a better price. It's the old story of supply and demand. Right now, the market is glutted with certain recyclable materials. He expected that prices will continue to drop until people start buying more products made from recycled materials and the manufacturers' demand for more recyclable materials increases. Commissioner Bowman felt the County could do more in its effort to use more products made from recycled materials, such as stationery, envelopes, paper fowels, toilet paper, etc., and Administrator Chandler advised that more and more County purchase orders are being filled with products made from recycled materials. Glenn Legwen wished to point out that much of the material that is being taken out to the Landfill is biodegradable, and if the Board would approve it, he would be very willing to take it and construct a compost pile that would be turned into lots of fertile soil in 5 years or so. SEP 5 ,eta BOOK �� F"At 1" .� 811 It was determined that no one else wished to speak, and Chairman Bird closed the public hearing on the Solid Waste Disposal District. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved a tentative assessment of $35.32 per Waste Generation Unit for the Solid Waste Disposal District for FY 1991/92. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved a tentative budget of $7,719,307 for the Solid Waste Disposal District of FY 1991/92. STREET_ LIGHTING_ DISTRICTS Chairman Bird announced that Budget Director Joe Baird would read aloud the per Parcel/Acre charge for each Street Lighting District and then the budgets for each, after which anyone who has a comment to make on a certain District may be heard. Director Baird read aloud the following: 30 7J F, 0 NON -AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT STREET LIGHTING DISTRICTS 0 C=11 Proposed Per Parcel/Acre Charge PORPOISE LAURA. 71ERRA VERO VERO ROYAL GIFFORD LAURELWOOD ROCKRIDGE HIGHLANDS SHORES STREET STREET STREET STREET STREET LIGH':ING LIGHTING LIGHTING LIGHTING STREET DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND RAL kNCES: LIGHTING LIGHTING DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT Non -Ad Valorem Assessment 57,015 5,808 1,935 40,100 Local Sources 300 944 595 2,820 Contributions 0 0 0 0 Less 5% per F. S. 129.01(2)(b) -(2 866) (338) X227 2146 Sub -Total 54,449 6,414 2,403 40,774 Cash Forward -October 1, 1991 0 4,428 2,000 23,182 TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND BALANCES 54,449 10,842 4,403 63,956 APPROPRIATIONS AND RESERVES: 60 100 100 100 N Utilities 48,900 5,500 2,000 52,778 Administratior/Collection 2,759 733 445 3,228 Advertising 100 100 100 100 Maintenance 0 0 200 0 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS 51,759 6,333 2,745 56,106 Reserve for Contingencies 0 600 300 2,000 Cash Forward -September 30, 1992 2,690 3,909 1,358 5,850 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESERVES 54,449 10,842 4,403 63,956 0 C=11 Proposed Per Parcel/Acre Charge PORPOISE LAURA. 71ERRA VERO IXORA ROYAL ROSELAND POINT COURT LINDA SHORES PARK POINCIANA ROAD STREET SINGLE STREET STREET STREET STREET STREET STREET LIGHTING LIGHT LIGHTING LIGHTING LIGHTING LIGHTING LIGHTING LIGHTING DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT 1,320 0 1,030 4,780 5,616 6,348 11,873 160 0 28 100 440 396 552 0 3,790 0 0 0 0 0 (74) (190) (53) (244} (303) 33 (621) 1,406 3,600 1,005 4,636 5,753 6,407 11,804 370 1,754 0 0 561 2,176 3,000 1,776 5,354 1,005 4,636 6,314 8,583 14,804 612 5,254 739 1,650 4,311 6,825 10,770 354 100 154 1,900 633 648 981 100 0 12 60 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,066 5,354 905 3,610 5,044 7,573 11,851 125 0 100 300 443 158 100 585 0 0 726 827 852 2,853 1,776 5,354 1,005 4,636 6,314 8,583 14,804 3,828 0 0 (192) 3,636 0 .., 2,375 343 25 0 2,743 100 793 3,636 517.50 52200 $5.00 $25.00 $30.00 N/A $33.00 N/A $26.00 523.00 531.00 56.00 1 [l 1 SEP 5 1991 _I BOOK 4 Chairman Bird asked if anyone present wished to be heard in regard to any of the Street Lighting Districts. Commissioner Eggert asked if all the needed adjustments had been made to the Gifford Street Lighting District, and Director Baird advised that the Property Appraiser's Office gave us the needed information and we are hoping to finalize that by the next public hearing. Fred Mensing of Roseland was opposed to the Roseland Street Lighting District. He lives in the extreme southern end of the District where 8 property owners have 5 -acre tracts of land. Five of these tracts have single-family homes on them and the rest are vacant. He felt there is no benefit from the street lighting to people who have vacant, totally undeveloped land. He pays $30 a year for his five acre tract, but he has his home there. He still didn't feel that he should pay'$30 a year for something for which a person up the road pays only $6 a year. Director Baird explained that vacant land in all the street lighting district is charged a per parcel/acre charge because we feel it improves the development and increases the value of the property. Mr. Mensing strongly urged that this inequity be corrected because he didn't feel you could justify charging people for vacant land. Perhaps you could justify the charge for people who have agricultural land that can be rezoned to a higher density, but he believed the change should be made to comply with State Statutes. Commissioner Scurlock noted that this is the second question tonight on agricultural land, and suggested that staff look into that and give a position at the final budget hearing next Wednesday. Director Baird advised that in this particular situation all the lights are on Roseland Road and a lot of the people have been complaining that they do not receive any benefit because they do 32 not live on Roseland Road, but we feel the charge is justified because that lighted road helps them to get to their property. Attorney Vitunac repeated that the two budget hearings for all the assessment districts are the equalization hearing, and if the Board wishes, they can make an adjustment in an assessment. John Fink, 5416 41st Street, had a few concerns regarding the Gifford Street Lighting District. He owns 3 acres south of 41st Street between the Mosquito Control facility and the County Landfill Transfer Station. His father owns 6 acres in there and his brother owns 3, and between them they pay over $200 a year in assessments for the street lighting. When they brought the lines down 41st Street, they brought them down to 48th Avenue, which is about a quarter of a mile east of their properties, but then skipped their properties and picked up again down at 56th Avenue where there is a housing development. He assumes the people in the housing development are paying $17.50 per unit since they have lots of less than an acre. However, he is paying $54 a year for basically nothing. They do have frontage on 41st Street, but there are no lights in front of their properties. Commissioner Scurlock asked if they would care to have a light there if the budget was expanded, but Mr. Fink stated that they had not supported the move to establish a street lighting district. He felt they should be paying the same as everyone else, but if nothing can be done about reducing the assessment, then put in some I-ights so that they can see what they are paying $200 a year for. He wished to make a general comment to the Board about the tight economy. He is an employee of the School District and after his department's budget was cut 120 last year, they survived and managed to provide the same level of services. He urged the Commission to remember that things are not all that rosy out there. With Piper closing its doors, a lot of people are out of work and having a hard time making ends meet. Let's look at tightening our belt where we can and stretching out our tax SEP 1991 33 �OGK U F';.t,��� SEP �° '� BOOK. 84 mr'E�; dollars as far as possible. Outside of that, he would like to say that the Board is doing a good job. Glenn Legwen had a suggestion regarding the question Mr. Mensing raised about agriculturally zoned parcels. He suggested that we offer to people with agriculturally zoned parcels that can be subdivided at some later date the option of either accepting this assessment or rejecting it, with the condition that if they ever want to change the zoning, they would have to pay the back assessments at that time. The Commission felt that would be too difficult to track. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard, and the Chairman closed the public hearing on the Street Lighting Districts. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the tentative per Parcel/Acre charges for each Street Lighting District for FY 1991/92 as read aloud by the Budget Director and as listed above. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved a tentative budget for each Street Lighting District for FY 1991/92 as read aloud by the Budget Director and as listed above. ADOPTION OF PROCEDURES TO CONDUCT HEARINGS OF ENTERPRISE FUNDS OTHER FUNDS AND -CAPITAL --FUNDS ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted the following procedures to conduct Hearings of Enterprise Funds, Other Funds, and Capital Funds. 34 "A. Announce total dollar budget of each fund. II B. Receive comments from the Public C. Consider any Proposed Amendment_ to Tentative Budget D. Adopt Tentative Budget" M ENTERPRISE AND INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS The Chairman informed those present that at this time Admin- istrator Chandler wound read aloud ',the proposed budget for each fund, after which anyone who wishes to speak regarding a certain fund may be heard. • 35 eo�K 6 FN�t 1 1 J ENTERPRISE AND INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 6u� 0 0 ME I SELF GOLF BUILDING WATER & SEWER UTILITIES FLEET INSURANCE REVENUES: COURSE DEPARTMENT UTILITIES IMPACT FEE MANAGEMENT TRUST FUND User Fees 1,533,180 450,500 9,425,610 5,682,667 1,157,790 1,146,139 Interest Income 22,000 85,000 340,000 0 0 45,996 Less 5% per F. S. 129.01(2)(b) (77,759) (26,775) (488,280) (284,134) 0 (59,606) Cash Forward—October 1, 1991 332,849 701,769 421,810 0 0 0 TOTAL REVENUES 1,810,270 1,210,494 9,699,140 5,398,533 1,157,790 1,132,529 EXPENSES: rn Golf Course Maintenance 1,773,449 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Maintenance 0 0 0 0 1,137,132 0 Water/Sewer Combination Services 0 0 9,451,479 5,398,533 0 0 Self Insurance 0 0 0 0 0 1,129,059 Protective Services 0 979,692 0 0 0 0 Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reserves 36,821 30,802 152,661 0 20,658 3,470 Cash Forward—September 30,1992 0 200,000 95,000. 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 1,810,270 1,210,494 9,699,140 5,398,533 1,157,790 1,132,529 6u� 0 0 ME I With regard to the Water & Sewer Utilities Fund, Administrator Chandler announced that we received the following FAX letter today from CH2M Hill confirming that the rates we are considering tonight for the operating budget are sufficient to fund our budget. They do not anticipate a change by the time they complete their study. Engineers Planners ♦ ' Economists Scientists September 5, 1991 SEF30360.NB Mr. Jim Chandler County Administrator Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Mr. Chandler: Subject: Preliminary Analysis of Adequacy of Fiscal Year 1992 Water and Wastewater Rates to Meet Expenditures Budgeted for Fiscal Year 1992 In accordance with our agreement of August 28, 1991, we have conducted a preliminary analysis of the adequacy of the water and wastewater rates scheduled to be in effect during Fiscal Year 199' (October 1, 1991, through September 30, 1992) to generate revenues sufficient to fund water and wastewater system expenditures budgeted for Fiscal Year 1992. We have concluded that the rates will generate sufficient revenues to meet Fiscal Year 1992 utility expenditures, based on the following assumptions: The assumptions given in our March 1991 Water and Wastewater Fee and Rate Study report, with particular reference to customer and usage increases addressed on page 3-8 of that report, remain sound. • The County's forecasted unrestricted cash carry forward from Fiscal Year 1991 to Fiscal Year 1992, currently estimated to have a balance of zero, is reasonable. • The utility's actual expenditures in Fiscal Year 1992 will be close to those presented it, the County Administrator's recommended budget, dated July 10, 1991. 37 SEPI 11100K. 64 SEP 10V BooK 8 We hope that this information will be helpful to you in completing your budgeting process. Between now and September 20, we will complete our update and evalu- ation of the fees and rates, focusing on the accuracy of data used in the analyses, accuracy of calculations, and the su€ficiency of revenues to meet expenditures through Fiscal Year 1993. Sincerely, CH2M HILL '. MCI anager Commissioner Scurlock wanted to make a statement on utility impact fees. He still feels that as part of this analysis, we need to readdress our impact fees and our capital improvement program, because he has a feeling that with some of the changes occurring in our master plan, and looking at some of the economies of doing things differently and looking at the reserves that have been built in, there may be a potential to not have to increase our impact fees at the rate we anticipated. He doesn't know that for sure, but has a suspicion and just wants to get it on the record. Chairman Bird opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard on any of the above listed funds. There being none, he closed the public hearings on the Enterprise and Internal Service Funds. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved FY 1991/92 tentative budgets for each of the Enterprise and Internal Service Funds as listed above and as read aloud by the county Administrator OTHER DEBT_ FUNDS__ SPECIAL_ REVENUE_ FUNDS AND CAPITAL PROJECTS The Chairman informed those present that at this time Budget Director Baird would read aloud the proposed budget for each fund, after which anyone who wishes to speak regarding a certain fund may be heard. 38 I W kD OTHER DEBT FUNDS 1 ROUTE 60 ROUTE 60 ROCKRIDGE NORTH CTY. 1985 REF. SEWER WATER SPECIAL SEWER & IMPROV. ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT BONDS BOND BOND BOND BOND ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND BALANCES: Federal Sources 0 0 0 0 0 State Sources 1,398,890 0 0 0 0 Local Sources 80,000 387,406 60,000 128,626 1,088,538 Less 5% per F. S. 129.01(2)(b) (73,945) (19,370) (3,000) (6,431) 0 Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 Cash Forward—October 1, 1991 33,660 10,000 23,000 40,000 300,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND BALANCES 1,438,605 378,036 80,000 162,195 1,388,538 APPROPRIATIONS: General Government 1,438,605 378,036 0 122,195 1,088,538 Public Safety 0 0 0 0 0 Physical Environment 0 0 0 0 0 Transportation 0 0 0 0 0 Economic Environment 0 0 0 0 0 Human Services 0 0 0 0 0 Cult u re/Recrcat ion 0 0 0 0 0 Interfund Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS 1,438,605 378,036 0 122,195 1,088,538 Reserve for Contingencies 0 0 0 0 0 Cash Forward—September 30,1992 0 0 80,000 40,000 300,000 TOTAL BUDGET 1,438,605 378,036 80,000 162,195 1,388,538 ' r 1 r SEP 5 A99' OTHER FUNDS APPROPRIATIONS: General Government Public Safety Physical Environment Transportation Economic Environment Human Services Culture/Recreation Interfund Transfers TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS Reserve for Contingencies Cash Forward—September 30,1992 TOTAL BUDGET 40 304,003 98,000 0 9,545,465 90,504 1,195,395 352,350 117.426 11,703,143 797,821 1,354.486 13,855,450 b00K . 84 FA, U- .1000 CAPITAL PROJECTS 0 1,000,000 5,717,534 (335,877) 80,000 10.121.023 16,582,680 1,483,500 0 0 9,950,000 0 0 675,355 0 0 2,473,825 2.000.000 16,582,680 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND BALANCES: Federal Sources 955,542 State Sources 1,048,326 Local Sources 6,176,333 Less 5% per F. S. 129.01(2)(b) (409,009) Transfers 424,852 Cash Forward—October 1, 1991 5,659,406 TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS AND BALANCES 13,855,450 APPROPRIATIONS: General Government Public Safety Physical Environment Transportation Economic Environment Human Services Culture/Recreation Interfund Transfers TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS Reserve for Contingencies Cash Forward—September 30,1992 TOTAL BUDGET 40 304,003 98,000 0 9,545,465 90,504 1,195,395 352,350 117.426 11,703,143 797,821 1,354.486 13,855,450 b00K . 84 FA, U- .1000 CAPITAL PROJECTS 0 1,000,000 5,717,534 (335,877) 80,000 10.121.023 16,582,680 1,483,500 0 0 9,950,000 0 0 675,355 0 0 2,473,825 2.000.000 16,582,680 Chairman Bird opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard on any of the above listed funds. Glenn Legwen inquired about the Oslo Road reverse osmosis water plant as he understood that the restrictions on the monies that were provided initially by the Farmers Home Administration had a stipulation that there would be no assessments or impact fees. Commissioner Scurlock felt Mr. Legwen had that stipulation confused with the federal monies provided for the initial study that was done when the County was first considering getting into water service. This is an entirely different project. When the FmHA committed a very large loan to us at 5% interest, there was no such stipulation, and there was no grant money involved. Director Baird interjected that the bonding documents specif- ically name impact fees as a charge that we use for our coverage. He believed that is covered under Ordinance 82-61, and if Mr. Legwen would like to stop by his office, he would be glad to show it to him. w There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman closed the public hearings on the Other Debt Funds, Special Revenue Funds, and Capital Projects. I ''' ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved FY 1991/92 tentative budgets for each of the Other Debt Funds, Special Revenue Funds, and Capital Projects as listed above and as read aloud by Budget Director Baird. 41 BOOK f".a r SEP 5 11991 BOOK . 84 f,tA.GE ► 9.1 Chairman Bird announced that the Final Budget Hearing will be held in the Commission Chambers at 5:01 P.M. on Wednesday, September 11, 1991. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 8:35 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: J. Barton, Clerk 42 Richard N. Bird, Chairman I