MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

March 19, 2009

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard, Florida, met in special session on March 19, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chairman Chuck Nelson, Commissioners Robin Fisher, Trudie Infantini, Mary Bolin, and Andy Anderson, Interim County Manager Stockton Whitten, and County Attorney Scott Knox. 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated that Florida TODAY is not going to publish town hall meetings any longer because of space issues; and the Hometown News could be used for publishing town hall meetings.

 

 

REPORT RE: GROUNDBREAKING FOR PINEDA EXTENSION 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated on Tuesday April 7, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. is the groundbreaking for the Pineda Extension. 

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated Friends of Ulumay are having an event at Ulumay Park on Merritt Island, where they are placing a historical marker, on Saturday, March 21, 2009, at 11:00 a.m.; and if anyone is interested in the Merritt Island area, they are encouraged to attend. 

 

 

Sara Ann Conkling thanked the Commissioners for the hard work that is ahead; and she is already working hard.  She expressed her personal thanks to Commissioner Fisher, which is her new Commissioner; she is extremely impressed with his hard work and dedication to his citizens; he has hit the ground running; and she is very happy about that.  She stated she is present on behalf of Country Acres Children’s Home; she has been a volunteer there for years in a couple different hospices, helping them write some grants; and she is part of the Friend’s of Titusville Library, doing a Christmas Program there annually for the children.  She noted there was a huge group that met there last night, huge by her standards, and probably by the Commissioners as well; she was
impressed with the diversity in that group; there were educational leaders present, who believe strongly that the children who attend Country Acres benefit greatly by the educational opportunities that continue to be afforded them by virtue of the residents there; there were many religious leaders there who felt strongly that God had given them responsibility for those children; there were many business leaders there, who are part of both Country Acres Auxiliary and Country Acres Advisory Board; they are people who work all day and meet all night on behalf of the children who are neglected and abused; there were many social service leaders present who believe that Country Acres has a unique link in the safety chain for the County’s abused and neglected children; and there is no substitute for what Country Acres is doing.  Ms. Conkling stated they are doing it better than other organizations could do it for those children; these people also feel strongly that Country Acres needs to be retained in its current forum, meaning public, and its current mission of serving abused, neglected, and abandoned children; there were citizens like herself who believe that Police, Fire, and many other important things that will be looked at in the budget; their organization represents a life or death issue for the citizens; and they are literally saving lives in the community by enabling them to stay at the Country Acres facility.  She advised this group asked her to coordinate the citizen involvement with regard to keeping Country Acres alive and strong; she believes this happened because God is teaching her a lesson of humility, she can not do this without help, and she can not do it without the help of the many people who have pledged to help her; stated they are going to prepare a fact sheet for the Board to let it know exactly what Country Acres is doing, who they are doing it for, the fact that children at every district are served at Country Acres, it is a Countywide facility, what the current funding is, what the current County subsidy is, how that evolved, and it will be especially relevant for the newer Commissioners who may be less aware of the ideology and the evolution of Country Acres.  She stated she brings good tidings of budget joy; and the citizens are working very hard with the professional staff of Country Acres to identify what they believe will be significant new revenue sources for that organization.  She stated they are going to do their best to identify them and bring them to the table; and they are going to try to do that in advance of the Board’s final budgetary decisions, so that is on the table.  She requested that the Board specifically defer any action that would change the organizational structure, form, or the mission of Country Acres, or its budget, until they can bring these additional revenue sources to the table.  She noted that she is there this morning to ask, especially of Commissioner Nelson because he is the fearless leader now, to defer any kind of significant action on Country Acres until they are able to bring those resources to the table. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated that the Board would not disagree with the services that Country Acres provides; it is a great program; and the Board is struggling monetarily, as all governments are, so any assistance that she can give, will certainly be welcomed.  He advised it is not a State-mandated responsibility of the Board’s, but they have taken it on as a community and have done a great job with it; he would certainly like to see the information; and he would like to see the community step up and be an even greater participant because these are going to be tough times for the County. 

 

Phil Rotchford stated that he would like the Board to reconsider the stables at Wickham Park; and he checked around and the most shows they will get there are eight to ten shows per year.  He noted the going rate for an arena is about $500 a day, and if the stalls are rented out, they are around $25 a day; and he can not understand the Board’s thinking of promising the previous boarders they would be able to board, naturally at a higher price.  He stated that the Board is turning down $200 a month in stall rental; there are 48 stalls to offset the price of the facility; he cannot understand the thought process behind that if it is based on a study from a firm in New Jersey; and he does not understand why they chose somebody in New Jersey when there are many firms in the Ocala area that could have provided the study and could have come up with something different.  He inquired when the County decides to have a new stable would Parks and Recreation come to the Board; and if there was a plan, did the Board look at it and inquired what it was going to be used for.  He stated he does not expect it to be profit making; it is a service and people love to have horses at the park; but he does not understand how it was referred back to Parks and Recreation.  He stated there must have been some minutes that the Board discussed what it was going to be used for; and inquired if the Board told the boarders originally that they would be able to board their horses there. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated in the initial stages of the referendum that was true, but that changed after the hurricanes of 2004. 

 

Mr. Rotchford stated that there was a woman who addressed this at a meeting he was at; he has been to a lot of horse shows; he used to have horses; but he has no desire to have them now as he is too old for that; he cannot understand why this woman was saying that a person cannot board horses; they have shows at the arena; he has been to shows where there were 25, 35, or 40 horses; and there was not a stall for any one of those at the show.  He stated there was an enclosure that hooked to the trailer that they kept their horses in; and as far as weather goes, horses should be outside.  He stated that it is nonsense that the stalls could not be used for both purposes.  He stated that he is going to try to get a petition started; but he will wait for the Board’s answers; and he hopes the Board will reconsider. 

 

Chairman Nelson directed Heidi Dennis, Assistant County Manager, for a report on where everything is, and stated there was significant discussion, so he does not believe the Board will go back and deal with that.  He advised he would like the report to go to the Board, and to Mr. Rotchford; and the Board is moving forward with the show concept. 

 

Mr. Rotchford reiterated that he checked into that, and even the best of facilities, if a person gets one or two shows a month it is considered lucky; and it just does not fill up every weekend, because it is usually the same people going to the same shows. He noted that he cannot imagine 48 stalls sitting empty all week long, and not bringing in any income. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated that the Board has had this discussion. Mr. Rotchford advised that he was trying to find out what the decision was based on. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated that Ms. Dennis will get the report to Mr. Rotchford.

 

Commissioner Infantini noted that the decision that was made was a one-year decision; the Board agreed to go back and look at it at the end of the year; if it turns out that the horse shows are not coming to fruition once there are permanent horses in the stables, the Board cannot ask them to leave; but it can ask that they convert it back to full-time use.

Mr. Rotchford stated that he realized that, but he believes that there will be boarders that will come in on a monthly basis; telling them they may not be able to stay there, but they can rent there for three months at a time; and when the lease is up they have to decide whether they are going to try it again or not. 

 

 

William “Tuck” Ferrell thanked the new Commission; and stated he is very encouraged by the new Commission.  He stated that he wanted to bring up something that the Florida Chamber of Commerce has mentioned; he believes it is positive and positive on the Space Coast; he appreciates what the Board is trying to do to energize the County help with the Space Program, and jobs; and he thinks this Board is trying to help in every way.  He stated before the Chamber of Commerce assessed the State’s future in growth outlook; it came up with six pillars that drivers have caused; they are the key to the State’s economic future during the next two decades; and part of the Organization’s 2009 business agenda are talent, innovation infrastructure, business climate, governments, and quality of life.  He advised he believes the Board is working on all of those, but he would like to encourage them to stay on the path; he believes they are on the correct path, and they are working on especially the Space angle; he thanked the Board for Pineda; he heard about the opening; that will really help the County; that is one of the transportation elements; and another of his loves is the St. John’s Heritage Parkway, which is critical because of all the dead ends in this County.  He stated that he has been involved for years with Pineda; it will create a wonderful situation that will bypass a lot of traffic; it will help Wickham Road; and it also connects to the Parkway, which is a critical part of it.  He stated that those are key elements to attracting new businesses, making transportation more efficient, and the quality of life. 

 

 

Stockton Whitten, Interim County Manager, stated he wanted to update the Board in terms of budget development with some of the items that the Board has approved with some direction it has given staff, starting with the schedule.  He stated March 16 through March 19, 2009, employee suggestion meetings are going on Countywide; they have four meetings, and in the Departments they are having individual meetings; and it has already started and should go until the end of the month.  He advised the end of the
month or beginning in April, staff will compose a cost cutting survey and send it out to employees and anybody else who cares to participate; they can do that anonymously if they choose to; and it will be through Survey Monkey. He noted there is an April 23^rd Workshop, May 7^th Workshop, and May 21^st Workshop scheduled; on May 1^st the Board will receive the first budgets from the Charter Officers, which is the Supervisor of Elections and the Clerk June 1^st; the Board will receive the preliminary property values and the due date for the Property Appraiser and Sheriff’s budget; July 1^st is certified property values; there are two workshops in July; August 1^st is the due date for the Tax Collector’s budget.   He stated the Board and staff is looking through a listing of considerations for the next Fiscal Year; if there is something on the list that needs to be taken off, he would like to have a discussion on that today; the Board is going to speak about one of the considerations today; but the staff is moving ahead in preparing a proposal that may consist of a number of those items.  Mr. Whitten stated he has had meetings with every Charter Officer regarding their budgets; he can at least give a preview of what they expect to submit in their budgets; the departments and offices are working on a prioritization of their programs and services; and Frank Abbate is going to take over the discussion and show exactly what is going on there. 

 

Frank Abbate, Interim Assistant County Manager stated that staff has brought in a draft of a form that they have developed and they are providing it to the Board ahead of time to get some feedback either today or subsequent to today, to make sure they put together something for the Board in April for the April workshop; and staff feels it is beneficial to the Board as it moves forward.  He stated the County Manager’s office is asking each department to identify all of their programs and services within the department and to provide information as to why they do it; they would like to know if it is a Federal or State requirement, or if it is because there is a Board Policy, Referendum, or because of a public safety issue, infrastructure, or whatever it happens to be, staff wants to know what are the reasons that this program or service is being performed; and they also asked the departments to identify the dollar amounts or the revenues that are associated with that program or service and a percentage basis.  He stated what happens when they eliminate the impact of elimination, a lot of times revenues that are associated with programs usually an equal reduction is not seen in the expenses that are associated with that, because some expenses go across.  He thanked the Budget Director as a column was added on the bottom of the form for expense reduction; that means if a program is eliminated what is the County actually going to save in terms of the dollars; the departments were asked to prioritize, in a listing order, from the first program or service they would eliminate to the last one, and where the service or program is mandated; and it will be seen on the bottom where there is not a good return on investment.  He stated staff wants to provide that information to the Board as a template of information to assist it.  He advised staff listened very carefully to what the Board said about doing fewer things better rather than a lot of things poorly, so this provides an opportunity for the Board to get all the information on the front end to provide guidance to staff as they try to move forward on the departmental and organizational level; and staff would appreciate any feedback or dialogue, whether or not the Board will think this is appropriate, whether it wants to see more things added to the list, or even if this approach is worthwhile in pursuing.  Chairman Nelson stated looking at the form, there is a significant amount of work that is going to give the Board information that is not as valuable as staff believes it is going to be; for instance, the choices for Libraries would be to reduce hours; and he inquired how they would structure that kind of discussion in this kind of format so Libraries will be struggling to figure out closings versus reducing hours versus all of the other things; stated he believes that some of the information is good; and he believes that prioritization is a Board process not a department process.  He stated every program is either mandated by the State or the County Commission; he cannot see how staff says they value one program over another; he feels the Board is setting staff up for a lot of work it is not going to be able get value from.  He advised parts of the form are good; the first part is good about why the Board is doing it; he thinks that is important; when it gets into expenses, if a position is cut, it may cut three programs, but what the Board is going to see is an individual program-by-program, not by the fact that the program is run by one person or three programs are run by one person; at this late date during the budget preparation, he believes it is going to set staff up for failure; it is almost too late in the process to initiate this kind of program; and he feels the Board should take the top half of the form but, not try to get into prioritization and those issues. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated he was not aware of some of the requirements that have to be done from a State and Federal level; for instance, Sea Pines and Circles of Care; he was not aware that was something that was mandated to the County to handle; those type of things, whether Federal law or State law, getting the understanding behind it may not be something that can be taken off of the table; and it is something that has to be done. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated that is why he believes the first part of the form is probably very valuable in that respect; it tells why the County does that specific program; he believes that the value judgment and the prioritization are ultimately a Board decision, because there is going to be to value on a park program against a library program; and that is not done in this type of format. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she is going to take the opposite philosophy on this; she believes it would be very valuable for a Department Head, because of their expertise, to give the Board more of an indication of what is, in their mind, the highest priority; the final decision is the Board’s; but she believes it is very valuable to see what the highest priority is in the Department Heads mind. 

 

Chairman Nelson inquired if the special needs program in Parks and Recreation is of greater value than the summer recreation program; stated the Board would be asking the Department Heads to pick which kids are more important; and he is unsure how they would do that. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated that this option gives them ownership and buy-in; that the Board is not the expert of Parks and Recreation; he knows that Chairman Nelson has that background; but maybe it would be better for the Departmental Head to tell the Board which program could go away.  He stated that they get paid to make the Board’s decisions; it happens in the private industry; and there is no reason they cannot do that
in the County.  Chairman Nelson stated he is going to disagree to a certain extent.

Commissioner Bolin stated that she is not using this as a hangman’s noose for anybody, but it would give her more of a basis to make some judgment calls on; if there is something that she thought would be high on the list, but in reality it is low on the list, it gives her some basis for discussion. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated that she believes that at times the Board underestimates the abilities of staff; the responses that she has receives either anonymously, or not, she has found some great suggestions coming out of the Directors and the employees; they are responding, and they have some excellent ideas; the Board would be surprised how many people are willing and able to step up to the plate and compute a form like this; she knows with her students she is always asking them to do something a little out of the box, and she is constantly amazed at the work that is turned in.  She advised staff has ever had the opportunity to show what their capabilities are; and if the Board keeps limiting their capabilities, they are going to be confined to a little box, and they are going to stay in it; and if the Board would expand the horizons, it would be amazed at what staff can do.

 

Chairman Nelson stated this is not about staff it is about the reality of filling out a form. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated when he was looking at this he did not prioritize; and he did not concentrate on it that heavily until Chairman Nelson made his comment.  He stated he is not really looking for staff to make that call of what is more important than what; he feels that as a Board it should make that call; but it ought to have the facts to help it make that decision. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated for staff to identify the program and the revenues, that makes a lot of sense; the prioritization process is just unfair to the staff; he cannot even tell the Board how many programs he implemented as Parks Director where he inquired why he was even doing it; the only answer was that it had three votes; and ultimately it comes down to what a County Commissioner wanted done. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if Chairman Nelson would feel better if the prioritization were off of the form, so that the staff does not need to prioritize; and he does not need at this point staff to prioritize anything. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated that he is okay with that; and he believes that is very viable and very workable. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated that staff may think something needs to stay and the Board may think it needs to go; the Board is who prioritizes at the end of the day. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated that in all honesty she will be moving on the Department Heads prioritizing their programs face-to-face to tell her which ones has the highest
priority in their professional opinion; and down the list she will know and be able to make
some judgment on it; if it is not on the form, that is fine; but she is going to ask the Department Heads either way.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated Chairman Nelson made an excellent point that when he was Director of Parks and Recreation he was only doing those programs because there were three votes, and that if the Department Heads felt they were not needed maybe the Board would have listened; and she wants to give those Directors that chance.  She stated there is a lot of information out there that the Board is going to learn about, and she would like to make very educated decisions; and she would like to listen to the Directors because they have a lot to share. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated that he believes this Board is a little bit different than the Board’s of the past, and they are not going to chastise somebody if it likes a program; it may disagree with that employee; he believes that is what got the Board into the messes that it faces now; but he believes that is over with. 

 

Chairman Nelson inquired what Mr. Whitten thinks the Board is doing now; and that he is unsure if it is doing the top of the form or the top two.  Commissioner Infantini stated that the Board can leave it up to the Departmental Heads to fill out the priorities; if they do not want to fill it out then they do not have to; and that it should be left up to their professional discretion.  Commissioner Anderson stated it could be left as optional.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired from a staff standpoint, the decision will be with the Board on what a priority is and what is not a priority; and he inquired as to why that is on the form.  Mr. Abbate responded that they put that on the form because they wanted to try to provide guidance to the Board to help it identify what or if there is low lying fruits that the Board knows of, or staff feels it should no longer be provided; they wanted to give the opportunity for the Board to see on a prioritized listing what staff believes might be the opportunities for that low lying fruit; therefore, the Board would then be able to say this program rather than staff going through a whole list and having no idea what they are and have to make independent judgments; and the Board would be using the professional judgment of the Directors. 

Chairman Nelson stated there is one dynamic that is different than anything that he has ever seen, which is the reduction in property values; that is driving a whole new necessity to think of things differently; for instance, Libraries is a Countywide millage; if their property value goes down, they are going to have to cut, because there is no choice; there is no other funding source coming in; the only other thing the Board can do is raise the millage; the Board has already said it is not going to do that, so the Library could list all of their programs; and it will have had no value, because the reality of it is, they have to put the budget together that matches what their revenue expectation is going to be.  He mentioned somehow the Library has to make that all fit, so when the Board talks about looking at programs, and the Board is going to cut this, this, and this, there are going to be programs that have to change almost immediately just because there is no revenue.  He advised his preference is to let the Library tell him what he is
going to be able to get for those dollars, because the Library will have to go back and
work with the Advisory Boards and the Patrons; and the result may be they come back asking the Board to reduce hours to four days a week.  He stated he would like to hear those kinds of suggestions from the Department Heads, that way he can hear what they can manage within the dollars they are expecting to get; in the past it has always been,
he or she has a pot they want to reduce down; and there was a lot more flexibility.  Chairman Nelson explained the flexibility has been taken off the table by the economy; to him that is where it is going to be able to get where the Board needs to be; by the time the budget is finished and Mr. Whitten puts it together, 75 percent the Board will not argue over, because it is almost an automatic; the Board will be arguing over the 25 percent; but it is setting itself up for a discussion on 100 percent. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired whether or not the Board has completely ruled out raising millage; and if there was already a three count vote.  Commissioner Infantini responded she would not vote to raise millage.  Commissioner Fisher stated he believes that without all of the facts on the table, making any decision today would be premature. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated as far as the form being discussed it is not an all or nothing situation; and if a particular Commissioner wants to not have this priority done, then that is their choice. 

 

Mr. Abbate stated this form is just for information for the Board in terms of what staff thinks, and that is all. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated that as far as the form, the reason for the funding source expense reduction, it all acts as information, and she probably will be asking the Department Heads in their professional opinions what their priorities are to assist her in making a decision; but that does not mean that the other Commissioners have to follow suit; this is not a vote-type thing, but personal preference; and she just wanted to let the Board know that she will be asking for the information. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she does believe that staff needs direction because she has heard a lot of rumors about people being laid off and the like; she would like to let everyone know she did not start that rumor; and she would prefer rather than laying off individuals at this point, she would rather the employees take a pay cut.  She stated she had a town hall meeting at the Library the other day, and she pointed out a group of 10 people, well if she told these 10 people that she was going to put all their names in a hat and take out four, and those four would be losing their job, but she was not going to tell which four they were, they all agreed they would rather take a pay cut rather than randomly select people to be laid off.  She feels that the Directors do need direction as to whether or not the Board would like for them to start looking at cutting compensation, reducing it, or cutting staff; that at this time the Department Heads do not have that fine direction; she would like to provide that at this meeting, so that everybody walks away from this meeting at the same place and there is no more rumors spread; and she would prefer to provide direction. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated that inherently it is not fair; because the Board is asking the County employees to take a reduction in pay; the County has no control over the Constitutional Officers, whether their employees take a cut in pay; so the burden is falling on a small group of employees; and until he has the buy in of Constitutional Officers to do the same thing, he cannot make that decision.  Commissioner Infantini stated she knows the Clerk’s office has cut back hours and pay.  Commissioner Anderson stated yes, the Clerk, but there is also the Property Appraiser, Tax Collector,
and the Sheriff’s office, and there could be one of those Constitutional Officers that come to the Board and want to give their employees a raise; the Board is asking its employees for a cut; and he cannot do that on good faith. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated for the Library the Board could not give direction because they have a definitive budget.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated his direction is they have to determine whether it is going across-the-board with all Government employees, and until he has a buy in from the Constitutional Officers, he is not going to ask the Board’s employees to take a pay cut. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he believes that is the end of the budget preparation discussion; but still feels that the operation still needs to be structured. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated to go back to his other point, he believes that the Board is boxing themselves in way too much already when it says it is not going to do this, but is are going to do that; and feels it needs to stay open, and see how bad this is going to be.  He stated he had a meeting with Jim Ford, Property Appraiser, and he thought it was originally going to be a $20 million problem for the County; that turned out to be somewhere between a $35 to $40 million problem; he feels if that is the case, the Board is going to have some tough decisions to make; some of those decisions are not popular; but in reality, the Board still has a certain responsibility to provide services in this community; and unfortunately, citizens are going to have to pay for it.  He stated he thinks the Board should stop saying what it is not going to do.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she just wanted to provide direction; if they have the direction to take out 10 percent of their jobs, rather than taking a 10 percent pay cut with people who have specific millages earmarked, the Library is the one where they have a set amount of money that is going to come in; and the Board could provide a little direction to the Department Head of the Library and say it would rather she look into cutting hours. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated that it goes back to any point; if the County is going to take a 10 percent hit on the General Fund, then let it take a 10 percent hit on the Sheriff, Tax Collector, etcetera. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated as far as he is concerned, all of those things are still on the table, he does not believe that anyone gets an automatic free pass to get the same level of funding that they got last year, that is his position in that regard. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated they cannot. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated unless someone else were to take it worse, then that is the dilemma.   He stated the other thing is he thinks one of the mistakes Government tends to make is that it tries to do a one size fits all; even within Libraries, one community may be retirement-based and hours can be reduced to morning hours only; but in other communities evening hours might be best.  He stated he does not want to constrain the
Board’s decision making because it really needs to start looking community by community what works for them and for the Board not to be arbitrary.  He stated reducing hours is best versus closing on certain days; those Department Heads can come back and tell the Board what they think is the best way to get there, because there are going to be some challenges financially; and they are aware of it and are working on it. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated that the dialogue does help staff; there is no way when the Board looks at the decisions it is going to have to make to balance this budget that rumors cannot be avoided; the numbers are so huge that the Board has to talk about those items that were on the previous log, which include lay offs; and at this point, for example, Library services is in the predicament where the County Manager’s office has to decide and ultimately bring it back to the Board whether to cut hours or people, or how they are going to address what may be real time revenue shortfall, or next year.  He stated that he did the hard freeze so Library Services has a number of vacancies at particular libraries; if she fills those, then Library Services can continue with the same service hours; and if they cannot, then it needs to be addressed somehow.  He advised that it does not make sense to add people on to the budget when the Board knows in a matter of months, that it will be down 20 percent; 97 percent or 98 percent of revenues for Library Services come from the Tax Roll; and inquired why staff up, when they will be let go in a few months.  He stated he feels this is a good dialogue because ultimately he will need to come back to the Board and advising it that there is an issue; for example, at the Melbourne Library those service hours need to be changed; he is not so sure that an across-the-board salary reduction will help Library Services, because they are funded in buckets; and that may not help them achieve balancing their budget.  He stated that they are being worked on, and he will bring those things back to the Board because he feels ultimately the service levels that were approved in the budget, the Board needs to vote on how those are adjusted.  The County Manager’s office is also working on 20 percent reduction scenarios; within the budget proposal that he is going to bring back to the Board, he expects that at least a number of Departments will experience a 20 percent reduction in their expenditure numbers; that is a service program across-the-board; there will be some tough decisions that the Board will have to make in that regard, because the County does not know how those programs will spread across; and staff is also working on 40 percent reduction scenarios.  He advised the employee surveys are still being done, and they are listing or prioritizing the different programs and services; they are running through different reduction scenarios both 20 percent and 40 percent; some time in May he will bring back a budget proposal, which again is difficult because if the Board goes back to the earlier calendar, a number of Charter Offices are not going to give their budget until May 1^st; and that is difficult to give them a reasonable or rational
budget proposal when they do not have a certain percentage of that information.  He has planned a brief discussion on Strategic Planning just to update the Board on its initiative; Mr. Abbate is going to speak about the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program, and Fund Balances and Reserves; the Board needs to start that dialogue; and he will have a couple things to say when it gets to that point.   

 

Leigh Holt stated that the Board received a summary document; that document was based on the work they did at the Strategic Planning Workshop; collectively they identified eight strategic issues, and she has divided those into two groups, four of them are programmatic areas, and the other four are process; the programmatic are infrastructure, public safety, human services, and economic development; and then the process issues all relate back to the program issues, service, delivery, fiscal stewardship, workforce development, and citizen engagement.  She advised in the report there is a word summary of the work that the Commissioners did at the workshop, along with the process that it used to arrive at those things; also in the report she and her staff aligned the priority objectives the Board identified with the eight strategic issues that it identified and assigned each one of those to and individual of staff for follow up.  She stated they also divided all of the statements that were made by each Board member at the workshop into those eight areas, so that everything the Board had identified as a priority or every thought it had is captured in one of those areas, so there is someone who will be following up on everything they said; and they did not want to lose any of the ideas the Board had brought forward.  She stated the next thing is to take each one of the priority areas and provide the Board with information on what it already does in that area; and they want to also provide information on things they have already started as a result of the workshop, give recommendations of how they might proceed to accomplish the things they were strategic issues, a timeline for
actions, who will be responsible, and a proposal for how they will provide regular feedback to the Board.  She wanted to make sure first that the Board Members got the information back that it started with. 

 

Chairman Nelson inquired when she talks about a timeline, where does it go at this point and what Ms. Holt expects staff to do at this point in time.  Ms. Holt replied they want to make sure that it is blended with the budget process; they have not talked that through yet, but this cannot be done separately from the other exercises that have just been outlined to the Board; they have to blend those processes; and the timeline for these things have to mirror the timeline for the information they are giving to the Board for the budget. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated that the Board is going to be pressing hard to produce a budget proposal, so the timeline is in sync; but the strategic planning timeline is secondary to presenting the budget as a whole. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he does not want to see this bogged down; what is truly the most critical aspect, which is the budget development and information for the Board related to budget development; it clearly has that kind of potential; and he trusts they will keep that in mind as they go through it because real time for the Board is the next three months. 

Frank Abbate, Interim Assistant County Manager stated this provides the Board and its staff with very good framework to assist them as they move forward; and he believes that will be its primary use in the next few months.  He advised staff can refer back to this to help know where the Board’s priorities are in terms of what they put together for the Board. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired about the tier one and tier two priorities and other priorities; and stated in light of the fact that the Board just passed the removal of impact fees for such a short duration, she would think that the reviewers streamline the process for developmental approval would actually be a tier one, because if the Board does not streamline that process, nobody could possibly get through it in the one-year timeframe that the Board has set for them to pull their permits; she would rather move that up to tier one so that the streamlining process of the duplication of efforts that is taking place between St. Johns River Water Management District, Natural Resources, and DEP, that the Board reduce the duplication efforts so the contractors do not have to go through multiple agencies for the same thing. 

 

Ms. Holt stated that in the package it explains the voting and how those tiers were arrived at; it was based on the vote of the Board; so it would be the Board’s decision if they chose to move it up. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she wanted to know how the rest of the Board felt about this issue. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he spoke to staff and he knows that they are engaged in doing some of this, because he had concerns; and he inquired if it was part of the budget process.

 

Mel Scott, Assistant County Manager, responded yes, it is part of the budget process, and the volume is so low they have never seen so much enthusiasm at the front counter when a perspective development comes in; as far as duplication goes, there are many of these duplications they are going to be serving up for the Board’s consideration that take either changes to the State law or changes to the local Comprehensive Plan, which unfortunately, because of State law, can take up to a year to effectuate; in the case of St. John’s wetlands duplication, the Comprehensive Plan has to be changed; it will take a year to do that; not that it is a bad idea, but it is not something that can be implemented today; and his point is, the red tape needs to be cut, jumping on it every day, and to get these permits through the system as quickly and efficiently as possible. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated another thing that will be happening as this evolves is the Board will have identified those areas where it is spending more time and effort in trying to move things along, and it can adjust as it goes. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated the Board had also discussed after the budget process, taking up some of those issues; and he knows everyone is on board to take care of those. 

 

Mr. Scott stated that he also knows that the permits that the County loses money on consistently, such as a fence permit, is a decision that the Board has made; the County loses a lot of money on that; but it is something that the development community has to go through, and permitting sheds of certain sizes, that do not have a foundation pour associated with them; these are things that employees in the trenches are in many cases just as busy today as he or she was as far as repetitions go; he can show that the County is still doing 250 to 300 permits per FTE, but instead of it being the big ticket
items trip center, it is the 15 sheds or the interior renovation that has triggered a permit in some regards, because that is where the money is, for the smaller things, so there a lot of those things that can free-up the system; but staff is still waiting for the economy to come around to bring the business back to County in many regards. 

 

Ms. Holt stated there is significant legislation that has been filed regard streamline permitting, changing the DRI permitting process, and so on; they are monitoring that as well; and some of those things are concerns that may be taken care of by the end of the Legislative Session. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated that he believes he owes Cathy Schweinsberg, Library Services, an apology, because the real time example in terms of what the Board needs to do regarding to reducing or bringing into balance a budget is actually over in building eight; he and Mr. Scott will be scheduling meetings to come and speak with the Board Members about what needs to be done to bring those budgets back into balance, because the revenues just are not coming in the door; so the Board is going to have to take some action to reduce those expenses over there; and Mr. Scott and himself will hopefully get to speak with each of the Board Members about the proposals to do that over there. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated one of the things that came up in the discussions with Mr. Scott and Mr. Whitten, is the basic service level; there has to be a level that staff cannot drop below, because the permit has to be turned out regardless of how much activity or lack or activity there is still that basic level; and he knows they are working on that. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if staff is looking from the top down, or are they looking from the worker bees up, as far as restructuring. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated they are looking at the entire thing, because the entire thing needs to be looked at. 

 

 

Frank Abbate, Interim Assistant County Manager, stated to give the Board a brief overview of the program, Voluntary Separation Incentive Programs are very common; they are used by employers both in the public sector, private sector, and in large and small companies; it is a way to assist during a fiscally constrained period when they are reducing staffing, taking that as a first step to help do exactly what the Board is already
indicating today; to avoid layoffs where there are people, who under the right terms or conditions, would take an early retirement or leave the organization; so the Board last year did adopt a Voluntary Separation Incentive Program; he will be going over that, along with a variety of what other jurisdictions are doing, share some information about participation levels; and hopefully what the Board’s ultimate goal is at the end of the presentation is to have some dialogue, and the determination if the Board is interested in pursuing that, and if so, hopefully giving some direction where it would like to go.  He stated their intent would be, with the timeframe, to put out whatever the Board
approves in early April; and if there is a 30-day window, this is the opportunity, if they are interested in participating, now is the timeframe, just like it was done last year, the parameters of last year.  He advised they made the VSIP available to all permanent full-time employees that were eligible to apply; they could make it available to part-timers if the Board chose; they provided a single 30-day window period when they suggested the same would be here; if there is a question as to why they would only use the 30-day window period; the reason is they are trying to incentivize people to look at the opportunity if he or she wants to move on; they do not want to necessarily if the Board is faced with a difficult position of employees not taking advantage of that now; they are not really helping them with what they are looking to do; and so the Board does not want to necessarily, under this kind of program, say anyone who is laid off is entitled to this additional benefit.  He stated this is a way to encourage people to help the Board in the policy direction to minimize layoffs; in the past, directors had the sole discretion based on operational needs to determine whether or not an employee could participate; that was based on a couple of things; first they set it so that participants were not eligible for rehire within one year; secondly, based on the departments operational needs, is they wanted to provide the directors the opportunity to say if they are letting an individual go, then they need to either be eliminating that position or eliminating another position if that position is filled; there is some discussion and dialogue about opening it to everyone and letting everyone go; but the Board can make that decision. He stated he would not encourage the Board to do that; inquired if someone is very near the end of their DROP Period, and it is known that they will be leaving in 90 days, because they are required to leave in 90 days under DROP, why would they be offered to participate in a program like that; stated it would be an additional cost to the Board, so he believes there is some rationale to providing Directors the opportunity to make the decisions; they are going to recommend, that it be broadened more than last year, so as long as overall someone participates in it they can show overall for the Board, an overall reduction in the way that it is proposed. He stated either the salary of a position needs to be reduced, downgraded, shown that ultimately this is cost effective for the Board, and if that can be shown, then let that specific person go; or that is what he would suggest the Board consider. Another benefit to encourage employees to do is, if for some reason the Board decides to eliminate a program, the department has to do it for budgetary cut back reasons, if that person puts their name in the hat to go in the program, if they are accepted into the program, then they will no longer be an employee; however, for the one-year period following when they say they would be willing to participate, if in fact their position is eliminated, then they would get the benefit of that, because they had told their Department Head that they were willing to go; and if the department had provided that discretion to say yes or no.  He stated if they say no, then the employee should still
benefit for the fact that they were willing to go, and when they do go, they get the benefit of the program; so he would encourage the Board to consider that as well.  He stated the incentives that were provided as any employee who leaves is entitled to accrued annual leave, a percentage of the sick leave, and in certain cases, for example under the Union Contract, there are two weeks pay in lieu of notice; and the typical merit system provisions would apply.  He noted years of service was calculated from a full-time, permanent position with the Board, and only completed years of service were considered, so the employee did not get credit for partial years; the incentives were provided to employees as a single lump sum amount that was included in their final
paycheck; and by participating, they did not disqualify themselves from the Florida Retirement System (FRS), so if they were entitled to FRS, they could retire, some could go on an early retirement, and they have those benefits. He advised the specific benefit that they provided was for every two years of completed service, there was one week of
pay provided; in addition to that, three months of health insurance was provided; and that was beyond what employees would have normally been entitled to for those that chose to participate.  He stated that is basically the program as it existed last year; stated he wanted to go over briefly what other counties did; and then he will give a variety of options, give information on how many people participated in each of the counties, and how that would impact for Brevard County. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired whether or not the employees are eligible for unemployment benefits.  Mr. Abbate responded yes, it is just like a layoff, so they would be entitled; now because of the state of the economy, unemployment benefits are actually extended; there is up to 40 to 46 weeks of unemployment, if the employee gets the extended benefits; and there is talk in congress about whether or not they need to give further extensions, because the state of the economy, and the number of people who are out on unemployment.  He stated Commissioner Infantini is right, there are unemployment benefits available, because it is the same as if the employee were to be laid off; and that is how the program typically is viewed.   He noted it does become an issue if the position would not be eliminated; for instance, if the Board took the position, that anyone goes and they could refill the position that would change whether or not someone would be entitled to unemployment benefits, potentially.  He stated it is only because in the past it was considered an eligibility for unemployment, because the employer had to agree to eliminating the position; when it was eliminated, that was the same as a layoff, so last time people were entitled to the unemployment benefit; if in fact, this is offered, and the County is not reducing positions or staff or saying it would otherwise let the person go, he believes that it will become more questionable that is not the County’s decision to make, that would be the Unemployment Compensation Bureau under the terms of the program that they would be entitled to it; but if the position is eliminated, and indicated that the person would have otherwise have been laid off, they would be entitled to it, even if they participated in the program. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated that what she was thinking, contrary to what Mr. Abbate suggested, is, for example, five people in Road and Bridge want to leave, but the Board cannot get rid of those positions; because they are critical positions, maybe three out of five of them are critical, but two people in Permitting want to be transferred because
there are too many people in Permitting currently; Mr. Abbate is saying that the people that leave Road and Bridge would not be eligible unless the Board got rid of those positions, and they cannot be transferred.  Mr. Abbate advised if they are eliminating positions, the key is whether or not they make the statement that when an employee enters the program; they would have otherwise laid that person off; it would be hard to show that they would have laid that person off when they do not show that they eliminated a position somewhere; and inquired, why would the Board be saying they laid off an employee just fill the position.  He stated he believes the key aspect of it is whether or not the Board indicates would that person be subjected to a lay off; and if the answer is yes, then they would be entitled to the unemployment compensation.  He
advised in Collier County, if someone was participating in the DROP program, Collier County let them participate and anyone else that was eligible for regular FRS retirement, not early retirement just regular retirement; meaning that person had either reached the required age and years of service, or the required years of continuous service; and what they provided was letting employees choose from medical or dental coverage for a period of three years, or an upfront, one-time cash payment in lieu of the three years coverage, which was $18,300 or a combination of both.  He stated Escambia County had a minimum age requirement of 50 years, 30 years of credible service, or they had to have a minimum of six years; they received two weeks of straight-time pay, plus two weeks of healthcare benefits for each year of service; Brevard County gave one week for every two years of service; they gave two weeks for every one-year; it is much more lucrative for the ones that go into the program; and health benefits were paid at the same rate as the active employees contribution rate, which is typically a lot lower than it would be if they were a retired employee.  He noted that Lee County limited participation to full-time employees in the top 35 percent of their pay grade, and they had to have at least five years of service with Lee County; and what Lee County provided one year of paid benefits, two weeks of regular pay for each full-year of employment, and pay of all unused leave, similar to how Brevard County provided for the employees under the existing policies and procedures. He advised Leon County allowed DROP participants, people who were participating as rehired employees from the FRS, or people that had 20 or more years of service, with a minimum of 10 of those years of service being from Leon County, an equivalent of six months of the current salary or $25,000, whichever was greater; then they paid 50 percent of the employees current medical insurance for up to 18 months.  He stated in Martin County employees who wanted to participate needed six years of service, and they provided medical and dental coverage for a period of three years, with 100 percent of the premium paid by Martin County, a cash payment in lieu of those three years, or a combination of both; and then they paid out all of the leave benefits.  He stated when these different plans are converted into Brevard County, Collier County, and Martin County; those two examples, are the most costly, the average payout, from what the staff has figured out, took a look at the average county employee salary, they did not include Fire Rescue, and they looked at the average full-time county salary being $39,300; the average tenure in the organization is about 11 years; the average annual leave balance is about 164 hours; and the average sick leave balance is 322 hours.  He explained that they took all that information, and looked at how each of the different programs would apply based on the participation levels; they calculated what the average cost per average employee; in Collier and Martin County the average
person participating, the total benefit they would have received was almost $47,000; when the numbers are converted, looking at the percentage, they are the two highest percentages; 4.3 percent of the employees in Collier County participated that were eligible; and in Martin County 5.3 percent participated.  Escambia County’s average cost was $41,500, based on Brevard County’s demographics and pay structure; they had 4.28 percent of their employees participating; Lee County was a substantially lower benefit, it was $32,000, was the average payout, and only 1.9 percent of their employees; Brevard County’s average pay out was $11,400; and Brevard County’s total fiscal impact, there were nine people participating, they expected the average to be $102,000, based on the numbers, but the actual pay out was $109,000.  He stated that he provided that information to the Board just as an indication; he believes if the Board
provides a better program, it will get better participation; to what to degree he is unsure, but the best he can give is the statistics of what other counties did and what percentages they had last year; and he anticipates that whatever the Board does, it would have a higher level of participation than last year with the same program, just based on what the dynamics of the economy are today.  He stated options staff thinks are available for the Board’s consideration are one, the Board could offer a program that mirrors Fiscal Year 2007-2008 that the Board approved; a second option is to offer the same program, but slightly modify it to provide additional opportunity if the Board can show that there is a cost savings by someone participating, not just limiting it to the directors so that they have to eliminate the position; and he believes that is something that would be worth the Board considering.  He advised the other option staff would suggest is that the Board provide a minimum of four weeks; the reason for that is, if it is done for two years of service for one week of pay, the Board will most likely not get anyone under three or four years of service to apply; so if the Board sets a minimum cap of four weeks, the Board may look into other opportunities elsewhere; he is not sure how many of that will be out there in the state of this economy; but that is something the Board might want to consider doing.  He noted the other option that the Board has, if it wants to put some kind of cap in terms of what the maximum would be that might be appropriate for consideration; for example, he believes if it moved from two years of service to one year of service, giving one week of pay for every year of service, it would widen the pool of who would be willing to participate; if the Board did not want an additional cost over where it was last year, then there could be some kind of cap for the maximum in number of weeks there are; for example, if there was an employee with 35 years of service, the employee would be entitled to 17 weeks pay; the Board could give that employee severance pay for every completed year of service, but the maximum that employee can receive is 17 weeks, which would be the same as the Board did it last year in terms of what the maximum an employee can receive if they had 34 years of service; stated it is just something out there, but it is not an option; he thought about it afterwards; and he did not have enough time to add it in the presentation, but he wanted to make sure that staff provided the Board the full menu of opportunities to have the dialogue now. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired about eligibility with the age; she believes that having it at 62 years is a little high; and she saw where Escambia County, who had a very good response, put it at 50 years for the FRS retirement eligible. 

 

Mr. Abbate stated the Board and staff did not have any age restriction last year; and they were only half of a percent.  He stated he does not believe the age will be the determining factor; but he believes it will be what the incentive is going to be. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if an employee is 55 with 30 years of service, by the age of 62 will they still qualify.  Mr. Abbate advised that the person would qualify; an employee could be retirement eligible today, and choose not to retire for another 10 years; so under all of the programs, they would be eligible; and for Brevard County as well as any of the other county. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the restriction of early retirement is a voluntary thing.  Mr. Abbate inquired if it was for the Escambia County program; with Commissioner
Fisher responding that Brevard County’s age was 62. Mr. Abbate advised that there is no age restriction in Brevard County; but the other counties were more restrictive. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired about going with the option of one week for one year, and if it would be enough to kick into the figures being discussed.  Mr. Abbate responded that it is higher, it is double what the Board did last year; stated Brevard County was at half of a percent last year; the highest jurisdiction was two weeks for one year of service, and they got five percent of their eligible employees; his answer would be that the Board will have a higher percentage even at the current program if they doubled it, he believes that they would get significantly over 1 percent, maybe even two to two and one-half percent, if the statistics hold out, for what was done in the other jurisdictions. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if there was any way of determining the dollar value of doing that; and if it would be too hard to grasp.  Mr. Abbate responded that if the position were eliminated, the Board would be saving that average salary plus benefits, and like he and the Board discussed, on a Countywide basis when looking at that average salary of $39,000, when the benefits are added in, it comes out to about $50,000 for the average employee, so that is what the Board would be saving; stated understanding that last year the average payout was $11,400; if a position is eliminated, there is a savings of $50,000 through the incentive program, that would cost $11,400; and if that incentive program was doubled, it would be $22,800 and with one year of service, the employee would get one week severance.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated that he believes the truth of the matter is that if the employee is in a position to retire, they would probably take advantage of it and do it, it would just sweeten the deal for them if they are not in the position to retire; and this is not enough to allow them to jump. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he believes they have all seen emails that have been critical of the program they do have as being too good; but when looking at the other programs it is about half of what the others are doing, or less. 

 

Mr. Abbate stated he wanted to point out that he did get the information, because he thought it would come up; inquired what is the payout, how would that occur, and what
money is available for that; stated the Budget Office does annually have line items for annual leave and sick leave payout so the Board would know last year that that severance and payout came out to $964,000 that was just the regular employees; when an employee leaves on an organizational-wide basis, the County does have $1.27 million budgeted this year of which only maybe $100,000, when benefits are included, has actually been expended, so there is $1.1 million available in that line item; and stated the other thing he would say is if the Board had a very significant participation, there is the opportunity that the Board is reducing liabilities by potentially offering this type of program.  He stated last year they never had to do it, but there was consideration of does the Board reduce the general liability exposure by maximizing people participating in that; and inquired could the Board use the revenues from that to augment people participating in the program.  He stated he does not believe the County will get to that level, even if it were to double the participation based on what the costs were; but if there were, there is an opportunity for staff to come back to the Board in terms of making sure they had adequate funding if the Board chose to do it. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board expended the $964,000; with Mr. Abbate responding yes, only $109,000 was severance-related; but all the rest was the total expenditures last year for all annual, sick leave, severance, payout, including the FICA, retirement, and everything included in that. 

 

Chairman Nelson inquired if there was any direction the Board would like to take; and otherwise it should leave the program as is and continue. 

 

Mr. Abbate inquired if the Board’s direction is to offer the program as it existed last year. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to utilize the same Voluntary Incentive Program for the month of April.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Board recessed at 10:30 a.m. and reconvened at 10:43 a.m.

 

 

Chairman Chuck Nelson stated he was advised by Jim Fletcher, Agriculture & Extension Service Director, that the Board needs an appointment to the Extension Advisory Council, and he would like to appoint Commissioner Anderson to that. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to appoint Commissioner Andy Anderson to the Extension Advisory Council.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Stockton Whitten, Interim County Manager, stated the intent with regards to presenting the Board with this information was merely to show what the disposition was/is currently of the County’s adopted budgeted balances forward; and there has been a lot of discussion, it was in the industry professionals report, with regards to the amount of balances forward that the Board has out there.  He stated that staff’s goal was to, in some format, present the Board with how those are allocated within the budget that the Board previously approved in the current fiscal year budget.  He stated that it is a work in progress that it will change, and the numbers change because the County goes into the development of a budget projecting what those balances will be; and then the books are reconciled, closed, and those numbers are different.  He stated that the adopted balances forward will be adjusted somewhere in the neighborhood of $77 million because the books are now being closed and the actual numbers are in; those actual numbers, and any dollars that are above and beyond what was budgeted generally, are associated with projects that are not yet completed from the prior fiscal year; those dollars and projects simply roll over to the next fiscal year; he thought it was important for the Board to have a dialogue on fund balances, so that it can dispel the misnomer that the Board has money that is all over the place, or not allocated to specific purposes;

and staff gave this to the Board, and they continue to refine it and work on it.  He stated there were a number of questions that were raised with regards to the progress of CIP projects; he has the CIP status report that gives an update on all of those projects; staff simply wanted to present the Board with this information; he cannot stress it enough that these are adopted October 1; 2008 numbers; the County is currently reconciling the actual; and he can speak to any part of the presentation. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated that rather than any of the balance forwards being shifted or moved around, he is not sure if that is something that can translate into this possible form; when looking at the funding to see if that is an option or if the Board keeps it on that form; he does not have a clear understanding yet on what can be moved or can be considered to be moved; the perception out there might be, using the Fire Department for example, that is all earmarked for capital, can that move and be moved in operation, some of that if they gave some capital today; and inquired how the Board knows that.   Mr. Whitten responded there are restrictions by fund type; for instance, Library Services fund balances, can only be used in Libraries; in regards to the Fire Department end, there are bond restrictions, voter approved restrictions; the bond proceeds for Parks and Recreation can only be used for construction; so he believes that the Board can come up with a better form or enhance the current one to outline that for them; some cases the fund balances are used for operating and for capital, in very limited occasions there are few restrictions on that; in the general government accounts there really is not a big fund balance; there are fund balances that roll over with the projects that they are for; and in general government there is not a tremendous amount of fund balances in the reserves that can be used for general government services.  He stated some departments actually use a portion of the fund balances for operating expenditures; and he can give that information to the Board in the form it has now, or on a different form as staff begins to explain the differences between what was budgeted and where the actual dollars came in. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated that it would be helpful to have that information; he believes that the revenue source comes in from a certain area, and it has to go towards operation in a certain area; and he believes it helpful for the Board to understand that those balances cannot be moved to another area even if that department has the extra money. 

 

Chairman Nelson inquired if the Board was going to expect and allow the departments to be able to consider that as the Department Heads are putting their budgets together, in terms of in effect offsetting some of the shortfalls; for instance, and inquired if Cathy Schweinsberg, Library Services has some cash forward, could she then utilize that as part of balancing her budget into the next year.  He stated in some cases it may only buy the Board a year’s time, and there is some other action, but that still would not be bad, it is a decision, but he would hate to take that away from the departments; he believes this is a very good start, and feels there is a need for some level of detail of what a restrictive reserve is and how those impact it; and to begin to have a better understanding of those areas, because the Board is limited on what it can do.  He stated when looking at Solid Waste, there is a rate that will be good for a fixed number of years; now they are sitting on some money in there that shows in the reserves, but what that is doing is buying
down the rate for the next five years; so that will be gone at the end of five years, because that is part of how Waste Management is paid; there are all types of twists and turns in there and it looks like a big number and is a big number, but it does not mean that it is available to be moved around; and additionally, it may be the source of salvation to some departments in terms of deferring capital projects to be able to go out and do daily operations. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she is very glad that Chairman Nelson brought up deferring capital projects, because she saw the email go out about replacing vehicles and where the Board could now purchase the new vehicles from; she asked for a list of people who take home vehicles.  She inquired how much an employee is charged for taking home a vehicle; and stated with regular corporations, if an individual receives a take home vehicle, they have to pay for the commuting miles, which is the distance from their house to their office, and their office back to their house.  She inquired why people need a take home vehicle; stated if that person is not an emergency responder with a police car that is car fully equipped, and ready to go, it seems like some of the supporting information was not provided as to why the Board should have 63 people on staff that have take home vehicles; and she is unsure as to how many other people have a vehicle for use when they get to work, because that is entirely different.  She stated if she is in Permitting and Enforcement and she is driving around checking out all of the facilities that is fine, but as far as taking a vehicle home, perhaps the Board should look at all the individuals that are allowed to take them home, and look at the cost structure as to how much they have to reimburse the County for use of commuting miles; maybe they should not take it home on the weekends if they are not a 24/7 on call person; and inquired what the Board thinks. 

 

Chairman Nelson advised that there are some places where it could be a benefit; for instance, if it is part of the employment package, that is one thing; if the person is on call for a specific purpose, for instance, the Utilities guy does not necessarily need to drive
20 miles to pick up a vehicle to drive another 20 miles to go fix a down lift station; and in those cases for commuting miles, those guys would probably love to not be on call, but they are required to be. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated there is actually a committee that reviews, based on a set of criteria, and it is in an Administrative Order; he believes that if there is a benefit, then that is addressed as a paid benefit, so they are not paying the County for commuting miles, but that is a part of taxable compensation; he can get some detail to the Board on that; and that is addressed through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules with regard to whether or not it is a paid or taxable benefit.  He noted there are criteria in place, no one other than the County Manager and the County Attorney has that as a benefit; and it is all intended to be job-related with it going through that committee and finally approved by the County Manager. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she would like a list of the people on the Committee; and, who picks them or how a person is selected. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated this is just for Brevard County employees; the Board has no control over Constitutional Officers on how they do their automobiles, which is part of their budget; but it affects the Board. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he would like staff to continue to work through this, update it, and of course, within the last week, gotten the final numbers from the closeout of last year to do the evaluation.  He explained one of the observations he has made, for instance, he saw one of the emails related to Road and Bridge, the Board has capital projects in there, but what is being forgotten is that a lot of those capital projects have been deferred for a couple reasons; one, there was not a director for sometime, but also there was Tropical Storm Fay, at least in his District; and he is sure in the others, those guys went off and did other things that were either being compensated by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); there will be some money recaptured there, so the numbers are not necessarily as bad as they may look in terms of the carry forward; but he has a lot of roads that he would love to have paved; and by letting those go and not having them paved or resurfaced, it becomes even worse. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated that she is glad that Chairman Nelson brought up the road repaving and resurfacing issue, because she did see the large number; there was about $95 million in the Road and Bridge or Transportation area; she noticed on the last Consent Agenda, there were eight or nine sidewalks going in; inquired how those lists are out together so it can be determined if there is a sidewalk needed or whether a road needs to be expanded, because she was told that for Hollywood Boulevard that there would not be enough money in the bucket; and stated she was not completely clear on the bucket allocation and how she gets it out of a sidewalk bucket and back into the widening roads bucket. 

 

John Dennighoff, Public Works Director, stated that the $95 million is the balance on the bond proceeds; and the Board has directed how that money is to be spent, project-by-
project and amount-by-amount.  He advised they occasionally come back to the Board when they realize that projects come in either higher or lower than projected, and they have had both of those circumstances come up often, as they get them done, so they have the opportunity to adjust the schedule at that point and either add projects or bring in more money to a project that may prove out to be more costly that they projected; they have supplemented those projects with impact fees, so that minimized the amount of shortfall issues that might have otherwise arisen; so ultimately the Board is the one who decides how that is done.   He stated for making changes inside a district, or preparing to make changes, staff coordinates with that Commissioner very thoroughly, and, of course, the entire Agenda Item comes back to the Board; the Board then makes a decision on how that money is spent, particularly for the bonds because there is a bond resolution that is required by the bond covenants, while staff has the opportunity to adjust it, they cannot just change it in an administrative sort of way; and as to the impact fees themselves, which are included inside of that, the Board gives staff direction on that as well.  In the past they have coordinated with cities for projects that they would do jointly, sometimes joint funding from the city with the county, and ultimately it all comes back to the Board for them to decide how to spend the money. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if Mr. Dennighoff could bring that back to the Board so it gets to see what projects were approved by the prior Board, in case there are projects that have not already been put into action so the Board can maybe realign some of those numbers. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he would love to have that discussion because he was on the short end of most of it; he thinks it is a fair question, because the Board can look at those because Pineda was important and the Beltway was important; and those are very good projects. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated Ellis Road was in Commissioner Anderson’s District. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated also as Commissioner Infantini brought up, within her District, if there was money allocated for sidewalks, and she chooses to make an adjustment to that, the prior commissioners, that can be done. 

 

Mr. Dennighoff stated that if it is part of the Bond Resolution, then that requires Board action, and the Board would have to amend the Bond Resolution; if it not part of the Bond Resolution, then there is more flexibility; it can be done through a budget modification, or if it is an impact fee project then the Board would have to make a modification and would not have to come back. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated in Commissioner Infantini’s situation, there may be a way to work around it. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated that it is possible to move projects around and decide that something is of greater value to her. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated it has to be within her own budget.  Mr. Dennighoff advised if it is the Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) in her District, there is a great deal of latitude built into the system for that; and stated typically as they see more accurately exactly how much revenue they will have for the current year in the MSTU, they coordinate with the Commissioner for that District and they will typically ask his or her approval on the project list for the MSTU.  He stated that if the MSTU is reduced, they are reducing projects, resurfacing, pipe replacements, that is almost exclusively spent on projects.  He stated he wanted to stress that to the Board; and they lose the first several months of the year typically on the new projects to get added because they do not know for sure how much money they are actually going to receive.  She stated if they have enough money from carry forward from the prior year to allow them to continue doing projects during that time, but they are not the new projects, they are the old projects.  She stated the system is actually set up to carry money forward from the prior year into the next year; they are in the process of preparing potential modifications for the Bond Resolution, and there is a number of projects that have come in at a lower cost that they need to make adjustments for; there are a few that have come in at a higher cost; and they need to make adjustments for those as well.  She explained when they come to the Board with that, it will be in a comprehensive way in a sense; he will show all the projects that they think they can take money from and projects that he thinks they need to take money to; and clearly if there is a desire to modify it, they will have that
opportunity at that point.  She stated one thing he would like to point out is that many of those projects have a history associated with them where a fair amount of money has been invested on preliminary engineering plans, studies, and perhaps engineering permits obtained, and they re-approach that time where they can actually go to construction; and that is where they are on some of them. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated that Mr. Dennighoff helped him on the Cox Road/S.R. 520 intersection where the Department of Transportation was doing something; it did not make sense from a long-range perspective; it is an ugly intersection, but there were two projects that were languishing; they could not get them moved past working with the adjacent property owner, which happened to be the School Board; but in the end, it made more sense for them to move those monies to those other projects.  He stated he is sure that Public Works would be more than happy to sit down and go over what projects are currently active and what the status is; and there is a history to each of them. 

 

Mr. Dennighoff stated that this is not an easy thing to do, particularly at this time of year; the same staff that gets that work done is the same staff that is trying to come up with cost cutting, and how much the cost saving ideas are going to be able to help them; so it is very difficult; and he is not trying to complain, but they do not have the manpower.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated that District 4 did go over their list and changed a few of the priorities of the previous year; and there are things that just pop up and they needed to adjust. 

 

Mr. Dennighoff stated that if a pipe collapses, they have to change their priorities; so maybe they do not do a resurfacing project, they do a pipe replacement. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated for instance, the MSTU, one of the reasons their cash forward was so high for so long was because they were saving up money to do a major pipe project that the MSTU could not handle in a single year; and they finally got that under construction this year. 

 

Mr. Dennighoff stated that they also save money from one year to the next year to purchase equipment; and in his world when the purchase equipment it could be close $400,000 for one piece of equipment. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated one of the things he would like to discuss is as the Board talks about these projects; one of the things that came out of that memorandum that came from the Lynela Weatherman with EDC was how Brevard County can help stimulate the economy; if there are some capital projects that there is funding for and are ready to do, he would like to see the Board go ahead and get those things moving, because that will also stimulate growth, jobs, and different things; so he would like them to be on the aggressive end of that. 

 

Mr. Dennighoff stated he agrees with Commissioner Fisher, but they have seen yet another downward adjustment in the cost of asphalt; after years of nothing but increases, and not just increases, but big increases, it is a relief at the moment to see a
few months in a row of the downward trend; it is sort of an ironic circumstance, because of the tropical storm; they did not get some resurfacing projects done because they were more or less diverted to other things; now that the price of asphalt has gone down, they think that they can get a little more done, and a little more bang for the buck on the resurfacing; so they are looking at the opportunity to try to add some more resurfacing projects.  Nevertheless, in spite of all of that, he can tell the Board that staff still resurfaces at a third or less of what that should be resurfaced each year. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated that he believes most Districts still have at least some level of dirt roads that they do not even talk about because there is just no money.  Mr. Dennighoff stated that is correct. 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired about the paperwork that Mr. Whitten had handed out to the Board. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated that the package is from adopted numbers; the last thing that he had given the Board reconciles the actual numbers that were adopted, and it explains the differences between the two; and it also speaks to Commissioner Fisher’s point, somewhat with regards to the restrictions that are on those funds. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated that one thing that will drive a person crazy, and in some ways it is good; and for instance the Tourist Development Commission (TDC) had a big carry forward this year.  He stated first of all, it is a good thing for Brevard County because TDC dollars come from the pennies that are paid the bed tax, so that is good, but they also got a grant reimbursement; so whatever the County can save there is going to go towards the sand project for the Mid-Reach Project, which they are committed to; and
the Federal Government is putting up $100 million and Brevard County about $10 million.  He stated if they are making money that means the economy is doing better; they have done a good job; and they have been very fiscally conservative in terms of how they budget themselves, because they never know what is going to happen.  He advised the 9/11 circumstance they were able to survive because they had been fiscally conservative; now with the downturn in the economy, they are going to make 105 percent of their revenue because they actually budget themselves not to over expend. 

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve scheduling an Executive Session to discuss the status of the Collective Bargaining negotiations with IAFF Supervisory Unit for after the March 24, 2009 Regular Board meeting.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated that the Board had not yet scheduled the Housing Workshop. 

 

Stockton Whitten, Interim County Manager, stated that Sally Lewis was working on that; and it should be brought back to the Board on March 24, 2009. 

 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting Adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

 

 

 

ATTEST:                                                                                                                                                                               ____________________________

                                                                        CHUCK NELSON, CHAIRMAN

                                                                        BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                                        BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

      

          (S E A L)