Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/14/1995� MINUTES �1'TACHED � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA r:vmW',1111111lip; REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1995 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER - COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - . Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman (Dist. 3) James E. Chandler, County Administrator Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman (Dist. 1) - Richard N. Bird (Dist. 5) Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Carolyn K. Eggert ( Dist. 2 ) John W. Tippin (Dist. 4) Jeffrev K. Barton. Clerk to the Rnarr4 9: 00 A. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. INVOCATION - None 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Carolyn K. Eggert 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 1. Item 13-D, discussion of Transportation Disadvantaged Program. 2. Item 13-A, 1995 County Legislative Day. 3. Item 9-B, proposed Stipulations in the Moorings Square Association lawsuits. 4. Item 14-B-4, deleted, can be handled in-house. S. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of January 17, 1995 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Received E Placed on File in Gffice of Clerk to the Board: Report of Convictions for January, 1995 B. Release of Utility Liens ( memorandum dated February 2, 1995 ) C. Occupational License Taxes Collected During Month of January, 1995 ( memorandum dated February 8, 1995 ) D. Second Amendment - Interlocal Agreement Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium - ( memorandum dated February 2, 1995 ) E. -Precision Contracting Services Request for Retainage Release ( memorandum dated February 8, 1995 ) F. Indian River Farms R -O -W Lease Agreement Renewal (memorandum dated February 7, 1995) 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES None 9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CODIFYING THE ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT None B. EMERGENCY SERVICES Approval of FY 94-95 Emergency Management Assistance (EMA) Agreement and Purchase of Capital Equipment ( memorandum dated February 3, 1995 ) C. GENERAL SERVICES None D. LEISURE SERVICES None E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 1. Interest Rates ( memorandum dated February 8, 1995 ) 2. Preliminary Budget Presentation (Will Be presented at the end of the Regular Meeting - Backup provided under separate cover) F. PERSONNEL Health --Care Plan ( memorandum dated January 26, 1995 ) ( postponed from BCC Meeting of 2/7/95) G. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Indian River Boulevard Phase IV - Funding Allocation ( memorandum dated February 6, 1995 ) 2:- Change Order No. 3 ( memorandum dated February 8, 1995 ) H. UTILITIES I. Request to Set Public Hearing Date: Countryside Mobile Home Park - Res. No. 85-61 Between Realcor-Vero Beach -Assoc. and Indian River County ( memorandum dated February 6, 1995 ) 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd. ): H. UTILITIES (cont'd. ): 2. South County R.O. Plant, Odor Control ( memorandum dated January 31, 1995 ) 3. Developer's Agreement Between 1. R. C. and 1. R. Country Club for the Construction - of a Reuse Line ( memorandum dated January 27, 1995) .. 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY Resolution of Board of County Commissioners to the Water Management District Review Commission ( memorandum dated February 8, 1995 ) 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. CHAIRMAN KENNETH R. MACHT B. VICE CHAIRMAN FRAN B. ADAMS Smoking in New Courthouse C. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT E. COMMISSIONER JOHN W. TIPPIN 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT None B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT 1:- Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 12/13/94 2. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 1/17/95 3. Camp Dresser and McKee - Landfill Expansion (memorandum dated January 24, 1995) 4. Fellsmere Collection / Recycling Center ( memorandum dated February 1, 1995 ) 15. ADJOURNMENT ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE - MADE AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED. ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MAY CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X 408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF MEETING. February 14, 1995 A The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, February 14, 1995, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman; Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman; John W. Tippin; Richard N. Bird; and Carolyn K. Eggert. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and P. J. Jones, Deputy Clerk. Chairman Macht called the meeting to order, and Commissioner Eggert led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Commissioner Eggert requested the addition of Item 13-D, discussion of the Transportation Disadvantaged Program regarding a possible Medicaid legislative problem. Chairman Macht requested the addition of Item 13-A, discussion regarding 1995 County Legislative Day on April 12, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. County Attorney Vitunac requested the addition of Item 9-B, discussion of the proposed Stipulations in the Moorings Square Association lawsuits. Administrator Chandler requested that Item 14-B-4 be deleted as staff has determined that this matter can be handled in-house. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously made the above changes to the Agenda. Boa 9, 4 �A� FEBRUARY 14, 1995 1 boa 94 F'AU 332 APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 17, 1995. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 17, 1995, as written. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Eggert requested that Items 7-B and 7-E be pulled for discussion. A. Reobrts Received and placed on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board: 1. Report of Convictions for January, 1995. B. Release of Utility Liens The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 2, 1995: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office DATE: February 2, 1995 RE: RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS The attached lien releases are in proper form for the Board of County Commissioners to authorize the Chairman to sign so that they can be recorded. The naives and projects are: 1. 12th Street Water Special Assessment: ANTON 2. Satisfactions of Impact Fee Extensions: BEACH FLOOD MARSHALL MOODY NICHOLS SCHUESSLER TALLMAN BOGER KUSHMER MEYER NEELEY PHILLIPS/SMITH SUMMERPLACE LTD. PARTNERSHIP FEBRUARY 14, 1995 2 Commissioner Eggert questioned the releases and was advised by the County Attorney that the releases were in order. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the releases of utility liens, as recommended by staff. LIEN RELATED DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY C. Occupational License Taxes Collected During the Month of January, 1995 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 8, 1995: KAKzMMBWAM Tax Collector TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Karl Zimmermann, Tax Collector SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses DATE: February 8, 1995 Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be informed that $4,976.10 was collected in occupational license taxes during the month of January 1995, representing the issuance of 214 licenses. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the report as submitted. D. Second Amendment/Interlocal Agreement/Treasure Coast job Training Consortium The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 2, 1995: 800� 94003 FEBRUARY 14, 1995 3 BOOK 4 Piu 1, 3 TO: Board � of county mmissioners ,4j, �`" w4cav - FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office THRU: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney DATE: February 2, 1995 RE: Second Amendment - Interlocal Agreement Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium In 1983 Indian River, Martin, and St. Lucie Counties entered into an Inter- local Agreement creating the Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium and Treasure Coast Private Industry Council in order to effectuate the provision of the Job Training Partnership Act. In 1984 the Counties amended Section 8 of the agreement. This section covers the establishment, composition, and appointment of the Treasure Coast Private Industry Council. Due to recent amendments to this Act, the Counties have determined it is necessary to further amend Section 8 of the agreement. Requested Action: Board approve the Chairman's execution of the attached Second Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the Second Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement and authorized the Chairman to execute the same, as recommended by staff. AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD E. Precision Contracting Services Request for Retainage Release The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 8, 1995: FEBRUARY 14, 1995 4 DATE: FEBRUARY 81 1995 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: H.T. "SONNY"DEAN, DIRECTOR - DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES SUBJECT: PRECISION CONTRACTING SERVICES REQUEST FOR RETAINAGE RELEASE BACKGROUND: Precision Contracting Services (PCS) has completed the work in the new courthouse under his contract, except for some programming this is to be done by a subcontractor. PCS is requesting release of his retainage, except for $5,500 to cover the programming work. The installed work is under warranty. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends release of the $53,072.50 retainage. Commissioner Eggert stated that she has been advised that the $5,500 proposed to be held for programming would not be sufficient to cover the remaining programming work as the hearing rooms have not been completed and the Golden Gavel system in Courtrooms 6 and 7 is not complete. This is the system which allows children, for example, to testify without being present in the courtroom. She understood that the programming will not be ready until May or June, 1995. Administrator Chandler advised that he had received a copy of a memorandum from the Clerk of the Court regarding the timing of the remaining work but had spoken with Director Dean and was advised that the funds were sufficient. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved deferring this item for one week. FEBRUARY 14, 1995 5 BOOK 04 PACO 336 F. Indian River Farms R -O -W Lease Agreement Renewal The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 7, 1995: DATE: February 7, 1995 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PI DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES PREPARED WILLIAM F. CAIN AND STAFFED CAPIT C INEER BY: DEPARTMENT O UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER FARMS R/W LEASE AGREEMENT RENEWAL BACKGROUND As a result of County Utilities installations within Indian River Farms' right-of-way, the County must sign a lease and agreement on an annual basis. (See attached Indian River Farms' Lease Agreements) RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends execution of the attached lease agreements as presented. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the Permit and Interlocal Agreement with Indian River Farms Water Control District and authorized the Chairman to execute the same, as recommended by staff. AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA CODIFYING THE ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA The hour of 9:05 A.M. having passed, the County Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as follows: FEBRUARY 14, 1995 6 � s VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach. Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA -Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a In the matter of in the Court, was pub- lished In said newspaper in the Issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun. ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. .' ��� i0ci tit eribed before me this day of • :;,I91t _!�!j!D. 19 Vy comm. res June 29, Ift7 i, f: NO. cC3OM72 or 4. - (Business Manager) It'll Slats• r:! ' Irr.! r, Id.. ; •..� .,e..lutnr79. 1907 r'•rr rr: ,v». +b•nd rrr (.r; ;lrtl� NOTICE The Board 01,22,q Qw�rherebypni stone of Indian Cowdy,of a Publicsd�am mkM for -M � PTtms t. A01thav 4 INA '. N ORDMANCE OF MOM RIV COUN- TY. FLORIDA, CODIFYING THE ORD6 NANCESrn BOyF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. mayAbe who trade at wish tO p � melon which 1995. wit need to ensue that verHeaftrbbaft recardFftuarytof the pro IF Ph 94 Is made, which idudes testtn" and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Anyone who mreayeds a spelled mcorrnrodatbn for t2sh Diss Aft ( Chmrdina�tor'ya► 557587 Micam Ext. 408, at least 48 Mus In advance of the meet - Jam 23, 1995 1187387 County Attorney Vitunac stated that the County is required by State law to codify all ordinances into one volume once a year and this procedure will be followed on an annual basis. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 95-06 codifying the Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida, pursuant to staff's recommendations. bou 94 3,'37 FEBRUARY 14, 1995 7 BOOK -94 pnc .338 I / 17 / 95 (ord \ codif . doc) Ow ORDINANCE 85- 06 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CODIFYING THE ORDINANCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, Section 125.68, F.S. requires the current codification of all ordinances comprising the code and WHEREAS, this is to be done on an annual basis, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, that: SECTION 1. CODIFICATION. All ordinances which have been published in "The Code of Indian River County" up to and including Supplement No. 16 are hereby deemed to be codified and said code shall be the best evidence of the laws of Indian River County. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. If any section, or any sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective upon becoming law. Approved and adopted by "the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 14 day of February , 1995. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 23 day of January , 1995, for a public hearing to be held on the 14 day of February , 1995, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Adams , and adopted by the following vote: FEBRUARY 14, 1995 8 M M M Attest: ORDINANCE 95-06 Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Commissioner Richard N. Bird Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION INDIAN RIVER .COUNTY, FLORIDA FRAN B. ADMS, VICE CHAIRMAN �:..i n.vd Ca i+U{ •` OvEE CJS I Aamm. vra 11161f qs j Legal 6uaget Deg 1. Risk Mgr. Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the State of Florida, this 21st day of February , 1995. Effective date: Acknowledgement from the Department of State received on this 27thday of February , 1995, at 4:05 &Xlt/p.m. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. DISCUSSION OF MOORINGS SQUARE ASSOCIATION LAWSUITS County Attorney Vitunac advised he had received a call last week from the litigants in the Moorings' lawsuits; that the matter has been set for oral argument on February 24, 1995; but that the parties have reached a potential settlement and all parties have requested that the legal hearings be postponed. It is important to note that each side will pay its own attorney fees. Attorney Warren Dill stated that the other parties present are: Attorney Lisa D. Harpring of Moss, Henderson, Van Gaasbeck, Blanton & Koval, P.A., who represents The Moorings of Vero Property Owners' Association, Inc. and Ann H. MacLean in the case against the County; Ann MacLean, one of the Petitioners against the County; Attorney Ralph L. Evans, who represents Halvorsen Development Corporation, a defendant in the case filed by William Lampert, George Millington, Robert Salmon, Jr., Gene Winne and John W. Zilg against the County, and Halvorsen Development. The parties have reached and signed an agreement with Mr. Ferrin, who was the contract purchaser of the property from Mr. Hazelwood. Sea Mist Partners Limited Partnership, the proposed shopping center, was the FEBRUARY 14, 1995 9 mnF 94 PAGLI39 app -94P ; 340 contract assignee. Moorings Square Association, Inc., a non-profit organization, was created solely to purchase this particular property. The agreement calls for Moorings Square Association, Inc. to purchase the contract rights from Sea Mist Partners Limited Partnership. Moorings Square Association, Inc. will then be in a position to close on the contract and then to close on the property. The Association has until mid-March, 1995 to acquire the contract and then has 5 months to actually close on the land with Mr. Hazelwood. There are 2 pending lawsuits in which the County is involved, with oral arguments set for February 24, 1995. He hoped the Board will agree it would be a waste of time and money on all sides to pursue those lawsuits at this time. The parties have agreed to abate, or stay, the proceedings for 60 days from the date the Court issues an Order and continue the argument until the end of that 60 -day period. No one would be giving up any rights during this period as all matters would be held up to give Moorings Square Association, Inc. a chance to complete the transaction. They are requesting that the Board authorize the County Attorney to sign Stipulations for Dismissal in each case, which will effectively end the lawsuits once they are filed with the Court. The parties have agreed to sign the Stipulations at this time and place them in escrow with Mr. FerrinIs attorney, James A. Ballerano, in Delray Beach, pursuant to escrow instructions, copies of which have been provided to the County Attorney. The Stipulations will be filed with the Court when the contract rights have been actually purchased by Moorings Square Association in mid-March. If Moorings Square Association defaults and does not close in mid-March with Sea Mist Partners, through Moorings Square's fault, the stipulations will then be filed with the Court. If failure to close is caused by Mr. Ferrin, the stipulations will be returned to Moorings Square Association for destruction and the lawsuits will proceed. Default by either side is not expected. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized the County Attorney to execute the 2 Joint Motions to Abate and the 2 Stipulations for Dismissal to be held in escrow for 60 days pending Moorings Square Association, Inc. Is closing on the contract with Sea Mist Partners Limited Partnership. FEBRUARY 14, 1995 10 APPROVAL OF FY 94-95 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE FEMA) AGREEMENT AND PURCHASE OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 3, 1995: TO: Board of Coun Commissioners Of THROUGH: Doug Wright, Director Department of Emergency Services FROM: John Ring, Emergency Management Coordinator Division of Emergency Management DATE: February 3, 1995 SUBJECT: Approval of FY -94/95 Emergency Management Assistance (EMA) Agreement and Purchase of Capital Equipment It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at the next scheduled meeting. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The Indian River County Department of Emergency Services, Division of Emergency Management, recently received the attached FY -94/95 Emergency Management Assistance (EMA) Agreement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through the Florida Department of Community Affairs in the amount of $33,142. The County has successfully participated in the EMA grant program for several years and this year's proposal represents nearly a $1,000 increase over last year. No additional funding is required on the part of the County to execute this agreement. With Board approval, the funds will be utilized to complete the Scope of Work contained in the agreement within the allowed time frames and improve public disaster preparedness presentations. Due to a delay within the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the proposed funding is being received later than usual in terms of the fiscal year. Even though the delay has placed us well into the second quarter, we remain eligible to receive all proposed funding allowable within the agreement on an annualized basis in the current fiscal year. Staff has received a request from the Florida Department of Community Affairs' EMA Program Administrator, Theodore Reith, who recommends that the EMA_ grant funds be kept in a separate fund account for audit purposes, however; he did not note any objection to the matching fund amount being identified in the 208 account. The grant funds are planned for utilization consistent with the prior fiscal year and are as follows: ACCOUNT NO. 011.12 039.02 039.99 039.41 FEBRUARY 14, 1995 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Regular Salaries $15,516 All Travel 9,726 Oth Chgs-Obligations 2,500 Office Furniture -Equip 5,400 TOTAL $33,142 Boa 94 pAu 341 11 boos .94 FAu V 7 Staff also seeks approval to utilize $5,400 of the grant to replace an overhead projector and an LCD projection panel which will be used in the many public presentations made by the department and in the Emergency Operations Center during periods of increased community alertness. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The allocation of funds is based on monitoring reports and an on-site inspection of the local Emergency Management program which is conducted by the Florida Department of Community Affairs. During the last program analysis and evaluation, the County Division of Emergency Management received the maximum allowable score by the review committee. .Acceptance and approval of this agreement by the Board will allow this department to continue to improve and expand current programs. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the FY -94/95 Emergency Management Assistance Agreement and grant revenue utilization as noted above. Staff also requests the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the appropriate documents to secure the funding of $33,142. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved and authorized the Chairman to execute the FY -94/95 Emergency Management Assistance (EMA) Agreement; approved Budget Amendment 005; and the grant revenue utilization, as recommended by staff. TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A- Baird OMB Director DATE: February 8. 1995 Entry Number -. Funds/Department/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. REVENUE _ GENERAL FUND/EMA Matching Grant 001-000-331-023.00 $33,142 $0 EXPENSE _7Cash GENERAL FUND/EMS/Other Charges and Obligations 001-208-525-039.41 $5,400 $0 Forward 001-199-581-099.92 $27,7421 $0 AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE -OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD FEBRUARY 14, 1995 L 12 INTEREST RATES The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 8, 1995: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: February 8, 1995 SUBJECT: INTEREST RATES - BUDGET AGENDA ITEM FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Board of County Commissioners has requested staff to review the method of calculating interest rates charged by the County to the public for financing utility assessments, utility impact fees and petition paving assessments Indian River County currently carries the cost of financing the assessment's projects from the engineering/design stages, through complete construction until the final assessment roll is done. These projects usually take more than one (1) year, sometimes two to three years from beginning to end. After the final assessment is done, Indian River County gives the public an opportunity to pay the entire assessment within ninety (90) days without any interest costs. If they do not pay the assessment entirely, then they are charged interest on the assessment balance remaining as of the date of the assessment roll. The County, therefore, finances the project from the beginning stages to the completion of the project interest free. It must be kept in mind that when the county finances assessment projects, impact fees, etc. they are utilizing the county's working capital. This money could be invested earning interest or used for another purpose. Currently the County charges a fixed interest rate for those wanting to finance utility assessments, paving assessments and utility impact fees of 2 percent above prune rate. The fixed rate is set in January of each year. 'The recent increase in prime rate from 6% to 8 1/20/a from the prior year has prompted several questions regarding the County's policies regarding interest charges. 1. Should we tie the interest rate to prime interest? Prime rate is the lending rate banks charge their best customers (which are rare and few). It is the benchmark most institutions use when setting lending rates for a customer since it fairly reflects the prevailing market condition at the time. If prevailing market conditions had been different and interest rates went down, we would have to reduce the interest rate borrowers paid, which we did in the prior year. 2. It has been asked if tax-exempt paper would be a better benchmark? Tax-exempt paper rates fluctuate significantly more than the prime rate and is more complicated for the following reasons: a). Supply and demand of tax-exempt paper play a significant role in the interest rate. (Interest rates change constantly day to day.) - b). You must assume a bond rating (i.e. will it be considered AAA, Aaa, Aa, A, Baa, BBB, or non -rated). ,ROOK 94FACc.343 FEBRUARY 14, 1995 13 BOpK. 9 PuA44 c). Tax-exempt paper is significantly impacted by the local government - environment. An example of this is in late December and the beginning of January, tax exempt bonds had a higher than usual interest rate because of the Orange County derivative situation. d). Tax-exempt interest costs include bond issuance costs in addition to the project cost. An estimate would have to be made on how much issuance cost would have to be attributed to the project (i.e. bond counsel, underwriter, issurer, fed fund rate, financial advisor, etc.). 3. Why a fixed not variable rate? We feel a fixed rate is better for the following reasons: a). We can tell individuals what their payment will be up front for the term of the loan and they can include this in their household budget. They have a known amount they can count on. b). Raising interest rates is never an easy decision for the Board of County Commissioners. If we changed to a variable rate every individuals assessment would change on an annual basis. Second, raising interest rates is never popular and you would eventually affect every assessment roll that has been passed for the last 10 years, 5 years or 2 years. 4. Why is the interest rate set at 2 percent above prime? The interest rate was set at 2 percent above prime for the following reasons: a). The County did not want to take business away from banks or compete with banks but still needed to make financing available for those who could not get a conventional loan. Most people who would finance the assessments or utility impact fees would do so through a second mortgage or a home equity loan. Home equity loans and second mortgages are usually approximately 2 percent above prime. b). We also needed a differential for bad debt expense to help to fund the cost of delinquent and non -payers. c). In the past, when we did large bond issues for assessment projects' (i.e. North County assessment project) the bond industry usually required the County to charge those being assessed 2 percent above the bond issue interest rate so there was sufficient money available to make timely debt service payments. (Once again 2 percent was a factor they used for delinquent payers and the expense affiliated with them.) Since _ the - bond industry found 2 percent to be a prudent business rule of thumb, we adopted the same policy. RECOMMENDATION Staff feels that prime rate is the best benchmark. If the Board of County Commissioners feels that 2% above prime is too high then they should consider reducing the rate to 1 percent or 0 percent above prime; however, we feel prime should remain as the benchmark. FEBRUARY 14, 1995 14 M M M M M s OMB Director Joe Baird reminded the Board of the January 17, 1995 discussion regarding this matter. At that time his department's recommendation was 2% above prime of 8.5%, resulting in an interest rate recommendation of 10.5 He has reviewed the method of calculating the rates charged and feels that the prime interest rate is still the best benchmark because it is the rate charged by lending institutions to their best customers. He has also reviewed tying the rate to tax exempt paper and feels this would be very dif f icult to do. ' The tax exempt paper is largely dependent on supply and demand on the market at the time which is more volatile and a bond rating must be assumed. In December of 1994 and January of 1995, tax exempt paper was trading very high compared to taxable due to the Orange County, California situation. This paper depends a great deal upon the outlook toward local governments and the issuance costs must be factored in. Another portion of the review concerned charging a fixed rather than a variable interest rate. He felt that the fixed rate is much easier for people to deal with in that they can be advised at the beginning of the assessment what their payments will be on either a 2, 5 or 10 -year basis and budgets can be planned. The prime rate basis was a policy decision by the Board several years ago as a differential for bad debt expense. The 2%, upon review, seems a little higher than it should be and he would recommend using a fixed rate, using the prime interest rate as a benchmark, and using either 1% or zero above the prime rate. He pointed out that the prime has gone from 8.5% to 9% since the last discussion, but he would still recommend using the 8.5% as a basis for consideration. The average home equity loan in Florida last week was 9.47%. 1. Commissioner Eggert questioned whether using the cost of a bond was included in the cost of the initial assessment and Director Pinto responded that the various costs are included in the project costs. Director Baird also recommended monitoring the situation for one year to see if a hardship is created for the County. Commissioner Bird questioned whether any assessments being started this year would be locked in at the chosen rate,, and Director Baird responded in the affirmative and stated that he would like to have the option to readdress the interest rate next year should the Board elect to go with the prime rate of 8.5% for this year. BOOL( 140 FEBRUARY 14, 1995 15 L- MOO ON MOTION BY Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved an interest rate of 8.5% for the coming year, to be monitored by staff who will present their findings and recommendations for the.following calendar year. PRELIMU NARY BUDGET PRESENTATION Deferred until the end of the meeting. IIEALTIi CARE PLAN The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 26, 1995: 34 PACE 346 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To: Board of County Commissioners Date: January 26, 1995 From: Jack Price, Personnel gj� Sub: Health Care Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DESCRIPTION In June, 1994 the Board of County Commissioners tentatively awarded the employee group health care program bid to Acordia of 'South Florida, Inc. and authorized staff and Siver Insurance Consultants to proceed in working out all contract details necessary to implement the plan effective October 1, 1994. In July, 1994 the Board of County Commissioners awarded bids for the employee group health care plan, optional employee long term disability plan, optional employee and dependent life insurance plan and a premium conversion plan (Section 125) which permits employee costs for certain benefits to be tax exempt, to Acordia of South Florida, Inc., GroupAmerica Insurance Company and Florida Combined Life Insurance Company. Attached hereto are the -outstanding provider agreements which are submitted for approval. These include a Minimum Premium Agreement with Anthem Life Insurance Company (Acordia of South Florida, Inc.) for medical coverage, utilization management and preferred provider organization access; and a service standards agreement with Acordia Of South Florida, Inc. for claims processing and insurance services. Also attached is a resolution which serves to authorize establishment of the premium conversion plan. RECOMMENDATION The Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chairman to execute - the agreements and resolution. FEBRUARY 14, 1995 16 Personnel Director Jack Price presented a brief overview of the major changes in the health care plan from last year to this year and stated that there were 2 guidelines used in choosing the plan; one being the desire to keep the fringe benefits package, particularly the health care plan, as competitive as possible, and secondly, to get the very most coverage from each dollar possible. It was assumed that it would be necessary to ask the employees to participate to a greater extent in the cost of the plan. The objective was to do the most good for the typical claimant. Commissioner Bird asked for an explanation of the headings in the backup provided and Director Price explained that the "County PPO" represents the Class A discount, covered by direct contracts between the County and 2 major providers, Indian River Memorial Hospital and Doctors' Clinic; the second tier discount was "FHN", Florida Health Network; and the third was "out of network" which was the most costly because there were no discounts involved. The modified plan included a change in incorporating the direct contracts the County had into the Florida Health Network contract so that there would be a 2 -tier system, rather than a 3 -tier system. One of the contracts the Board is being asked to approve includes the guarantee that the discounts we had directly with the Hospital and Doctors' Clinic would be sustained or improved by combining them with the Florida Health Network discount program. Therefore, there is now no "County PPO" column. There are now over 70 local providers for employees to select from. Commissioner Eggert inquired about the current situation at Sebastian Hospital, and Director Price advised that Sebastian Hospital is a participant in the Florida Health Network although the County did not previously have a direct contract with that hospital. Director Price went on to explain the changes in the out-of- pocket expenses and stated that encouraging participants to stay within the network is really the heart of the health care program. In calendar 1994, gross claims paid under the plan were almost $6,000,000, while the actual claims paid under the program were $4,200,000, with the difference being entirely attributable to the discount. The whole plan is designed to encourage participants, in a financial way, to seek treatment within the network. Acordia has projected that only 40 participants would be affected by the out- of-pocket limits because most participants will not spend that much on medical expenses. This is one of the categories which had limited impact as far as the whole work force is concerned as j Bw 94 FEBRUARY 14, 1995 17 BOOK 9 PAGE -348 opposed to spending dollars on office visits, which is a service that more of the employees would be needing. Physicians' co -payments have been reduced by 25% from last year, from a $20 co -pay to a $15 co -pay. It was felt this was a better pl4ce to focus the dollars as almost everyone is going to have at least one office visit during the year, whereas only 40 out of the entire covered force would be affected by the out-of-pocket cap. There was a 2.5% increase in the home health allowance, increased from $1,000 to $2,500, with 2 primary advantages as most employees would rather recuperate at home from a surgery than the hospital if they can get adequate medical attention at home to do that. Secondly, permitting them to recover at home is much more cost effective than to have them spend several more days in the hospital,. Commissioner Eggert questioned whether there is anything that home health does not cover, such as aides, and Director Price responded that he was not aware of anything not covered but that a reasonable and customary cap is applied to all charges, which prevents gouging by the providers. Director Price went on to cover the prescription drug plan which permits employees and dependents to either purchase the drugs and file a claim; order through a mail order plan which is primarily beneficial to those requiring on-going medication who can obtain a 90 day supply of a brand name prescription for $10; or purchase the drugs from a local provider. Director Price explained that the mental health coverage has been increased from a $1,000 cap on out-patient expenses to $25,000. They had found in the mental health area that the $1,000 only provided for initial control of the problem, rather than treatment during recovery. A similar circumstance occurred with the alcoholism and drug dependency coverage with the cap being increased from $2,000 to $10,000 as the plan's experience was that $2,000 only pays for detoxification and not for therapy. Acordia also added an on-site claims person 2 days a week, in addition to the toll free telephone number. Also added were several optional features; additional life insurance for employees and dependents; a long-term disability plan; and a 125 plan. The County avoided having to ask employees to pay more for their coverage, which is really significant as few other employers have free employee coverage and dependent coverage for $150 per year. The City of Vero Beach, by comparison, has a good plan but FEBRUARY 14, 1995 18 M M M they pay $100 per month for dependent coverage. The County is paying $2,300 a year for the single employee's coverage and $4,000 a year for the employee who elects dependent coverage, with the employee paying $150 of that sum. We will continue to try to find ways to improve service and produce more employee and dependent satisfaction with the plan. Commissioner Eggert questioned the charge for generic drugs and stated that some people are not able to take generics but must take a brand name. Director 'Price advised that the system is driven towards the generic drugs because they are more cost- effective. If a patient has a problem taking a generic or if the physician simply prefers a brand name drug, all they have to do on the prescription form is state that they require the brand name and the prescription should not be questioned. From the employee's perspective, the brand name will cost $2 more than for the generic, it would be $10 instead of $8. Commissioner Adams questioned the 125 Plan and was advised that this plan permits expenditures for medical care to be taken from employees on a pre-tax basis. The only thing that would be pre-tax now would be some of the premiums for optional programs like dependent health care. At $12.50 per month the 125 Plan savings will not be really significant but they wanted to put the plan in place in case other optional programs are offered in the future. Chairman Macht questioned whether this is a "cafeteria" plan and Director Price responded in the affirmative. He felt this would be a great advantage particularly to younger people as the increased contribution goes up. Director Price also stated that if employees are asked to participate in future years to a greater extent for the cost of their dependent coverage, or even for their own health care program, these costs also could be shielded from taxation. Commissioner Bird questioned whether a deductible would be involved with an accidental injury, and Director Price responded that this coverage has not changed. A $50 deductible for going to a hospital emergency room has been waived to encourage people to go to the PPO provider. At the end of 6 months, they will go back and take a look at how well that decision is working. BOOK prof < 349 FEBRUARY 14, 1995 19 L 60pK � �i�GE �Q Commissioner Adams wanted to be sure whether there was a $50 deductible, and Director Price reiterated that the $50 deductible has been temporarily waived to measure the effect on the plan. Commissioner Bird stated that he is getting feedback from some of the employees who unfortunately have had an opportunity to use the service since the change was made and feel the costs are considerably higher to them. He asked Utilities Department employee Bill McCain to explain how the expenses involved in having a baby this last year ended up being considerably more than anticipated. Bill McCain stated that he had prepaid $1,000 out-of-pocket medical to the doctors for his wife's pregnancy and that, as a result of the October 1st change, the out-of-pocket more than doubled outside PPO care. They had planned for the birth and had put the money aside to handle it; however, with the change in the policy, they paid an additional $2,200 out-of-pocket for this birth. The other glitch was that, since the doctor collected the money prior to the actual birth, they actually paid an additional $400 over the $1,000 they were supposed to pay as of October 1st because the physician had not billed for it. They cannot recover the $400 primarily because the physician did not bill for it prior to October 1st. The change has hurt them quite badly. They also had problems with PPO doctors with their children and will not go back into that program again. They have no objection to the rules being changed if they are done within a calendar year period which is what deductions and out-of-pocket expenses are based on, but feel as though they have been circumvented in that the rules were changed in the middle of the game. Chairman Macht questioned if there would be a contractual obligation to hold employees harmless from a mid -stream change such as this. Director Price responded that the changing of the plan design is going to negatively affect some employees no matter what the date of the change. The beginning of the plan year is October 1st which is when changes have been made for as long as the County has had a health care plan. Mr. McCain is not the only employee who had a pregnancy in process and the change has had the same impact on the other employees. There are also those employees who had reached the out-of-pocket cap and will have ongoing medical care, not just passing medical care as with a pregnancy. FEBRUARY 14, 1995 20 M Chairman Macht questioned a mechanism for recovering costs when an illness began under one contract and was transferred to another contract, and Director Price advised that no provision was made for this contingency. He did not know of any plan which contains a provision of that sort. County Attorney Vitunac asked if the plan were self-funded and Director Price responded that it is not self-funded but is called a "minimum premium" plan. To the extent that each department is charged each month for the number of single and dependent employees in that department, the plan is self-funded because that money goes directly into an account which is drawn upon by Acordia in order to pay claims. The plan is funded and departments are charged each month based on this profile of benefits. A minimum premium plan is slightly different from being self-funded in that, if the plan experiences more demand in a given month than was funded by the employer, then the insurance company must absorb this loss. For example, Acordia paid out more claims money in January than was put in the claims account, so Acordia had to be responsible for that differential. County Attorney Vitunac stated that if the Board wanted to repay any of the employees, the funds would have to come out of the Board's own funds, not the insurance company funds. Commissioner Adams questioned whether AIDS was covered and Commissioner Eggert advised that her reference was to home health nursing aides, not the disease. Commissioner Bird commented that he felt our employees are fortunate to have this type of coverage with the County picking up the lion's share; however, he does feel that it is a very important fringe benefit to them and to all of us and anytime there are going to be any significant changes in deductibles or in the amount of coverage, we ought to be made aware of that as clearly as possible. He was not blaming anyone or saying that anyone intentionally misled the Commission, but he recalled that he was delighted at budget time when the big savings in premium was announced. This savings helped the County through a very tight budget year but, at the time, it was not clear to him that the reason for that savings was a reduction in coverages and a change in the percentage that employees pay versus our carrier or our fund. He felt that if we are going to make those kinds of changes, we need to be certain that everyone understands the changes. FEBRUARY 14, 1995 21 Boa 94 pAu,351 mor PAGE 352, ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the 2 contracts to be executed. CONTRACTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 95-25 providing a benefit plan for Indian River County Board of County Commission employees that meets the requirements of Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. RESOLUTION NO. 95-25 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPTION RESOLUTION WHICH MAY BE INCORPORATED INTO THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS1 MEETING WHEREAS, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners desires to provide a benefit plan for its employees that meet the requirements of Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code and believes adoption of such plan to be in the best interest of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners employees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED, that the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners hereby approves and adopts the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Premium Conversion Plan, also called the Health Care Cost Savings Plan, a copy of which has been reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chairman of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners, be and hereby is, authorized and directed to do all acts and to execute all documents in writing, which are determined to be necessary or desirable in order to adopt the Premium Conversion Plan. The resolution was moved to adoption by Commissioner Eggert and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Adams, and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye _ Commissioner Richard N.Bird Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye FEBRUARY 14, 1995 22 RESOLUTION 95-25 The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 14 day of February, 1995. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST: By FRAN B. ADAMS VICE CH-A-IRMAN Jeffr Barton clOrk �CC v INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD PHASE IV/FUNDING ALLOCATION The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 6, 1995: TO: James It. Chandler, County Administrator = FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., _ Public Works Director l�' SUBJECT: Indian River Boulevard Phase 1V - Funding Allocation DATE: February 6, 1995 FILE: IRBFUND.AGN DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Indian River Boulevard Phase IV is now complete. The project cost including right-of- way acquisition was approximately $5.8 million. During construction, funds were transferred from Fund 109 Local Option Gas Tax Revenue, and District IV Traffic Impact Fees to provide seed money for the project. At this time, Traffic Impact Fee Fund 101- 155(District 5) funding should be properly charged for the project as follows: Traffic Impact Fee District Roadway District 5 IRB District 4 IRB District 4 53rd St ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS From To Length % 37th St. 41st St. .6 mile 23 41st St. 53rd St. 1.6 mile 62 IRB USI .4 mile 15 2.6 mile 00% On Sept. 30, 1995, the District 5 Traffic Impact Fee Fund Balance was $2,055,648.04. District 5's share of the project funding is 23% or $1,334,000. There is an adequate balance in the fund, however, additional projects are programmed in the fund. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING At this time, staff recommends transferring $1,000,000 from Fund 101-155 (District 5 Traffic Impact Fee) to Fund 109 (Local Option Gas Tax) as per the attached budget amendment, to allocate appropriate funding. 800K 94 Fpic.+J FEBRUARY 14, 1995 23 400 94 F,�GL, 354 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, that the Board approve Budget Amendment 004 and approve transferring $1,000,000 from Fund 101-155 (District 5 Traffic Impact Fee) to Fund 109 (Local Option Gas Tax); as recommended by staff . Under discussion, Commissioner Bird indicated that he felt the south and north entrances to Indian River Boulevard need signs directing visitors to the beaches and shopping, especially coming southbound at 53rd. Director Jim Davis indicated that signage is in the design and DOT has been contacted regarding the permit for signalization at 53rd and US1, with additional signage to be hung from the span wire. DOT is reluctant to permit the signalization because the warrants were not met the day the Boulevard was opened. Traffic is now being counted as we get into peak season and, once some type of signalization has been installed, it is hoped we will be able to hang a sign from the span wire. The Department will again contact DOT regarding permitting free standing signage, but they are very restrictive on US1. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion passed unanimously. TO: Members of the Board BUDGET AMENDMENT: 004 of County Commissioners FROM:. Joseph A. Bair( DATE: February 6. 1995 OMR nirpetnr _ - Entry Number Funds/Department/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. REVENUE • - TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE/Cash Forward 101-000-389-040.00 $1,000,000 $0 EXPENSE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE/Transfer Out 101-155-581-099.21 -$1,000,000 $0 REVENUE LOCAL OPTIONAL GAS TAX/Cash Forward IT, 109-000-389-040.00 $0 $1,000,000 In 109-000-381-020-00 $1,000,000 $0 FEBRUARY 14, 1995 24 CR 512 EMPROVEMENTS/MARTIN PAVING/CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 8, 1995: TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: . James Chandler County Administrate James W. Davis, P.: Public Works Direc- Roger D. Cain, P.E County Engineer Change Order 4 Project 8612 February 8, 1995 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This contract has a current contract amount of $2,783,574, 1c: , of which $2,464,716.88 was for the CR 512 corridor Improvements, the rest was for CR 510 and CR 512 intersection improvements. As of the January payment $1,647,135.25 has been paid, or about 59% of the contract. This Change Order No. 4., for $75,078.38 increases the contract amount to $2,858,652.53. At this time the Contractor is progressing well and indicates the project should be finished reasonably close to schedule in spite of the number of days with rain last year. This change order incorporates several changes to quantities on this project. The county requested that a turn lane be added for the North County Library because the County was not able to require the developer to locate the Laconia St. extension on the east library property line. There was an underestimation of the group 9 base and the 2" asphalt course. The reduction in the leveling course resulted from the decision to overlay the side streets rather than do a more expensive and more traffic disruptive reconstruction, which would have also required longer to construct. The addition of the tie backs for the new and replaced headwalls resulted from our observation that the existing headwall, which we are replacing where our construction required replacement, did not appear adequate and needed further support. At this time we do not anticipate any other significant overruns of quantities, other than sidewalk as a result of field change"s due to utility conflicts and increasing the width by one foot, although we will be using sod and the planted buffer trees to provide as much buffering and aesthetic enhancement as possible. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Alternative 1: Approve the change order and direct the Chairman to execute the change order on behalf of the Board. Alternative 2: Deny the change order. RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING Staff recommends Alternative 1, funding to be from account number 101-153-541--067.38 _ BOOK 94 P°!Jc • J1 FEBRUARY 14, 1995 25 BOOK 94 PACE 356 Director Jim Davis explained that the department has been working with the City of Sebastian Community Development Department, Bruce Cooper particularly, to determine when the Sebastian Lakes commercial property is going to be developed. There has been speculation on this particular property since before the library property was purchased but there has been no movement for 4-5 years. They are trying to make sure that, once that property develops, we will have a viable connection from the east parking lot to Roseland Road extension which will negate the need for the left turn lane on CR -512; however, since they are not sure of the timing on the Sebastian Lakes property, they felt it critical to the library ingress and egress to put a left turn lane on CR -512 to access the CR -512 driveway. That is part of the change order. Commissioner Adams questioned why it would negate the need of the left turn lane on CR -512 if the Roseland Road extension were completed. Director Davis responded that the Roseland Road extension will provide a signalized intersection connection on the east driveway at the library and will be much safer for people either westbound on CR -512 to turn at the traffic signal on Roseland Road and then into the library. It will not affect eastbound traffic as that is a right turn. The median opening can be left after the signalization is installed and the Roseland Road extension is complete, but a safer situation would be for people to use the signalized intersection. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner. Adams, the Board unanimously approved Change Order No. 4 with Martin Paving for a net change in the contract amount of $75,078.38, making the new contract price $2,858,652.53, as recommended by staff. CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD FEBRUARY 14, 1995 26 REQUEST TO SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE/COUNTRYSIDE MOBILE HOME PARK/RESOLUTION 85-61 BETWEEN REALCORNERO BEACH ASSOCIATES AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 6, 1995: JATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND February 6, 1995 JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TERRANCE G. DIRECTOR O;COORDINATOR VICES ANA ANDERS FRANCHISE DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES COUNTRYSIDE MOBILE HOME PARK RESOLUTION NO. 85-61, BETWEEN REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES & INDIAN RIVER COUNTY On May 31, 1985, Franchise Resolution No. 85-61 was accepted between Realcor-Vero Beach Associates and Indian River County for Countryside Mobile Home Park. (See attached copy of Resolution) On January 21, 1992, this agreement was modified and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. This agreement authorized; a) The use of escrowed funds by the original developer (approximately $149,867) for cost of connecting to County sewer system; b) Extension of date for payment of impact fees to June 5, 2002;'and c) Extension of date required for connection to the water system from June, 1995 to June 5, 2002. Realcor delayed the connection to the County sewer system until July, 1993. The physical connection to the County system.was completed on July 17, 1993 and the County started the treatment of wastewater, from Countryside North, on that date. At the time of connection to the County system, Realcor was negotiating the sale of the park to Ellenburg Capital Corporation. Ellenburg Capital purchased the park in September, 1993. Realcor and/or Ellenburg Capital are in violation of the Franchise Resolution and have not responded to notices of the violations. We are before the Board of County Commissioners to request that a public hearing be scheduled regarding the above mentioned franchise for continuing to neglect the requirements set forth in the franchise agreement. (See examples to follow) - An annual report and financial statements shall be supplied to the County within 90 days after close of each fiscal year. (Section XV of Franchise Resolution) To date, we have not received an annual report for 1992 or 1993. booK 94 F',hf;c 5T FEBRUARY 14, 1995 27 BOOK 94 PAG-358 Franchise fees in the amount of six percent (6a) of the Utility's annual gross receipts, or the sum of five hundred dollars, whichever is greater, shall be paid to the County. (Section XV of Franchise Resolution) To date, franchise fees in the amount of $41,333.36 remain delinquent. (See attachment A for itemization of fees) The Utility or its shareholders shall not sell or transfer its plants or systems or stock to another nor transfer any rights under this franchise to another without the approval of the Board: No such transfer, after approval, shall be effective until assignee or lessee has filed with'' the Board an instrument in writing reciting the fact of such transfer and acceptance of the franchise. (Section XII of Franchise Resolution) To date, two change of ownership applications have been mailed to Ellenburg Capital and no response has been received. (See attached copies of letters mailed with application forms) ANALYSIS: Despite many attempts by correspondence and by phone to resolve these outstanding issues, all of the above -remain delinquent. Therefore, we hereby request that the Board of County Commissioners set a public hearing date for discussion of these outstanding issues and based on the outcome of the public hearing, we wish to request that the franchise be declared invalid and that the Utility be required to connect to the County water system immediately. RECOMMENDATION: The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners set a public hearing date for discussion of these outstanding issues as presented. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved April 18, 1995, as a public hearing date for discussion of the outstanding issues, as recommended by staff. SOUTH COUNTY R.O. PLANT/ODOR CONTROL The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 31, 1995: FEBRUARY 14, 1995 28 DATE: TO: FROM: -JANUARY 31, 1995 JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRA' TERRANCE G. DIRECTOR OF PREPARED WILLIAM F. AND STAFFED CAPITAL PF BY: DEPARTMEW ENGINEER LITY SERVICES SUBJECT: SOUTH COUNTY R.O. PLANT ODOR -CONTROL INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -95 -03 -WC On July 27, 1993, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved a work authorization with Camp Dresser and McKee Inc., for a pilot test on an unconventional odor control system. (See attached agenda item and minutes.) The immediate construction of the odor control system has been necessitated by the opening of the South County Middle School in August of 1995. (See attached correspondence from the School Board.) The results of the pilot test system were inconclusive (please reference the attached letter dated February 6, 1995 from CDM). We, therefore, would like to proceed with a work authorization with CDM for engineering services covering design and construction of a conventional odor control system. ANALYSIS The estimated construction cost of the odor control system is $500,000.00 ± with proposed engineering fees of $75,826.00.. (for details of the required work, please see the attached work authorization). Due to the complexity of this project, the fee has been negotiated based on the staff's estimation of the actual hours to be expended by CDM staff on the project. Both the process and instrumentation control associated with a facility of this nature are quite detailed. We, therefore, feel the proposed fee is equitable to both the County and the Engineer. Funding for this project will be from the impact fee fund. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the attached Work Authorization with CDM as presented. Director Terry Pinto recalled there were not many neighbors when the water treatment plant was constructed. Development now has now closed in on the plant and, in order to be good neighbors, we are now at the point where we are going to have to provide odor control. The odor control system has nothing to do with the quality of the water produced. The South County middle school is being built nearby and development is taking place near the water plant, and several of the commissioners have received complaints BOOK 94 PAr,- FEBRUARY 14, 1995 29 BOOK , 94 PAGE 360 about odors. A pilot study was done regarding the design but was inconclusive. Therefore, they are moving to a different design and recommend the Board authorize them to proceed. Commissioner Eggert questioned whether we have enough answers to make that decision as the tests were inconclusive and really provided no answers. She understood that the time factor is a problem with the opening of the new school. Commissioner Tippin alluded to the laboratory tests and pointed out that Envirometrics does a lot of business with the County all year long every year. Their results were of no use. He continued that samples were again taken, properly marked, and given to Harbor Branch for analysis. Once again, the laboratory failed to properly handle and pretreat the samples and could not complete their analysis. He realized we have to be concerned about the school next door, but some of us were raised on sulphur water and while it does not smell too pretty, we all survived. He felt that there is not sufficient explanation as to why this testing was incomplete and inconclusive. Director Pinto responded that the department does not have a problem with continuing until a final conclusion can be reached on the pilot project. They want the Board to be aware that the school is being developed next door and there are some unhappy neighbors. As far as the operation of the water treatment plant, the odor control will not affect the quality of the water. Commissioner Eggert questioned how long it would take to get conclusive answers. William B. Suratt of Camp Dresser McKee advised the Board that the conventional method of treating the odors is a caustic scrubber which would cost $350,000. The balance of the funds are to improve the sewer system on site. The experiment was an inline oxidation method that has been used very successfully. Because of letters from the School Board, a decision was made to go back to the conventional method as that is the safest, tried and true method of odor control. Commissioner Adams wondered if the caustic soda used was in the ballpark of 2,000 pounds a day at a cost of $1.80 per pound and Mr. Suratt responded that this is a very expensive system to operate. FEBRUARY 14, 1995 30 Commissioner Adams also questioned whether we have this in any other plant now, and Mr. Suratt advised that all the R.O. plants in the state now have it, including the City of Vero Beach and the North Beach R.O. Plant. Chairman Macht questioned whether hydrogen sulfide was the culprit and Mr. Suratt agreed that it was. Chairman Macht then questioned whether hydrogen sulfide was a flammable gas and whether it could be flared. He felt that it could be collected and stored until it reached a sufficient concentration and that method would be a lot less expensive. Mr. Suratt stated that it would cost a lot more money to get the hydrogen sulfide to a concentration where it could be burned. They are attempting to use a method which injects chlorine straight into the water to oxidize the hydrogen sulfide chemically. The problem with that and the reason for these experiments is that the sulphur creates turbidity and flowers of sulphur would show up in the water. It would not show up in spigots but it may settle in the pipes and cause problems in water heaters. Mr. Suratt further advised that it is not uncommon to have lab analyses come back with inconclusive results. Commissioner Adams questioned whether it could be given one more chance as she would love to see it made to work. Director Pinto questioned the time needed to finish out this pilot project, and Mr. Suratt felt that it would take a month at least because of the time it takes for these labs to turn the results around. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously deferred this matter for a period of six weeks. DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT/INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTRY CLUB/CONSTRUCTION OF A REUSE LINE The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 27, 1995: B®og 361 FEBRUARY 14, 1995 31 BoQK 94 w,,1,62 DATE: JANUARY 27, 1995 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PI DIRECTOR OF UT �ERVICES PREPARED WILLIAM F. Mc IN AND STAFFED CAPITAL PRO GINEER BY: DEPARTMENT ILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: DEVELOPER' AGREEMENT WITH INDIAN RIVER COUNTRY CLUB, LTD., FO REUSE LINE CONSTRUCTION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. CDS/CCS-479 BACKGROUND In conjunction with the golf course construction in the above -referenced subdivision, both the State and the County have required the developer to utilize*reuse water for irrigation of the golf course. As a part of that requirement, the Utility must provide a source of reuse water as well as a delivery system to the edge of their property (see attached location map). We are proposing to accomplish this through a developer's agreement with the Country Club. ANALYSIS The total estimated cost of this project is $46,722.50, of which the County is proposing to reimburse that entire amount to thee developer. The Utilities' staff feels that while the construction of the Indian River Country Club development is still ongoing, this will be the least expensive way to accomplish the required construction. Funding for this project will be from the impact fee fund. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the developer's agreement as presented. ON MOTION .by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the Agreement with Indian River Country Club, Ltd (Indian River Country Club Planned Development), as recommended by staff. AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD FEBRUARY 14, 1995 32 M M RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT REVIEW COMMISSION The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 8, 1995: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attorney"'YPO DATE: February 8, 1995 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO THE WATER MANAGEMENT. DISTRICT REVIEW COMMISSION The Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of February 7, 1995, directed staff to present a resolution to the Water Management District Review Commission at its meeting in Hollywood, Florida, on February 16-17, 1995.- A 995, A draft Resolution is attached for your consideration and approval. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, that the Board adopt Resolution 95-26 requesting the Water Management District Review Commission to recommend legislation concerning millage increases and accountability for the St. Johns River Water Management District. Under discussion, Commissioner Bird apprised the Board that he serves on the Recreational Advisory Committee to the St. Johns River Water Management District and they constantly run into situations where the governing board and staff have an insatiable appetite for purchasing additional properties to the tune of millions of dollars. The taxpayers end up buying the properties but when it comes time to budget the funds to properly manage and maintain those properties, it seems that the funds come up short. When something needs to be done to one of the properties, staff will say it is not in the budget. He felt that there is a responsibility to maintain the lands and manage them to the benefit of man, beast and nature. He recommended the addition of language requiring sufficient funds to be allocated for proper maintenance and management. Assistant County Attorney Terrence O'Brien agreed and pointed out that Paragraph 4 asks that the budget be submitted to each county for review and comment and that the comments of each county BOOK 9 4 P FEBRUARY 14, 1995 33 ; boa 94 FAu 364 be included as an appendix to the Water Management District's budget when it is submitted to the legislature for approval. Chairman Macht noted that the County imposes that requirement on itself. Commissioner Adams interjected that a senate bill has been introduced which would require the Governor to review the tax rate increases, as well as their budget. Assistant County Attorney O'Brien stated that he had attended a meeting in Jacksonville and came away with the understanding that all of the future spending and problems are really going to be north of our area. He felt that very little land would be acquired in our area, so a Basin Board would have the effect of at least just paying for what we are doing and what we are using and would not support the northern part of a very large district. Commissioners Eggert and Tippin AMENDED THEIR MOTION to include the addition of language requiring that sufficient funds be allocated for property maintenance and management of any lands purchased and that the Governor shall review annually the millage and the entire budget. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 95- 26 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REQUESTING THE WATER MANAGE- MENT DISTRICT REVIEW COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND LEGISLATION CONCERNING MILLAGE- INCREASES AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGE- MENT DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the Water Management Review Commission has been established to make _ a comprehensive review of water management districts; and WHEREAS, Indian River County is included in the St. Johns River Water Management District; and WHEREAS, the millage imposed by St. Johns River Water Management District has been increasing each year; and FEBRUARY 14, 1995 34 RESOLUTION 95-26 WHEREAS, the millage imposed by Indian River County has been decreasing each year; and WHEREAS, St. Johns River Water Management District, unlike Indian River County, is governed by appointed officials who have no accountability to the taxpayer through the electoral process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT -RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The statutory millage rate for the St. Johns River Water Management District not be raised even if State funding for the SWIM program is not forthcoming. Further, the yearly millage should be specifically reviewed and approved by the Governor as well as the entire budget of the Water Management District. 2. The statutory procedures for appointing members to the Water Management Districts by the Governor be amended so that each county in a District nominates a member for the governing board and the Governor must make selections from the list of nominees providdd by the counties. 3. Section 373.0693 F.S. be amended to allow the creation of Basin Boards by the St. Johns River Water Management District when r petitioned by each County in the proposed basin or when the District finds it in the public interest. The Counties petitions could only be denied upon a finding based on facts by the District, after hearing, that such a Basin would be contrary to the general physical welfare of the Basin. 4. The Water Management District budgets be submitted to each county for review and comment and the comments of each county be included as an appendix to the Water Management District's budget when it is submitted to the legislature for approval. Further, the budget should contain not only monies for land acquisition but sufficient monies to properly maintain the acquired land. FEBRUARY 14, 1995 35 i BOOK 94 PAn 366 RESOLUTION 95-26 The resolution was moved to adoption by Commissioner Eggert and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Ti ppi n , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 14 day of February 1995. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attest: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By aJ 6 � Q JeffreBarton, er F R A N B. ADAMS �t VICE CHAIRMAN 1995 COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DAY/APRIL 12, 1995 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 3, 1995: FLORIN �wrl CIATIU_ COUNTI,Sm P.O Box 549 / Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Phone: 904/224-3148 FAX: 904/222-5839 D * * IMPORTANT 1995 COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DAY INFORMATION * * TO: County Commissioners County Administrators County Lobbyists Policy Committee Members County Attorneys Affiliate Presidents FROM: Charley Richards, President Rod Kendig, Executive Director DATE: February 3, 1995 RE: County Legislative Day -April 12, 1995 On behalf of the officers and directors of the Florida Association of Counties, we invite you to participate in our 1995 County Legislative Day! Here's important information you'll need to finalize your plans for the day: FEBRUARY 14, 1995 36 When: Wednesday, April 12 Where: Legislative Briefing - 10 a.m. to noon Ramada Inn North, 2900 N. Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida Legislative Reception - 6 to 7:30 p.m. Governnor's Club, 202 S. Adams Street, Tallahassee, Florida Registration: $60 (includes briefing, briefing materials, and one reception ticket. Additional reception tickets - $30). Hotel: Ramada Inn North. Call (904) 386-1027 to reserve your room at the rate of $65 single/double occupancy (mention the FAC!). RESERVATIONS DEADLINE - MARCH 21 County Legislative Day is an excellent opportunity for you to obtain up-to-date information on legislation that affects counties. This year's briefing will focus on our "Top 5 in `95" legislative proposals, as well as all of the important county legislative initiatives. ' Chairman Macht brought up the coming Legislative Day in Tallahassee on April 12 and felt that as many of the Commissioners and other appropriate staff as possible should attend. Commissioner Adams intended to go as a Board member of Florida Association of Counties and agreed that it is important, especially in terms of unfunded mandates. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized any Commissioner and/or appropriate staff to attend the 1995 County Legislative Day in Tallahassee, Florida on April 12, 1995. COMPLAINTS ABOUT SMOKING IN THE NEW COURTHOUSE The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 8, 1995: BOOK 9 FEBRUARY 14, 1995 37 L_ __ Fr-- 7 Boo!( , 94 PAGE 36 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman DATE: February S, 1995 SUBJECT: Complaints of smoking in new courthouse I have received complaints about smoking in the new courthouse. This is in direct violation of our ordinance and the Clean Air Act. This is also a major contaminant contributing to Sick Building Syndrome. We need to discuss our position on the matter and take some action. Commissioner Adams advised that she has received complaints about smoking in the new Courthouse which is considered a public building and inquired about enforcement of the regulations relative to the "clean air" act. Administrator Chandler advised that a policy was adopted 2 weeks ago that there would be no smoking in that building. If there is a problem, whether it be smoking or any of the other items that were delineated in that policy, General Services Director Sonny Dean has been designated as the person to attempt to resolve these matters on an individual basis. If Director Dean is unsuccessful, then the matter would be brought to the Board. Those were the procedures spelled out in the policy that was adopted. Commissioner Adams expressed her concern that we may jeopardize an $11,000,000 courthouse because of the actions of a few people. County Attorney Vitunac advised the Board that smoking in a public building is a violation of State law and the complainant can go to the state attorney's office. This is a non -criminal violation but it's a serious one because it would be the state attorney's office taking the action. Under the County's powers as a landlord and as the building owner, we have the normal powers that a landlord has to make sure a tenant does not ruin the building and that could include violation of the "clean air" prohibitions. The first line is for Director Dean to talk to any offender and impress upon them the importance of living up to our rules. If no resolution is reached, the matter can then be referred to the state's attorney. FEBRUARY 14, 1995 38 M Commissioner Bird wondered if the same procedures would apply if the offender were one of the constitutional officers and Commissioner Adams also inquired about elected officials. County Administrator Chandler iterated that, according to County policy, we would approach the individual involved and try to resolve the matter. If the individual was not cooperative, then other remedies would need to be addressed. Chairman Macht noted that this complaint evidently came from an employee and wanted to know if the employee -has the right to go directly to the state attorney. Commissioner Adams felt that employees may be apprehensive about losing their jobs and the Board needs to be aggressive in taking care of the problem. The Board directed County Administrator Chandler to contact Director Dean regarding negotiations with any offenders. TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PROGRAM/POSSIBLE MEDICAID LEGISLATION PROBLEM The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 8, 1995: TO : I ND I HN . R I ��•.'E' B( -'C EB -08—' 95 ..WED 17(' '23 I D:•TD C0l•IM I SC I ON FAX I O: (904) 922-7273 ' State of Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged !#074 P01/01 Lawton Chiles Don Wedev►er. Jo Ann Hutchinson Governor Chairperson Executive Director dc�r 8 606 Suwannee Street • MS -49 • Tallahassee • Florida 32399-0450 904.486•$038 • 1-800-9 1UC•I•lelp - t -800-M-6084 I7DD only) TI-1� PEG FAX 904.922-7278 r -0- n(Jui C vnvni�rneni //,G�ii6�7 s �a Cr7.� ^R� SOU O � �t,111SS1pN rte-. M Z X 0 R A N D DATE: February .8, 1995 TO: Community Transportation Coordinators ' Designated Official Planning Agencies 0, FROM: Jo Ann Hutchinson, Executive Directorw SUBJECT: possible Leaislation_.Regarding MedicalA This memo is not intended to alarm anyone, however, we have learned that a possible legislative proposal may occur that would amend Chapter 427, F.S. to exempt Medicaid from the transportation disadvantaged program. FACc.3" FEBRUARY 14, 1995 39 Boa 94 Pni 370 It is our opinion if this action is taken, the coordinated systems would be in serious jeopardy of not being able to sustain current levels of services. We understand the reason for the proposal is' the perception that costs through the CTC system are higher than can be purchased directly by the Medicaid agency. in order to react to any possible proposal., please fax to us ASAP the impact to your area should this proposal be presented. Please also provide examples of how the CTC has saved Medicaid funds or provided for better accountability in the form of billing verification, call intake eligibility, CTC monitoring functions -for subcontractors and coordination with other cost effective services (i.e. use of the public transit system, where available). The commission will compile this data and provide testimony to the appropriate legislative committees, should this proposal come forth. Thank you.,for your assistance. Commissioner Eggert received a letter from FACo pointing out that some branch of the government was trying to separate Medicaid transportation from the programs of Transportation for the Disadvantaged and asking that we give examples of why our type of program would be more effective. She felt that the County should continue to ask that all of this to be within a program where we can really cut costs. She pointed out that the Legislature may attempt to exempt Medicaid from the Transportation for the Disadvantaged program. She requested that staff supply the requested information and that the Board authorize a letter from the Chairman in opposition to this action. ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute a letter in opposition to exempting Medicaid from the Transportation for the Disadvantaged program, supplying the information requested by the State of Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT The Board of County Commissioners adjourned at 10:38 a.m. to meet as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. Chairman Macht was called away due to a family emergency at 10:38 a.m. The remaining Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 11:25 a.m. to consider the following: FEBRUARY 14, 1995 40 - M M PRELIMINARY BUDGET PRESENTATION OMB Director Joe Baird gave a quick overview on the proposed budget for the coming year. The County has a total budget of $130,800,000 this year, which is 11.60 less than the prior year. The taxing funds, transportation and solid waste, account for $64,000,000. The Board of County Commissioners basically has 3 taxing funds under their control; however, there are 15 ad valorem taxing funds in Indian River County and the public tends to think that the Board controls all of them. The general fund is County- wide; the MSTU is for the unincorporated area services and only people in the unincorporated area pay that tax; the ESD, which we have listed as EMS, is for fire and ALS services and it's County- wide, excluding Indian River Shores. The public is not aware of the fact that the general fund pays for many services that people think are paid for by the State; such as judges, the court system, the public defender, probation, the state attorney, HRS health department, the medical examiner, and the sheriff. We pay 100% of corrections out of the general fund under the sheriff's control and 100% of court services, as well as 40% of law enforcement, the tax collector, the property appraiser, the clerk of the circuit court, the supervisor of elections, libraries, recreation, Board of County Commissioners, the county attorney, the county administrator and the budget office. Cities do not have all these state departments included in their budgets. The MSTU is for unincorporated area expenditures, a good example of which is the planning department, code enforcement, parks, franchises, administration, franchise administration, the road and bridge department, and also 60% of the sheriff's law enforcement, which is a transfer out of the general fund. The largest item in the MSTU is transfers out for the sheriff and for the road and bridge department. Director Baird advised that the ESD is fire and ALS for everything, except Indian River Shores. The transportation fund is not a taxing fund; however, it gets 63% of its income this year from the general fund and the MSTU so it has a very big impact on the taxing funds. The transportation fund includes the road and bridge department, public works, county engineering and traffic engineering. The general fund is down $95,000 below last year in expenditures. County departments only account for 24.6% of the entire general fund and they are down $240,000 below the prior year. The MSTU is down $620,000. The biggest part of MSTU expenditures is transfers in and out and the major item impacting that expenditure was our transportation fund. A transfer to the transportation fund was down $400,000. The transportation fund this year is down $572,000 from the prior year. The transportation fund has been down for about 3 years in a row and Director Baird NOOK 94 PACO 371 FEBRUARY 14, 1995 41 BOOK 94 PAGE 7411 felt they deserve credit for that because they have to deliver services for all the roads in the County. The $572,000 reduction on the expenditure side related to a $610,000 reduction in transfers in from the taxing fund which was very helpful in keeping expenditures and taxes down. The ESD is down $38,000 from the prior year. Our expenditures are considerably less than we originally predicted in our ESD plan. All these reductions in expenditures relate to millage. The general fund came in this year below rollback, the MSTU is .5% below rollback, and ESD was 2% below rollback. In the aggregate, the County was 1% below rollback which was not easy to accomplish when you take into consideration the change in the tax roll we had this year. This year we only had a 1% growth in the general fund tax roll and the MSTU was down 2.5%, primarily in the area of existing property. The primary reason was in the area of devaluation of citrus groves. The ESD taxing district was down .5% in the tax roll which was a $60,000,000 change in existing property, again attributed to the reduction in the appraised value of citrus groves. In 1989-1990, the County aggregate millage was 7.4838. The millage is now 6.8158 which is a 9% reduction in that time period. Director Baird next addressed the Solid Waste Disposal District, which is a non ad valorem assessment district. We have reduced expenditures $1,000,000 this year. However, our Waste Generation Unit charge went up $11.69. When you relate that to equivalent residential units, it went up $18.71, caused by instituting residential recycling and commercial recycling in the last 2 years, the cost of which has never been passed on to the consumer. We had utilized our existing cash reserve, absorbing those costs which resulted in our cash forward balance dropping from almost 2.5 million last year down to $369,000. This cost has now been passed on to the consumer, causing the increase even though there was a $1,000,000 reduction in expenditures. Our forecast for the .coming year includes obligations that are measurable and some that are not measurable at this time. We know we will have to take into consideration the new courthouse. The security at the courthouse was taken from contingency funds this year in the amount of $335,000 but will be an additional expenditure next year, together with the full year operating costs, consisting of building and grounds, maintenance, electrical costs, and utilities, which will probably be $80,000 _more for the courthouse. SWDD has the extra hours which were added to the transfer stations of $48,000. If a decision were made to go back to a 7 -day week, we would need to add approximately $81,000. The northwest fire station is slated in our emergency services plan to open next year, which has an effect on the—taxing funds of FEBRUARY 14, 1995 42 M $700,000. The annualized cost of salary increases is $206,000 to the taxing funds and $255,000 county -wide. As you can see, those numbers quickly add up to $1,300,000 in taxing funds and $1,500,000 total County -wide. We also have salary projections and a possible step program for Board employees. The other obligations are not just for the taxing funds, but County -wide for all funds. Some of the obligations that are unknown at this time are mandates, the constitutional officers budget changes, EMS overtime, outside agencies that rely on our funding, the HRS department, the PEP reef bond issue, the impact of the'old courthouse, the old Gifford landfill, the GEO bond for environmentally sensitive land, and the Sebastian utility acquisition. Commissioner Eggert inquired whether there were funds in the sales tax for the Gifford landfill and Director Baird responded that the funds are there but there will be an impact on the budget. Director Baird continued that one of the major factors in the budget revenue is a tax roll growth, which controls the millage. We believe that new construction numbers should be a lot better in the coming year based on building permit revenue and building permit information. We also do not think that citrus groves will be devalued to the same extent as in the past 2 years. The prior year drop in the roll after the value adjustment board still must be adjusted, and we believe that state revenues will be better this year due to development such as the New Horizon mall. We will not be able to budget as much cash forward as last year, which will have a negative impact from the revenue side. The SWDD assessments rely a lot on mandates. Building revenues are doing a lot better than projected; however, the change in interest rates could change that dramatically. Our budget preparation process is basically set by state law and requirements. We start gathering information and revamping the packets in February and March, and send the package out in late March or the beginning of April to the departments. The departments return the packages in May, at which time the County Administrator and the budget office review them and make their decisions. During the period between May and July a lot of things change. The departments account for a very small portion of the general fund budget and we must wait for the state numbers relative to agencies like HRS, the state attorney, the public defender and judges, as these numbers affect our budget. The constitutional officers' numbers are also due in May and June. Therefore, we only have approximately 30% of our information from the expenditure side in May or June. By state law, the property appraiser delivers the tax roll around June 30th or July 1st. Our FEBRUARY 14, 1995 43 ROOK 94 i-,� ,IJ F 3 73 Boa 9 PALL -3 t 4 budget workshops are also held in the month of July in order to set our millage rate by the end of July as required by state law. The state's revenues come out at the end of June in a book they date June 1st, which we usually receive in August. 600 of the budget gets pulled together at the last moment in June and July. The Board then sets the tentative millage rate which is sent out in the TRIM notices, with the final budget workshop being held in September. Director Baird then opened a discussion on the optional sales tax. We have a positive variance of $338,135 in the optional sales tax compared to what we had originally estimated. There have been several uses suggested such as the north county land acquisition, estimated to be $1,200,000 to $1,500,000 for a site for recreation. Another thing is the library computer system which we have budgeted „ at $,,150,000 in optional sales tax. We now know the. system will be more in the neighborhood of $230,000 or $250,000. When the departments submitted their requests for the 5 year plan and optional ..sales tax, we had asked them to be extremely conservative because we had more requests for funds than we had funds available. The 'library estimated the cost without replacing their data communications link and we now find the new software will not work without a new data communications link, which is about $50,000. They had also looked at not replacing their PCs which are now obsolete with the new technology. They have old 1991 286s which are also obsolete and cannot accommodate the new software programs, such as Windows and CD ROM. Commissioner Eggert then questioned the Irene Grant from which the library only gets $20,000 for telephone lines or linkage to Irene, not to be used for any equipment. Director Baird stated the library money would be needed to move forward on that project and felt that it would take at least $80,000. He continued that the PEP reefs could utilize the optional sales tax and advised that no contingencies were included in the budget this year, but will be included in future years. It is very important that we set aside something for contingencies as we do not know what is going to happen in the future. Commissioner Bird questioned the item under ESD for the northwest station at $100,000. He noticed that in one of the other budgets, it was listed at $700,000 and wondered if the $100,000 was for equipment. FEBRUARY 14, 1995 44 L County Administrator Chandler explained that the $100,000 is for scheduled renovations and the $700,000 is for next year's budget, for operations after the renovations are completed. Commissioner Eggert felt that the library situation is enormously important right now as we have come to a halt as far as being able to serve the people with current data. Adding an additional $80,000 to $100,200 from the optional sales tax funds would solve the problem for some time and allow both the north ti county, the main library and the law library^ serve the people adequately. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Chairman Macht being absent), authorized an additional expenditure from the Optional Sales Tax Fund of the amount of $100,200 for library improvements, making a total allocated for these improvements of $250,200. ORih • ° a0a°eaaaa�..aaa°° being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded 6 the Board adjourned at 11:59 a.m. %efineth R. Macht, Chairma Minutes Approved: boa 94 pn, i FEBRUARY 14, 1995 45