09-16-91 v MINUTES OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE ATLANTIC BEACH CITY
COMMISSION AND THE ATLANTIC BEACH PENSION BOARD OF TRUSTEES HELD IN CITY
HALL, 800 SEMINOLE ROAD, AT 8: 15 PM ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1991
PRESENT:
CITY COMMISSION:
William I. Gulliford, Mayor
Robert B. Cook
Glenn A. Edwards
Adelaide R. Tucker
John W. Weldon, Commissioners
PENSION BOARD OF TRUSTEES:
Richard E. White, Chairman
Alison Brown
Joseph P. Garvin
Joan LaVake
ALSO PRESENT: Alan C. Jensen, City Attorney
Kim D. Leinbach, Secretary
Harry E. Royal, Treasurer
Maureen King, City Clerk
ABSENT: Ronald W. Wingate
The meeting was called to order at 8:15 PM by Mayor Gulliford.
Actuarial proposal for General and Public Safety employees
Chairman Richard White reported that both the money manager, Merrill
Lynch, and actuary Ron Smith, had indicated that the city's pension plan
was in sound financial condition and the investments were generating
interest rates higher than ever before. Mr. White also reported the
Pension Board had discussed the possibility of changing the ratios in
which the funds could be invested. He said the board had amended its
position in this regard and now recommended investments in a ration of
60% equities and 40% non equities. It was pointed out the Atlantic
Beach plan was one of the most conservative in the State of Florida, and
the board felt the recommended ratios would generate greater revenues.
This would be presented to the City Commission for action at a future
meeting.
The employees had requested increases in their pension benefits and Mr.
White asked the employees' representatives to make their proposals to
the City Commission.
Joseph Garvin, Police and Fire representative, presented a proposal for
increased pension benefits on behalf of the public safety employees.
The proposals presented to the City Commission for consideration were as
follows:
PROPOSAL B: To allow members to retire at age 50 with twenty or more
years of service, or at any age with twenty-five years of
service.
Page Two
Minutes of the Joint Committee Meeting of the City Commission and
Pension Board of Trustees
September 16, 1991
PROPOSAL D: To increase the current 2.4% benefit to 3%.
PROPOSAL E: To determine final average salary based on the highest
three consecutive years of service out of the last ten
years.
PROPOSAL J: To eliminate the service requirement for eligibility for
a disability pension if disability was incurred in the
line of duty. This proposal provided a minimum benefit
of 43% of final average salary for a duty disability
pension.
PROPOSAL G: A combination of Proposals B, D, E and J.
Harry Royal provided a comparison of pension plans throughout the State
of Florida and he pointed out the City Code provided that the Atlantic
Beach pension, plus Social Security benefits could not exceed the
employee's final salary rate. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding
whether the combined pension and Social Security benefits would, or
should be allowed to exceed the final city salary. Rose Blanchard said
she had recently learned that Social Security benefits were reduced for
employees who retire on a government pension and Lt. Campbell said he
also understood this to be true. This is to be checked into further.
Each of the proposals was discussed individually and Harry Royal said
the combined package (Proposal G) would cost the city approximately
$73,000.
Discussion ensued and Lt. Garvin expressed the feeling early retirement
was important for police officers because of the stressful nature of
their jobs. Lt. Garvin said the police officers were willing to
increase their contributions to the pension plan in order to pay for
some of the additional benefits.
Following Lieutenant Garvin's presentation, Joan LaVake, general
employees Pension Board member, presented the proposal for additional
benefits for the general employees in order of preference, as follows:
PROPOSAL A: To eliminate the provision which includes Social Security
benefits in the determination of the maximum pension
PROPOSAL C: To increase the 2.25% benefit formula factor to 2.85%.
PROPOSAL B: To allow employees to retire at age 55 with ten years or
more of service. The member's pension would be reduced
by 1/4 of 1% for each month (3% per year) that retirement
preceded age 60.
PROPOSAL D: To determine final average salary based on the highest
three consecutive years out of the last ten years.
Page Three
Minutes of the Joint Committee Meeting of the City Commission and
Pension Board of Trustees
September 16, 1991
The proposals along with actuarial reports on the cost of
implementation same, are attached hereto and made a part hereof.
The proposals were discussed at length and Ms. LaVake indicated that
Proposals A and C were the most important. She said General Employees
also would be willing to increase their contributions to the pension
plan in order to fund the additional benefits.
Mayor Gulliford felt the city should be consistent with the benefits
for each of the employee groups and suggested that the City Commission
be given about a month to review the materials provided this evening and
to consider how additional benefits would be funded. A further workshop
could then be scheduled for mid October when the matter could be
discussed further.
Harry Royal pointed out a resolution had been passed by the City
Commission in 1981 authorizing the City Manager to review the pension
plan and make recommendations regarding increases in benefits for
retirees. He pointed out the last raise in benefits was on January
1988. Mr. Royal was asked to draft a memorandum with recommendations to
the City Commission.
Mr. White requested the City Commission consider amending the city code
to allow investment of the pension funds in the ratio of 60% in equities
and 40% in non-equities and Mayor Gulliford requested this matter be
placed on the next agenda for consideration by the City Commission.
There being no further discussion, the Mayor declared the meeting
adjourned at 9:35 PM.
Maureen King, Ci Cfik
S
.LG M ^ w! y is. «
1 1�' A yt . 'r ' a ' 1 - v. t0)'u (.1
3�yp r -,,,'
ft -". Std,
s
.e'=¢:
S
„
r.
•
ti . _ r
y
t
Zi
Ts ,
`t.,`�I ! ..L I.4 f ..). a E .t . ;i , 1-..1, '1 41„14%.* 1 1- '. --
I/1r . .
,... \,,, ,
r,,.
_ :,,,
= -; CITY OF
'\',-,• /� it4 ct e �wK1•l• �e
'� 800 SEMINOLE ROAD
:3) ---- - -- - ATLANTIC BEACH,FLORIDA 32233-5445
K� TELEPHONE(904)247-5800
FAX(904)247-5805
September 16, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard White, Chairman
Atlantic Beach Pension Board of Trustees
FROM: Joan LaVake, Trustee, Representing General Employees
Atlantic Beach Pension Board of Trustees
SUBJECT: PROPOSED INCREASED PENSION BENEFITS
On June 11, 1991, this Trustee presented a memorandum to you outlining
certain proposed increased pension benefits for General Employees based
on an actuarial study performed by Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company,
and asked that these proposals be submitted for consideration by the
City Commission.
Since that time, certain factors have prompted the General Employees
to re-think the impact these proposals would have on their pension
benefits, and it is now, therefore, requested that the above mentioned
memorandum of June 11, 1991, be withdrawn, and the following proposals,
listed in order of their importance to the General Employees, be sub-
mitted to the City Commission at its joint workshop with the Pension
Board on September 16, 1991, at 7:15 PM:
PROPOSAL A - Eliminates the provision which includes social security
benefits in the determination of the maximum pension.
•
PROPOSAL C - Increases the 2.25% benefit formula factor to 2.85%.
PROPOSAL B - Allows employees to retire at age 55 with 10 years or
more of service. The member's pension would be reduced
by 1/4 of 1% for each month (3% per year) that retire-
ment preceded age 60.
PROPOSAL D - Determines final average salary based on the highest
3 consecutive years out of the last 10.
We realize the Commission's meeting packets have already been delivered
to them, but respectfully request that these matters be considered at
the above meeting.
June 10, 1991
Mr. Richard White, Chairman
City of Atlantic Beach Pension Board
840 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
Dear Chairman White:
•
The Public Safety employees have evaluated the proposed
benefit changes in the actuarial study prepared by Gabriel ,
Roeder, Smith and Company. tr00
The employees are in agreement that( PROPOSAL G) which is a G
combination of PROPOSALS B, D & E and PROPOSAL J are the # IDIS
benefits which they wish to see added to improve the
retirement plan.
PROPOSAL B allows members to retire at age 50 with twenty
( 20) or more years of service or at any age with twenty-five
(25) or more years of service.
PROPOSAL D increases the 2 . 4% benefit factor to 3%.
PROPOSAL E determines final average salary based on the
highest 3 consecutive years out of the last 10.
PROPOSAL J eliminates the service requirement for eligibility
for a disability pension if disability was incurred in the
line of duty. It provides a minimum benefit of 42% of final
average salary for a duty disability pension. It calculates
all disability pensions with a 3 . 0% benefit multiplier.
The Public Safety employees respectfully request that the QQ
9
Pension Board consider these proposals and submit them to the D '
City Commission on their behalf. i)?-11 ` tib
The Police and Fire Members are excited about the benefit
proposals and appreciate the Board's concern for improving
the retirement plan.
Respectfully submitted,
J.W. Garvin
Police and Fire Representative
CITY OF
•.�.;i It
'r 1i v 7itizutrie 'eae - / l,t�'LWKN
716 OCEAN BOULEVARD
'44I P.O.BOX 25
ATLANTIC BEACH,FLORIDA 32233
t*I . , TELEPHONE(904)249-2395
August 13, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard White, Chairman
Atlantic Beach Pension Board of Trustees
FROM: Joan LaVake, Trustee, Representing General Employees
Atlantic Beach Pension Board of Trustees
RE: Actuarial Study to Determine Cost
of Increased Pension Benefits
The General Employees of the Atlantic Beach Employees Retirement System
respectfully request that the following list of increased benefits
be submitted for an actuarial study for cost involved:
Amount of Benefit Determination - 2.85% Service Year
Salary Base - Best 3 of Last 10
Early Retirement - Age 55 With 10 Years
Service for Reduced
Benefit
Compulsory Retirement None
Relationship to Social Security - None
GABRIEL, ROEDER, SMITH & COMPANY
Actuaries & Consultants
200 Globe Building•407 East Fort•Detroit, Michigan 48226.313-961-3346
November 27, 1990
Mr. Harry E. Royal , Finance Director
City of Atlantic Beach
P. 0. Box 25
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
Re: Proposed Benefit Increases for General Employees
Dear Harry:
Enclosed are 10 copies of the study done to determine the costs
associated with several proposed benefit increases for general
members in the City of Atlantic Beach Employees Retirement
System.
Our statement is enclosed.
Sincerely,
Ronald J. W. Smith
RJWS:rmd
•
City of Atlantic Beach Employees Retirement System
GENERAL MEMBERS
PROPOSALS UNDER CONSIDERATION
Submitted To: The Board of Trustees
Date: November 27, 1990
Submitted By: Ronald J. W. Smith
Gabriel , Roeder, Smith & Company
As requested, we have determined the increase in the City's computed annual contribu-
tion rate due to the proposals outlined in Ms. LaVake's memo to Mr. White dated
August 13, 1990.
Present plan provisions are as follows:
Normal Retirement (no reduction factor for age) :
Eligibility - Age 60 with 5 or more years of service.
Annual Pension - Total service times 2.25% of final average compensation. Total
pension including Social Security primary benefit cannot exceed 100% of final
average salary.
Type of Final Average Salary - Highest 5 consecutive years out of last 10.
Proposal A - Eliminate the provision which includes social security benefits in the
determination of the maximum pension (100% of final average salary) .
Adoption of this proposal would require an ADDITIONAL contribution of:
Percents of Payroll FY 90/91 Dollars
2.55% $32,019
The three proposals which follow show costs with and without inclusion of social
security benefits in the limits on the maximum pension.
Proposal B - Allow members to retire at age 55 with 10 or more years of service. The
member's pension would be reduced by 1/4 of 1% for each month (3% per year) that
retirement preceded age 60.
Adoption of this proposal would require an ADDITIONAL contribution of:
Percents of Payroll FY 90/91 Dollars
With inclusion 0.89% $11,175
Without inclusion 3.32% 41,687
The additional contribution needed to support this proposal is quite sensitive to the
utilization rates for age 55 retirement. The cost shown above would increase
(decrease) if utilization were higher (lower) than assumed.
Proposal C - Increase the 2.25% benefit formula factor to 2.85%.
Adoption of this proposal would require an ADDITIONAL contribution of:
Percent of Payroll FY 90/91 Dollars
With inclusion 1.49% $18,709
Without inclusion 6.04% 75,841
Proposal D - Determine final average salary based on the highest 3 consecutive years
out of the last 10.
Adoption of this proposal would require an ADDITIONAL contribution of:
Percent of Payroll FY 90/91 Dollars
With inclusion 1 .06% $13,310
Without inclusion 3.38% 41,441
r. urs I o !tells ine II /
The additional contribution requirements probably appear larger than anticipated.
This appearance results from two factors:
(1) The change applies to both past and future service - hence the additional
contribution must make up for the contributions and investment income that
would have been received had the proposed benefit been in effect since
each firefighter's date of hire.
(2) The increase in the ongoing normal cost applies to the total normal cost,
not just the portion financed by the employer.
The calculations above were based on the same member data, methods, and assumptions
used in the September 30, 1989 annual actuarial valuation except as follows:
The retirement pattern used in proposal B was adjusted to reflect utilization of the
early retirement provision. The pattern used is as follows:
Retirement Percent of Eligible
Ages Persons Retiring
55 5%
56 5
57 5
58 5
59 5
60 15
61 8
62 15
63 9
64 15
65 90
66 30
67 40
68 50
69 60
70 100
('ARDII D(1CIlC0 AITLJ 9 (Yum)", .IV
The increase in actuarial accrued liability arising from each Item was financed as
a level percent of projected payroll over a period of 30 years.
Note: An actuarial impact statement and cost estimate, in the format required
pursuant to Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, must be submitted to the Bureau of Local
Retirement Systems, Department of Administration, State of Florida, prior to final
action adopting a change to the Special Act.
GARRIFI .ROEDER.SMITH&COMPANY
GABRIEL, ROEDER, SMITH & COMPANY
Actuaries & Consultants
200 Globe Building•407 East Fort•Detroit, Michigan 48226.313-961-3346
December 12, 1990 FX
Mr. Harry E. Royal , Finance Director
City of Atlantic Beach
P. 0. Box 25
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
Re: Proposed Benefit Increases for Police and Fire
Employees
Dear Harry:
Enclosed are 10 copies of the study done to determine the costs
associated with several proposed benefit increases for police
and fire members in the City of Atlantic Beach Employees Retire-
ment System.
Our statement is enclosed.
Sincerely,
152:4-e
Ronald J. W. Smith
RJWS:rmd
City of Atlantic Beach Employees Retirement System
POLICE-FIRE MEMBERS
PROPOSALS UNDER CONSIDERATION
Submitted To: The Board of Trustees
Date: December 12, 1990
Submitted By: Ronald J. W. Smith
Gabriel , Roeder, Smith & Company
As requested, we have determined the increase in the City's computed annual contribu-
tion rate due to the proposed benefit changes as discussed in our June 20, 1990
letter to Mr. Harry Royal .
Present plan provisions are as follows:
Normal Retirement (no reduction factor for age) :
Eligibility - Age 55 with 20 or more years of service or age 60 with 5 or more
years of service.
Annual Pension - Total service times 2.4% of final average compensation.
Maximum amount of pension is the difference between 100% of
final average compensation and the initial PIA.
Early Retirement - None.
Type of Final Average Salary - Highest 5 consecutive years out of last 10.
Disability Retirement:
Eligibility - 5 or more years of service.
Annual Pension - Computed as normal retirement.
Proposal A - Eliminate the provision which includes social security benefits in the
determination of the maximum pension (100% of final average salary) .
Adoption of this proposal would require an ADDITIONAL contribution of:
Percent of Payroll FY 90/91 Dollars
Police 2.27% $13,433
Fire 3.46 8,202
::die ro s :::s:::::: v ajfob>' o:..::<<:ixx : ss of g sE noted show gists:::::>:wxth and wI thonrt
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Proposal B - Allow members to retire at age 50 with 20 or more years of service or
at any age with 25 or more years of service.
Adoption of this proposal would require an ADDITIONAL contribution of:
Percent of Payroll FY 90/91 Dollars
Police With inclusion 2.55% $15,090
Without inclusion 4.18 24,735
Fire With inclusion 4.66 11,047
Without inclusion 6.75 16,001
The additional contribution needed to support this proposal is quite sensitive to the
utilization rates for the proposed retirement conditions. The cost shown above would
increase (decrease) if utilization were higher (lower) than assumed.
Proposal C - Allow members to retire at age 50 with 10 or more years of service. The
member's pension would be reduced by 1/4 of 1% for each month (3% per year) that
retirement preceded age 55.
Adoption of this proposal would require an ADDITIONAL contribution of:
Percent of Payroll FY 90/91 Dollars
Police With inclusion 0.97% $ 5,740
Without inclusion 2.87 16,983
Fire With inclusion 1.02 2,418
Without inclusion 4.05 9,601
The additional contribution needed to support this proposal is quite sensitive to the
utilization rates for age 50 retirement. The cost shown above would increase
(decrease) if utilization were higher (lower) than assumed.
Proposal D - Increase the 2.4% benefit formula factor to 3.0%.
Adoption of this proposal would require an ADDITIONAL contribution of:
Percent of Payroll FY 90/91 Dollars
Police With inclusion 2.59% $15,236
Without inclusion 7.03 41,600
Fire With inclusion 1.55 3,674
Without inclusion 6.38 15,124
Proposal E - Determine final average salary based on the highest 3 consecutive years
out of the last 10.
Adoption of this proposal would require an ADDITIONAL contribution of:
Percent of Payroll FY 90/91 Dollars
Police With inclusion 1.41% $ 8,344
Without inclusion 3.45 20,416
Fire With inclusion 1.15 2,726
Without inclusion 4.50 10,667
Proposal F - A combination of proposals B and D.
Adoption of this proposal would require an ADDITIONAL contribution of:
Percent of Payroll FY 90/91 Dollars
Police With inclusion 6.15% $36,393
Without inclusion 9.62 56,927
Fire With inclusion 8.27 19,604
Without inclusion 11.51 27,284
Proposal G - A combination of proposals B, D and E.
Adoption of this proposal would require an ADDITIONAL contribution of:
Percent of Payroll FY 90/91 Dollars
Police With inclusion 7.95% $47,044
Without inclusion 11.26 66,632
Fire With inclusion 9.91 23,492
Without inclusion 13.04 30,911
..-.r, rrime r r�rn r&41TI 1 0 1 T\&40A AIV
Proposal H - A combination of proposals C and D.
Adoption of this proposal would require an ADDITIONAL contribution of:
Percent of Payroll FY 90/91 Dollars
Police With inclusion 4.05% $23,966
Without inclusion 7.85 46,453
Fire With inclusion 3.08 7,301
Without inclusion 7.35 17,423
Proposal I - A combination of proposals C, D and E.
Adoption of this proposal would require an ADDITIONAL contribution of:
Percent of Payroll FY 90/91 Dollars
Police With inclusion 5.71% $33,789
Without inclusion 9.39 56,566
Fire With inclusion 4.42 10,478
Without inclusion 8.62 20,434
The additional contribution needed to support the proposed changes in retirement
eligibility are dependent on actual utilization. The cost shown above in proposals
F, G, H, and I would increase (decrease) if utilization were higher (lower) than
assumed.
Proposal J - Eliminate the service requirement for eligibility for a disability
pension if disability was incurred in the line of duty. Provide a minimum benefit
of 42% of final average salary for a duty disability pension. Calculate all
disability pensions with a 3.0% benefit multiplier.
Adoption of this proposal would require an ADDITIONAL contribution of:
Percent of Payroll FY 90/91 Dollars
Police With inclusion 0.25% $1,479
Without inclusion 0.70 4,142
Fire With inclusion 0.20 474
Without inclusion 0.85 2,015
The additional contributions needed to support the proposed disability benefit are
ultimately dependent upon the administration of this benefit. It is conceivable that
the costs for this benefit could be up to five times those shown above.
•
The additional contribution requirements probably appear larger than anticipated.
This appearance results from two factors:
(1) The change applies to both past and future service - hence the additional
contribution must make up for the contributions and investment income that
would have been received had the proposed benefit been in effect since
each member's date of hire.
(2) The increase in the ongoing normal cost applies to the total normal cost,
not just the portion financed by the employer.
The calculations above were based on the same member data, methods, and assumptions
used in the September 30, 1989 annual actuarial valuation except as follows:
The retirement pattern used in proposal B was adjusted to reflect utilization of
provisions allowing retirement at age 50 with 20 years of service or retirement at
any age with 25 years of service.
Retirement Percent of Eligible
Ages Persons Retiring
45 20%
46 20
47 20
48 20
49 20
50 20
51 15
52 10
53 10
54 10
55 10
56 10
57 10
58 10
59 20
60 100
The retirement pattern used in proposal C was adjusted to reflect utilization of the
early retirement provision. The pattern used is as follows:
Retirement Percent of Eligible
Ages Persons Retiring
50 5%
51 5
52 5
53 5
54 5
55 20
56 15
57 15
58 15
59 25
60 100
City of Atlantic Beach Employees Retirement System
PROPOSAL FOR ACTUARIAL STUDY
Submitted #a: Richard White, Chairman
City of Atlantic Beach Pension Board
Submitted bv: David L. Archer
Public Safety Representative
Pate : June 4, 1990
Please find attached proposed changes to the Public Safety
Officers retirement benefits. We would like an actuarial
study to provide cost estimates to implement these changes..
PENSION PROPOSALS
A. NORMAL RETIREMENT
1 . Eligibility
a. Age 50 & No Limit
b. Service 20 yrs . 25 years
i . Other Service
(a) Military Service 5 year service,payment
required
2 . Amount of Benefit
a. Determination 3 .0% Service year
i . Salary base Best 3 of last 10
b. Limitations of monthly payment
i . Minimum None
ii . Maximum None
c. Length of payment period Longer of life or 10 yrs
3. Early Retirement Age 5 . with 10 years
pervice for reduced
benefit. such reduction
phall pot exceed A
per Year .
4 . Compulsory Retirement None
5. Vesting Rights 10 years service
6 . Relationship to Social Security None
B. DISABILITY BENEFITS
1 . In-line-of-duty
a. Eligibility pay one coverage
b. Type of disability Total and permanent
cannot render useful
and efficient service
as a police officer .
c. Type of benefit
i . Medical None
ii . Pension
(a ) Amount 3 . 0% per year AFC
(b) Minimum Not less than 42% of
average monthly
compensation .
(c ) Maximum The accrued benefit
if pore than 42% .
(d ) Duration Disability life with
120 months certain
(e ) Payment option
( 1 ) Balance, if any, of
120 payments to ben-
ificiary
( ii ) Cash refund annuity
( f) Relationship to
( i ) Workmens Compensation None
( ii) Social Security None
2 . Non-Service-Incurred
a . Eligibility 10 years service
b. Type of disability Total and permanent;
cannot render useful
and efficient service
as a police officer .
c. Types of benefits
1 . . Medical None
11. Pension
- (a ) Amount Same as "in-line-of-duty"
(b) Minimum Not less than 30% 4j average
monthly compensation
(c) Maximum The accrued benfit more
than 301
(d) Duration Same as in-line-of-duty
(e) Payment option Same as in-line-of-duty
3. Relationship to Social Security None
C. DEATH BENEFITS
1. Before retirement or disability
a . In-line-of-duty
i . Lump sum
(a ) 100% contributions refund
without interest
ii . Survivors benefits If a. police officer has at
).east l0 nears service, his,
beneficiary is entitled
ta the benefits otherwise
payable to the officer at
his normal or early re-
tirement date .
b. Non-Service-incurred
Same as In-line-of-duty
2 . After Retirement or Disability
a . Lump sum None
b. Survivors benefits
i . Balance, if any, of 120
payments to beneficiary
selected.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 , 7: 15 P.M.
AGENDA
Call to Order
1 . Public hearing relative to the proposed operating budget for
FY 1991 /92
2. Change order #1 , request for increase by $53 , 763 . 00 for the
combined beaches outfall line
3 . Change order #1 , request for increase by $46 , 740. 00 for Main
Street widening project
4 . Actuarial proposal for General and Public Safety employees .
Adjournment
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION HELD IN
CITY HALL, 800 SEMINOLE ROAD, AT 7:15 PM ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1991
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Gulliford. Present, in
addition to the Mayor, were Commissioners Cook, Edwards, Tucker, and
Weldon. Also present were City Manager Leinbach, City Attorney Jensen,
Finance Director Royal and City Clerk King.
Agenda items 2 and 3 were taken out of sequence and acted upon first.
2. Change Order No. 1, request for increase by $53,763.00 for the
combined beaches outfall line
In connection with the proposed repairs to the combined beaches outfall
line, Public Works Director Bob Kosoy reported he had requested that a
geotechnical report be prepared in order to ascertain the subsurface
conditions, proper size and length of new pilings, capacity and
installation. This report had been received from Ellis and Associates.
The contractor, T.W. Blount and Son, had submitted his proposal to
replace 44 pilings at a cost of $53,763.00 in addition to the original
quote of $84,273. Mr. Kosoy said he had reviewed these prices and had
received the concurrence of the public works directors in the other two
beach cities.
Commissioner Weldon moved to approve the change order. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Edwards.
Commissioner Tucker inquired into the number of pilings to be replaced
and Mr. Kosoy said it was impossible to test the pilings while the pipe
was in place. Testing after the pipe had been removed had determined
that the pilings could not support the 12-ton load. In further
discussion it was explained the payment would be shared by the three
beach cities and would be in accordance with the flow generated by each
city, with Jacksonville Beach paying approximately 55% of the total
cost. When asked whether he expected any further change orders, Mr.
Kosoy said he did not anticipate any but he would not know whether there
was any damage to the lines until they were lifted.
The question was called and the motion carried unanimously.
3. Change Order No. 1, request for increase by $46,740.00 for Main
Street widening project
Mr. Kosoy reported during construction of storm sewers and relocation of
a portion of the sewer line north of Stewart Street on this project, it
was decided to prepare a plan to obtain a price for installing sanitary
sewer service from Levy Road to Stewart Street. Connelly and Wicker had
prepared these plans and the contractor had submitted a change order
which had been negotiated between the design engineer and city engineer
for $44,763. The contractor had also requested a 30-day extension to
complete this work. Mr. Kosoy said it would cost less to install this
sewer line while the contractor is in the area and would eliminate the
need for pavement cuts if the work was performed later.
Page Two
Minutes of the Special City Commission Meeting
September 16, 1991
Mayor Gulliford pointed out this project was adjacent to properties
now served by the Section H improvement project. That project had been
paid for through special assessments against the properties.
Commissioner Weldon moved to approve the change order. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Cook.
Commissioner Tucker declared a conflict of interest and declined to vote
based on the fact she was part owner of property on Main Street. Form
8B, Memorandum of Voting Conflict, has been completed by Commissioner
Tucker and is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Mr. Kosoy said about twelve properties would be served by this sewer
line and discussion ensued regarding the possibility of assessing the
property owners with the cost of this project.
Commissioner Weldon offered a substitute motion to approve the
expenditure subject to payment of fees as assessed by the city by the
owners of the property at the time they desire hookup. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Cook and was approved on a 4 — 0 vote with
Commissioner Tucker abstaining.
1. Public Hearing relative to the proposed operating budget for FY
1991/92
Commissioner Weldon pointed out the City Clerk's salary was set by the
City Commission and that she was not on the city's pay plan and would
not receive the merit raise provided therein. He moved to authorize a
5x salary increase for the City Clerk, effective at the beginning of the
new fiscal year. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Edwards and
was unanimously approved.
Mayor Gulliford announced that the tentative millage had been set at
2.6624 with the debt service set at .1034 which represented a 5.95%
increase over the roll back rate. He opened the floor for a public
hearing and invited comments from the audience.
William McGee, 1831 Selva Marina Drive, asked about fund transfers
between the various accounts, particularly from Buccaneer. Mayor
Gulliford said that the city had purchased the Buccaneer system with the
intention of providing extra money for the general fund or to subsidize
the sewer and water rates paid by the Atlantic Beach citizens, and this
had, indeed, happened. The records of the systems had been kept
separate to better track the funds generated. He said this situation
had been discussed at length in the budget workshops and a proposal had
been made to combine the revenues of the systems. Mayor Gulliford
pointed out that Alan Potter, engineer and owner of a private utility,
had donated a great deal of his time working with the city on the future
Page Three
Minutes of Special Commission Meeting
September 16, 1991
plans for the utility plants and the rate study. He invited Mr. McGee
to discuss the matter with Mr. Potter and to avail himself of any
documentation available in City Hall and forward his comments or
recommendations to the city.
There being no other comments on the budget the Mayor declared the
public hearing closed. Commissioner Edwards moved to adopt the millage
rate of 2.6624 and debt service rate of .1034. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Cook and was unanimously approved.
In connection with the proposed referendum question regarding charitable
contributions, Mayor Gulliford pointed out an error had been discovered
in the millage rate referred to in the referendum. Because of the
advertising requirements, it was too late to change that figure.
Discussion ensued regarding whether a straw ballot, which would not be
subject to the same advertising requirements, should be held instead of
a referendum and it was the general consensus the question should be
withdrawn from the ballot. The City Attorney was directed to draft an
ordinance for action by the City Commission.
At this time Mayor Gulliford declared the Special Commission meeting
adjourned and announced that Agenda Item #4 would be taken up at a joint
committee meeting of the City Commission and Pension Board of Trustees
immediately following this meeting.
Wil iam I. Gullifo d
Mayor/Presiding 0 fic •
A T T E S T:
4t_
Maureen King, Ci y Cl-
•
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
411 Tucker, Adelaide R. Commission
MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL., COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON
42 Eleventh St. WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
Xl CITY i l COUNTY i 1 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
CITY OUNT
Atlantic Beach Duval NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
City of Atlantic Beach
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
MY POSITION IS:
September 16, 1991 t ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board,
council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented
with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143,Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although
the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
1116INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
ELECTED OFFICERS:
A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures
to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special
gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
•
In either case, you should disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on
which you are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording
the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure Which
inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the
special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must
disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether
made by the'officer or at his direction. . . .
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH
THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: •
•
You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for
recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes.
• A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest.
•
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION OR VOTE AT THE MEETING:
• You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minute
of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
DISCLOSURE OF STATE OFFICER'S INTEREST
1, Adelaide R.Tucker , hereby disclose that on September 16 19 91
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
might
inured;to my special private gain; or
inured to the special gain of , by whom I am retained.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows:
On Sept. 16th the Public Works Director, Mr. Kosoy, requested an increase of $46,740..00
for Main Street widening project in order to install sanitary sewer service from Levy
Road to Stewart Street. I declared .a conflict of interest due to the fact I am part
owner of properties located on Main Street and it might inure to my special private gain.
•
•
•
September 23, 1991 er
Date Filed Signature
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIREL.•
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN
SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
CE FORM 8B. 10.86 PAGE 2