Board of County Commissioners- Informal Meeting (2025-03-11)

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Informal Meeting March 11, 2025 Convened: 9:00 AM Adjourned: 11:32 AM 1. CALL TO ORDER - JAMIE FOWLER, CHAIR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS The meeting was called to order at 9:00 AM by Chair Jamie Fowler, District No. 4. Present Commissioner Jamie Fowler District 4, Commissioner Larry Leet District 2, Commissioner James Clasby District 1, Commissioner Erin Lowry District 3, Commissioner Cathy Townsend District 5 Also Present Dan McIntyre, County Attorney George Landry, County Administrator Mayte Santamaria, Deputy County Administrator Jason Davis, Deputy County Administrator Benjamin Balcer, Planning & Development Services Director Michael Jerrahian, County Building Official Monica Graziani, Building & Code Regulation Manager Kristi Wong, Director of Human Resources Jennifer Hill, Office of Budget Management & Budget Director Sydney Halleran, Agenda Coordinator Vera Smith, Deputy Clerk Recording Secretary 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Community Rating System (CRS) Class Improvement and Floodplain Standards - ATTACHMENT AMENDED Benjamin Balcer, Planning & Development Services Director, Michael Jerrahian, Building Official, and Del Schwalls, of Schwalls Consulting LLC, presented the Board with an overview of the County’s role in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and Community Rating System (CRS). In the last year, the county’s CRS rating has gone from Class 6 to Class 5, which has saved residents money on flood insurance premiums. Michael Jerrahian, Building Official, provided a high-level overview of the NFIP and CRS programs. He

BOCC Informal Meeting Tuesday, March 11, 2025 9:00 AM 2 | P a g e explained the NFIP as a federally subsidized damage insurance program managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Communities must implement floodplain management regulations to participate in the NFIP. Currently, only 469 of 478 Florida communities participate in the NFIP program. NFIP encourages communities to adopt floodplain management regulations to prevent and reduce the risk of flooding and assist in reducing the financial impacts of flooding. He advised that the two main types of flooding areas are Riverine Systems and Coastal Systems, based on flood zones and elevations. In participation in the NFIP, FEMA identifies Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), and insurance is mandatory for structures within these areas with federally backed mortgages. SFHA has a 1% chance of being flooded in any given year and is known as the 100-year flood. Some of the SFHA zones in the County include A, AE, AH, AO, and VE, and LiMWA (Coastal A) within the Coastal SFHA. Also includes zones X and X-shaded (X-500), which are moderate to low-risk zones, and outside the SFHA. When participating in the NFIP, there is the voluntary CRS program which allows the communities to adopt higher regulations than the NFIP minimum. In return, it provides discounts based on the class rating that the community has put into it, such as public outreach, mapping, building regulations, flood damage reduction/mitigation, stormwater maintenance, and disaster preparedness. The ratings range from 1 to 9, with Class 1 being the highest discount of 45% on flood insurance premiums and Class 9 being the lowest, starting at a 5% discount. St. Lucie County is currently in Class 5, offering a 25% discount on flood insurance premiums. The CRS ratings are determined based on a five-year audit basis. Once Class 5 is reached, the audit basis drops to a three-year audit period and activities and regulations are monitored. There are certifications each year with elevation certificates to show management of the floodplain activities. Currently, there are 6,049 NFIP policies in the unincorporated County area in place with a total premium of $2.7 million, reflecting the 25% discount. Without the discount, the County would be at a total premium of $3.6 million. With the flood plain management efforts and the Class 5 rating, County residents save over $900,000 annually on premiums. Some of the terms regarding flooding are Base Flood Elevation (BFE), the height the water is expected to rise during the 100-year flood, and Freeboard, the 1 ft. above base flood elevation. Many communities enforce structures to be built 2-3 ft. above BFE, as a higher regulatory standard for points to allow the class rating to go down. Del Schwalls, of Schwalls Consulting LLC, and Floodplain consultant provided an overview of various options to the Board to improve the County’s flood resilience and CRS rating. He advised that the NFIP is voluntary, and with the Florida Building Code, most of the voluntary measures are mandatory. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) goal is to implement higher standards. FEMA maps are the bare minimum and are used to establish and justify the flood insurance they provide. The CRS program is the way FEMA awards communities for going above and beyond. The recommendations include increasing the freeboard elevation and implementing flood protection in adjacent areas. Also includes the 500-year flood zone and the areas beyond that are below the freeboard elevation, Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL). The recommendations include regulating Coastal-A Zones as V Zones, non-conversion agreements, and flood map changes. There are loopholes in FEMA’s flood map program that may hinder the flood management plan and risk reduction in general. There will be a review of the elimination of the Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA)/Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-F) Regulatory Loophole and codifying of the federal requirements for map prevision in the local code. The recommendation of Freeboard is to go from the Florida bare minimum of 1 ft. above to 3 ft. above the BFE +3ft., which is the highest level of credit for CRS but for new construction only. As a coastal community, there are some risks, with the Army Corps of Engineers and most technical agencies recommending 3 ft. above the BFE. The BFE is the statistical elevation that a flood has a 1% chance of reaching. A property that may sustain damage

BOCC Informal Meeting Tuesday, March 11, 2025 9:00 AM 3 | P a g e and require a rebuild may trigger the 50% FEMA rule. Anyone compliant with the current regulations meets the Freeboard, which would have no effect. There is a current rule being challenged: the federal flood risk management standard established over the last 10 years, that requires HUD-backed mortgages would need 2 ft. of freeboard as of January 1, 2025. If they are not above 2 ft. BFE cannot access the HUD- backed mortgage, which is 25% of all mortgage options. The rule has been placed on suspension temporarily. The impact may be 275 points, and every class is 500 points. Every 500 points earn an extra 5% discount. Mr. Schwalls discussed the enforcement of the same flood levels (500-yr/100-yr) and standards as in the SFHA, consistent flood protection, CCCL standards, and CRS credit increase adjustment factors. He advised that the flood plains are a natural area that gets wet when they flood, and the flood zone is a map that has regulatory implications. He recommended placing consistent Flood Plain regulations in the CCCL. He recommended regulating the Coastal A Zone as a V Zone. The V Zone has waves over 3ft., and Coastal A has 1.5 ft. to 3 ft. so the recommendation would be to enforce them the same way except for the back- filled stem (concrete) wall. He mentioned codifying the regulation to get extra credit for a 5% discount on the Flood Insurance Program, providing a benefit to the residents. He explained the concept of non- conversion agreements to prevent illegal activities in flood zones. When building a home within a flood zone, anything below the bottom/flood level cannot be a habitable space, per federal and building codes. The space can only be used for parking, storage, and access. These agreements inform current and future property owners about the flood risk and legal requirements. The benefit to the County includes 30 to 90 points depending on inspections, reducing future flood risk, eliminating FEMA violations, and preventing illegal conversions. He highlighted the importance of recording these agreements in the deed to ensure compliance. He mentioned several Florida communities have been sanctioned recently for not enforcing the rules and have been removed from the CRS program. He discussed the process of obtaining a LOMA/LOMR-F to remove flood zone designations and the challenges of inconsistent regulations in Florida. He advised that LOMA/LOMR-F are approved based on the BFE. With the LOMR requirements, it is a federal requirement when development is permitted in the flood zone that modifies the flood risk, such as altering channels, bridges, or adding culverts. The County must update the flood maps based on the project. Mr. Schwalls advised that local regulations often lack enforcement mechanisms, leading to issues when FEMA later requires updates. He suggested codifying the regulations in local government laws to ensure compliance and avoid future problems with FEMA. He mentioned the need for developers to agree to update flood maps post-project completion as part of their development agreements. This approach helps avoid problems with FEMA and informs residents of new flood risks. Also, it does not add new requirements but provides local authorities with the means to enforce existing regulations. In closing, he advised of the importance of having tools and mechanisms to comply with federal regulations related to flood maps and development. Commissioner Leet commented on the construction costs and asked for the approximate cost of construction or additional fill to raise the development to 3 ft. instead of 1 ft. In response, Mr. Schwalls addressed the misinformation regarding the additional block on the foundation costing $100,000, clarifying that the actual expense is not that high. He is unsure of the precise number regarding the cost but will follow up with the Board with the correct information. Commissioner Leet also inquired about the timeframe for the credits to take effect if the text changes are approved. In response, Mr. Schwalls stated that the CRS score can be updated once a year. Once there are

BOCC Informal Meeting Tuesday, March 11, 2025 9:00 AM 4 | P a g e enough points, they can be submitted to FEMA for approval. The advantage is that the County is currently Class 5, and to transition to Class 4, the new information must be submitted to FEMA. Chair Fowler asked about communities that require structures to be built 2-3 ft. above the BFE and whether they are located on the Treasure Coast. In response, Mr. Schwalls mentioned that the information is tricky to track; FEMA holds the records and accessing them can be difficult. The Florida Floodplain Managers Association is working to compile the standards. Currently, he is aware that Fernandina Beach has a 2 ft. Freeboard, while Anna Maria Island has a 3-6 ft. Freeboard in their community, along with Monroe County, which also has a 3 ft. Freeboard. Commissioner Clasby asked if the CRS improvement plan had been presented to the Treasure Coast Builder’s Association. In response, Mr. Balcer advised, no, that the presentation was just a preliminary discussion for the Board's feedback on moving forward. Mr. Clasby also commented on construction costs, affordable housing, LOMR rules, and the balance between resiliency and affordability. Mr. Balcer clarified the discussion was regarding areas within the special flood hazard area, and there are no plans to place affordable housing developments within those areas. These are beachside communities along Ten Mile Creek, Five Mile Creek, etc. Commissioner Clasby clarified that his initial comment did not suggest adding affordable housing to the barrier islands. The Board and staff discussed flood zones, class ratings, construction cost, flood insurance, freeboard requirements, raising the height on the barrier islands, affordable housing, refining regulations, professional input from contractors, FEMA, Treasure Coast Builders Association, the importance of engaging the public, the potential benefits/discounts for residents, and the importance of having regulations in place. After discussion, a consensus was made to move forward and codify what is already in place. Staff will follow up with the Board and provide more information on the program and potential next steps. B. Code Enforcement Board Follow-Up Monica Graziani, Building & Code Regulation Manager, and Benjamin Balcer, Planning and Development Services Director presented the Board with a follow-up discussion request regarding research on code enforcement practices in communities that utilize Special Magistrates and/or Code Enforcement Boards. Research has been conducted and surveyed in 46 communities, half of cities and counties, with 80% using Special Magistrate for Code Enforcement procedures. Except for two counties, Volusia and Collier, which use both. The survey included surrounding municipalities adjacent to St. Lucie County, within the Treasure Coast, and beyond. The majority within the Treasure Coast that utilize a Special Magistrate include Martin County, St. Lucie Village, Okeechobee County, Palm Beach County, and Indian River County, which utilizes Code Enforcement. Collier County utilizes a Code Enforcement Board for nuisance abatement, addressing issues such as prostitution and substance abuse. However, this board does not handle typical enforcement tasks, such as high grass, unsecured swimming pools, or unpermitted structures, as it serves a different purpose. Instead, the Collier County Special Magistrate manages issues related to high grass, abandoned vehicles, outdoor storage, etc. Volusia County utilizes both methods, with the Code Enforcement Board being the same as the County and Special Magistrate, dealing with cases involving lighting violations, irrigation, and exploring adding towing issues.

BOCC Informal Meeting Tuesday, March 11, 2025 9:00 AM 5 | P a g e Ms. Graziani presented the Board with four options for consideration for residential and commercial cases, including maintaining the current operations with Code Enforcement handling all cases, using a Special Magistrate for all cases, or having the Code Enforcement Board handle residential cases while the Special Magistrate handles commercial and industrial case violations. Also, under consideration is the possibility of increasing daily fines for violations, The current fines are $250 per day are capped at $5,000 for residential violations and $10,000 for commercial or industrial violations. The County has many unpermitted businesses that fail to obtain and follow the proper channels for complying with land development regulations, obtaining the necessary zoning compliance, or business tax licenses. Staff requested the Board to consider a policy directive on eliminating the ‘cap’ on commercial/industrial code violations to deter businesses from opening without approvals for zoning, building, fire, and a current business tax license. Commissioner Townsend expressed concerns about penalizing property owners and tenants unfairly, and the legal responsibility of property owners for tenant fines and violations if the property owner is unaware of the tenant's business practices beyond the agreement of the signed lease. In response, Ms. Graziani advised that the property owner and tenant are taken to the Board, and violations can be against both parties. A tenant can also have a lien on the property that they own. She advised the property owner is always the responsible party, they have full authority to either evict the tenant, and if they choose not to, they will be liable. If the tenant is evicted and moves out, the property owner abates the violation. Commissioner Townsend also expressed concern regarding the Code Enforcement Board members and suggested the Board should be citizen-led to ensure accountability and fairness. She feels the current board members are not performing their duties effectively and suggested term limits on board positions/appointees. She stated that a special magistrate would be great for the commercial side to ensure laws are followed. Chair Fowler commented and suggested the Special Magistrate handle all cases and the need for term limits for Code Enforcement Board members and a better understanding of their duties. Commissioner Leet stated that the Special Magistrate handles all cases. He mentioned that the magistrate could significantly reduce the number of cases due to individuals understanding the law versus what they can get away with, but compassion needs to be taken into consideration in some of the cases. Commissioner Lowry commented and agreed with the Special Magistrate that it would make things go smoothly and be taken more seriously. Also, the maximum of $10,000 for commercial violations is nothing and the cap should be removed. Commissioner Clasby commented that he favors the Special Magistrate replacing the whole Code Enforcement Board. He stated that staff advised him that the violation cap was artificial, and the Code Enforcement Board enforced its cap amount. In response, Ms. Graziani confirmed that the Code Enforcement Board sets its violation cap on the staff's recommendation and is not inclined to impose harsh penalties. Mr. Clasby advised that he is in favor of either option, and also commented on the term limits of code board members. Mayte Santamaria, Deputy County Administrator, and Mr. Balcer commented on the Code Enforcement Board term limits and advised that there are four-year terms but differ with At-Large serving only two

BOCC Informal Meeting Tuesday, March 11, 2025 9:00 AM 6 | P a g e terms consecutively. The appointed positions can serve as many as the commissioner allows. Term limits could be set by the will of the Board. Ms. Santamaria clarified the Board's general support for all Special Magistrates, eliminating the term limits for the Code Enforcement Board, and other boards could be reviewed at the direction of the Board. Commissioner Townsend suggested that the transition to Special Magistrate should be a phased approach, starting with commercial cases, and then residential cases. She would like to continue with the Code Enforcement Board for now as residents need a year's notice for the changes. Ms. Santamaria advised that the transition would require code amendments to implement the Special Magistrate system, and there would not be an immediate change. The process may take time for a clear, effective date for the transition to avoid confusion. Mr. Clasby inquired about the meeting process for Code Enforcement and the Special Magistrate. In response, Ms. Santamaria advised that, depending on the implementation, there would be one meeting with the Special Magistrate, and if both are involved, there would be two separate meetings, with one for residential and one for non-residential. Commissioner Townsend commented and advised staff to advertise as needed to implement the changes. She suggested that for the remainder of the year, the Special Magistrate would handle commercial matters and the Code Enforcement Board for residential. Starting January 1, 2026, all cases will be managed by the Special Magistrate. In response, Ms. Santamaria advised that the process may take a couple of months to complete with the code amendments for the Special Magistrate to handle commercial for the remainder of the year, and in January all cases will be transitioned for the phased approach. George Landry, the County Administrator, clarified that all proposed language changes will be presented to the Board through the public process, with an “as soon as possible” date for commercial cases to be handled by the Special Magistrate. The language will also include an effective date for the residential cases later as determined by the Board. Commissioner Leet commented that he would like to keep the option open for the Code Enforcement Board, just in case, at the end of the year, the best way to go is with both the Special Magistrate and the Code Enforcement Board. In response, Commissioner Townsend advised that the option cannot be left open due to the changes within the code. It would need to be done now, otherwise the other direction would not be in effect on January 1, 2026. In response, Ms. Santamaria advised that if not, a second text amendment would be needed to go back. Commissioner Leet withdrew the statement. The Board and staff discussed the need for better enforcement of business licensing, term limits of board members, code amendments, transition/phased process, and implementation of the Special Magistrate. In conclusion, the Board agreed on a phased transition, starting with commercial cases under the Special Magistrate while maintaining the Code Enforcement Board for residential cases for the remainder of the year, and on January 1, 2026, all cases will be overseen by the Special Magistrate.

BOCC Informal Meeting Tuesday, March 11, 2025 9:00 AM 7 | P a g e C. Community Participation Meetings for Certain Development Applications Benjamin Balcer, Planning & Development Services (PDS) Director, presented the Board with a follow-up discussion request regarding a potential amendment to the Land Development Code (LDC) to require neighborhood meetings for certain development applications. Staff researched other jurisdictions and found that some require community participation or neighborhood meetings before development applications progress to the first public hearing. If the Board chooses to move forward with the text amendment, it will mandate community participation meetings for Planned Development Applications (PUD, PNRD, PMUD), Conditional Use Permits (CUPs), and Major Adjustments, and Development Agreements. These applications generally require a site plan and are reviewed by the Board during Quasi- Judicial public hearings. This process allows input from applicants and residents, facilitating the adoption of approval conditions to ensure the compatibility and design of projects. These application types differ from straight rezoning applications. The site plan is not required at that stage and is not subject to review of the application. The recommended application types also differ from major site plans, which are reviewed for compliance with the standards that are adopted in the LDC. Those items are heard as Regular Agenda items before the Board, and if a major site plan meets the code requirements, the Board has little ability to require deviations. Staff drafted general guidelines for consideration if the Board decides to proceed with the text amendment, including: • Requiring the applicant to coordinate with PDS staff on the date, time, and location of the meeting.  The meeting must be held on a weekday evening at a location close to the project site.  The meeting must take place between 20–60 days before the 1 st public hearing on the application. • The applicant must provide a mailed notice to all surrounding property owners at least 15 days before the meeting notifying them of the upcoming meeting. • The applicant must pay for the mailed notice and provide proof to PDS staff. • The meeting must be facilitated by the applicant or their representative and PDS staff must be invited to attend as an observer. Staff requested the Board’s directions on whether to move forward. Commissioner Townsend commented on the importance of neighborhood meetings, for developer’s proposals within District 5. She also inquired if mailed notices are sent 1,000 ft. or 500 ft. away from the site. In response, Mr. Balcer advised generally the applicant requests a mailing list from PDS, and a 500 ft. radius address list is provided as PDS also sends out notices. If the Board requests something different, it could be included in the text amendment. Chair Fowler expressed concern regarding proper notification and late notices in instances of rezoning. Commissioner Leet commented and supported the text amendment and asked the Board to increase mailed notification from 500 ft. to 1,000 ft. In response, the Board advised that for certain areas 1,000 ft. would be okay, but it is generally 500 ft. Commissioner Clasby expressed the importance of formalizing the process to ensure all developers follow the same rules for neighborhood meetings. He commented on the 500 ft. to 1,000 ft. mailed notice requirements and suggested that, in addition to the 500 ft., there should be a minimum that states 500 ft.

BOCC Informal Meeting Tuesday, March 11, 2025 9:00 AM 8 | P a g e or a minimum of 20 non-commercial contacts to be invited to the meetings. Commissioner Leet agreed, and Mr. Balcer advised that every project would be different. The Board and staff discussed the mandate of neighborhood meetings, the importance of timely notification requirements, the challenges of last-minute changes, clear parameters/increasing notification, and the distance requirement for meetings to be held. The Board came to a consensus to increase the notification radius to 1000 ft., to require mandatory participation. Mayte Santamaria, Deputy County Administrator, clarified the recommended permit types and presented Planned Development applications (PUD, PNRD, PMUD), Conditional Use Permits (CUPs), and Major Adjustments and Development Agreements. Commissioner Clasby proposed adding future land use changes to the recommended list as they fit the criteria to make an impact versus a straight rezoning. In response, Mr. Balcer advised that the staff could explore the possibility of incorporating the suggestion. However, he cautioned that at the land-use stage, there is no end-user or site plan to consider, and the public would need additional information to understand what is being proposed which would not be available at the future land-use stage. Ms. Santamaria added they would still get notice in terms of future land use. The Board and staff further discussed Commissioner Clasby’s suggestion, clear guidelines for future land use changes, and the potential impacts of including future land use changes. Staff were directed to gather information/facts regarding future land use amendments for Board review/consideration. The consensus remains to increase the notification radius to 1000 ft., and the requirement of mandatory participation. D. Health Services Discussion - ITEM ADDED Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, presented the Board with a follow-up discussion request regarding the upcoming process for an RFP/RFQ for County health programs. The Board discussed the data needed from the providers before the special meeting to continue providing services. The discussion is in fairness to potential applicants due to the costs and expenses of preparing a response to the RFP/RFQ if the Board is not interested in moving forward. The Board has a special informal meeting scheduled for April 15, 2025, to discuss the County programs including Florida Blue, MyHealth Onsite Clinic, and the Regenerative Medical Group (RMG). There is no prepared data at this point and staff have requested the Board's direction on necessary key points to gather. Commissioner Townsend stated that there is no data to collect; the current company, RMG, does not invoice for services like messages or vitamin IVs, and there are no statistics available, which is part of the problem. She stated the medical group provides great services, but any company providing services should be held accountable and provide statistics on their work. She commented on the benefits of the services for employees, and her support of the health services provided, but insisted on letting the program go out to bid to ensure better accountability. She mentioned the scope of the RFP/RFQ should be within a 10- mile radius if the Board wishes to proceed. She stated the newer company with a lower bid could take over, provided they have the proper business plan and submit monthly reports. She does not want to prolong the process any further. Commissioner Townsend suggested hiring an outside consultant to assist with the RFP/RFQ process.

BOCC Informal Meeting Tuesday, March 11, 2025 9:00 AM 9 | P a g e Chair Fowler expressed concerns regarding the lack of data and the impact on various agencies beyond County employees. She highlighted the added benefits of the services for entry-level positions, with starting wages of $16 an hour. She also mentioned the significant amount paid out to a single chiropractor through the health insurance plan, and the need to re-evaluate the program for cost savings. She expressed that she is uncomfortable with the County alone having the decision to choose the company for health services. Commissioner Leet agreed the County should not be the only one vetting the process, but the data numbers need to be produced. He mentioned the importance of natural remedies, savings/benefits for the County, and the support of chiropractic care for work-related injuries. Commissioner Lowry commented on the need to see data on money savings, lowering insurance costs, and benefits to make an informed decision. Commissioner Clasby commented on the initial objective of the program and the data needed to keep it. He expressed the need to trust staff to handle the selection process and questioned the need for an outside consultant and the importance of having a final say in the decision-making process. He mentioned the need to modify the scope of the RFP based beyond a 10-mile radius, staff utilizing services during County hours, more detailed requirements in the contract for the provider not to exceed a certain amount of services/cost per year, and guarantees on how many patients are seen per year. Mayte Santamaria, Deputy County Administrator, commented on the cost and advised that the services are being paid for through the savings from the insurance plan. She stated the County is self-insured with Florida Blue and the savings recouped from the plan are used for the health clinic and the additional services that provide chiropractic, IV therapy, etc. Some data is being collected to produce the number of users, type of use, and rate of growth of health insurance costs plus County costs compared to before and after clinical services. She advised staff needed more time to collect the data and prepare for the Board. She mentioned the special informal meeting scheduled for April 15th and inquired if the Board would like to move forward with the RFP process and if the Board did not want to be on the selection committee. Commissioner Townsend suggested an outside consulting group to handle larger contracts and needed professional expertise with a medical background to evaluate bids properly and not to have staff involved in the process. Commissioner Clasby commented on the necessity of an outside consultant and suggested that staff could handle the selection process. Dan McIntyre, County Attorney, suggested allowing staff to explore alternatives and coming up with new ideas to present to the Board. Chair Fowler mentioned that the RFP is already open and extended, with companies responding, but it is not as clear as it should be. She advised that RMG will renew the contract soon, and a decision needs to be made on whether staff or the consulting company will be doing the RFP process. She suggested canceling the current bid process and starting a fresh bid.

BOCC Informal Meeting Tuesday, March 11, 2025 9:00 AM 10 | P a g e Ms. Santamaria clarified that RMG is due to renew its contract on April 1, 2025, but the Board can terminate it if needed with a 30-day notice, which is a provision within the contract. Also, the contract has an annual update every first. The contract will automatically renew and continue until it is terminated. If the Board chooses not to move forward with the RFP, there will be services until they are eliminated. Commissioner Leet inquired about the number of responses received from the current RFP. In response, Ms. Santamaria said she was unaware of any responses at this time and would not know until the end date of the RFP process. He expressed concerns regarding the unknowns of the process. Kristi Wong, Human Resources and Risk Management Director explained that the current health services are monthly invoices, and data is received as far as the type of services and the number of individuals, but it is not summarized. There is a long list of services received individualized by people that cannot be shared due to HIPAA regulations/protection. The staff must screen all invoices to provide the Board with a summary of the requested data. Commissioner Clasby expressed concerns regarding the current bid documents not reflecting desired parameters and suggested continuing the current company's benefits until more clarity is achieved, also comparing providers to ensure fair pricing. He also suggested canceling the current RFP and continuing the services the County currently has, and for the Board to discuss a new scope going out for bid and moving forward. Commissioner Leet suggested extending the consideration of potential new applicants and waiting for responses to the current RFP. He mentioned the need to see the dollar amounts, the importance of comparing current costs and allowing the bid process to continue to the bid opening to see the market's response. Jennifer Hill, Office of Budget Management Director, clarified that one bid had been received in response to the current RFP. Commissioner Lowry expressed concerns regarding wasting time in the current bidding process. Commissioner Townsend commented on the data needed to decide the concerns of bidders and the legal aspects of submittals. She stated that the bidders that have submitted an RFP need to be contacted and advised that the Board is unsure of the process, and the RFP may be postponed and go back out once all information is received for a new proposal. In response, Ms. Hill mentioned that addendums were expected, and companies were informed they would need to redo their packets. The Board and staff also discussed the importance of chiropractic services, cost savings, data requests, the RFP process, an outside consulting group, professional input for medical-related contracts, termination of the current RMG contract, cost comparison/savings from Florida Blue for additional services, outside consultant fees, canceling the current RFP and reissuing. At the Board's consensus, the current RFP will be squashed until the necessary data is received before a final decision. Also, the possibility of using consulting services/staff to evaluate the RFP will be discussed.

BOCC Informal Meeting Tuesday, March 11, 2025 9:00 AM 11 | P a g e Ms. Santamaria confirmed the RFP would be stopped, retrieving the necessary data, potentially amending the scope, and reissuing the RFP. Chair Fowler confirmed that, in addition to the possibility of using consulting services/staff to evaluate the RFP. Mr. McIntyre said the termination of the current bid process, would be added to the next agenda for a formal vote and discussion would continue in April for the other services. The Board has no further questions or comments on this matter. 4. ADJOURNMENT With no other information to be brought for consideration before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:32 AM. Please note: Final minutes are recorded in the official minute books filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, which are available for inspection upon request.