HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/22/1995BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 22, 1995
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
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) Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 a.m. 1. Preliminary Budget Status Report
2. Solid Waste Disposal District -
Assessment Procedures
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 x408 at least 48 hours in
advance of meeting.
SPECIAL MEETING
May 22, 1995
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Special Session in County Commission Chambers, 1840
25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Monday, May 22, 1995, at 9:00
a.m. Present were Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman; Fran B. Adams, Vice
Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and John W. Tippin.
Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles
P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and P. J. Jones, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
PREBUDGET WORKSHOP
The Board reviewed the following Memorandum dated May 18,
1995:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: May 18, 1995
SUBJECT: BUDGET OVERVIEW WORKSHOP
FROM: fames E. Chandler
County Administrator
At the May 22 workshop, a very general overview will be presented on the status of the formulation
of the proposed FY 95/96 budget. The expense figures in the workshop document reflect the
individual budgets as submitted to the Budget Office. The figures have not been adjusted or reduced
at this stage. Within the last week, staff has just completed, for the most part, the initial review with
each ofthe departments. Obviously, the critical staff work has in essence just begun and the figures
presented in the July recommended budget will be significantly different. In many instances, at this
point it is difficult to even categorize some revenue projections as preliminary. For example, State
revenue estimates will not be received until June and the certification of taxable value until June 30th.
County Administrator Jim Chandler stated that this will be a
very general overview of the budget process and the current status
of the budget. Administrator Chandler emphasized how rough the
figures are and advised that the figures in the booklet represent
the individual budgets submitted to the budget office just 2 weeks
ago. Staff has done very preliminary, initial reviews with the
departments but no cuts or adjustments have been made as yet.
1
MAY 229 1995
BOOK 95 Pt1LL 142`
Bou 95 PrSuE 1 i
Chairman Macht inquired if the workshop should be broadcast -
through the building sound system and a consensus was reached to
broadcast the meeting for the benefit of interested County
employees.
Administrator Chandler continued that the recommended budget
figures presented in July will be significantly different. Also,
this budget is going to be more difficult in many respects than the
current budget which was brought in with no tax increase. The
Board should recognize that during the last 4 years we reduced
expenses or held the line, eliminated positions, and deferred
capital equipment replacements; some of which are going to have to
be addressed. It is really too early to get an accurate estimate
of revenues, especially state revenues, such as shared sales tax,
as we do not receive figures on these revenues until the middle or
the end of June. Some expenses which were approved after adoption
of the budget this year and were funded with contingency funds, for
example, courthouse security of over $300,000, will have to be
offset by recurring revenue. There also will be recommendations
for replacement of some equipment which had been deferred although
rather significant expenses in maintenance, repairs, and downtime
had been incurred. Another factor which will affect most of the
operating budgets is health insurance. We had a rather significant
reduction in our overall expense for the current year; however, the
preliminary figures on the experience indicate there will be some
increase in cost of the coverage. It may be necessary to increase
the dependent contribution which is currently $12.50 a month.
Another area of recommended increases will be personnel --
reinstituting step programs and an across-the-board increase for
all employees to maintain our competitiveness. There are several
expanded programs in the budget, such as Emergency Services
District northwest fire station and the debt service for the land
acquisition program. Sebastian Utilities has not been included but
if that is consummated it would ultimately be brought back as a -
budget amendment.
Administrator Chandler then briefly reviewed the budget
booklet. The first item is an overall summary of the total budget,
indicating that expense is up about $8.9 million or 6.7%. The real
difficulty is going to be in the area of tax budgets, such as the
general fund, MSTU, transportation, and the Emergency Services
District. There are an additional 35 full-time positions requested
in these budgets, 29 in the BCC departments and 6 for the
constitutionals.
2
MAY 22, 1995
� � r
The general fund is the first tax budget with a $2.8 million
or 6.9% increase. There are 12 full-time positions requested in
this budget, 6 for BCC departments and 6 for the constitutionals.
The Recreation Department is requesting the addition of 1 part-time
position in the MSTU budget.
Transportation is up a little over $800,000, or 9.5% with no
additional positions. Emergency Services District increased $1.4
million or 12%, with the inclusion for the northwest fire station
which amounts to $557,000 for personnel, equipment and operating
expenses. There are 9 full-time positions requested for the new
station and 6 other positions proposed within the budget; 2 in fire
and 4 in ALS. That budget is up about 12%. These are going to be
the most difficult budgets we have to deal with this year.
The only information we have received from the State is that
our library grant will be down $45,000 this coming year.
Administrator Chandler hoped that we will not see a drop in
the overall value of the general fund, MSTU, or ESD. Staff is
anticipating new construction at Horizon Outlet Mall. He reminded
the Board that the expenses listed are unedited but that the
budget, at this point, is $6.8 million out of balance between
revenues and expenses.
Debt service has been included on the land acquisition bonds
and we anticipate going to market the first part of July. Staff
has represented a $15 million issue using the current tax roll and
an estimate of 6.25%, which would equate to about .36 mills for the
land acquisition bonds.
SWDD has a total increase requested of $457, 000' or about 6.1%,
including 8 additional positions and reinstituting the 7 day
operations at the transfer stations. Recycling revenues are doing
quite well this year; however, •that can be a very volatile
situation. Golf shows a very slight increase of $84,000 or about
3%, with 1 part-time position requested. There will probably be a
recommendation for a small increase in fees. Building is up about
5.3% or -$44,000 with 1 part-time position requested and replacement
of vehicles, with no increase in fees being projected. Utilities
is up about 5.5% or a little over $800,000 with no additional
positions requested. There are no rate increases projected for
utilities. If the Sebastian Utility acquisition is consummated,
there would be no impact on rates or the rate structure.
Commissioner Bird requested an explanation of.the $186,605
budgeted for the Humane Society and housing of animals.
3
MAY 229 1995
BOOK 95 FALt 144
Boa95 P.{,445
Administrator Chandler recalled that the Board directed staff
to negotiate for animal housing with vendors who had expressed an
interest as well as the Humane Society. This figure is simply an
estimate from staff for the cost of this service.
Commissioner Bird then wanted to know how that figure compares
to the quote from the Humane Society that led to a disagreement
over the cost per animal for housing expenses.
Budget Director Joe Baird responded that the figure was
calculated based on the offer to the Humane Society of $30 an
animal, times 6,039 animals, multiplied by 3% inflation.
Administrator Chandler then reminded the Board that the Humane
Society had proposed additional increases in the unit cost per
animal for the 2nd and 3rd year.
Director Baird further reminded the Board that the Humane
Society had been given an additional $45,000, plus half of the fees
over a certain amount. Those numbers are not reflected in the
Humane Society line item of $127,000.
Commissioner Eggert commented that close inspection should be
given to the needs of Emergency Services as the northwest county is
very much in need of professional firefighters.
Commissioner Adams asked for an explanation of the .41%
increase for the judges, and Director Baird responded that the
budget for circuit judges is down and the county judges' budget is
up $8,000 for witness fees which depend on their case load.
Commissioner Eggert inquired whether a figure for courthouse
security was in the Sheriff's budget, and Administrator Chandler
advised that it was.
Director Baird stated that $1,800,000 of this year's budget
reflects debt service for the library bonds.
Chairman Macht wanted to know if the $1,800, 000 was reflective
of the anticipated $15,000,000 bond issue to acquire
environmentally sensitive lands, and Director Baird stated that the
estimated issue is $15,000,000 at 6.25%, including all commissions -
for collection.
Chairman Macht thought this first issue would be the only
issue within a 3 or 4 year time period and that the Board ought to
consider a second phase in about 5 years, which would allow time to
see the effects of the properties purchased now. He also expressed
his hope that a greater measure of common sense will govern
environmental regulations at that time.
Commissioner Bird questioned the length of the amortization on
the $15,000,000, and Director Baird advised that it has been
amortized over a 15 year period.
N
MAY 229 1995
M M M
M
Chairman Macht felt that another consideration for deferring
the environmental land purchase would be that the County should
have a greater revenue base by then and the load would be better
distributed to the taxpayers.
Commissioner Bird asked that, at the proper time during the
budget workshops, an update on the financial position of the golf
course be presented. He felt that the recent article in the
newspaper was very misleading and that the Taxpayers' Association
was a little off -base in some of their comments. In his opinion,
the golf course is in excellent financial shape, with plenty of
reserves to cover budgeted items. He wished everyone was more
aware of the various funds for the golf course operation.
Director Baird advised that a reply to the Taxpayers'
Association was made and financial statements were provided for
their examination. He explained that there was a $34,484 loss on
the financial statement for a $3,000,000 operation. The golf
course operating cash as of April 30th was $308,526; there was
sinking fund cash of $257,010; renewal replacement of $504,000;
capital construction reserves of $97,000; and a bond reserve
account of $522,000.
Commissioner Bird emphasized that he was not attacking that
particular organization but hoped that when they reach a
conclusion, it will be one based on research and facts because he
believes that people tend to believe that the information is
accurate when the organization's name is attached.
Director Baird added that staff had responded that the Board
of County Commissioners is not responsible for investments. The
Clerk of the Circuit Court is responsible for investments.
Clerk of Circuit Court Jeff Barton advised that he had also
responded to the Taxpayers' Association letter -because they had not
met with him. It was explained that each constitutional officer
has an independent set of books. They are given draws and do their
accounting independently.
Chairman Macht suggested it might be appropriate to consider
designations of how and where taxpayer monies are invested, such as
the proportion between equities, bonds and cash funds.
Director Baird continued his explanation that Clerk Barton is
responsible for investments. Last year's interest rates were a lot
lower at the beginning of the year than they were on September
30th, so almost every community in the United States had to write
their investments down because of the natural fluctuation of
interest rates. Any investment purchased 3 months ago had a lower
interest rate and, therefore, sold on the market at a lower market
5
MAY 229 1995
806K 95 P,�u 146
BOOK Pd4,
price than it did at the time purchased. That is the accepted
method for reporting on the financial statements. The financial
statements also confirmed that no derivatives were purchased so
that should never have been implied.
Commissioner Eggert reminded the Board that the first budget
workshop is scheduled for Tuesday, July 11th.
Chairman Macht commended staff and reminded the Board that
staff had been asked for a zero increase last year and they did
better than that in terms of cash expenditures. He believed there
had been a $12,000,000 reduction from the previous year and a
reduction in the millage rate for the first time in 13 or 14 years.
The employees were given an increase in pay that did not match the
index that would have held them safe from inflation. He felt that
there was a considerable productivity increase from the employees
which is difficult to do in government where no visible product is
produced. However, he believed that we are doing the same amount
of work with fewer employees which equates to a productivity
increase. He felt that the employees had been asked for a lot and
could not responsibly be asked to do more than that this year. An
increase in productivity generally implies an offsetting
compensation and he felt that will need to be addressed this year.
Commissioner Tippin wanted to give every employee credit for
their efforts and felt it was miraculous to be able to do what they
did. He wanted to discuss equipment, maintenance and replacements,
and Administrator Chandler advised that the recommendations for
equipment replacements will be submitted on an individual sheet
with information on the current mileage and age of the equipment.
There are some vehicles that have up to 275,000 miles on them.
Those recommendations will be submitted at the budget workshop
unless the Board would prefer to see them earlier. Staff has all
of the individual requests and can provide a summary of what has
been requested in replacements.
Chairman Macht inquired whether major capital acquisition -
recommendations could be reported separately, and Director Baird
responded that a report can be printed as a standard option which
lists, for a vehicle, the mileage, condition, and repairs.
Administrator Chandler reminded the Board that, among other
things, in addition to cutting expenses and positions, vehicle
replacements have been deferred for the last 4 years so that some
of the requested replacements are really critical at this point.
Chairman Macht suggested that Commissioner Tippin request a
printout on any particular department's capital requests he might
be interested in discussing with the department head.
L
MAY 229 1995
Commissioner Eggert inquired about the library grant, and
Director Baird advised he had been told the library grant was going
to drop to $175,000 this year.
Chairman Macht stated that he had a communication from the
library regarding a block grant which would be added to the consent
agenda tomorrow.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT BUDGET ASSESSMENT
PROCEDURES WORKSHOP
The Board reviewed the following Memorandum dated May 17,
1995:
TO: JIM CHANDLER - -
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MAY 17. 1995
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO, DIRECTOR
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
FROM: RONALD BROOKS, MANAGER
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT %
SUBJECT: 1995-1996 BUDGET
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
The SWDD is proposing a split fee betweeen the commercial sector and
the residential sector so that operational expenses related to the
residential curbside recycling collection program and the operation of
the Refuse Department can be applied to the residential sector which
the most benefit for those services. Exhibit I provides a comparison
of this split fee structure by comparing the fees utilizing expenses
based on this years assessment roll and this years operational
expenses. SWDD proposes to use this same assessment method out lined
in Exhibit I. but will not be prepared to estimate an actual fee
breakdown until the assessment roll is finalized and -completed.
In response to studies (copies of which are attached) by consulting
firms on the SWDDls assessment program and its gate/tipping fee
process, District staff is proposing a change to SWDD Resolution 91-1
(Schedule of Waste Generation Rates, Property Classifications and Use
Codes, Rates and Tipping Fees, and District Policies and Procedures)
so as to modify the waste generation rates for certain use codes,
modify certain tipping fees and, to provide additional guidelines for
the SWDD to perform surveys and implement changes in the assessment
rates for individual parcels or all parcels, or a portion thereof,
within a specific use code.
Exhibit II is a draft of a proposed Resolution which will provide the
following modifications:
1. Waste generation rates are outlined by general categories of use
codes and are identified with specific use codes and rates only where
there is a difference in the waste generation rate for certain types
of businesses within the same use code. This change will reduce the
redundancy of the outlined use codes and their waste generation rates
and eliminate unnecessary terminology.
7
MAY 229 1995
60®K 95 F,icf 148
BOOK
95 P�Arzd
2. The following specific use codes are being changed to address items
in the Malcolm Pirnie study (copy previously submitted to the Board)
and the attached studies, and observations and in-house research by
District Staff.
a. Used Commodities Stores
.20/100
Sq.Ft.
New Code
b. -Supermarkets over 10,000 Sq.Ft.
.90/100
Sq.Ft.
New Code
c. Regional Shopping Center
.50/100
Sq.Ft.
Reduction from
1.0/100
Sq.Ft.
d. Community Shopping Center
.50/100
Sq.Ft.
Reduction from
1.0/100
Sq.Ft.
e. Office Buildings
.20/100
Sq.Ft.
Reduction from
.25/100
Sq.Ft.
f. Aircraft Storage Hangers
.10/100
Sq.Ft.
New Code
g. Drive-in Restaurants
1.3/100
Sq.Ft.
Reduction from
2.8/100
Sq.Ft.
h. Barber Shop/Beauty Shop Services
.20/100
Sq.Ft.
Reduction from
.50/100
Sq.Ft.
i. Travel Trailers
.25/Unit Space
Reduction from
.50/Unit Space
j. Warehousing with multiple Commercial
and Industrial Use
.40/100
Sq.Ft.
k. Mini -Warehousing
.04/100
Sq.Ft.
Rounded off from
.035/100
Sq.Ft.
1. Churches
.14/100
Sq.Ft.
Decrease from
.20/100
Sq.Ft.
m. Churches with no Kitchen or
.07/100
Sq.Ft.
Banquet Facilities or with facilities
less than 1300 Square Feet
Decrease from
.10/100
Sq.Ft.
To insure an equitable application of the assessment roll
will annually conduct regular surveys
the SWDD
of the waste
use codes. This survey plan can be conducted
stream for
through
varying
our
own
operations and the services of the franchised haulers. Where the
property owners of single parcels or overall
substantial evidence the
use codes provide
of actual waste stream for a parcel or an
overall use code the SWDD can accept their data for changes in a waste
generation rate as well. The proposed survey process and method of
changing the waste generation rates will be
addressed
below:
as
outlined
To insure an equitable application of the Assessment
Roll the District will perform regular wastestream
surveys of various Use Codes to verify the average
actual waste generation rate for the various businesses
in those Use Codes. The District may decrease or
8
MAY 229 1995
- M M
increase the assessment on a non -residentially assessed
parcel through evaluation of the Waste Generation Rate
(WGU) applied to the parcel as outlined under the Use
Codes herein. Such evaluation may be performed by the
SWDD through execution of a wastestream survey based on
the following information:
1. Determination by multiplying the size of
container, number of containers, number of collections
of the container/s and a standard base weight of 125
lbs. per cubic yard. This 125 lbs. per cubic yard takes
into account that the containers are, on the average,
approximately 75% full. The base weight of 125 lbs. per
cubic yard will also be evaluated on a regular basis to
provide an equitable application of the standard base
weight.
2. Determination by actual weights of solid waste
originating from a source as may be tracked through the
SWDD's computerized wastestream tracking system.
3. Determination by the performance of a
wastestream survey wherein waste originating from a
source is tracked and weighed during an audit period.
This may be performed by the District or through the
services of its franchised haulers or contracted
professional engineers.
4. The SWDD may also utilize the survey data
provided by property owner/s of non-residential parcels
providing the property owner/s perform the survey
utilizing a scientifically sound method acceptable to
SWDD staff.
Waste generation rate changes may be implemented on a
specific non-residential parcel wherein a deviation of
over 30% above or below the waste generation rates
provided herein is determined to occur for that parcel.
Where a deviation in generation rate exceeding 30% has
been determined to occur within an overall Use Code or a
portion thereof the SWDD may change the overall -rate for
the entire Use Code or that portion thereof. The survey
of waste generation rates will take into account both
the actual waste disposed of and the portion of the
wastestream that is recycled. Where a change in the
waste generation rate (WGU's) is determined to' be
appropriate the change will be based on the results of
the actual data that is considered a more reasonably
accurate representation of the actual average waste
generation of the parcel/s, or the overall Use Code or
portion thereof.
One of the attached studies outlines estimated operational costs for
processing_ and disposing of various components of the waste streA.
Based on the results of this study and our experience and problems in
processing certain components of the waste stream it is recommended
that the gate/tipping fees be increased as out lined in Exhibit III.
Exhibit IV is the present tipping fee schedule and is provided for a
comparison of the current rates and the proposed rates.
MAY 22, 1995 9 BOOK 95 PACE 150
BOOK 95 FA E 151
SWDD staff requests the Boards review and comments on the Resolution
presented herein, and further, requests that the Board schedule the
Resolution with any recommended changes for a Public Hearing and
adoption. If the subject Resolution is recommended for adoption such
adoption has to be accomplished before the assessment roll for this
year can be finalized.
Director Terry Pinto reviewed the information for the Board
and advised that the Solid Waste District has to set an assessment
roll on an annual basis which represents the amount of units, what
we describe as WGUs, in the system, divided into the assessable
part of the budget. The budget has been refined somewhat this year
to identify differences between residential and non-residential
costs. The recyclable curbside cost is allocated to the
residential units. The commercial unit costs have been reduced
from $37 to $33.93 per unit, while the residential costs have been
increased from $75.21 to $79.32. Staff did various studies on the
generation of garbage by commercial entities and is recommending
some changes. There are several new categories, such as used
commodity stores, which are second-hand or thrift stores. All of
the new numbers were based on specific observations of the actual
garbage being produced. There is a new code for supermarkets over
10,000 square feet which gives some relief to the larger stores.
Commissioner Eggert noted that the Professional Services
Advisory Committee had recommended a super store category and
inquired whether these super stores generate more waste than the
large grocery stores.
Director Pinto responded that the super store is a new
category and staff does not have a good feel for whether they are
producing more garbage or not. However, he advised that the
smaller stores are producing a tremendous amount of cardboard
recycling.
Chairman Macht asked how Wal-Mart, which has a supermarket
grocery operation, is categorized, and Commissioner Adams advised
that it is categorized at the highest, which is a supermarket over
10,000 square feet.
Director Pinto stated that Wal-Mart will be tracked for the
coming year and a decision will be made whether to categorize it in
the future as a super store or a supermarket over 10,000 square
feet.
Another new category which should be noted is 1-J, Warehouse
with Multi-Commercial/Industrial Uses. Staff believes this
10
MAY 229 1995
category will reflect adequately the operation of a
commercial/retail/industrial park and that the rates are
reasonable. Mini -Warehousing has been rounded -off and Churches
have been split to more accurately reflect the majority of debris
from churches. Staff has also attempted to ease the petition
process. If someone can prove, either by statistical information
or a survey that staff will perform, that they are 30% outside of
the average, higher or lower, the District can make an adjustment
immediately, without the need for a petition. Staff has also
budgeted some equipment that will allow us to weigh the garbage and
study it for a specific amount of time in order to make whatever
changes are needed to the roll. If there are several within the
same category and the same change is made, then the entire category
will be changed to reflect it. Staff is having a timing problem in
that, once an appeal is filed, there is such a short period of time
to do an analysis based on the petition. Staff proposes to take
the petitioner's information and use it for that petition year,
allowing the adjustment. Subsequently, during the balance of the
year, staff would study the situation and, if the petitioner is
right, continue the change. If they are wrong, the adjustment
would be made in the following year's assessment.
Commissioner Bird questioned the "racetracks" category and
Director Pinto said that he would check this out and advise the
Board.
Commissioner Bird commented that we must have a pretty
upstanding community as we only have 26 nightclubs, bars and
lounges and 164 churches.
Director Pinto continued that the assessment roll is taken
from the tax roll so a lot of the descriptions are ones that must
be used because that is the way the tax roll sets them up.
Material that comes into the Landfill is charged a tipping fee. An
evaluation has been done based on the actual cost of handling
different types of materials so there will be an adjustment in the
tipping fees, depending on what the final budget is. we are having
problems at the transfer stations and the Landfill with out -of -
county materials, specifically yard waste. Yard waste is covered
in the assessment charge, while other landfills in Florida cover it
in a tipping fee. Staff believes that they are trying to avoid the
tipping fee in other counties by bringing their yard waste into
Indian River County. However, sometimes the cost of policing
becomes too expensive and also becomes something of a harassment to
the public.
MAY 229 1995
Boos ^5 P,,A52
BOOK �5 P►� F 1 j3
Commissioner Eggert felt there is still a lot of confusion in
the community about trees and stumps, which are listed under yard
trash. Trees that are 2 inches longer fall into another category.
Director Pinto stated that this is a continual problem as some
people are amazingly creative and cut all their land clearing waste
into small pieces to try to pass it off as yard waste.
Commissioner Eggert wondered if further education might help
as landscape and yard maintenance people are complaining.
Director Pinto responded that 1.6 tons for a household is
considered normal grass cuttings and trimmings.
Commissioner Eggert wanted to know what happens when a
household decides to take down a tree, and Director Pinto responded
that it would not be included in the 1.6 tons. A choice can be
made between classifying all that type of material through the
assessment or through tipping fees.
Commissioner Adams commented that commercial enterprises are
not allowed to dump at the trash transfer stations, and
Commissioner Eggert responded that they are going to the Landfill
and getting hit with the cost for dumping something that is listed
under yard trash. She felt there is a lot of misunderstanding
about the definitions.
Director Pinto agreed that this is a community problem and he
does not like to see the people at the Landfill or the transfer
stations put in a position where they have to question people.
However, he does believe that a decision must be made to either
adjust the assessment or charge a tipping fee for the material.
The question is where the cost should be paid, out of the
assessment or out of the tipping fee.
Commissioner Eggert inquired whether a MRF (Materials
Recovering Facility) situation would make any difference, and
Director Pinto answered that yard waste would still have to be
separated out and a decision would still have to be made whether
the charge would be based on an assessment or the weight coming
into the Landfill.
Director Pinto continued that a MRF situation is .one where all
material comes into the Landfill not separated, which would
eliminate curbside recycling; everything comes in a garbage truck
and is then dumped and sorted. The assessment roll must still be
passed through a public hearing process.
Chairman Macht announced that this is not a public hearing but
he is going to allow Mr. Legwen to address the Board.
MAY 229 1995
12
L-
Commissioner Bird responded that he would not mind hearing Mr.
Legwen's comments but has read his memorandum requesting a workshop
and does not have any interest in that.
Glen Legwen of 5900 5th Street Southwest, presented the
following letters:
Q&414-'4 petite 4- Nw►o" q1 T)e +
5900 514 sleet 9*/
V&w fieack, ONjtda 32968-9659
9e1: (407) 778-979/
May 18, 1995
Mr. Jim Chandler
County Administrator
Indian River County
Dear Mr. Chandler,
I would like to be place on the docket sometime before June to address the County
Commissioners regarding the Sanitary Land Fill. I would like to ask them to direct the
Utility's Department to call a work shop for the businesses community before the July
Budget hearings.
Itis my belief and the belief of others in this community that we have a situation
taking place at the landfill that can only be described as gross mismanagement.
We have hired an maintain on call several engineering firms who in my mind had
demonstrated their inability to perform the slightest engineering calculations correctly.
We are paying these engineering firms to resolve our problems not create more.
In looking back over the public record beginning on or about 1982/83 1 discovered
one of the engineering firms I am referring to arrived about the same time that Mr. Terry
Pinto arrived. If my memory serves me correctly Mr. Pinto has no engineering diploma
of any kind and he was hired on the basis of some knowledge he had obtained from
working with a water plant in Ft. Pierce. If my memory also serves me correctly prior to
his arrival in Vero Beach Mr. Pinto at some time or another worked for a company called
Masteller and Moller who operate one or more land fill sites in New Jersey.
In the late seventies early eighties while Neil Nelson was County Administrator we
contracted to have a land fill site installed that was state of the art. It had scales on which
to weigh trucks coming in and going out. It had an air curtain destructor and all of the
modern conveniences that were required by the state at the time it was installed. The
life expectancy of this land fill was estimated to be ten possibly fifteen years. As the
public record will clearly show the estimated life was less than the projected amount.
If one were to go back and examine the records one would find that the bulk of the
material that was being disposed of in the land fill was biodegradable material. Very
little of the material was what one might consider to be non-destructable.
13
MAY 229 1995
Boa 95 PAA54
BOOK 95 F,+GF 155
During the tenure of our illustrious Commissioner Scurlock , who was given the task
of overseeing Mr. Pinto's activities the Utilities Department grew two hundred fold.
They began growing so fast that before the taxpayers knew what was going on the
Utilities Department had become one of the largest Departments in Indian River
'County. I remember Mr. Pinto proposing some grandiose Taj Mahal structure to be
placed on the land fill site to house him and his staff. Fortunately the commissioners
turned down this expenditure.
Mr. Chandler, if an analysis of the waste stream were done and done properly one
would discover the worst offenders in the county are the homeowners not only do the
produce the greatest quantities of garbage they produce the most offensive -and the
most hazardous. The dark plastic biodegradable garbage bag is in my opinion one of the
most offensive products man has yet invented. Cans, pop bottles, batteries, industrial
chemicals and numerous other slow to bio -degrade items are tossed in on top of quick
to bio -degrade waste products and tied up or pulled closed with a hand draw string.
These bags are conveniently dropped off at one of the waste disposal sites conveniently
located throughout the county to eventually wind up in the landfill. As the wet garbage
mixes with the dry garbage a chemical reaction takes place. In some case the reaction is
violent enough to cause an explosion in others it is only corrosive and highly toxic.
What is our solution to the problem? How do we correct it? What is the most
economical way to reduce our landfill costs? These are only a small number of the
question I would propose be submitted at a workshop. We need to have more
workshops of this type so that the word can get out not only to the commercial sector
but to the private sector as well.
Can you schedule me for one of the commission hearing at your earliest
convenience? I would expect my time to not exceed twenty minutes.
Sincerely yours,
enn W. Legwen
aw � S
. V - -- ---
14
MAY 229 1995
s
_.41G 44.-t_C4i)AQye- _Ve C-41
I� 'rp LU� w� �� � `�91
PS. tuW b�_ ah a
Mr. Legwen observed that about 70% of our wastestream is
coming from the single-family home and many people are putting
recyclables in the transfer stations, which wind up in the
Landfill. The second point he made was that he felt there should
be an incentive for people to recycle. The third point had to do
with state mandates to achieve a 30% reduction in our Landfill. He
questioned the 30% and felt we should go ahead and look for a 40%
or 50% reduction. The fourth point was a suggestion that prisoners
could separate garbage which would make the cost to the taxpayers
negligible. The fifth point was a question as to why the
engineering reports, which have cost many millions of dollars,
could not be split among several counties. The sixth point was
that he felt the state mandates should be broken down on a county -
by -county basis as he wondered what other counties, not as affluent
as Indian River County, were doing and whether Indian River County
15
MAY 229 1995
BOOK 95 ParE1516
BOOK 95 PA jE 15 !
were picking up the tab for them, He suggested a regional landfill
with one recycling area. The seventh item he mentioned was vacant
land. He felt that the property owners were not being charged for
clipping trees, mowing and maintenance, as well as Landfill
charges. He then requested a workshop with the Utilities
Department and the Solid Waste Disposal District for commercial
customers.
Director Pinto advised the Board that there is a lot of
controversy in the industry about MRF versus curbside recycling.
His opinion was that with MRF you are able to get a lot better
separation but you get contaminated materials and you lose the
quality that the market is looking for today. For instance, if
newspapers are contaminated with other types of garbage, the buyers
will not buy them; if glass is broken, there is no good way to
separate brown from green and buyers need that to be separated.
However, there is a trade-off when you look at the elimination of
the expense of curbside versus the operation of a MRF. Staff is
proposing to look not for a 30% reduction, but for a 70% reduction.
However, in order to do that you have to get the people that are
going to use the recycled material near the site because. the
l:rgest expenses are transportation and handling of the materials.
T e success rate of recycling depends on whether you are an
accountant or a solid waste engineer. When the success rate of
c4rbside recycling is considered, you will hear that if you get 70%
of the people participating and you get x amount of tons, that's
very, very successful. On the other hand, when you look at cost
per ton, probably recycling at curbside is the most expensive,
approximately $150 a ton.
Chairman Macht wondered about a reasonable amount of
separation at the source before it goes to the transport
organization, and Director Pinto felt that the best way for
reduction in cost is to have a hybrid system where certain•
materials come from curbside recycling and then, on top of that, a
M�ZF at the Landfill.
Commissioner Bird emphasized that, even with the MRF, if you
separate out all the recyclables and all you have left is garbage,
it still does not eliminate the requirement to line landfills and
to withdraw water and process it, because it is going to get
contaminated from the garbage.
Director Pinto felt that if the County buys the rest of the
land being discussed at the Landfill and creates the park being
discussed, this County --will never have to see another purchase or
MAY 229 1995
� � r
operation of another landfill other than 'the site that we have;
that there will be enough room there to last for .the next 150
years.
Commissioner Bird appreciated Mr. Legwen's comments and his
request for a workshop, but felt the solid waste program is an
extremely complicated and diverse business and that the County is
on the right track. He understood it will never be perfect but
felt with the present appeal process and our engineers and staff,
we are constantly looking at better ways of handling it, reducing
the cost and improving the environment. He believed we ought to
keep going the way we are with this year's appeals at Solid Waste
District hearings. He felt as long as we keep making improvements,
that is what the customers of the system expect.
Chairman Macht felt that further efforts at source reduction
should be made.
Commissioner Tippin expressed his opinion that the promise of
the landfill system was absolutely phenomenal but that the system
is now on the verge of bankrupting local governments and taxpayers.
He felt that it is a serious problem we should be very concerned
about but that we have come a long way and should brag about that.
He believed we have thrown common sense out the win4ow-in the guise
of what is popular and now what is popular is recycling which he
feels has been an overblown fraud and expense on the taxpayer.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
ATTEST:
J. Ba ton, Clerk
IV enneth . Macht, Chairman
Minutes Approved: U- 1
17 Boa 95 wd5u -
MAY 229 1995