HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformal Minutes 05-27-2008BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
INFORMAL MEETING
Date: May 27, 2008 Convened: 1:30 p.m.
Adjourned: 3:30 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Chairman, Joseph Smith, Doug Coward, Paula A. Lewis,
Charles Grande, Chris Craft
Others Present: Doug Anderson, County Administrator, Faye Outlaw, Asst. County
Administrator, Lee Ann Lowery, Asst. County Administrator, Marie Gouin, Management
and Budget Director, Neil Appel, Purchasing Director, Millie Delgado -Feliciano, Deputy
Clerk
Night meetings vs. day meetings
The Assistant County Administrator addressed the area survey conducted regarding day
or night meetings.
Com. Coward stated he believed the Board at this point was comfortable with how they
presently conduct their meetings.
The Assistant County Administrator stated the Board had requested information more so
whether it was a statutory requirement to have night meetings.
Com. Coward stated he believed it had been the long night meetings that had brought up
the issue.
The Chairman asked if Com. Lewis' recommendation of a cut off time to be considered.
The Chairman stated the Board has always had the ability to adjourn by a certain time if
the wish to.
No change recommended. Staff has the ability to move hearings and items to day
meetings if need arises.
Proposed Changes to RFP Criteria
The Assistant County Administrator addressed the Board's direction on this issue and
presented an Evaulation Process Review. She stated there were two areas in the scoring
system that needed to be clarified and this may eleviate the baulk of the problems they
have seen in the past and reviewed the Evaulation Suggestions presented.
A discussion was held on points for local experience as well as local firms.
The Purchasing Director stated he believed if the firm was located in the area, they
received 12 points.
If it is a firm who is located somewhere else but establishes an office here, they would
receive 10 points.
The major problems with local firms issues is the something that has not been dealt with.
If they did a good job for Palm Beach but had a bad experiece with St. Lucie County,
they were never told how to overcome this problem and correct the previous issues.
Com. Craft believes the system the Assistant County Administrator is recommending is a
good one and it will make sure they are documenting everything and not passing stories
down from generation to generations.
7
The Assistant County Administrator stated this is a system they never had, so that at the
end of each job each company will have a written record on how they performed on the
job.
Com. Craft requested Column B on the RFQ Evaluation form Past Performance —
References Non -St. Lucie County Experience be changed to 0-25 points and move the 3
points over to location Column A.
Com. Grande concurred.
The Assistant County Administrator stated these issues would need to be brought to a
meeting before the Board for formal action.
Com. Coward stated the staff needed to be made aware of the Board's wishes to hire
local qualified firms without scoring them out subjectively.
The Assistant County Administrator stated she needed a clear defined system in place to
accomplish what the Board's wishes are. If she has a staff who mentally has a problem
with a firm because of past experience told to them by someone walking out the door,
and if she does not bring them to the front where they need to document it or reliquish
those ghosts, evaulations then she cannot accomplish what the Board wants her to
accomplish administratively. She cannot give a contract to a local firm unilaterally. She
believes this will get her 95% to the door and the firm will have to go the other 5% to get
the award.
St. Lucie Land Trust
Com. Coward addressed this issue.
Ms. Chapman presented a brochure regarding the Land Trust and stated they were
moving towards a 5010 and addressed the cost of the maintenance of the lands.
Com. Craft questioned the cost of maintenance of xeroscape of $16,000 a year.
Com.Coward commented and stated he did not have figures on the maintenance of
environmental lands and stated he believes the mowing csst of the county's right of ways
was more costly than maintaining the lands.
Com. Craft stated it was very expensive to maintain the lands and he would like to have
figures before making a decision and would like information before purchasing more land
than what they can maintain.
The County Administrator stated even if they had the funds, due to the County being on a
staff reduction mode, they would not have the personnel to maintain the lands.
The County Attorney stated he would check with our Bond Counsel if they can use bond
money from the referendum for this purpose.
Com. Grande stated he would lik to know if the bond was restricted to purchase land or if
it could be used for maintenance.
Com. Craft stated he would like to look at the maintenance cost and re-evaluate the
sensitive land program.
Redlined Employees
This item was per the request of Com. Grande at the Strategic Planning Session.
2
The Policy question was should salary increases stop upon reaching top of the pay grade?
The Human Resources Director stated the feeling was the employees should not be
penalized.
The background and service impact was stated as departure from the current practice of
increasing an employee salalry by a % increase when they reach the top of their pay
grade.
The cost savings and or benefit was listed as reduced overall salary costs. Give employee
who reaches top of salary lump sum % increase instead of a % increase to salary.
History and recommendations/suggestions:
It has been the practice if not the policy of St. Lucie County that if an employee is at the
top of his/her pay range for the the position they are in, and a pay increase will exceed the
top of the pay range for the position, they will receive the full amount of the increase, but
the pay range for the position will not be affected as a result of the increase.
Based on this practice there are currently 55 employees on the payroll who have
exceeded the top or maximum of their pay range.
Post maximum Incentive
The maximums of the pay ranges are the point where an employee's pay progression
usually stops. This marks the place where the worth of the position, accoarding to the
market place and a comparable job has reached its limit. However, many agencies as
well as the private sector recognize that some type of pay incentive past this maximum
point is necessary to continue the productivity of the individual at an acceptable level.
They feel that there is some merit to this practice as evidenced by the practices of most
employers in the market place.
Recommendations/Suggestions:
Option 1. When the individual has reached the maximum of thepay range, he/she will be
eligible for a lump sum type adjustmenet. This adjustment would not be added to the
individual's base pay. The amount of the adjustment will be determined by the Board of
County Commissioners approved pay increases. This type of arrangement has the effect
of not compounding salary or fringe benefit costs and limits the overall short and long
term impact on the County. It also helps in the retention of productive long term
employees.
Option 2. Make yearly maximum % increase adjustments to the salary range until such
time as the affected employees fall within their respective pay ranges.
Option 3. Make a one time salary increase to the maximum for all pay ranges in orde to
bring affected employees within range. Would not adjust the minimum. No impact on
the employees salary or fringe benefit costs.
Option 4. Freeze the salary of any employee being paid above the maximum for their
pay range until such time as the maximum of the salary range is increased, due to salary
adjustments.
AND
In adition to having the County Administrator and the Assistant County Administrators in
ungraded pay grades, include the County Attorney in that group also. Do so will give the
Board greater flexibility in the hiring and retaining of their top level staff.
3
MMMMMMM
Com. Coward stated he had a problem with setting up a program not rewarding longevity
employees and having them lose money because they have dovoted many years to the
county.
Com. Grande staed the pay scales should reflect the value of the jobs and if they are not
meeting this, then they should be fixed.
The County Administrator stated the employees who have been working for the County
for a long time have a lot of knowledge and know the county's history and should not be
penalized.
The Human Resources Director stated the pay scales need to be adjusted because we did
not move the pay scales on a regular basis. He does not wish to add another issue by
hiring others off the street and paying them the same as someone who has been with the
county for a length of time and do not have the opportunity to move ahead because there
are no promotibility positions. People are not hired at mid point unless there is Board
approval and he is sure they have never hired anyone at the maximum rate of the scale.
He stated there were cases where people did not reach their maximum for 15 to 20 years
due to the 3% increase each year and he felt this was not fair and this is where he had
many complaints. He recommended option 3 .
Contingency Fund and Account Balance
The County Administrator addressed this item.
Had a balance of $1 million went down to $700,500 today there was action taken to take
out $75,000. With the proposed actions listed, the balance available would be $143,500.
No further discussion held.
The meeting was adjourned.
4
Item NO.
WMEMEW
FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008
FUNDS APPROVED FROM CONTINGENCY
GENERAL FUND
AMOUNT REMAINING:
$700,500
DEPARTMENT ITEM
Approved Budget Contingency
ACCOUNT #
001-9910-599100-800
AMOUNT DATE
$1,000,000
BA08-006
1/8/2008
Certified Green Local Government fees 1/8/2008
$4,500
$$4,500
BA08-007
Fairgrounds Wastewater Plant
$130,000
2/12/2008
2/1 12008
BA08-011
Additional Funds Needed for Unanticipated Litigation
$100,000
150,000
3/11/2008
BA08-015
Additional Funds Needed for Unanticipated Litigation
4/ 912008
BA08-020
Additional Funds Needed for Invoices for Value Adjustment BoarAPPROVED BY BOCC
NOT
$0
BA08-023B
PHS Inmate Medical Expenses
Total used:
Balance Available
Proposed action:
BA08-024 Additional Funds Needed for Unanticipated Litigation
To be revisited PHS Inmate Medical Expenses
Balance Available After Proposed Action:
$299,500
$700,500
$75,000 5/27/2008
$482,000 TBD
$143,500
AGENDA R � u ST
c6ou
1T�
F
L
O
R
I D A
ITEM: D2
DATE: 5/13/08
REGULAR [ ]
PUBLIC HEARING [ ]
CONSENT [XI
70: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENTED BY: Wayne Teegardin
Risk Manager
SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): Human Resources / Risk Management
SUBJECT: Prison Health Services Inmate Health Aggregate Cap & Psychotropic Drug
Invoices.
BACKGROUND: Medical care for incarcerated jail inmates provided off -site (outside the jail)
are paid under contract by Prison Health Services (PHS) and reimbursed by
the County according to contract including psychotropic drugs.
GENERAL NOTES: Our contract with PHS requires that the aggregate cap invoices be
reimbursed per fiscal year 2 for FY 07 This
08request
the amount of $359,013 10quarter
invoice number PHS000393
FUNDS AVAILABLE: Funds are available in: 001-2300-531300-200.
PREVIOUS ACTION: First quarter FY 07-08 invoice has been paid.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends payment of PHS invoice number PHS0003932 in the
amount of $359,013.10 and approval of Budget Amendment# BA08-023 per
contract agreement. BA08-023 is required for anticipated increased third
and fourth quarter invoices due to higher inmate population and rising
medical costs.
COMMISSION ACTION: CON
[ APPROVED
[ ] OTHER:
County Attorney:
DENIED Approved 4
Motion to approve payment for the first half of this item, (the PHS invoice
number PHS0003932 in the amount of $359,013.10) and give Ms. Outlaw the
opportunity to look at the contingency fund and do an analysis as to where
they will be at the end of the year and then come back to the Board for the
later portion of the item This would leave the contingency at a $200,000 and
Ms. Outlaw
tlaw felt this maWn issue of concern.
� rteview and Aoorovat
Management & Budget:
originating Dept. 41/YT ( Other
Finance: (Check for Copy oniy, if applicable)_
Douglas M. Anderson
County Administrator
Purchasing
Other:
TI
c N
0
—1 o g o
CD O C
cn
n
cD p
X p
(D -o 'a a r m
cD C
X O O
D !Q
m =;; O cD
C1i S c C
3 r
w -n cCD D (D H
CD n
(D
O N
0
�
(D
p
CD ..
ch 0
((DD 'O (D Ca �•
O
O� CD \ a)
X•0 y O
3 (D
r�
�.
0)
CD
p 7
�CC
CD
CD
j'
CA
fn 0 (D
j
CL
N O
CD
O N
3
C co C
`� N
3
(n 7
o0
3
m
CD 0
a
'o (On
3
CD
p y
° O
y (D G
C_
(D
(D N C. '� n
\-0
C O
N p CD O
c
3
O
C..
O
3
-4 O
CD
G1
(D ' CD
(n O D)
O
X O
°
:3
CD
CD
y
CD CO
D
-a O
CD
3
o'r.
•
CD y
--
o°°
O
on
-O
°
,�
.O
CD
3
CD D
(D
OO
1
DM0
c
X
°O
'-
y
o3
_
y
.-00
o-o3=oCj(3D
0 Pi
o
O
O 7�
3
N (D O li K
N
3 O
�'
X CD
`G
C-
cD O
S� (D
O
O `G
N m 3' CD ^
Q
N N-
N X
2 (n
m
=
�
d �
CD O
(n
..
�
— 0 CD -ti Cl)
fD
CD
� CD
3
=r
CD 3
�
CD
`<
CT
O
0
(D � O
O
CD
D)
�` O 0 r
O
a1 W
C 3
ai
fD
(D 3
= a CD
-w
-�
.+
cD
O N O r C
7
r. y
(D N D
N
^
n 0)
n
CD
n N
ti -O
P-0 C. O p. (D•
y
^° (D
o O
N
Z
.. K
p
° :
cNi,
-a
O
(D
(D p CD' Ci
00
° p
- (D
(D
7
_ w
p
y
N.c°i
v,
�
w
r.
aCD
v
=� �
o� N
?�
O
� CD
-�-CD
0
w m v
CD
CD
r
CD
Cfl �
a " �
(D
v
C
Q: �
fD o � � m
v o°i
CD y
v
Nw
rn
C" O
c
CD 0
O 0
Q
C (D
N =>
3 N (D
(D (D O
-* cn CD
CG CC
(D N
(n
O
(D
..
CD
O�
0 Cap N
6
CD
cD O
`2 ° 0- CD
tpn
"' O
O CC
O
O
y W
N
3 =
3
c U0i (Do �
co= y
��
cn
r��
s°v
a
(D (D
3
�
O
p
�
y (D O Co �
° � �
N Ul
`G
(p C
p
CD
�
S
BCD CD
p
°
3°_
O n
av3(CD0
O (o W
'"cn�
�,
Oo
-
m
K
—
0ID
O N
(C
''
°
CD
O X DI CD CD
N
O � O
O
(D
a)
Q1
Cn =4
(JT
N N
(D C CA
N
O
'C �r
^
O 0)
w
—
CD
c .�
CD3
�-o
0 3
N. N .. CAD
—
0 :3 CD � �' n
.�►
y y fn
N N
CD
O
CD N
Q
X
m' 0
(D
D m
N
y
y' o o
0
N_
X N
6� 0 (n ��
n 'C
CCD
C
cn cn
(D
CDD
y Ccn
cn
CD �'
�_ C•
CD �
O N
(Cp
• ?
CD 3' (D
CD O
cn -, S �
y
CD j
(D
(D
CD
a)::;*
c0
0i J
c
��CD�03
0�
�CD
�
3
0
3�
o o
m
rco a
c y
jacn
o
0
CD
c
rt
(D
.CD
0) w7
X 7
CO
flJ
cn cn
O
a) (n
" 0 O �
cD
"O
y n
C�
CD
C.
3 c'
�.
C" X
CD CD
0
(D cn
O CC (D .�. Cy (D
-p
O y
� �
N
n
O
D)
c N
3
<
O n
�. 0
p O 0 0 y Q
Q
O
O
3CD
Q
y
�
CD c
m
X
X 7 0 .►
Q. O
(n o
O
rn
V
y
D) (D
`G (D
O�
=
N
(D
7
0
0
O O (D
? cn cnCD
0) CD
0(D M.
X 0 (D O
n N CD
CD nCD
N
�
N v
C
�
01
0
(D
CD M. n
CD N
CD
0 c m� O n
cD
-°p CD
••
y"
Q�
-0= =
�
N 0 Svc
0
(pn p
3
�
CD
n
c. r
m -,� cn
" p
7 v
-
rt-0 ch
C 'C O O
CCD �
En
D
(D
5.y—
Q.G
?
0
n
to
? cn O
Cry
(D
N
� -� C
3 C) y r.
O
7
(D
(D
J
Q 01Z
(D
cn � ...
41
p a (D
Er
CD
`L
C
.
CD
(D O
3=
p' (D
co C
D) .+ 0
p .' CD �%
(C CJ7
CD
0
-.
(D
n
�CD
a
S
(C° n
CD
p v
po 3n
cn
(D
m
a
Cr- M N O n
C
'D cn
N (n
�.�. p+
fSD
.
rM,fD S�
CD
�.D)
0
N
CD
CCD
C
:3 0
0CD
..
C CD
O 'aO
C. N
CD
c
y
N
� _ O
CD
0
a)
a
O `G
-�
Re
V J
0
4-i
U
U)
U)
A -a
U
U
O
4-0
o
a
�
o
U.
CAS
U)
U)
(1)
U
O
L-
n
N
ry
w
O
61
w
4�
O
I
Q.
0
i
m
T'
U)
c
O
to
U
m
cl
LU
U)
a
O
w
a
ci
E
R
Z
a
LL
w
CY
U-
w
Q
a3i
a3i
++
a�
E
m
RLLN
v
M
c
:?
c
N
O
J
U
a>
H
ui
m
CD
CO
y
0
O
m
O
m
Y
CD
E
E
0
V
L
coU
R
~
L
C7
LLO
LLLLI
U
2
L
L
L
N,
N
N
W
J
Q
m
ci
o
W
LL
ONIHN"
�V101N
o
NOLLV1N3sud-wimans
0
.fr
o
40H13N V HOV08ddV
: 9
0
S1N3W38inOMIl03rO8d
,C
_
V NVdE)08d JNI4NVJLS83aNn
"' o
(D
NOij vn IVA3 tmu &-wimens
<o
:o
LL
SS3N3AISNOdS3'd
o
W
N813 3HI JO KL1IIGVIS
`n
d
0
GVOINNOM 1N381 jnO
< ';
.o
30V111A Mom '1S 30?131d '_U
o
U
`31oni 'iS I*dOd 'kLNf10O 3iom
1S) KLIIIBV 8 30N3183d)(3
= o
(3ON31213dX3)11Nf10O
`°
"y`
m
31Ofll '1S NON) S3ON32i3332i
- 30NVNd03213d 1S`dd
o
Q
NOIIV3OI
'` d
a�
N
m
�
E
E
Z
Q
o �
U
a;
C N
E
a
Z
s
a
o
(D
sac
��z
O
U
a
E
LL
O
0
w
m
IS
H
H
LL
0
v
Q
�i
t1
V
'a
a
c
0
y
L
N
0
o
a
E
V O
N L
O
_
O O
J N
0 0� O
=
E
'o
cmi =
cV
c
�°o o�,ocameo
c rn>jzi
Oa
�' 3 � me
°a?'�c`aEOoa�
)= 0 U a 0E
"a O
E C C G. O o p) O
0
a a:- '�
04) Ca�
a�rno �H� oo
E— o a�i nw
5 E
via 3
rna'v� coy oti"o
o o a� c 0
aco O
U� OcoU-L):�
o m
c>
o2
c �U��cnp�
J�NSco'i�J
N
2,-Nci4uia- O u
2
N
M
N
O
d
a
ci
�
d
H
CL
d
Q
�
V
E
J
�
N
U.
ci
d
~
E
m
Z
0
�o
E
L
U.
N
C
c
v o
L >
e
€
o
h
to Q''�
N 'O p N
d y
y L
c m - c
w O 7
U y
N O
y m
0
•' N '� C7.N
:� d Q
dC7w�
N�
EOEo
V
C V
0 N N p a
a.
ts
U C +- U
C
O.O. C O-
N N
0 0 ° aai
o�`-s
,�
>,U�(oL�(
=`
uE�--
0=0
a
M-oow
m MLL oa> a
0aaU
OUP GNcM w
NCM
2
ui
c
0
0
C L
E
0
4-j
a�
a�
E
E
0
CU
c
0
U
0
0
U)
C`7
W
.}-0
0
Vf
a�
a�
ft-
E
E
0
c
.0
U
_W
W
co
0
W
69--
0
?:2.1
c�
a�
0
E
4-
0
--+
n�
W
E
L
n�
W
a�
c�
a�
E
0
4—
L
W
E
0
E
4-j
D
O
'W^
V,
O
MCI
4-a
U
O
O
L-
n
0-i
LIJ
A t
'IT
27
tu t:
-j
IS
. L:
j
-.1
T!
LL
LL
It
LU
al 1)
I
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
ENGINEERING CONSULTANT EVALUATION
Contract No.:
ntract Name:
(Consultant Name:
lConsultant Project Manager:
LC Project Manager:
engrev
PERFORMANCE RATING SCALE
4 Above Satisfactory 90 -100%
Completed task(s) with no issues. Exceeded requirements, recommended for future contracts.
3 Satisfactory 75 - 89%
Completed task(s) with minor issues. Resolution required little effort, met all requirements.
Recommended for future contracts.
2 Below Satisfactory 50 - 74%
Completed task(s) with numerous issues. Resolution required significant effort, discussions, meetings
and/or rework. May be recommended for future contracts, after corrective action has been taken.
1 Unacceptable 25 - 49%
Failed to complete task(s). Problems were encountered on an ongoing basis. Performance was
substandard, and requirements were not met. Not recommended for future contracts.
TOTAL SCORE
Note: An overall grade of 33 = 75% is considered satisfactory performance.
The maximum grade attainable is 44 = 100%.
Department Evaluator
Consultant Project Manager
Date
Date
(Acknowledgment: Consultant comments can be added as a separate page.)
Page 1 of 2
ENGINEERING EVALUATION CRITERIA
Instructions: engrev
For each numbered item below, please select a numerical score from 1 to 4 in accordance with the performance rating
Scale. Select n/a It the items is not appiicaDie. comments may oe enterea oeiow.
Quality Criteria Score
1 Project submittals were complete on time and in accordance with the departments standard
and contract requirements.
2 Completeness of drawings and technical specification. Project submittals did not require
corrections for error and omissions.
3 Supervised and managed Sub consultants on individual projects, responded to technical
questions and reviewed their in progress and completed work.
4 Conducted project meetings with staff, consultants and other entities, and represented staff
when necessary.
5 Worked effectively with department staff to create a cohesive team to accomplish goals and
objectives.
6 Identified, analyzed and verified that all permits, regulatory and legal requirements were
addressed.
7 Verified that utilities were identified and coordinated property.
8 Requests for Information sent by bidders during the bid process were minimal.
9 Change orders during construction were minimal.
10 Knowledgeably inspected jobsite and determined compliance to the plans and specifications.
11 All work was completed on time and within budget.
Comments:
Page 2 of 2
m
r
'
V,
v
L.
LL
m
o
�
U
N
i-
U
�
--p
E(6
N
O
Q
0
L
O
U
U
a�
�
1-
U
9
o c
AW
U
U
4-
0
4-a
W
E
W
n�
ry
m
4-j
4--j
E
P1
v ,
L
j0
W
O
�
W�