Indian River County

Administration Complex

1801 27th Street

Indian River County, Florida

Vero Beach, Florida 32960

indianriver.gov

Meeting Minutes - Final

Board of County Commissioners

Joseph Flescher, District 2, Chairman

Deryl Loar, District 4, Vice Chairman

Susan Adams, District 1

Joseph H. Earman, District 3

Laura Moss, District 5

John A. Titkanich, Jr., County Administrator

Jennifer W. Shuler, County Attorney

Ryan L. Butler, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller

Wednesday, September 10, 2025

5:01 PM

Commission Chambers

Public Hearing on Tentative Budget and Proposed Millage

1. CALL TO ORDER

2 ROLL CALL

5 -

Present:

Chairman Joseph Flescher

Vice Chairman Deryl Loar

Commissioner Susan Adams

Commissioner Joe Earman

Commissioner Laura Moss

2.A. A MOMENT OF SILENT REFLECTION FOR FIRST RESPONDERS AND MEMBERS OF

THE ARMED FORCES

2.B. INVOCATION

Deacon Wilfred Hart, Friendship Missionary Baptist Church

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

County Administrator John Titkanich, Jr.

4. BUDGET OVERVIEW BY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, JOHN A. TITKANICH, JR.

A. Proposed Budget

25-0838

Attachments: Proposed Budget & Millage Rates

County Administrator John Titankich announced the Preliminary Budget

Hearing for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-2026. He provided an overview of the

FY 2024-2025 budget, starting with last year’s budget at the beginning of this

process and then presenting the proposed budget for the upcoming year. Last

year, the budget started at $524,719,875. There were amendments related to

the Capital Improvements Plan, among other items. The proposed budget for

the upcoming fiscal year was $598,270,347, reflecting an increase of

$73,550,472 from the previous year.

He highlighted some significant impacts on the budget. Key points included an

8.8% rise in the Countywide Tax Roll and an 8.7% increase in the

unincorporated areas. He also recommended a $6 million increase in the

Sheriff’s funding, which was a reduction from his initial request of $14.6

million and a revised request of $12.2 million.

Commissioner Laura Moss noted that at the last budget meeting on August

10, 2025, the Board identified an additional amount that could be added to

the Sheriff’s budget, bringing the total increase to $6.8 million. She

emphasized that this was not the full request and reminded everyone that the

Sheriff was not asking for this increase for personal gain, as his salary was

determined by the State. She expressed her belief that the discussion around

this issue had become overly contentious and hoped the Board would agree

to the $6.8 million increase.

Administrator Titkanich continued, stating that each year the Florida

Legislature set the County's retirement rates. This year, the increase in

retirement rates was $3.9 million, which included Constitutional Officers.

Additionally, Workers' Compensation expenses rose by $1,072,121, also

including Constitutional Officers. The budget included an increase of 20

full-time positions and an addition of 1.25 full-time Constitutional Officers,

resulting in a total increase of 21.25 full-time positions.

5. AD VALOREM FUNDS

A. Ad Valorem Millage and Ad Valorem Budget (Read each fund separately and make motion for each fund

after public input).

General Fund

25-0839

Proposed millage is 3.5475 and is 6.69% above rolled back rate of

3.3250. The proposed budget is $156,982,168.

Attachments: General Fund

Administrator Titkanich announced that the General Fund proposed millage is 3.5475,

6.69% above the rolled-back rate of 3.3250. The proposed budget is $156,982,168.

Chairman Flescher stated that, unfortunately, the Sheriff could not attend because he

was addressing an emergent matter, but some of his staff were present. He added

that, looking at the Sheriff's budget, it was widely agreed that it was a rather significant

increase. The Board had spent many hours and engaged in countless discussions on

the Sheriff’s budget, but it was the Board’s obligation to examine and ensure that it

was a good steward of taxpayers’ dollars. He pointed out that the Board set the

millage rate and noted it was one of the lowest in the state. He said that, as a

Chairman, he could not make a motion but felt that the Board should return the

additional $6 million to the General Fund and fully fund the Sheriff's budget request

through the reserve account. Chairman Flescher stated that there was over

$685,408,713 in restricted funds, but the unrestricted amount in the account was

$78,918,193.35.

Commissioner Adams sought and received clarification from Chairman Flescher that

he was proposing to return the $6 million to the General Fund and move forward with

funding the Sheriff for $12 million from the reserve account. She explained that the

Chairman proposed withdrawing $12 million in recurring dollars from the reserve

account.

Commissioner Earman was not prepared to make a motion until after hearing public

comments and staff input.

Chairman Flescher opened the public hearing.

Donna Flaherty sought and received information about the dollar amount the Sheriff

requested, and was opposed to the increase.

Michael Marsh expressed that he has witnessed the Sheriff's department actively

working in the community day in and day out. He highlighted the positive contributions

the deputies made every day and commended the Sheriff’s Office Explorer Program,

which gave young adults the opportunity to gain firsthand experience in public safety

careers.

Tony Consalo supported fully funding the Sheriff, believing that $6.8 million or $6.2

million should come from the General Fund, with the remaining funds sourced from the

Reserves.

Jo Anne Barnhart applauded the Board for maintaining the millage rate and being

prudent with taxpayer dollars. She emphasized that the primary role of government

was public safety and expressed that the County was very fortunate to have Eric

Flowers as Sheriff. He has demonstrated strong leadership in law and order, notably

advancing the Sheriff's Office into the 21st century through initiatives such as the

real-time crime center and license plate readers. She also recognized the valuable

work he has done with the inmate population, including the farm training program for

women inmates and established connections with local businesses to help those exiting

the system find jobs. She supported fully funding for the Sheriff’s Office.

A County resident stated that she has spent her entire adult career working in

Municipal, County, and State Government. As a government employee with several

years of law enforcement experience, she, along with her husband, who has 42 years

in the field, believed the Sheriff deserved full funding.

Wilfred Hart urged the Board to fully fund the Sheriff’s Budget and the organizations

seeking financial support to ensure their survival.

Charles Hoffman noted that a business could not remain viable without annual

increases and increased efficiencies; however, he believed that continual increases

could become excessive. He emphasized the importance of not only increasing

funding for specific programs but also creating efficiencies within the budget.

Barbara Miles raised concerns about the County's growth and the need to hire more

deputies. She received confirmation that there were no new position requests in the

Sheriff's Budget.

Leticia Wood stressed the importance of addressing the budget to include raises for

Sheriff's Deputies. She pointed out that neighboring counties were offering higher

salaries, which risked the County losing its deputies to better-paying opportunities.

She emphasized that these men and women put their lives on the line every day, and

their value could not be measured in monetary terms.

Renee Reya, who had worked in the Sheriff's Office for 21 years stated that many

deputies had gone without a raise for seven years, which had hindered pay growth

within the Sheriff's office. She acknowledged that Sheriff Eric Flowers had made

diligent efforts to resolve this issue, but it has been a gradual process. Additionally,

she raised a critical concern about employee retention, stating that since the Board’s

last meeting, she had lost one employee and was about to lose another that Friday

due to pay concerns.

Dale Dawkins shared a personal story from his past about a Sheriff’s Deputy who

went a mile for him, just one example of how deputies in the community went above

and beyond their duties. He believed that pay increases would significantly affect the

morale and well-being of the deputies. He expressed frustration at the negative

portrayals on TV, stating that this did not represent Vero Beach. The law

enforcement community was part of the family, and they wanted the leaders to take

care of them.

Phil Daughtery, a Detective with the Sheriff's Office and President of the Deputies'

Union, opened his address by expressing gratitude for the opportunity to discuss

potential funding for the Sheriff's Budget. He acknowledged the concerns raised

during the meeting. He sought to clarify a few essential points about the Sheriff’s

funding for retaining current personnel, attracting recruits, and creating the safest

possible environment for the community.

Connie Kelly spoke about a situation that occurred in January 2024 and was not in

support of increasing the Sheriff’s Budget.

A County resident who was watching the meeting online decided to attend in person

to show support for the Sheriff’s Budget.

Marc Jaffe introduced himself as a resident of District 4. He inquired about the

starting salary for a deputy in Indian River County compared to the surrounding

counties.

There being no further speakers, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Chairman Flescher addressed the issue of deputies leaving their positions, which had

been mentioned during the public discussion. While some records existed, they were

limited. With 67 counties in the state, the Sheriff’s Association indicated that this was

a statewide challenge. He emphasized that the County had one of the lowest millage

rates in the state. However, counties with higher millage rates might attract deputies

with better salaries.

Chairman Flescher stated there was a suggestion for the Board to leave the $6 million

intact and take another $6 million from reserves. This was an alternative option. His

main concern was not to increase the burden on taxpayers, especially since the Board

could not change the millage rate. Additionally, he did not want to jeopardize their

ability to complete many of the projects they had committed to. He stated the options

to either maintain the $6 million they had earmarked for the Sheriff’s Budget request

and take an additional $6 million from reserves to fully fund the request, or return the

funds to the General Fund and withdraw a total of $12 million from Reserves.

County Administrator John Titkanich reviewed the General Fund balance and stated

after accounting for non-spendable, restricted, and committed items, the usable fund

balance was $64.6 million. Additionally, there was a reserve of $4.4 million related to

projects and proceeds. The policy required a 20% unassigned fund balance of $28.9

million. There was also a budget stabilization policy set at 5%, which equated to

$7.25 million, along with an emergency disaster relief reserve of 5%. Furthermore,

there were cash-forward budget amendments totaling $1.475 million for projects

rolled over from the last fiscal year or entirely unbudgeted. At the end of the day, the

current available fund balance for the General Fund was $15,226,936.

Administrator Titkanich made a few comments on the use of fund balances or

reserves, noting that it was customary to allocate them to one-time costs or capital

projects. He pointed out that it was not considered best practice to use these reserves

for recurring expenses. Using reserves for ongoing costs could lead to compounded

expenses. For instance, if the County utilized $6 billion in one year, that amount would

carry over into the following year's budget, necessitating a significant tax increase to

cover those costs.

Administrator Titkanich also mentioned that, without decreasing reserves, the new

revenue for that year was $8.68 million, a decline from the previous three years. He

observed a steady decrease in new revenue, raising concerns about the economy, as

homes stayed on the market longer and price reductions became more common. He

noted declines in building permits and impact fee revenues. Last year, new

construction added $665,000 to the tax rolls, but this year, it dropped to just over

$600,000. He spoke about the recent articles on the significant drop in property

values in the County and the pressure from the legislature for property tax reform. If

they enforced a rollback, it raised the question of how they could reduce taxes while

making up for the money being taken out of reserves this year to cover not just one

year’s expenses, but two years’ expenses. He cautioned against balancing the budget

by funding recurring expenses with reserves when only $15.2 million was truly

available.

In response to Chairman Flescher, Administrator Titkanich noted that the total

General Fund for the Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) was $78,918,193.35

and that the unrestricted portion must comply with specific policies. For instance,

20% needed to be set aside for the unassigned fund balance, 5% for budget

stabilization, and another 5% for the emergency and disaster relief reserve. It was

important to note that the County was currently five storms behind in receiving

reimbursements from the state and federal governments, resulting in a negative balance

in one of those funds. Additionally, cash-forward budget amendments and Capital

Improvement Element (CIE) projects were being added to the MSTU. He stated the

available fund balance out of the total of $39.3 million was $21,589.71. He noted the

challenge for the Board was that they could not fund everything from the MSTU.

Commissioner Moss appreciated Mr. Tony Consalo’s suggestion to spend the six

million dollars already allocated and then take an additional six million from the

Reserve Fund, as previously discussed. She referred to Administrator Titkanich, who

explained that the Reserve Fund included all funds designated for specific purposes,

such as the Business Enterprise funds, Restricted funds, Utilities, and the Sand Ridge

Golf Course. At that time, the General Fund balance available was $15,226,936. If

they withdrew $6 million from this amount, they would have $9 million remaining. He

gave an example of a challenge in which the County used Reserves to balance the

Utility budget and had to recorrect the utility rates to avoid running out of Reserves by

2027.

Vice Chairman Loar stated that the theme of this overall budget was to raise deputies'

salaries to a competitive level, and he asked Administrator Titkanich for the

spreadsheet of numbers presented at the July Budget Workshop to determine the cost

of increasing deputies' salaries. He recalled the amount was $61,000 per deputy,

with an annual adjustment of $9,000 for each additional deputy, and a $3,500

adjustment for civilian employees.

Administrator Titkanich asked whether there was anything else the Board would want

to consider regarding the General Fund, and Commissioner Moss asked how long it

took the County to accumulate the $15 million currently in reserves. Chairman

Flescher requested a rough estimate of the time required to replenish reserves to $3

million, $6 million, and $12 million.

Administrator Titkanich, in response to Commissioner Moss, explained that the

scenario was highly hypothetical, as the County could not predict future changes in

property values or the overall outcome. He added that policies were enacted to

establish a rainy-day fund and stated that if an economic catastrophe occurred, the

County would be better prepared to weather the storm. He added that the reserves

should be only for one-time expenses or capital project costs.

Commissioner Adams reiterated that it was Business 101 that you do not use savings

accounts or reserves for recurring funding. She said that if the Board proceeded, it

would be prepared to increase the millage next year. The increase would need to

cover six million plus any additional amounts.

Commissioner Moss suggested allocating six million dollars from the reserve fund as a

one-time expense and being prepared to increase the millage rate next year,

understanding that this increase would need to cover the six million, plus any

additional costs.

Administrator Titkanich concluded that it was also essential to recognize that the

County was unlikely to see property tax reform until 2028. This reform would be

determined by voters, who were often the same individuals cheering for lower

property taxes.

The Chairman called a recess at 6:40 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:25 p.m.

with all members present.

County Administrator Titkanich displayed a spreadsheet of the Sheriff's office's

salaries and operating costs. He reminded the Board that whatever budget the Board

ultimately decided upon, staff had advertisements scheduled for September 17, 2025.

He pointed out that before the Board adjourns tonight’s meeting, the Board would

need to vote to adopt the exact amount, and staff would need to rebalance a $90

million budget so it could be advertised correctly. He referred to the spreadsheet of

deputies' starting salaries in other counties, noting it had been updated after the

Budget Workshop to include Polk County, and emphasized the average starting

salary for the Sheriff’s offices listed was $57,888.60. He presented a pay-raise

scenario that included all their benefits; the total was $6,079,920, as previously

explained. The $6,079,920 would be an option only if the Board decided to allocate

those funds specifically for that purpose. This amount would raise deputies' starting

salary to $60,000.

Vice Chairman Loar received confirmation from Administrator Titkanich that the

approximately $6.1 million increase would bring all the starting salaries to $60,000,

and give every uniformed, jail, courthouse, and road patrol employee a $9,381 raise.

Additionally, it would provide a $3,500 across-the-board raise for the 190 civilian

employees.

Commissioner Adams reiterated that the amount aligned with what the Board

approved during the Budget Workshop and appeared to meet the goals stated in the

Sheriff's budget presentation, which aimed to raise base pay and avoid compression

among the deputies.

In response to a question from Commissioner Moss about the time required to reach

$15 million in reserves, Administrator Titkanich stated that it ultimately depended on

the economic cycle. He pointed out that from 2013 to 2021, it took the County eight

years to reach the current point of increasing by $15 million. However, over the last

couple of years, it has taken only about two years due to strong tax collections. He

added that revenue was beginning to level off and had declined over the past three

years.

Commissioner Moss stated no one wanted to take from the Reserves, and it would

need to be replenished by increasing the millage next year. She liked the proposal to

retain the current funding in the General Fund and take the $6 million from the

Reserves, with the understanding that it was a one-time event and would require an

increase in the millage rate.

Administrator Titkanich pointed out that, whatever the millage rate increases to, it

would have to double the following year to cover the year in arrears and the year

ahead.

Administrator Titkanich brought up that he had requested budget information from the

Sheriff back in July 2025 to review the Sheriff’s operating costs and contracted

services, which accounted for a significant portion of the Sheriff’s budget. Although he

received pay spreadsheets for previous years that were helpful for their discussions, it

was crucial to examine the specific contracts. He noted that he had received the actual

contracts at 1:53 p.m. on Monday, September 8th, and had not yet had the

opportunity to review all of them. He stated that, out of a total of 63 contracts, he had

managed to review five.

Administrator Titkanich provided examples of contracts he had reviewed, highlighting

contracts in the Sheriff’s Proposed Budget compared to the previous year that he felt

were overstated.

Vice Chairman Loar made it clear that any increase in the millage rate would require a

vote from the Board. He sought clarification from Administrator Titkanich on what the

$6 million of the Sheriff’s $12 million request was earmarked for.

A discussion ensued with Chairman Flescher trying to recall whether the Board had

ever conducted this level of examination of any of the Constitutional Officers’

Budgets. Commissioner Adams, who reiterated her opposition to using reserves for

recurring funding, stated that they should only be used for capital projects and

one-time capital expenditures.

A motion was made by Commissioner Moss to approve $6 million from the

General Fund and $3 million from reserves. She intended it to be a one-time

event, not recurring funding, and acknowledged that it would involve a millage

increase next year. The motion failed for lack of second.

In response to the motion made by Commissioner Moss, Budget Director Kristen

Daniels stated that if the Board funds $3 million from cash, then it would need to be

made up in a millage increase the following year. She emphasized that this alone

would increase the millage rate. She explained that if the County saw another

decrease in revenue, and another 15% increase was requested next year, it would

exacerbate the millage rate. She wanted the Board to understand that these levels of

increases, with what staff were seeing in the economy, were not sustainable.

A discussion followed with Chairman Flescher expressing understanding that there

was significant risk in not knowing next year, but, that the Board needed to address

the needs expressed today. Commissioner Earman opposed funding the Sheriff’s

Budget from the Reserves. Vice Chairman Loar turned to Administrator Titkanich to

review the email sent from the Sheriff’s General Counsel. Administrator Titkanich

reviewed the letter in which the Sheriff asked to bring the following items to the

Board’s attention: 1) Florida Statute 30.49 says that if any Board takes any action to

amend, modify, increase, or reduce, the Board must notify the Sheriff of such action in

writing. Administrator Titkanich said in the same section that it also required the

Sheriff to provide, as part of his budget, all relevant and pertinent information that the

Board deemed necessary to evaluate.

The Vice Chairman also noted that, under Florida Statute 30.49, an increase in the

budget would constitute an amendment. The Board would be required to respond,

regardless of the outcome, in writing, as the County did every year.

Administrator Titkanich continued in the second bullet, which referenced Florida

Statute 901.35(2)(A), stating that the County was responsible for the payment of

inmate medical costs when the inmate was either unable to pay or recovery could not

be made from an inmate's health insurance. Over the years, the Sheriff had either

covered the high cost of inmate hospitalization in his budget or, in the last

approximately three years, arranged for his contracted medical provider to bear those

costs. Beginning October 1, 2025, the Sheriff would no longer accept responsibility

for inmate hospitalizations or medical costs outside of jail and would direct providers

to the County for payment in accordance with the aforementioned Statute.

Administrator Titkanich mentioned that the letter included a Memorandum of

Understanding concerning the maintenance of facilities to uphold the arrangement. He

highlighted that the inmate medical contract, one of the five he reviewed, amounted to

$4.2 million and covered off-site care provided by a contractor. This contract

specified a line item of $350,000 for off-site care and an additional $250,000 set

aside as a reserve in case the expenses exceeded these amounts.

Vice Chairman Loar further discussed the Sheriff’s Budget and emphasized that

relying on Reserve Fund dollars was neither a sound policy nor a practice. He

suggested that there were alternatives to this approach that did not require utilizing any

of the County’s fund balance dollars. One possible solution he mentioned was through

budget amendments. He noted that the Sheriff had utilized budget amendments in the

past. He added that the County’s AAA bond rating was crucial, and that the Board

must also consider the possibility of a catastrophic event in this County. There were

times when the County had to self-fund a crisis, whether natural or man-made,

because when such events occur, funding the response must be provided while

waiting for federal and state assistance, which can sometimes take years. Misusing the

County’s fund balance posed a risk. He suggested engaging decision-makers at the

Sheriff’s office to discuss amending the budget on an as-needed basis.

Administrator Titkanich reviewed through the Budget cuts to get the Sheriff’s budget

the additional $6.8 million, stating the County would eliminate the following: the new

Park Foreman position, a full-time maintenance worker in Parks, the guest services

attendant position for Jones’ Pier would be reduced to a part-time role, and a

full-time staff assistant on Conservation Lands (new position) was eliminated. There

was also a partial cost related to the Assistant Project Manager for Building Facility

Services, which was cut. A part-time Recreation Leader position was removed, and

funding for a senior maintenance worker crew leader in Road and Bridge was cut.

Recognizing that the County was developing a new framework for Animal Control

and animal sheltering, the County sought to reduce the Humane Society's annual

contract funding by $335,000. Funding for the Animal Services Division was reduced

by $729,828. Additionally, the Hospital District agreed to cover half of the Mental

Health Court costs, totaling about $250,000. When these cuts were taken into

account and added to the budget, along with the General Fund adjustments, the

reduction of the 911 surcharge, and the optional sales tax increase for capital, the total

was $6,852,364.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Loar, seconded by Commissioner Moss, to

approve the increase in the Sheriff's budget by $6,861,517 for a total of

$85,773,472. Through reducing $853,000 in necessary cuts to the General Fund in

lieu of going into the reserves, with the understanding that the Board would look

at the Inmate Medical Costs, and address any fiscal budget amendments as the

Sheriff saw fit. The motion carried by the following vote:

5 -

Aye:

Chairman Flescher, Vice Chairman Loar, Commissioner Adams, Commissioner

Earman, and Commissioner Moss

County Administrator John Titkanich announced the General Fund proposed millage

rate is 3.5475, 6.69% above the rolled back rate of 3.3250. The proposed budget is

$156,981,163.

A motion was made by Commissioner Adams, seconded by Commissioner Moss,

to adopt the tentative millage rate of 3.5475, 6.69% above the rolled-back rate of

3.3250. The motion carried by the following vote:

5 -

Aye:

Chairman Flescher, Vice Chairman Loar, Commissioner Adams, Commissioner

Earman, and Commissioner Moss

A motion was made by Commissioner Adams, seconded by Commissioner

Earman, to adopt the tentative budget of $156,981,193. The motion carried by the

following vote:

5 -

Aye:

Chairman Flescher, Vice Chairman Loar, Commissioner Adams, Commissioner

Earman, and Commissioner Moss

M.S.T.U.

25-0840

Proposed millage is 1.1506 and is 6.09% above rolled back rate of

1.0846. The proposed budget is $55,757,511.

Attachments: MSTU Fund

County Administrator John Titkanich stated the Municipal Service Taxing Unit

(MSTU) proposed millage rate is 1.1506 and is 6.09% above the rolled back rate of

1.0846. The MSTU proposed budget is $56,348,983.

Chairman Flescher opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the

Chairman closed the hearing.

There were no proposed amendments to the budget.

A motion was made by Commissioner Adams, seconded by Vice Chairman Loar,

to adopt the tentative millage rate of 1.1506, 6.09% above the rollback rate of

1.0846, for the Municipal Service Taxing Unit. The motion carried by the

following vote:

5 -

Aye:

Chairman Flescher, Vice Chairman Loar, Commissioner Adams, Commissioner

Earman, and Commissioner Moss

A motion was made by Commissioner Adams, seconded by Chairman Flescher,

to adopt the tentative budget in the amount of $56,348,983 for the Municipal

Service Taxing Unit. The motion carried by the following vote:

5 -

Aye:

Chairman Flescher, Vice Chairman Loar, Commissioner Adams, Commissioner

Earman, and Commissioner Moss

Transportation Fund

25-0841

Proposed budget is $27,075,755.

Attachments: Transportation

County Administrator John Titkanich announed the proposed Transporation Fund

budget is $27,075,755.

Chairman Flescher opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the

Chairman closed the hearing.

There were no proposed amendments to the budget.

A motion was made by Commissioner Adams, seconded by Commissioner Moss,

to approve the tentative budget of $27,075,755 for the Transportation Fund. The

motion carried by the following vote:

5 -

Aye:

Chairman Flescher, Vice Chairman Loar, Commissioner Adams, Commissioner

Earman, and Commissioner Moss

Emergency Services District

25-0842

Proposed millage is 2.3531 and is 6.25% above rolled back rate of

2.2147. The proposed budget is $73,585,471.

Attachments: Emergency Services

County Administrator John Titkanich announced the Emergency Services District

proposed millage is 2.3531 and is 6.25% above rolled back rate of 2.2147. The

proposed budget is $73,585.471.

Chairman Flescher opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the

Chairman closed the hearing.

There were no proposed amendments to the budget.

A motion was made by Commissioner Moss, seconded by Commissioner Adams,

to adopt the tentative millage rate of 2.3531, 6.25% above the rolled back rate of

2.2147 for the Emergency Services District. The motion carried by the following

vote:

5 -

Aye:

Chairman Flescher, Vice Chairman Loar, Commissioner Adams, Commissioner

Earman, and Commissioner Moss

A motion was made by Commissioner Moss, seconded by Chairman Flescher, to

adopt the tentative budget in the amount of $73,585,471 for the Emergency

Services District. The motion carried by the following vote:

5 -

Aye:

Chairman Flescher, Vice Chairman Loar, Commissioner Adams, Commissioner

Earman, and Commissioner Moss

Land Acquisition Bonds-2024

25-0843 Proposed millage is 0.0610. The proposed budget is $1,843,432.

Attachments: Land Acquisition

County Administrator John Titkanich announced the proposed millage is 0.0610, and

the Land Acquisition budget is $1,843,432.

Chairman Flescher opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the Chairman

closed the hearing.

There were no proposed amendments to the budget.

A motion was made by Commissioner Moss, seconded by Commissioner Adams,

to adopt the tentative millage rate of 0.0610 for the Land Acquisition Bonds 2024

Referendum. The motion carried by the following vote:

5 -

Aye:

Chairman Flescher, Vice Chairman Loar, Commissioner Adams, Commissioner

Earman, and Commissioner Moss

A motion was made by Commissioner Moss, seconded by Commissioner Adams

to adopt the tentative budget in the amount of $1,843,432 for the Land Acquisition

Bonds 2024 Referendum. The motion carried by the following vote:

5 -

Aye:

Chairman Flescher, Vice Chairman Loar, Commissioner Adams, Commissioner

Earman, and Commissioner Moss

Aggregate

25-0891

Proposed millage is 6.1158 and is 6.47% above rolled back rate of

5.7442.

County Administrator John Titkanich announced that the proposed aggregate millage

is 6.1158 and is 6.47% above the rolled back rate of 5.7442. The rate is used for

comparison purposes and does not require adoption by the Board.

Chairman Flescher opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the

Chairman closed the hearing.

No Action Taken or Required

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened as the Board of Commissioners of

the Solid Waste Disposal District. The minutes will be approved at an upcoming

meeting.

6. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

SITTING AS SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT BOARD

25-0844

Solid Waste Disposal District Budget (Non-Ad Valorem Special District)

Attachments: SWDD

SWDD Resolution

SWDD FAR (Final Assessment Resolution)

A. Announce 2025/2026 Proposed Charge and Budget

1. Universal Collection Assessment $181.70

2. $125.06 per Residential Waste Generation Unit ($187.59/House)

(15.00% increase from current year)

$79.12 per Commercial Waste Generation Unit

(15.00% increase from current year)

Readiness-to-Use Fee $46.62

(15.70% increase from current year)

3. $42,047,435 Budget

County Administrator John Titkanich outlined the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-2026 Solid

Waste Disposal District (SWDD) proposed charges. The proposed budget was

$42,047,435. He stated that the County Attorney has received objection letters

regarding the Universal Collection Assessment and has provided them to the Clerk.

Chairman Flescher opened the public hearing.

Madeleine Szabo felt the Universal Collection Service was costly, wasteful, and

unfair.

Daniel Hardee, representing Highridge Mobile Home Park, discussed his commitment

to providing affordable housing in Gifford but said he could no longer afford to pay for

tenants' waste removal and would have to pass the increased assessment cost to the

tenants. SWDD Managing Director Himanshu Mehta offered to have Waste

Management contact Mr. Hardee to conduct a site visit and review dumpster options.

Myra Ferguson, who owned Ferguson rental properties on the entire street except

one house, felt that utilizing a dumpster versus individual trash service would be more

economical and expressed concern about the high cost of the Universal Trash

Service, which left her with no choice but to pass those costs on to tenants who could

barely afford their rent. Mr. Mehta explained that a dumpster would not be allowed

because the rental properties were on separate parcels, not a single parcel.

Daniel Linden preferred using the Convenience Center and did not want curbside

pickup.

Donna Flaherty discussed the financial strain of the Universal Trash Assessment and

the size of the bins. Mr. Mehta offered to review her case and told her about a

Waste Management service called a back-door service, which required a physician’s

note.

Darrae Norling opposed Universal Trash Service.

Bob Ryall discussed the burden that Universal Trash pickup was having in the planned

development where he lived. He also read a letter from a member of his community

opposing the Universal Collection Service. Mr. Mehta explained to the Board that

WM was working with communities with mixed uses, such as villas and single-family

homes, that had applied for an exemption out of carted bins for the villas but were

trying to get the bins out to those in single-family homes.

Bill Rigby received clarification from Mr. Mehta that the County required WM’s

subcontractor to scan the container's serial number and connect it to an address. Mr.

Mehta stated that if the containers were dropped off on a vacant piece of property, it

was a mistake, and that only improved residential properties would be charged the

Solid Waste assessment. In response to a protest submitted by Mr. Rigby regarding

portions of the bid for trash collection, County Attorney Jennifer Shuler offered to

arrange a meeting with Mr. Rigby.

Jonathan Clint stated that he has a large property and uses a dumpster for his yard

waste, which was picked up weekly. He did not need the Universal Collection

Service. Mr. Mehta explained that the County had no mechanism to exclude

properties from the uniform assessment.

Kristin Goldberg supported the Universal Trash Service.

There being no further speakers, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Moss stated for the record that she was opposed to Universal

Collection Service from the beginning and has not changed her position.

A motion was made by Commissioner Adams, seconded by Chairman Flescher,

to approve Resolution 2025-041, establishing the assessment rate to be levied

upon all real taxable property in Indian River County, Florida, for Fiscal Year

2025-2026 for the Solid Waste Disposal District. The motion carried by the

following vote:

4 -

Aye:

Nay:

Chairman Flescher, Vice Chairman Loar, Commissioner Adams, and Commissioner

Earman

1 - Commissioner Moss

A motion by Commissioner Adams, seconded by Chairman Flescher, the Board

adopted Resolution 2025-042, relating to the management and collection of Solid

Waste Collection Assessments in the Indian River County Municipal Service

Benefit Unit for Solid Waste Collection Services; providing authority, definitions

and interpretation; imposing Solid Waste Collection Assessments against

residential property located within the Indian River County Municipal Service

Benefit Unit for Solid Waste Collection Services for the fiscal year beginning

October 1, 2025; approving the assessment roll and providing for collection of the

assessments; confirming the initial assessment resolution; providing for effect

and application of the assessment proceeds; providing for conflict and

severability; and providing an effective date. The motion carried by the

following vote:

4 -

Aye:

Nay:

Chairman Flescher, Vice Chairman Loar, Commissioner Adams, and Commissioner

Earman

1 - Commissioner Moss

A motion was made by Commissioner Adams, seconded by Chairman Flescher,

to adopt the budget in the amount of $42,047,435 for the Solid Waste Disposal

District. The motion carried by the following vote:

4 -

Aye:

Nay:

Chairman Flescher, Vice Chairman Loar, Commissioner Adams, and Commissioner

Earman

1 - Commissioner Moss

The Board of Commissioners adjourned the Solid Waste Disposal District hearing,

and reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners of the Preliminary Budget

Hearing meeting, continuing with the adoption of Non-Ad Valorem Assessment

charges.

7. ADOPTION OF NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT CHARGES

25-0845

Attachments: Non Ad Valorem Assessments

Waters Edge FAR

A. Announce 2025/2026 proposed charge for each Non-Ad Valorem Assessment District.

County Administrator John Titkanich announced the proposed charge for the Vero

Lake Estates Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU) was $50.00 per parcel

acre/lot, the East Gifford Stormwater MSBU was $10.00 per parcel acre/lot, the

Water's Edge Phase II Subdivision (MSBU) was $454.57 per parcel acre/lot, and

the North County Water Assessment was $283.22 per parcel acre/lot.

County Administrator Titkanich stated the County Attorney has received some

objection letters and has provided them to the Clerk.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Loar, seconded by Commissioner Adams,

to approve Resolution 2025-043, establishing the assessment rates to be levied

upon certain Real Property in Indian River County for the Fiscal Year 2025-2026

for all the Non-Ad Valorem assessments. The motion carried by the following

vote:

5 -

Aye:

Chairman Flescher, Vice Chairman Loar, Commissioner Adams, Commissioner

Earman, and Commissioner Moss

The Chairman opened the public hearing.

Allison Giordano, President of Water’s Edge Homeowner's Association, addressed

the Board regarding an upcoming assessment of $454 per homeowner per year for

15 years. The development consists of 86 homes in total. She was in procession of a

letter from their attorney that presented strong arguments, supported by Case Law

and State Statutes, explaining why the homeowners should not bear the full

assessment. She continued, the issue involved a road crossing over a culvert, which

affected not only the homeowners in Water’s Edge but also those living along First

Street Southwest. Therefore, the assessment should not be assigned solely to the

residents of Water’s Edge.

Ms. Giordano reported that the total assessment of $537,000 included an $80,000

contingency discussed during the August 12th meeting, of which very little had been

used. She informed the Board that an email indicated at least $60,000 represented a

cost savings. Consequently, the numbers they received should be adjusted

downwards by these amounts.

Ms. Giordano referenced an email that was taken out of context, highlighting that

Water’s Edge acknowledged their awareness of the County's plans to construct the

culvert and understood there would be some form of assessment on their properties.

However, they never agreed to be solely assessed, nor to the amount of the

assessment. Additionally, she mentioned an email from Dylan Reingold, dated

December 16, 2022, at 4:15 p.m. In that email, he stated that there was funding

available to replace the culverts at both entranceways to Water’s Edge, as well as

those that crossed First Street Southwest. However, he emphasized that an

agreement needed to be established first. At that time, the County Attorney indicated

that there was money allocated in the budget. She pointed out that on the same day,

former Public Works Director Rich Szpyrka stated that the County was not

responsible for addressing issues outside of the pipe replacement under the

driveways. This suggested to the residents that the pipes under the driveways, which

were public roads maintained by the County (as they were turned over in 2006), were

indeed the County's responsibility. The culverts at these two entrances were also the

County's responsibility, yet the residents were being assessed for them. She explained

that once the project was completed, the County would assume responsibility for the

maintenance of those culverts going forward. If the County planned to take over this

responsibility in the future, the residents questioned why they were not doing so at that

time.

Assistant County Attorney Chris Hicks addressed the Board, explaining that for the

assessment, the County must propose the highest amount possible. However, this

figure would be adjusted once they receive the final amount. It is projected that the

final amount would exceed $60,000, although this was not guaranteed; it remains a

projection. The precise figure would only be known once they obtain the final

numbers from the contractor.

A discussion occurred among Ms. Giordano, Board members, and Attorney Hicks

regarding the Water's Edge assessment notices, email correspondence, and the

transition of the roads in Water's Edge to the County. Commissioner Adams stated

that today’s hearing was the final step in the process of finalizing the assessment for

the tax bill.

Kristin Goldberg reached out to Attorney Hicks for clarification regarding previous

communications with the Water’s Edge Board about the Assessment.

Christine Pokorney, representing her mother, Sun Pokorney, a resident of Water’s

Edge, read a letter expressing concerns about the proposed special assessment.

William Papko opined that the County owned the culvert and should be responsible

for replacing the pipe.

There being no further speakers, the Chairman closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Moss requested Attorney Hicks to send the link for the Special Call

Meeting on August 12, 2025, to the Water’s Edge Homeowner Association.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Loar, seconded by Commissioner Adams,

to approve Resolution 2025-044, relating to the construction and funding of the

culvert replacement project within the Water’s Edge Phase II Subdivision culvert

replacement project Municipal Service Benefit Unit; providing authority,

definitions and interpretation; creating the Water’s Edge Phase II Subdivision

culvert replacement project Municipal Service Benefit Unit; confirming the initial

assessment resolution; imposing special assessments against all assessed

property within the Water’s Edge Phase II Subdivision culvert replacement

project Municipal Service Benefit Unit; approving the assessment roll and

providing for collection; providing for prepayments; providing for application of

assessment proceeds; providing for effect; providing for recording of the notice of

assessment; providing for conflicts and severability; and providing an effective

date. The motion carried by the following vote:

5 -

Aye:

Chairman Flescher, Vice Chairman Loar, Commissioner Adams, Commissioner

Earman, and Commissioner Moss

Commissioner Earman read into the record the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 proposed

charge for each Non-Ad Valorem Assessment District for Street Lighting.

Chairman Flescher opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the

Chairman closed the hearing.

There were no proposed amendments to the budget.

A motion was made by Commissioner Earman, seconded by Commissioner Moss,

to adopt the tentative charges read into the record for each of the Non-Ad

Valorem Assessment Districts for Street Lighting. The motion carried by the

following vote:

5 -

Aye:

Chairman Flescher, Vice Chairman Loar, Commissioner Adams, Commissioner

Earman, and Commissioner Moss

8. APPROVE NON-AD VALOREM DOLLAR BUDGETS

A. Announce 2025/2026 Proposed Budget

25-0846

1. Special Revenue Funds - $48,803,821

Attachments: Special Revenue

25-0847

2. Other Debt Service Fund - $500,000

Attachments: Debt Service

25-0848

3. Capital Projects - $54,295,004

Attachments: Capital Projects

25-0849

4. Enterprise Funds - $79,981,565

Attachments: Enterprise Funds

25-0850

5. Internal Service Funds - $57,398,185

Attachments: Internal Services

County Administrator John Titkanich outlined the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 proposed

Non-Ad Valorem dollar budgets.

Chairman Flescher opened the public hearing. There being no speakers, the

Chairman closed the hearing.

There were no proposed amendments to the budget.

A motion was made by Commissioner Adams, seconded by Commissioner Moss,

to adopt the tentative Non-Ad Valorem Dollar Budgets for the Special Revenue

Funds, Other Debt Service Funds, Capital Project Funds, Enterprise Funds, and

Internal Service Funds. The motion carried by the following vote:

5 -

Aye:

Chairman Flescher, Vice Chairman Loar, Commissioner Adams, Commissioner

Earman, and Commissioner Moss

9. ANNOUNCE TIME AND PLACE OF FINAL BUDGET HEARING

County Administrator John Titkanich announced that the Final Budget Hearing would

be held at 5:01 p.m. on Wednesday, September 17, 2025, at the County

Administration Building A, Commission Chambers, 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach,

Florida.

10. ADJOURN

There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.