MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

February 26, 2009

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in regular session on February 26, 2009 at 9:02 a.m. in the Government Center Commission 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, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and County Attorney Scott Knox. 

 

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated the Board has an interest in the Housing Authority; and he would like Housing and Human Services Director Gay Williams, and Joe Robinson, Chairman of the Brevard County Housing Authority, to give the Board an update on the Housing Authority.  He stated he passed out the report that was done, which includes a lot of background information; more than two years ago, the Housing and Human Services staff observed there were some issues; and at that time, the Board did a vote of no confidence related to the Executive Director. 

 

Gay Williams, Housing and Human Services Director, stated the current issues with the Housing Authority are that there are still past-due shelter rents owed to the Board of County Commissioners; Housing and Human Services has also failed to receive audit reports from the Housing Authority that was outlined and amended in the cooperative agreement that the Board requested in 2005; and in addition, the Housing Authority’s Public Housing Plan was not certified as being consistent with the Consolidated Action Plan because the request was to take down more housing, which would have been the Baxley Manor units on Merritt Island.  She stated since that time, the Housing Authority Executive Director has resigned; the only concern at this point in time is the date of resignation, which would be effective in May 26, 2009; and it is an additional three months the Director would be providing oversight.  She stated all of the concerns that were brought to the Board in 2005 and 2007 have been directed toward the management of the resources; and with the ongoing oversight by Mr. Sellers continuing, it is an ongoing concern for the Board.  She stated before the Board is some recommended actions based on the history and the current issues that have been brought forward; and it is recommended that the Chairman to move forward with a letter continuing to let HUD know that the Board is concerned, and that the Board would like HUD to make sure the resources are protected.  She noted the last concern is about the removal of any more housing during this transition time until those assets are secured and that public housing remain, because so much of it has already been taken out.  She stated staff also recommends that HUD to make sure that as it works on the transition, work on the breach that has occurred as a result of the oversight of those resources within the community; and work on the breach settlement that was done with the County in assuring that payments are made and that audits are received by the County so that everything progresses as it should. 

  

Chairman Nelson stated Mr. Robinson has been vocal about some of the concerns and have been trying to move forward; and inquired what Mr. Robinson’s perspective of where the Board is at this point in time.  Mr. Robinson replied it is not clear that Mr. Sellers has resigned; stated the Housing Authority got the first good glimpse of what was happening at the audit briefing in December; and hard questions have been asked to the management of the Housing Authority.  He stated the Housing Authority is trying to get a better picture so that everyone can sit at the table and have a discussion; and he is referring to the County, the Cities of Melbourne and Cocoa to find out where everyone stands in order to look out for the residents and have adequate housing for the population that it serves.  He stated there is a meeting schedule for Tuesday in which it will be discussed where to move from this point; and he directed staff to get a good picture of where all the Housing Authorities are financially and where all the properties are located in order to get a good picture of where to go to protect all the responsibilities of the Housing Authority. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she would like to change the word ‘concern’ to ‘outrage’; the Board was nice when it sent one letter, but now the Board is vulnerable, and it will not know until Tuesday how vulnerable it is in the situation.  Mr. Robinson stated nothing will be known on Tuesday because the picture is not going to be completely clear on Tuesday; stated Tuesday’s meeting is to get a joint board consensus of where the Housing Authority is and how to move forward together because each board is independent the way it is set up presently.  Commissioner Bolin stated the idea of giving a person a 90-day notice when looking at a situation like this is not acceptable; she knows the Board does not control the Housing Authority, but she would like to put very strong words into place that Mr. Sellers should be removed immediately and someone else should step in to take over.  Mr. Robinson stated he does not disagree with that, but that is not his decision; and there are financial issues that are concerned with that because no one knows the present total cash flow of the Housing Authority because that picture is not clear. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board has anyone who audits the Housing Authority.  Chairman Nelson replied HUD is the agency that would do the auditing; he hopes HUD steps in because it is now a troubled agency; and he hopes HUD steps in with a consultant to straighten it out.  Mr. Robinson stated it was reported yesterday that the Housing Authority is cleared of the criteria that HUD sets for a troubled Authority; but there will be an attorney present on Tuesday to give legal direction.  Chairman Nelson stated he knows there may be some contractual issues related to Mr. Sellers, but he believes the different boards have the ability to remove him from decision making; and stated a lot of things can go wrong in 90 days.  Mr. Robinson stated he concurs with Chairman Nelson, but he has to ensure the proper steps are taken.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired what the authority is of the County Commission.  Chairman Nelson stated several years ago the Board gave away its authority to create the family of housing authorities.  Ms. Williams advised a resolution was created by the County Commission many years ago that allowed the housing authorities to be a special district; and so they are special districts set up now statutorily blessed by the Board’s Resolution.  She stated each city council individually has an opportunity to appoint persons to the Housing Authority Board; however, with the County Commission, the only appointment comes by the way of the Governor; and in 2005, the County asked the Governor for several appointments, and Mr. Robinson   was  one   of  the  appointments  the Governor  allowed, but he did not give away his appointing authority.  She stated the County Commission has no ability to suggest or to appoint to the Brevard Housing Authority Board as the cities do.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if that means the Board has no authority at all over the Housing Authority.  Ms. Williams stated that is correct, the Board has no authority.  Mr. Robinson stated that is why it is imperative that the Board and the Housing Authority work collectively in partnership for the residents of Brevard County. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he would still like to write a letter to HUD and the Governor re-emphasizing the Board’s concerns with the Housing Authority and the issues that have been there.

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to direct the Chairman to send a letter to Governor Crist, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, outlining the Board’s concerns regarding a vote of no confidence against the Brevard County Family of Housing, which is comprised of the Housing Authority of Brevard County, the City of Cocoa Housing Authority, and the Melbourne Housing Authority.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if the motion can include removing Mr. Sellers’ authority for writing checks; stated 90 days is a long time; and a lot of money can be spent in 90 days.  Commissioner Bolin stated the Board can relay the information to Mr. Robinson, but the Board has no authority to make anything happen. 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to adopt Resolution congratulating the Merritt Island High School Boys Soccer Team as the 2009 Class 4A Boys Soccer State Champions.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.   

 

BUDGET DISCUSSION AND BOARD DIRECTION

 

Interim County Manager Stockton Whitten stated the Board had requested staff to come back today and talk about different methods of budgeting; and the Board also asked staff to present it with reduction possibilities in terms of the tax roll.  He noted Interim Budget Director Elizabeth Swanke is going to talk to the Board about the tax roll reduction scenarios and the different budgeting methodologies; and at the end of the presentation he is going to talk about the budget development process and ask the Board for some direction in regards to the Workshops that are coming up as to how the Board wants to go through that process.

 

Elizabeth Swanke, Interim Budget Director, stated staff ran a couple of different scenarios; staff looked at what happens when the tax roll drops 7 ½ percent, 10 percent, and 15 percent; and then  staff  looked  at it in two  different  ways.  She stated if the Board should desire to keep the current millage, what would happen; and if the Board should desire to go to rollback rate, what would happen.  She stated for a 7 ½ percent tax roll reduction to maintain the current millage, the Board faces a deficit of $15.6 million in tax revenue from this year; at 10 percent it rises to $20.8 million; and at 15 percent it is $31.2 million in reductions this year.  She stated to maintain the rollback rate, which by definition means the Board collects the same amount of money next year as this year, it means there will be a millage change of 8.11 percent at 7 ½ percent tax roll reduction, rising to 11.11 percent at a 10 percent tax roll reduction; and a 17.65 percent increase at a 15 percent reduction.  She stated under the special act that applies only in Brevard County, the Board is not allowed to have more than a 10 percent increase in one year. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated Brevard County, unlike most other counties, has a number of different caps; there is the Charter cap and statutory caps that all the other counties have with regards to the maximum millage; and Brevard County has a Special Act that says in any one year for operating tax revenues, it cannot be raised more than 10 percent.  Chairman Nelson stated staff is talking about raising revenues 10 percent, but here, Mr. Whitten is talking about revenues increasing to offset the loss of revenues; and inquired how that is an increase.  Mr. Whitten stated that is in regards to whether the Board rolls up or goes to a different rate; the language is that when the Board increases above the revenue it is getting over the current year, so that would only kick into place if it is increasing 10 percent above what it collected this year; and he appreciates the Board letting him make that clarification.  He stated the 10 percent cap, if the Board gets $200,000 for its operating revenues this year, it cannot increase that by more than 10 percent in the next fiscal year; and that is minus new construction and those revenues associated with the library district. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated it is his understanding that the same amount of revenue is allowed to be collected this year as last year; and there is no cap on that.  Mr. Whitten stated that is what is addressed under the rollback rate; if the Board looks at that it will note there is no tax revenue change; and so the Board is collecting the same amounts even if the roll were reduced 7.5 percent to the 15 percent.  He stated what happens under that scenario is that the Board will have to increase the tax rate to get the same amount because the roll has slipped and the rate has to go up; and if the Board does that under the different scenarios it can see the tax rate percentage increase is significantly affected.  He noted technically, it is not a tax increase to get the same amount of revenues the Board got last year, but the rate will increase; so there is a technical definition of a tax increase; and the practical aspect is that the tax rate would go up.  Commissioner Fisher stated his understanding is that if it is really reduced 15 percent, the number of $17.65 will go up, and the 10 percent has no factor in it.  Mr. Whitten stated that is correct.  Commissioner Fisher stated in other words, the Board is not limited to how much it rolls up; it can get to the same revenue stream it had in 2008.  Mr. Whitten stated that is correct, if it is the desire of the Board. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she appreciates staff coming forward and giving the Board the numbers so that it knows it is working with basically a $15 million to $31 million cut based on tax rolls decreasing, because she will not be increasing millages; and that is the way she will be leading her direction.  Commissioner Anderson stated he agrees with Commissioner Infantini and he feels the same way.  Chairman Nelson inquired if Commissioner Infantini and Commissioner Anderson want to see the budget first.  Commissioner Anderson stated he gave his word to the residents and he is not going back on it.  Chairman Nelson stated he understands.

 

Ms. Swanke stated on Tuesday, staff also showed the Board some impacts of other major revenues that staff has seen some reductions in this year; those would be communication services tax, FPL franchise fees, State shared revenue, and also the half-cent sales tax that the State gives the County; staff looked at the impact of another 7.5 percent, 10 percent, and 15 percent reductions in the revenues would be next year; and the total revenues are $55 million this year, so the Board is looking at another impact of cuts based on $4.1 million, $5.5 million, or almost $8.3 million if those continue to reduce next year.  Mr. Whitten stated those numbers are on top of the tax roll reduction numbers; staff ran the same percentage reductions; and if the other major revenues are reduced those are the numbers associated with it. 

 

Ms. Swanke advised the next slide represents the sum of property taxes and major revenues.  She stated for the General Fund this year, there is $197 million in property taxes and major revenues; the greatest portion of the major revenues are part of the General Fund; the other taxing districts, which are the MSTU’s and the Special Dependent Districts, are $104 million in property tax and major revenues.  Mr. Whitten inquired if that also includes the debt service; with Ms. Swanke responding it is operating taxes.  Mr. Whitten stated staff will show the Board how they worked down from the billion dollar budget to the crux of the matter with regards to reductions narrowing down to the revenues that the Board receives from the major revenue sources and the property taxes. 

 

Ms. Swanked stated the $197 million in General Fund and major revenues are being reduced by the public safety agencies that are funded through this; the Board can see there is $102 million in property taxes from the General Fund and major revenues that go toward public safety issues, leaving a balance of $94,896,591 for everything else.  Mr. Whitten stated the slide indicates staffs definition of public safety; on Tuesday, the Board set a goal area for public safety; what is absent from the slide is Emergency Management; and if Emergency Management is added, the balance reduces even further. 

 

Ms. Swanke displayed a slide indicating the mandated expenses the Board is required to pay; what is shown is the majority of expenses, there are other mandated expanses scattered throughout the budget in much smaller denominations; but the Board is required to fund the expenses under Article V, which are the general government debt for bonds that have been issued in the past, the Charter Officers, Medicaid, Pre-Trial Detention of Juveniles, Baker Act, and Medical Examiner, which are all State mandates.  She advised those are $40 million, leaving the Board with $54.8 million.  She noted the next slide is a sum of all of the other agencies; if added up, the Board can see that it does not equal the $54 million, because to fund the other agencies, the Board is going into what staff calls non-major revenues; and the other agencies are ones that Board has some discretion in funding.

 

Mr. Whitten stated the point in regards to the last three slides, is that if there are areas that are off the table and the Board is required to reduce the budget by a 7.5 percent reduction on property taxes and major revenues combined would be $19.8 million; a 10 percent combined reduction would be $26.4 million; and a 15 percent combined reduction would be $39.5 million.  He stated the Board has not talked about the expenses that would be added to the budget, such as cost of living expenses; the Board discussed at the first Workshop setting a goal of four percent employer contribution looking at possibly an increase in employer contributions for health insurance.   He stated when looking at where the Board  ends up after stripping out those things that the Board has said are priorities, it ends up having to take between $19.8 and $39 million from a much smaller number. 

 

Ms. Swanke advised the next slide is a list of alternative budget methods that are commonly used in government agencies throughout the United States; there are line item budgets, incremental budgeting, zero-based, performance, and program-based; and she is going to describe each one in more detail.  She stated line item budgeting is personnel, fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, contractual services, construction, and other indirect costs; and all departments work at the line item basis and spend their budget at the line item basis, it is just not the presentation the Board has seen for the last decade. She stated the advantages of working at the line item, it is the least time consuming and additional reports are not being prepared to show other levels, comparisons are now shown, and it is the most simplified accounting system; and it controls line item expenditures.  She stated on the other hand, it is difficult to relate to performance because there are many lines; there is a lot of information contained in it with a low level of detail; and it cannot relate data to activities, the data is not conducive to making timely adjustments, and it is difficult to determine reasons for over/under expenditures.  She advised incremental budgeting means the budget is prepared using a previous period’s budget or actual performance as a basis with incremental amounts added for the new budget period; and an allocation of resources is based upon allocations from the previous period.  She stated at different points in the past, Brevard County has used incremental budgeting; at different points in the past, departments were allowed to maintain what they received in revenue from the General Fund the prior year and to add additional General Fund revenue to cover additional built-in cost increases for the new year; and so if insurance premiums went up, they were allowed to have additional General Fund incrementally added to their budget to cover the additional expenses.   She stated incremental budgeting is simple to use and easy to understand, the budget is stable and changes are gradual, managers can operate their departments on a consistent basis, coordination between budgets is easier to achieve, and an impact of a change can be seen quickly.  She stated incremental budgeting assumes activities and method of work will continue as before with no change, but it does not account for changing circumstances; there is no incentive to innovate; it encourages spending up to the budget; and the budget may no longer relate to what the work product is of the office. 

 

Ms. Swanke explained zero-based budgeting means that each organization begins at zero resources; each organization has to rank purposes; it requires a clear focus on priorities; the process must include mandates; and a modified version called, “targeted budgeting”, in which only some agencies are at risk of this level of review each year.  She advised the advantages of zero-based budgeting are that it requires justification of proposed activities, it is useful for analyzing priorities, and managers must argue the merits of their efforts.  She stated some considerations of zero-based budgeting are that there is potential of competition and conflict among program components, it is time consuming and requires more forms, it is difficult to successfully implement, and it requires an accounting system that records at the needed levels.  She stated with the activity based budgeting, which is the presentation the Board sees each year, is programs, services, activities, and personnel; through the methodology, the Board can identify opportunities for improvement in cost reduction, relate costs to performance data, and enables assessment of processes that are effective in serving customers.  She stated some things to consider with the activity/program based budgeting is that it has been set up to record at the needed levels so data is maintained in the presentation format; it is time consuming; and it also requires a detailed project plan. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated staff is currently working on its performance measurements; staff is part of a consortium that has a database of a performance measurement and bench marks that are being looked at; and each department should be working diligently to revise their performance measurements.  Commissioner Infantini stated it looks like zero-based budgeting is the one most aligned with what the Board set forth as its priority at its meeting on Tuesday that it wanted to prioritize spending; and she would like to move forward on that method. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated all budgeting scenarios allow the Board to prioritize based on its goals and objectives; program-based and performance-based budgeting allows the Board to do that too, because it will have performance matrixes that relate back to the Board’s goals and objectives; when talking about zero-based, staff can go back and do a zero base analysis, or the Board can zero base later in the process; and inquired how the Board would like to approach if it is going to direct staff to do zero-based budgeting. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated currently the budget is performance based; and that also shows what the Board’s priorities are, because the Board will go through it and see what services are the top priority; and she does not see any flaws in the current way the Board does the budget.  Commissioner Infantini stated her problem with doing the budget the current way is that the current way got the Board where it is today; and if the Board does not start looking at new alternatives, it is going to keep running into the same obstacles.  She stated she has seen some departments spending because they know their budget is going to be cut; stated she has heard about it in different departments; and they know if they do not spend what they spent last year, then they are not going to get the same money.  She stated she would encourage the Board to consider approaching it from an entirely new look rather than going the same way.  Commissioner Bolin stated she understands what Commissioner Infantini is saying, but it is a different ballgame because of the attitude and philosophy of the Board versus the process  of what it does to get toward numbers; it is not the numbers that were the problem, but the priorities in past years; and she is not faulting the method. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he realizes it takes time to implement a budget; the Board is going to have a new Budget Director soon; his problem with the current method is that the level of detail is not there; and it may not be a matter of changing everything wholesale this year, but the Board definitely needs to start aiming in that direction.  He stated one way to do that is to implement some of the zero-based budgeting and start implementing it now, or it can take some departments and start implementing that way; but the Board needs to move in that direction because this is not the first year it is going to be down in revenues. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated because the Board is elected to do the budget, it falls upon the Commissioner’s duties to get into the line item and detail; and stated some of the burden is on the Board.  Commissioner Anderson stated the other side of zero-based budgeting that is attractive to him is that each department director would have to justify each line item; and that is very difficult from a management standpoint because there are competing interests within departments.  He stated the burden needs to be on the Board so it can justify to its constituents what it is doing; and the only way to do that is to go to a zero-based budgeting concept.

 

Chairman Nelson inquired if the Board is going to look at each department’s budget and go through page by page at that level of detail.  Commissioner Anderson stated no, and that is why he is saying the directors can justify.  Chairman Nelson stated program budgeting has a lot of elements of zero-based budgeting already built in; and he would like to contradict something Ms. Swanke said.  He noted the Board does not have an equipment replacement program of any significance in the County; the incentive is to save money because that is the only way for a department to buy replacement equipment.  He stated he is not aware of any other county that is using zero-based budgeting; if it is the answer, then he thinks there would be more utilization of it; Sarasota County looked at it and moved in another direction; and he would like to know why.  He stated it is late in the process for Brevard County; zero-based budgeting is time consuming and labor intensive; and before the Board would move in that direction, he would like to understand what that means in terms of real time.  He stated he would like to see research on the zero-based budgeting from the new Budget Director.  He stated the direction the County has gone has been a result of its leadership of the County Commission; stated good or bad, that is how it has come to the position it is in; and he would like to see the Board move on, because it is going to be a tough budget year. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated at the end of the day, no matter what budget method the Board uses, there are revenues coming in and expenditures going out; and he is going to rely heavily on the new Budget Director to help the Board get a good understanding of where the Board stands.  Commissioner Anderson stated regardless of what the Board does, it is still under its own mandate to look at the prioritization of everything.

 

Chairman Nelson stated the direction he would give to Mr. Whitten is that as the Board moves forward with the new Budget Director, it would still like to get information back in the form of what implementation would look like if it were to move forward with zero-based budgeting; and he would like to understand what other counties and cities have done or not done, and some of their reasoning. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated he would like to discuss some important dates for the Board about the budget schedule.  He advised the next budget workshop is March 19, 2009; there is a budget workshop scheduled for April 23^rd; May 1^st is the end of the Legislative Session, so he is assuming by that time the Board will know what is going to be passed down to it; and May 1^st is also the budget submittal date for the Clerk of Courts and Supervisor of Elections.  He stated on May 15^th the Board’s agencies submit their budgets to the Budget Office; May 21^st is a Board date that is not designated as a budget workshop; and he would suggest today the Board establish that as a budget workshop.  He noted on June 1^st, the Board will get the preliminary property values; there are a number of budgets that will already be in before the Board gets the preliminary property values; and June 1^st is also the due date for the Sheriff’s budget and the Property Appraiser’s budget.  He stated July 1^st is the date of the certified property values; and July 15^th is when the Board is required by law to have a balanced budget proposal.  He stated July 16^th and 23^rd are budget workshops; at the end of July the Board will set the tentative millages; and on August 1^st the Tax Collector’s budget is due to the Board. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if the Board has the balanced budget on July 15^th, and on August 1^st is the Tax Collector’s budget, what if the Board had in its budget reduced their budget and they come in with something that does not reflect what the Board did.  Mr. Whitten replied the big question each year is to what extent can the Board reduce their budgets; the Tax Collector submits her budget to the Department of Revenue; stated it is a fee for service; and the discussion has been if the Board has any ability to  affect  that budget submittal.  He stated he is not sure there is an appeal process of the Tax Collector’s budget, or when she submits it to DOR and it is approved, the Board is stuck with it.  Ms. Swanke noted there is an appeal process; it is in the Governor’s hands, as it is one of his offices that handles the appeal process; the Board can request an appeal; but the decision is made in Tallahassee.  Chairman Nelson stated because the Tax Collector is fee based, it is not receiving any funding from the Board; the question to the Tax Collector is how much she is going to return to the Board.  Mr. Whitten stated that is always the question; each year the Board budgets for the excess fees anticipating that there will be excess fees from the Tax Collector’s Office; and this year it is approximately $4 million that has been budgeted to get at the end of a fiscal year.  He stated the Tax Collector has a good record of returning the fees that are not used each year; the new Tax Collector has offered to advance the Board those dollars prior to the end of the fiscal year. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to designate May 21, 2009 as a Budget Workshop, to begin at 9:00 a.m.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

Chairman Nelson stated the Board will put in whatever time necessary to get the budget finished.  Mr. Whitten reminded the Board it does not yet have any meetings scheduled for June.  Chairman Nelson stated June is typically the time staff is putting the final touches on the numbers. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated staff is going to establish a series of employee cost cutting suggestion meetings; stated he does not know what format they are going to follow right now, but it is staffs intent to go out to the employees and ask them for suggestions; and the Board needs to better refine the ongoing existing employee cost-cutting process.  He stated there is a process for employees to make suggestions; and staff will continue to work on something that is more efficient and better publicized.

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if the Board can institute an anonymous suggestion box; stated she has received information from employees that are concerned and would prefer not to have their name used, yet they have offered places where money can be saved.  She stated she knows the Clerk’s Office has a hotline; she does not know if that is the proper vehicle; and perhaps the Board could use the Citizens Budget Review Committee and set up an email address for employees to make suggestions off of the County server so they would not be concerned about someone obtaining their information.  She stated sometimes employees do have cost-cutting ideas and they are not comfortable sharing those ideas.  Mr. Whitten stated the County has had a program in place for at least six years in which employees would be paid for their suggestions; staff will suggest any suggestions from employees; on the intranet is the ability for employees to email suggestions; and he understands some employees want to remain anonymous.  Commissioner Infantini stated the employee who contacted her did not seem concerned about collecting any financial reward, which is a huge incentive; but she would like to have another venue available for the employees to come forward.  Mr. Whitten stated there has always been a program in place and staff will work to give them some ability to remain anonymous if they wish.   Chairman Nelson stated his only concern with the anonymous aspect is that it could also be used for evil, and in difficult times when someone’s job is on the line, someone could call in anonymously and request to get rid of all the buses; and inquired how the Board is going to handle something like that, because if nothing is done, that employee is going to  think the  Board did  not look at the  suggestion.  He stated if employees remain anonymous, then there is no way of knowing how to respond to them; it would be his desire that everyone participates in a professional way; and then in some cases their ideas may be accepted, and in others there may be an explanation as to why their ideas were not accepted.   Commissioner Infantini stated some employees are afraid of being labeled a mole in their department; stated it has been shared with her that when employees come forward with suggestions they are labeled a mole for trying to come forth with ideas; and she does not want to stifle ideas and suggestions.  She stated there are a lot of employees and she is sure the Board will get frivolous claims, but for someone to take the time, perhaps some of those areas can be looked at.

 

Mr. Whitten suggested the ground rules would be that the personnel issues still need to go through the Merit System; those need to be addressed in the proper form; the Board is looking for cost cutting ideas and suggestions that will save jobs; and he would take personnel issues off the table.  He stated one of the things he thinks will be most effective is if the Board promises employees a turnaround date; the issue will be reviewed by staff and staff will get back to the employee within a certain time; and that has always been done with regard to the employee suggestion program.  He stated if those parameters can be put in place people would fell better about submitting their ideas; but it is difficult to respond to an anonymous suggestion because it is not known who to respond to.

 

Mr. Whitten stated on March 19^th staff will come back to the Board with its draft strategic plan; the Board has seven or eight goal areas; the Board outlined a number of objectives; and it is staffs responsibility now to give the Board some action steps associated with the goal areas and objectives.  He stated also on March 19^th, staff will present an organizational restructuring plan; he has talked to some Commissioners about how to streamline the organization; staff has been working on a streamlined organization for a number of weeks; and also how to consolidate functions and departments.  He stated the fund balance and reserve issue needs to come back for a full detailed discussion because one of the things continuing to be heard are issues associated with the use of fund balances, the amount of fund balances; and he thinks the Board will see that at the end of the day there are primarily fund balances that are associated with projects that are associated with bond and reserve requirements; and he believes there needs to be a full discussion on that so that if the Board has any questions they can be answered.  He stated on March 19^th staff will outline the voluntary separation incentive, which is something that can start prior to the beginning of the next fiscal year; and that will be detailed at the March 19^th meeting.  He stated the Board needs to talk about how it is going to proceed through the workshops; he can go away based on some direction with regard to the reduction targets and bring a product back to the Board, assuming the strategic plan comes together; or the Board can proceed through workshops in a different manner; and the Board can bring the departments together as it has done in the past and have a presentation.  He stated the Board needs to get to some of the issues that are not departmental issues; stated the Board has talked about CBO funding and other areas of the budget that it is interested in; and he needs feedback on how the Board wants staff to process through budget development this fiscal year. 

 

Commissioner Fisher suggested the Board let the new Budget Director begin his duties, and then the Board can make some decisions.  Commissioner Bolin stated reasonably what the Board is going to be looking at is a 10 percent tax roll reduction; and inquired if that is fair, or will the Board be looking at a 15 percent tax roll reduction.  She stated she would like to see something that  Mr. Whitten and the department  directors  can put together as far as a first draft budget; and she would like to look at that and see if there are areas that she would like to enhance or decrease.  Mr. Whitten stated the Board also needs to remember the expenditure side of the house, such as health insurance, the cost of living, FRS, and the Charter Officers.  Commissioner Infantini stated she would set it closer to $40 million; stated she thinks $40 million is what the Board is going to be looking at in decreased revenue; and she would ask the Charter Officers that have increased their expenditures the most to see if there are areas that can be cut back on, such as capital projects.  She stated another thing the Board should be considering is how many millions of dollars could be saved if the Board cut the retiree benefits for the health insurance; and there are a few million dollars that can be saved in CRA funding by not funding some of them.  She stated right now is not the right time to be taking millions of dollars out of the general fund for redeveloping Merritt Island or other areas; and she would like to see where the Board can cut those expenditures because they are ending up with more cash than they started out with in the prior years.  

 

Chairman Nelson stated the Board will take a significant beating as it goes through the process; there will be people who will be upset that in the end did not need to be upset; his preference would be to decide what it thinks the number is going to be; the departments will be prepared to talk about additional cuts; but he thinks if the Board unnecessarily creates a mindset that this is it, it is almost a scare tactic.  He stated the Board needs to decide what that number is going to be; and he does not think it is going to be $40 million.   Commissioner Infantini stated she has seen the home values go down in her district by more than 15 percent from where they were in the prior year.  Chairman Nelson stated while that is true, the recapture rule is actually going to tack on an extra percent or so to homesteaded properties; and while his property value may have gone down, the assessed value is going to go up by two percent.  Commissioner Anderson stated he is wondering about the amount of foreclosures; and inquired when those are reassessed once they are transferred back to the bank.  Chairman Nelson stated he does not know that foreclosures are a good gauge because there will still be a value for the property itself, which may be different than the distressed value that it ends up going for; and he is sure the Property Appraiser is going to work through that.  He stated the State responsibilities that the County has taken on that are not a mandate; in some cases the Board has taken on responsibilities because it was for the good of the community, and it still may be, but the Board needs to look at each one of those.  He stated one that comes to mind is Country Acres; the Board is spending $800,000 at Country Acres, and it is a State responsibility; it is a great program, but the question is if the Board continues with that, or does it try to move it into more of the private sector; and he has had some conversations along those lines.  He stated the Board overfunds Baker Act beds; and that is ironic.  Commissioner Infantini inquired if the Board funds in excess of what is needed, or in excess of what it is required.  Chairman Nelson stated there can be no increase and fund the needs because there are all sorts of needs in the community; and there will be a line of folks willing to tell the Board what those needs are.  He stated he does not think anything is off the table; stated Fire Rescue has done a better job and will do more this year; it is not a lack of support, but the Board needs to make sure it is leaner and cleaner in terms of departments and their budgets; and he does not know of anyone that needs to be immune from the discussion.  Commissioner Infantini stated if the overtime is revamped in Fire Rescue, the Board may be able to save a few million dollars in overtime just by changing the way the fire stations are staffed; she knows the overtime fees have substantially increased a persons base salary; and someone who had a base salary of $62,000 was earning $78,000, which is a lot.  Chairman Nelson stated one of the things the Board needs to  do  is give  guidance to  Constitutional Officers;  and they are part of the solution as well.  He stated last year the Property Appraiser closed some offices; and those are things the Board may have to look at.  Commissioner  Fisher stated the goal of his luncheon is to make sure the Constitutional Officers have a good understanding of where the Board is from a County standpoint; and he is looking forward to any suggestions and getting an understanding of their needs.  He stated one thing the Board may want to do is if it is not going to do any kind of roll up and it is going to have cuts, then one of the conversations may have to be salary reductions; and he is not sure the Board can escape not taking some kind of reduction to show staff that everyone is in it together.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated the Board can consider rolling back the Cody Study because that cost the County approximately $18 million.  Human Resources Director Frank Abbate stated as he mentioned to the Commissioners before, the Cody Study for Countywide was approximately $3 million for the non-Fire Rescue and non-Sheriff; and that was annualized.  He stated he would strongly suggest to the Board that if it wants to look at a salary reduction, it is not the Cody Study; looking across-the-board would be the more appropriate and fairer way to do it; and whatever that percentage is, it should be shared across-the-board.  He advised the Cody Study, as a salary survey, was meant to address existing inequities; the Board is moving backward if it does that; but if it is done across-the-board for everyone, then hopefully, with the inequities it was supposed to address and it was a Board-driven initiative and that is what it was meant to accomplish; and the better way would be an across-the-board reduction for all employees under the Board’s jurisdiction.  Commissioner Infantini stated some of the higher ranking officials went from roughly $90,000 to $120,000.  Mr. Abbate stated there was nothing hidden in the Cody Study; all the information was provided to the Board; the information was also provided to the Clerk’s Office and the auditors; and he can give the Board any of that information now.  He stated he would remind the Board that there were only 48 percent of the employees that received money in the Cody Study; when looking at where the real dollars were in that $3.8 million, he would venture to say that number, as a portion of the $3 million, was an extremely small portion of dollars relative to the total $3 million; and he has easy access to all the information that he can get for the Board.  Chairman Nelson stated if the Board is going to talk about salary reductions, he would like to talk about it outside of the Cody Study, as that was to rectify shortcomings in the employment system; if the Board disproportionately impact employees, it has actually penalized them even further; and the bulk of the Cody Study went to deputies.  He stated the Board needs to talk about the other options, which are furloughs, or a reduction of service.  Commissioner Anderson stated it all comes back to prioritization; and the Board needs to get that down first.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated if the majority of the Board is not apt to do a 15 percent tax roll deduction, he understands, but the Board cannot do anything less than 10 percent; and maybe the Board can look at the 10 percent draft.  Chairman Nelson stated 10 percent is reasonable and departments will be prepared to go further if necessary; at that point, he believes the Board is going to be looking into more specific departments; and it will have been focused by the time the Board gets there.  Commissioner Fisher stated if a 20 percent tax revenue change is being shown, that is not considering merit pay and other things that would increase it.  Mr. Whitten stated nothing is assuming merit increases; but the Board recently talked about the employer contribution for health insurance and targeting that at a four percent increase; and these numbers do not include that.  He stated the mandates are going to increase and the Board does not know what it going to happen with the legislative session with the FRS increases; and whatever  those  expenditure  increases  are  will be  on  top of  the  revenue  losses.  Chairman Nelson stated yes, unless the Board gets direction to do otherwise.  Mr. Abbate stated in the Board  direction was 4 ½  percent  for health insurance; and that would equate to approximately $1.1 and $1.3 million on the property tax General Fund side of it.  Chairman Nelson inquired about the departments that are dual funded and how those are separated out.  Mr. Abbate replied the employer increase in the contribution would be approximately $2.2 million; that is all the employers participating for each individual; and approximately 60 percent would be the General Fund revenue portion; and the remaining monies, whether from an Enterprise Fund such as Solid Waste or Utilities, or the Clerk’s Office that pays for the State employees, or Port Canaveral, that would make up the remaining part of the $2.2 million.  Chairman Nelson stated there are hybrid agencies that historically have been paid by the General Fund; and there may be an opportunity to resolve that with their dual funding sources.  Ms. Swanke stated she has done a person-by-person assessment with the 3,000 County employees to come up with the 60 percent number.  Chairman Nelson stated Parks and Recreation does not pay for individuals out of special district, as they are all rolled into a single budget, which is then allocated based on that.  Commissioner Fisher stated he hopes the Board gets good engagement from the citizens because as the Board talks about cutting different services, there may be a group that may want to pay for that service.  Chairman Nelson stated Mr. Whitten’s suggestion to look at it agency by agency is what the Board is going to have to do; and the citizens have to have an opportunity to comment on what the cuts may be and what the impacts may be.  He stated the only way to do that and make any sense of it is scheduling it agency by agency; and if there is no concern with that, then that would be direction to Mr. Whitten to look at it agency by agency. 

 

Chairman Nelson inquired if staff needs to do anything with regard to lifeguards that would assist in the discussion. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated years ago a lot of the public parks had a gate across the parking lots and people had to pay 25 cents to use the park; and he assumes some of that money went to funding lifeguards.  Chairman Nelson stated when he came to Brevard County there was charge of $1.00 to go to parks; Parks and Recreation did an analysis and the cost of collection equaled the revenues; and in effect, the County was just paying the people to empty the machines, and it was not economically viable; but that is not to say it could not be looked at again.  Commissioner Anderson stated it could be a fee based service if a family wants to go to the area of beach where there are lifeguards.  Commissioner Infantini stated she mentioned the same thing in 1991 when she was on the Parks and Recreation Committee; it was shot down in 1991; but she had gotten some information from the Town of Indialantic because it has parking meters with someone riding around on a scooter picking up the money; and the bad thing about gates is that people break them.  She stated parking meters will entail a decent capital outlay; but if it is looked at as a capital outlay for the long haul, it could be the funding source for a pay-as-you-go to use those services; if someone wants to go to the beach where there is a lifeguard, then there is a fee associated with that; and she thinks that would be a good option to look into.  She stated she will research that with the City of Indialantic because it has the pay-as-you-go system.  Chairman Nelson stated the advantage the cities have is that they are compact and have multiple locations; in the case of the County, someone has to park in one spot, then drive five miles to get to the next one; and there are not parking meters in between.  He stated if the County had larger parks with more parking spaces, then the economy of scale kicks in, but the reality is that most of them do not have sufficient parking to make it viable; but the Board can still look at it.  Chairman Nelson stated the Board would like staff to look at the return on investment for  going  back  to  a  meter  system  for  the  parks  to  see  what  revenue it  would generate, but also what the cost would be for collection and see if it is worthwhile.  He noted on political  dark  side to the  issue is  that most  of  the  sites  were purchased  through  beach and riverfront, which were already paid for; and one of the first comments that will be heard is that people paid for it once, and they do not want to pay for it again; and he does not necessarily agree with that, but it is a common theme. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the option is off the table for the cities to contribute more to the cause.  Chairman Nelson stated most of the parks that have lifeguards are County parks; they are located within city limits, but they are County parks; and the cities’ cost share on some city parks, but why would they want to pay for lifeguards in County parks.  Commissioner Infantini stated her District has 12 miles of completely unprotected beach. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated with the March 19^th date he has outlined his plan; the Board has talked about the 10 percent target, but it has also said it would bring the agencies back for a presentation, questions and answers; and the target presumes he is going to build a proposal based on that; but bringing the agencies back before the Board in front of that proposal does not seem to work.  Commissioner Bolin stated she was under the impression that Chairman Nelson was saying that after Mr. Whitten presents the Board with the proposal, if there are any questions about a certain department, then have them here.  Chairman Nelson stated to accelerate that, the Board can talk about some of those that are not necessarily departmentally related and get those out of the way.  Mr. Whitten stated the March 19^th date is set; April 23^rd would be the date that he would target to come back with a scenario for the Board; and that is less than two months away.  He stated although it is two months away, it is an ambitious target in terms of putting together a budget that is reduced by tens of millions of dollars. Chairman Nelson stated he does not think the Board needs to look at the budget process in only the workshop setting; the Board has the ability to have a discussion at a regular meeting for direction or guidance in order for it to be more fluid; and Mr. Whitten may want to talk about some of the smaller budgets or enterprise operations first, which tend to be a little more structured and less flexible. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he hopes the department directors are thinking about ways to generate additional revenue.  Mr. Whitten stated he would need Board direction on that.  Commissioner Fisher stated it is a difficult time and situation; but at some point in time there might be some opportunity to do something that can help generate revenue; and if there are opportunities to do that it is only right that the Board has a chance to talk about it.  Commissioner Fisher stated some of the fee schedules may have to be increased.  Commissioner Bolin stated she was looking at the liquidation of assets.  Chairman Nelson stated it is not fair to ask staff to review the fees for sufficiency as they currently exist, also any opportunities; staff typically looks at the fees on an annual basis; and that is not an unreasonable request.  He stated ultimately it is what the market will bear. 

 

 

The Board recessed at 10:47 a.m. and reconvened at 11:07 a.m.

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated there are appointments for District 5 Contractor’s Licensing Board.

 

Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to appoint Albert Underwood, Nick Wytec, and Clifford Barber to the Contractor’s Licensing Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Interim County Manager Stockton Whitten stated he would like to ask the Board for confirmation of the appointment of Thomas Rosenberg as the Brevard County Budget Director. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Fisher, to confirm the appointment of Thomas Rosenberg as Brevard County Budget Director, effective March 19, 2009.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated currently the County has had some turnover; there is currently an Interim Fire Chief; and she would like to question the policy being taken going forward as far as placing people in interim positions and finding out how to go about seeking the best most qualified person if there is no advertisement.  She stated the Budget Director position was advertised and a lot of applications were received; but with the Fire Chief, the Board may have the best most qualified person already in place.  She stated she would also like to question the practice of going forward when someone is no longer the head of a department, such as when someone steps in as interim and then steps down into a different position of high after the interim position has been filled; and inquired how that is done.  She stated she is receiving correspondence that people are being taken out of positions they have not fulfilled in a manner in which the Board would like it to be fulfilled; and now they are being placed in another position.  She stated she does not want to put people in internal positions without accepting applications and getting the most qualified people. 

 

Human Resources Director Frank Abbate advised there are merit system policies which are Board approved policies; and those policies provide non-competitive appointments in certain scenarios, they provide for temporary appointments, and they also provide for voluntary demotions; and when those occur, they do not occur competitively, as they are all currently Board approved processes that exist and are consistent with what the Board has established as a system that works.  He stated the Board has the right to change any of those policies through a public hearing process, so if there’s a interest in doing that he will tell the Board that he does not think there are many organizations that do not provide for those sorts of voluntary demotions; sometimes they occur for disciplinary reasons; and he listened to the Board’s objectives the other day in terms of minimizing layoffs, and a lot of time voluntary demotions are a way to accomplish that.  He stated staff will be happy to take any Board direction, but he does not believe there are any inconsistencies in any non-competitive appointments because it is clearly provided for in the merit system; the County Manager has the ability to make an non-competitive appointment; and it is similar to what Commissioners do when they appoint staffs. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated her concern is that all the Commissioners were on board with the person  handling  the  housing  issue in saying they  wanted his immediate resignation; over two and a half years ago she performed an audit of a certain department; it took two and a half years of her audit and three months of being on the County Commission to finally have that person removed; and she does not understand why it was not as simple as accepting his resignation rather than replacement somewhere else in another department. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he understands what Commissioner Infantini is saying; the Board dealt with the issue before it as a County Commission, which was the County Manager; and the Board needs to separate the two issues.  He stated one issue is the decision making process, but the second part is holding the County Manager accountable for that decision making; and he thinks that is what occurred.  He stated he does not know if that circumstance will be seen again because that issue has been dealt with; he does not think the system is flawed; but the decision making was flawed; and the Board has dealt with that.  He stated in the case of the interim, there are going to be times when agencies lose agency heads, and someone has to be put in that position; and Fire Rescue is one of the critical agencies.  He stated it is his understanding the Board is going to go through the selection process on that position; Dennis Neterer will serve as Interim Chief until someone else is chosen; and Mr. Neterer will be considered along with everyone else who applies, if he applies.

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired what happens to Mr. Neterer if he is not chosen for the Fire Chief position, and will he be able to step down into his former position.  Mr. Abbate stated ultimately, that will be determined by the County Manager and himself; and the best decision for the organization will be made.  Mr. Whitten stated it comes down to the needs of the organization; those decisions are going to be made by the County Manager; and that person is held accountable for making those decisions.  Commissioner Infantini stated she is still receiving emails and phone calls regarding the management of Fire Rescue; and she wants to make sure the Board is looking at management issues in that department.  Mr. Abbate stated as that is now his responsibility, he is looking at that issue; he has had multiple discussions with the leadership team; and he is sure staff will be coming forward with recommendations in the next several weeks or months. 

 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated at the December 2, 2008 meeting, he suggested a temporary moratorium on commercial impact fees for enhanced economic development; stated it woulde be for commercial businesses only; and the Board directed staff to prepare a report, which came back on January 20, 2009.  He stated he is looking for feedback from the Commission; stated he believes a temporary moratorium is good; and he knows he is not going to get that; but he would like to hear from the other Commissioners.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated it is something that needs to be discussed; and she is not negative towards a temporary waiver for commercial for a year as a stimulus impact for Brevard County.

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to waive the commercial transportation impact fees for one year.

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated there are people who would like to speak on the issue; the Board needs to discuss it; and he would like to hold off on a vote until the Board has heard from the audience and has had a discussion.  Commissioner Fisher stated there are some challenges with a moratorium, but he is in favor of doing something; and he would like to see the moratorium tied to a Certificate of Occupancy (CO).  He stated if the Board is going to go down the road of waiving impact fees, and the purpose of it is to stimulate growth, then it will want to make sure there is a timeline for people to take advantage of the opportunity.  He stated it is unrealistic for someone to go through the permitting process and build a building and get a CO in a year; it may be two-year process; and another issue might be with people who are in the system currently and at the point of getting a CO.  He inquired as the Board applies credits, how will this decision affect some of those projects. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated there is no fiscal impact on the item as to what that would mean; the Board has said as a group it wants a fiscal impact for this decision; and it is critical that the Board understand the ramifications; but even more basic than that is if it is doing it for stimulus, then how does it judge success.  Commissioner Fisher stated success can be judged by a CO.  Chairman Nelson stated the moratorium is supposed to stimulate, which means the Board is supposed to see more coming in rather than giving a waiver to those who would have already been building; and if impact fees are necessary and have a beneficial purpose and provides resources for the County to do projects, build schools, and pay for jails, then the question would be why not use it.  He noted the Board is talking about stimulus, which means it would want to see the economy jump-started; a decision to build something would be made as a result of the decisions the Board makes; and inquired how the Board can judge that it was successful. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated the moratorium itself is successful; and if someone decides to move forward on their commercial project because of the moratorium, construction workers are going back to work.  Chairman Nelson stated he is struggling with how the Board will know the moratorium acted as a stimulus.  Commissioner Fisher stated if the Board does not give a developer a credit, then they do not get a CO; a developer will have two years, if that is the timeline the Board decides to go with, to get a building permit; it is his understanding that impact fees are not paid until the end of a project anyway; and at the end of two years, if everything is not completed, then the impact fees are not waived.  Commissioner Bolin stated some larger projects will take longer to build; and inquired if there can be another form of verifying commitment besides a CO, if it is a large project.  Commissioner Fisher stated most projects can be completed in two to three years; and if someone is holding off on whether or not they want to develop something and stimulate the economy, they would jump on the offer because it is quite a savings.  Commissioner Bolin stated she agrees she does not want to have a lot of people come in and pull permits and then sit on them.  Commissioner Fisher stated that is why the moratorium cannot be tied to permits; it has to be tied to CO’s.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she would like to remind the Board that it is going to be collecting property taxes from the vacant lands; stated they may not be paying impact fees, but they will be paying property taxes on that increased value from now until eternity; and so she does not feel like the Board is getting it’s just due.  She stated not only would the Board be getting construction workers back to work, it will also be collecting property taxes; and inquired what the merits are of charging a convenience store an impact fee.  She commented on convenient stores reducing wear and tear on vehicles; and stated she does not know that convenient stores contribute to the school system.  Chairman Nelson stated only residential impact fees go to schools.  Commissioner Infantini stated she would prefer to go after the real estate taxes which will be generated; if the Board gets rid of impact fees, it can get structure; and stated the Board implemented the impact fees to stifle growth.  Chairman Nelson stated that may be Commissioner Infantini’s opinion.  Commissioner Anderson stated it is a lot of peoples’ opinions.  Chairman Nelson stated Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner Infantini do not believe in impact fees; and inquired if they are aware that 66 percent of the citizens do believe in impact fees.  Commissioner Anderson stated he would like to re-poll the citizens in the current economy.  Commissioner Bolin stated the Board is just talking about commercial impact fees and not residential.  Commissioner Infantini stated citizens believe in impact fees because they do not have to pay them; and she is all for fees she does not have to pay for, except when it stifles the economy. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated those are philosophical debates; stated he is worried about logistics; and inquired if the moratorium can be implemented as Commissioner Fisher suggested.  Assistant County Manager Mel Scott stated staff has experience on both sides as far as start and end dates; and when the Board is ready for that discussion, staff is prepared. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated the Board tends to think of it on an individual permit scale; and inquired if anyone can imagine The Avenue in Viera without impact fees.  He stated he would like to know how the Board is going to make up the difference and how it is going to pay to widen roads or make other improvements if it does not have impact fees.  Commissioner Anderson stated if waiving impact fees spurs a project such as The Avenue, then he thinks it pays for itself because people are going back to work and they are paying taxes and generating revenue. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he believes there is a place for impact fees; but right now, waiving impact fees can stimulate growth; and that is why it is important to him that it be tied to a CO.  He stated whatever timeline the Board establishes with the moratorium, it should have staff look at the fairness of the impact fees.  Chairman Nelson stated the Board should also look at the payment process and when it is collected; and stated he is concerned the Board has no metric to measure the benefit of what it is getting ready to do.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated there could be an unemployment rate of 12 percent to 13 percent in the next year; and if he can do anything to reduce that by half a percentage, then he will feel like he succeeded. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated based on the current economy situation, he does not think that in the next one or two years that enough projects are going to be built  that roads are going to have to be widened; stated his thought process was not having funds to do any of these projects right now; and he would only want to waive the impact fees if someone pulls a permit and builds a building and actually did it in the timeline the Board established.  He stated a project has to be started before a benefit can be seen; and that is how the Board is trying to stimulate the economy.  He stated long-term he does not think it is a good idea to get rid of impact fees; but it is the responsibility of the Board, if it can help stimulate the economy, to do that. 

 

Mr. Scott stated he would like to talk about a timeline first; staff has had experience in the past; and sometimes it has worked and sometimes it has not worked.  He stated as far as the start date for the suspension of impact fees for one year, he would suggest the Board establish the date, for example, 30 days from now; if put too far into the future, the Board is going to be retarding development in the short-term because people may be ready, and they will just wait; and that is not going to do anybody any good.  He stated if the Board just says it is going to suspend impact fees on a certain date, such as two weeks from now; if the Board is in the process of knowing the impact fees are collected currently at the time of a CO; that incentive is already in place, which a lot of local governments are going to, whereas some collect a building permit, Brevard County may hold a developers’ money for quite some time before a CO; and the County already collects that money at the last possible time at CO.  He stated a developer who is in the process now and will be able to obtain a CO in two weeks will win because they will not have to pay the impact fees.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if a developer gets a CO in three weeks, after the suspension of impact fees, does that mean the Board counted on dollars to do any projects.  Mr. Scott replied no, not necessarily because those collections are up and down based on the economy that staff actually waits until there are sufficient pots of money to decide whether or not to do anything at all to start with.  He stated on the bigger years, when there are bigger accumulations, the County is actually adding meaningful capacity; and so there is already a circumstance where those pots of money fluctuate so much that he does not see that as being a factor.  He stated as far as a deadline for the moratorium, staff has to worry about the rush coming up to the end of the deadline; he has experienced that in the past; and he would recommend that 13 months from now, a developer would have to have a complete building permit before that deadline.  He stated a complete permit application is something that can be checked, and in and of itself weeds out those paper projects that do not have the financing under them to go.  He stated secondly, there is a six-month lifeline for a building permit; and so if a developer has rushed a project forward to get the complete building permit, they really have to get moving in that six months.  He advised as the process is currently crafted, there are endless extension opportunities per se, at that point; so if the Board wanted to have that finite point where only viable projects rushing to meet that deadline got in, then the Board may want to allow six months of the life of the permit and one extension; and stated those are the two thought staff would offer as far as a start and end date.   He stated the next issue is credits; stated staff has had preliminary discussions recently with some of the biggest entities that would be affected by credits, understanding the dynamics of the economy that the County is in right now.  He stated the simplest way to characterize how a wavier of impact fees would affect some the credits, is that the private sector is now going to have to react; if they have purchased a piece of property, assuming they would have that reimbursement at the back end, they are going to have to adjust the terms of tenants or sale of that property on the back end; and if a builder was putting a project together and that project is going to benefit by virtue of a credit, then without the impact fee, they have to re-tool that financing on the back end.  He noted developers are going to have to do things on the back end to figure out how that would affect their sale price and how that would affect the low they currently have; stated staff has asked developers if this puts them in a pickle; and in the short-term he thinks it will, but he has not gotten any feedback from anyone who has said they will not be able to overcome this. 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if the number of those projects sitting out there are few and far between for commercial, not residential.  Mr. Scott replied the biggest one that exists right now is a major shopping center on SR 192, east of I-95. 

 

Steve Swanke, Planning and Zoning Department, stated developers are obligated through the existing developer’s agreement to make roadway improvements; stated they were to receive impact fee credits to offset their costs; if they do not pay the impact fees, they are essentially receiving the same thing; they are paying for the credits; but they do not really enjoy any benefit from the abatement of commercial impact fees.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the developers still have to make the road improvements; with Mr. Swanke responding yes.  Mr. Swanke stated the County has a couple of agreements with The Viera Company for funding commitments that they have already made; The Viera Company will still receive the full reimbursement for their funding commitments; it will take longer to reimburse them for those costs because it will come entirely from residential development for a period of time, and that is in a particularly distressed state right now; but ultimately they are not being deprived of their investment, as they are being impacted to the extent that there is a time value associated with money.  He stated he believes to accomplish what the Board wants to do, there needs to be a public hearing and an ordinance has to be adopted; and he is assuming the Board still needs to comply with certain notice requirements in the Florida Statutes concerning impact fee public hearings, which is either 90 or 120 days notice to the community.  Attorney Knox stated he will look into that, but there may be an option if the Board thinks it is a serious enough issue that it would declare it an emergency, all those requirements can be waived.  Mr. Swanke stated another option may be to, when the Board adopts the ordinance, to have it applied retroactively; and that will allow someone who is in the process today to benefit from the ordinance.  He stated with regard to Mr. Scott’s comments on how to go about structuring the language to make sure the County receives some kind of economic benefit, he would suggest the Board set a date for submittal of a building permit application.  He stated a CO is also required by the end of the moratorium subject to an extension if construction has actually begun of the project; in some situations there may be impediments getting financing for the project that if they simply turn in their building permit application, could extend the process for quite some time; and the Board needs to give staff some specific direction as to how it wants staff to handle that in the ordinance language. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he is concerned there are developers that will pull a permit and then not start the work, and then extend the permit; the Board is doing this to stimulate the economy, so he would rather see a timeline and tie it to a CO; and if a developer is serious about starting a project if it did not have impact fees, then they should be serious about getting a permit and getting the project built. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if a large project, such as a shopping center, can be completed within the timeframe; and she does not want to see a project not completed because there is not enough time from start to finish within the timeframe the Board is setting.  Commissioner Anderson inquired if the Board put a sunshine provision on it, can it revisit its policy regarding impact fees; and inquired if there are any lingering projects out there, can it extend it a couple of months for that specific project.  Mr. Scott advised if the Board acts on the option Mr. Knox has given, then the start date will be whatever is decided today; staff can figure out and bring to the Board retroactively how it is going to wrap it up; and his idea was that a building permit only lasts six months, so a developer is going to have to be serious, or they are going to lose it.

 

Attorney Knox stated as far as a sunset provision, that can be done; the Board can look at it at the end of a year and a half; and if the Board wants to extend it at that point, then it can do that.

 

Chairman Nelson inquired of the impact of the cities because some of them are part of the County’s impact fee program; inquired if they are separated out; and stated he is not sure the cities are aware of what the Board is about to do to them.  Attorney Knox stated the cities can set up their own impact fee program if they choose to do that; stated some cities are part of the County’s program and some are not; but if they do not like what the County is doing, they can always create their own program. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if Titusville adopted the County’s impact fee ordinance, does that ordinance stop if the County’s ordinance stops.  Attorney Knox stated he has not looked at Titusville’s ordinance; and inquired if Titusville is actually part of the program.  Mr. Swanke stated Titusville actually adopted an ordinance establishing the impact fees that was based on the identical provisions in the County’s ordinance; there is also an Interlocal Agreement with Titusville that provides for a variety of things; but most cities have not adopted a separate ordinance because when they do it supersedes the County’s ordinance.  He stated most of the costs for commercial development in impact fees are attributable to transportation impact fees; so this will have no affect on Melbourne or Palm Bay development; but it will affect the other cities with the possible exception of Titusville because its approach was a little different.  Attorney Knox stated he will have to take a look at the documents before he comments.

 

Attorney Knox stated if Titusville adopted its ordinance based on the County’s study, and it is a separate ordinance, then the City is in good shape; but he will have to take a look at it and see if that is what Titusville did.  Mr. Swanke stated the abatement may not apply in the City of Titusville. Commissioner Fisher stated yes, unless the City Council does what the Board is doing. 

 

Chairman Nelson inquired of the impact to the existing commercial that is vacant; the Board is going to encourage the development of new commercial, and there is a significant amount of existing commercial that is vacant; and inquired if there is any feedback from the developers who have paid the impact fees who have properties vacant and are going to have additional competition for space after a break has been given to their competitor.  Mr. Scott stated in the current economy, everyone has seen economists weigh in on the implication of one stimulus move versus another; and he can share arguments on both sides; but certainly the Board is talking about stimulating construction, which is one aspect of the economy being helped; and existing inventories is not being incorporated into the discussion. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated the Board is encouraging additional development when there are no tenants to go into those spaces and there are already vacant spaces.  He noted if looking at the concept of smart growth, it is maximizing utilization of the existing infrastructure before developing new infrastructure; and what the Board is creating is a program that puts a higher value on creating new infrastructure.  He stated if the Board wants to talk about redevelopment, then he is closer to being comfortable with some reduction of impact fees based on those properties being improved as opposed to creating new ones that are now competing with the existing empty ones.  He stated there are always cause and effect in these issues; the Board may kill shopping centers by building new shopping centers; and the Board is putting a higher value on the new one than it did the old one.

 

Jim Garrison stated he is a General Contractor specializing in design build of buildings; stated he has been a General Contractor in Brevard County for almost 40 years; and he has seen things come and go.  He stated the present structure of impact fees is totally unjust; it is a negative impact on future projects; and that affects the economy as Commissioner Anderson just stated.  He noted he just finished a project on Plumosa Avenue on Merritt Island for a Dentist; it was a $1.5 million project and he had to produce almost $100,000 in impact fees; the major component of the $100,000 is transportation; the Dentist has been practicing in a nearby office for years; and inquired what impact on transportation did the Dentist cause by moving three blocks away.  He stated he currently has a project in Titusville that is a 10,000 square-foot urgent care center, which is very much needed by the community; he has a property owner that wants to build it, and he has a tenant waiting to move into it; but that project has been killed by impact fees; and the property owner has said he will not build it if he has to pay $130,000 in impact fees.   He stated if that project went forward there would have been $2 million of work pumped into the local economy; approximately 50 construction jobs would have been created; and 12 to 15 jobs would have been created in perpetuity in utilizing that building.  He stated if that raw piece of property was turned into an urgent care center, the County could be collecting $30,000 a year in revenue; in addition to that, those employees that are earning that money are going to be spending it throughout the community; and that is going to create other forms of revenue.  He stated the other thing that is unjust is that currently, the way that impact fees are structure takes no consideration into what the building is actually used for; for example, if he builds an office building for a group of psychiatrists, they are going to see eight patients a day, at eight trips a day; if he builds the same size building for a dermatologist, he or she is going to see 40 patients a day, at 40 trips a day, which is five times more trips; but both would pay the same fee; and he thinks that is incorrect and wrong.  He stated his opinion is that new construction pays its own way by increasing the value of the land and therefore increasing the ad valorem taxes that are charged; it increases sales tax spent by individuals that are provided those new jobs and all other tax bases; and certainly some projects have a negative impact on the infrastructure, but not those projects that are being built in areas in which the infrastructure already exists. 

 

Chairman Nelson inquired if Mr. Garrison’s urgent care project is in the City of Titusville.  Mr. Garrison replied yes, it is.  Chairman Nelson stated the City of Titusville will do whatever it wants to do.

 

Mr. Garrison stated yes, he has to pay the Titusville component, but the majority of the fee is the County fee; and he pays the Titusville component because it provides EMS and police protection; but the major component is transportation.  Chairman Nelson stated he believes Titusville has the ability to implement its own transportation.  Mr. Garrison stated his past experience is that it is minor in consideration to what is paid to the County; when he finishes a project, he comes to the County and writes a big check and gets a receipt; and then he takes the receipt to the City and then pays its fee.  Chairman Nelson stated the difference now is that Mr. Garrison will go to the City to write a big check.  He stated Mr. Garrison raised some points that he has had concerns with, such as getting into the level of detail about the cause and effect for the fees themselves; inquired if the fees are fair given the circumstances that each of the projects finds themselves; and he thinks those are valid discussions and that review needs to occur.  Mr. Garrison stated Chairman Nelson mentioned that 66 percent of the populous thinks there should be impact fees;  stated it is likely that  66 percent  of the  population thinks that, the County builds roads and hands them over to the developer for profit; but nothing could be further from the truth; the developer is rolling that into the cost of the project; and therefore, that becomes a cost to the end user. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he has a question about commercial paying for itself; the study was supposed to determine whether or not that was the case; and if the case was that it had, then there would not be an impact fee.  Mr. Scott stated the Board is talking about a year in which it is thinking about a stimulus; and certain things are being suspended.  He stated if growth paid for itself, South Florida would have more money than they knew what to do with; the fact remains that when it is all said and done, the impact fees are locally assessed after it is taken into consideration the amount of money that would be generated based on the existing tax rate of that local government; and in essence, when there are those high tax rate communities, impact fees are actually able to be lower because the methodology that goes into assigning that fee is existing tax rate and impact on the infrastructure that that use will have.  He stated the impact fee is actually the business model for the bricks and mortar that need to be connected into that business.  He stated the fairness issue is something staff never gets away from looking at because it begs the question in a valid way when there are two different medical offices, such as Mr. Garrison explained, but they sometimes get put in the same category; there is a provision in the ordinance that says if a developer wants to give the County the specific detail of that use, the rate will be adjusted; but with having that greater detail, there can be an impact fee table that has hundreds of more uses; and he thinks the customer is best served by that.

 

Luke Miorelli stated he is the President of M.E. Construction; his company builds owner-occupied small commercial and industrial buildings only; and he does not know anything about residential impact fees.  He stated when developers get financing, the financing is based on the cost basis, or the appraised value; if the appraised value is down, when they go to get financing it is an additional cost that has to be figured into the cost; and they are only going to be able to borrow 75 percent of the total cost, or the total appraised value, whichever is less; and if the cost is up and the appraised value is down, it leaves a big opening.  He stated as far as the permitting, if it is limited to the building permit, it has to be issued and have one six-month extension, that should be sufficient to close the doors; starting and getting a project through the site planning process can be very laborious because there is FDOT to deal with and FDEP, and St. Johns; but if a developer gets a building permit, that means the site plan is approved and everything is in place.  He stated the problem with requiring a CO is the developer, the owner, and the County does not control it; a lot of times it is controlled by FDOT; and if developers are only allowed one extension on a permit, it will make people step up to the plate and take it seriously. 

 

Chairman Nelson inquired what happens after a permit is extended; stated the Board has seen several extension requests; and he is afraid that once the permit is issued, the Board is never going to go after someone for an impact fee because they did not get finished.  Commissioner Fisher stated permits do not create jobs; the jobs are created by the construction; and that is his concern with not tying the moratorium to the CO.  Chairman Nelson stated it comes down to if construction is even started; and some of the extensions the Board has granted has been because construction was never started.  Mr. Scott stated if a developer has not started construction within six months that a building permit is issued, the permit expires.  Commissioner Fisher inquired what happens if a developer  puts down  a slab and does nothing else.  Mr. Scott replied that cannot be done without a building permit.  Mr. Scott stated whatever the Board does, there will be a loophole, or unintended consequence, but if the Board can get the moratorium to work the way the Board is intending it to, that is the best that will be able to be done. 

 

Mr. Miorelli advised there is a document called a Certificate of Completion that is given to strip centers that do not have any occupants yet; and the County could control a Certificate of Completion, which would put the builder/developer outside of the control for the credit of DEP and FDOT. 

 

Ryan Rusnak stated he worked in the Planning and Zoning Office for 10 years; three years ago he left the County to work in the private sector; and it has been an experience to see how the business world operates and also to see how the downturn in the economy has affected everything.  He stated impact fees are generally accepted and beneficial in a strong real estate market; developers are generally okay with paying impact fees because they recognize the benefit it receives to the infrastructure in the area; but impact fees are ultimately passed down to the user.  He stated right now everything is dropping and it is all about price point; when adding the impact fees onto whatever the cost of constructing the building is, a developer cannot compete with existing development because regardless of how much it costs, the market is going to dictate what the price of the rent or home is; and certainly dire times call for dire measures. 

 

Bruce Moia, President, MBV Engineering, stated Commissioner Infantini made the comment earlier that impact fees came into existence in order to stop or slow down development; he is not going to say that was not the intent, or that it was; but it is definitely the result of the impact fee passing; and there was a lot of development that was stopped or slowed down significantly.  He stated suspending impact fees temporarily would be a good start; and he is sure staff will figure out something that will work for everybody.  He stated one thing that was done to stop or slow down development was years of Code revisions and Ordinance development; that was specifically done with the intent to slow or stop development; and he hopes the Board looks long-term at revising some of the Code and ordinances to stimulate more growth.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he would ask for a modification of the motion on the floor that if the Board does not require a CO, then it will require a Certificate of Completion; and he would also like to add to the motion that the Board look at the fee schedule and the fairness of that.  He stated he does not think one year is long enough; and stated the moratorium should be in effect for two years, as it takes six months to permit something. 

 

Chairman Nelson inquired in terms of looking at fairness, is there any level of review that could be accomplished internally with the information the Board previously received.  Mr. Swanke stated staff will try to review what options are available in-house, based on information staff has; and staff will also talk to the consultants to see what the actual charge might be. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated the Board can take that as a separate action.  He stated the issue was raised of whether or not the moratorium requires a public hearing; it is scheduled under Discussion; and that makes  him  uncomfortable  by  not having a  public hearing.   He stated he would like to see everything detailed in writing to give the Board the ability to see everything it has talked about and approve it. 

 

Attorney Knox advised if the Board is going to approve a moratorium, it needs to adopt an ordinance; and so the only question is what period of time the Board wants to endure.  Chairman Nelson stated the ordinance will have to come back as a public hearing anyway.  Attorney Knox stated if the Board thinks it is an emergency situation in which people are not working because this is happening, then it can do it as an emergency ordinance; staff can bring it back at the next meeting; and it will be on the Agenda and the Board will have the document in front of it. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she believes it is an emergency situation; if the Board is allowed to pass it at today’s meeting, she would rather do that.  Chairman Nelson stated he does not know what the Board is passing.  Commissioner Anderson stated the ordinance will have to come back at the next meeting.  Attorney Knox advised staff can bring back an ordinance at the next meeting.  Chairman Nelson stated he would be comfortable supporting that because then he would be able to see exactly what the Board is going to be approving. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to direct staff to prepare a draft emergency ordinance for a moratorium on transportation impact fees and commercial development, to bring before the Board on March 5, 2009. 

 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board is addressing some of the other concerns such as a timetable for the moratorium.  Commissioner Infantini stated she prefers two years for the length of the moratorium.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board is also going to address the Certificate of Completion portion.  Commissioner Bolin stated she would like to have a discussion on that.  Chairman Nelson stated staff can advertise the two years, but that is a discussion the Board will have to have about length of time and some other things; and the Board can modify the ordinance at the meeting based on Board direction.

 

Chairman Nelson inquired if it would be appropriate to address the non-performance piece of the ordinance, such as what will happen if someone does not comply within the two year period.  Attorney Knox replied that will be in the ordinance.

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if the effective date will be the meeting date, or is today the effective date.  Attorney Knox stated the Board can do it either way.  Commissioner Fisher stated he would like the effective date to be March 1, 2009.  Mr. Scott stated if the effective date is the meeting date, staff can put all the wheels in motion to get ready for that.  Commissioner Anderson stated Attorney Knox previously said the Board could retroactive the ordinance.

 

Mr. Scott stated there are customers coming in every day; and inquired if the ordinance is going to go into effect the day the Board will see the ordinance on March 5, 2009.  Chairman Nelson stated the Board has not decided that issue; and staff should continue to collect, and then the Board may be in a position of actually having to issue a refund.  Chairman Nelson stated the Board can just make the effective date March 1^st.  Commissioner Anderson stated March 1^st is good because of the sunset provision; and it will be easier for the Board to remember.

 

Chairman Nelson called for a vote on the motion.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated there is a lot of acquisition to complete on the St. Johns Heritage Parkway; the final deadline is approaching; and that is going to be the 90 percent completion of the PD & E study, which is the design.  He stated the current policy is that the County does not take any action unless it is a willing seller situation; he wants to get the process moving; at the 90 percent portion of the design, his understanding is that the Board could take the action necessary to start acquiring right-of-way without a willing seller; but he wants to make it clear to the Board that he does not want to go that way.  He advised he wants to have a deadline for the people who have property start discussing with staff so that when the project gets to 100 percent completion of the design, it is ready to begin; stated there is $21 million set aside for this project; and his suggestion is for the Board to give a timeline from the 90 percent completion of design to get people to wrap up negotiations with staff.  He noted there are some property owners who are not talking to the County; and he would like to spur the talks with those owners.  He stated he does not want to get into a situation where the Board is taking property from people; he wants the owners to get the benefit; but in order to do that, there needs to be a deadline; and he suggests when the 90 percent completion is reached, that 90 or 180-days is the cutoff date. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if $21 million is enough to build the parkway.  Commissioner Anderson replied $21 million is just for the right-of-way acquisition.  Commissioner Fisher inquired what will happen if the property owners have to go through eminent domain, and where does that funding come from.  Public Works Director John Denninghoff stated it would come out of those funds and go as far as it can go; right now there is a planning level corridor; the normal procedure would be to get to 90 percent complete plans; and at that point, the option is reasonably that the Board could force the acquisition; but the Board normally does not do that prior to 90 percent completion.  He stated staff would come back to the Board if not able to get a buyer/seller situation worked out, and start exercising the government’s right to be able to compensate the property owner for the property and actually take title to it.  He stated there are a couple of different routes the Board can go, but it would still have to wait until the 90 percent completion; the willing buyer/willing seller has the advantage of being able to work out individual issues in a non-litigious environment, which can frequently lead to a mutually agreeable solution; and those opportunities tend to chill if moved upon too soon. 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired what staff would need to weed out the willing buyer/seller situation from where the County would just take title and compensate the owners; and inquired if six or 12 months is long enough.  Mr. Denninghoff stated typically, staff makes a formal offer to the owners; at that point, if they do not respond within a reasonable period of time, then staff comes back to the Board for direction; staff can continue to try to negotiate, or try to deal with it in a willing buyer/seller situation; and one method is the eminent domain process, and the other is what is referred to as a quick take. 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired what is considered a reasonable time to hear from the property owners.  Mr. Denninghoff stated in advance of the 90 percent, staff is going to do some additional appraisals; it will be timed to where when the 90 percent stage is reached, and if the owners are willing to accept an offer or negotiate in good faith, then staff will try to ride the horse to the finish line; but if it stops looking like it is going to move forward, then staff will break it off at that point and come back to the Board.  He stated staff would wait until it had all the outstanding parcels at once; sometimes one will drag longer than the other; and he can say that some of the owners have been creatively interested and then not interested in what the County is doing.  He stated his estimate of a reasonable time would be four months.

 

Chairman Nelson noted sometimes there is an advantage to the threat of condemnation.  Mr. Denninghoff stated that is correct.  Chairman Nelson stated it sometimes gets the seller to want to move forward; it becomes part of the initial discussion.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if it would be proper for the Board to send a letter to the owners advising of the 90 percent completion target date.  Mr. Denninghoff stated from a legal perspective, that may have undesirable results, as he does not want to refer to what the next course of action could be.  Mr. Denninghoff stated the next update will be with the PD&E process that staff is updating in order to maintain federal funding opportunities that may be out there; then staff will be moving forward as quickly as possible toward the 90 percent; and that will probably happen within 90 days. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired why it is going to take another year to get 90 percent completion of the PD&E.  Mr. Denninghoff replied the PD&E process is required before staff can move forward with the design; right now the design is being held back by the PD&E process; the PD&E process is necessary in order to maintain federal funding eligibility; and if the County did not care about federal funding eligibility, then it would not have to do that and it could just move on.  He stated to underscore that, with the federal stimulus package the County had to have federal funding eligibility in order to be eligible; if the County had all the right-of-ways it could have put all the money onto the parkway.  Mr. Denninghoff stated the PD&E is a very process oriented production of a document that allows the County to have the federal funding eligibility; it requires compliance with the civil rights act, and the endangered species act, and many other things that have to be done; and it is very difficult to go through that process.  He stated staff has been doing a lot of things to a degree further than needed for the PD&E update so the design process is further along.

 

Chairman Nelson inquired who is doing the PD&E process; with Mr. Denninghoff responding it is being done by DRMP. 

 

Tuck Ferrell stated he is here more for a business initiative than a personal one; there is a group of individuals interested in the parkway; his family is ranchers that have given practically two miles of right-of-way south of Viera; and he is negotiating with the County to possibly give another mile of right-of-way in another location.  He stated he and his family feel the parkway is critical; and some of the traffic delays currently are unacceptable and affects the quality of life.  He stated connectivity is critical; the Board has been nothing but cooperative; the step of putting in the extension is something he has always been in favor of; and he thinks the Pineda extension will do wonderful things for Wickham Road and other areas because trips can be divided.  He stated the problem is that FDOT does not have enough right-of-way in many areas to widen any further; and there needs to be creativity with right-of-ways in order to take trips off of roads.  He stated he would like to thank the Board for helping and for listening.

 

Chairman Nelson stated the Board does not need to take action, but it will be expecting an update from staff. 

 

 

Chairman Nelson advised there was a follow-up motion that Commissioner Fisher wanted to make related to a review of the existing impact fee structure.

 

Motion by Commissioner Fisher, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to direct staff to review the County’s existing impact fee structure and provide details to the Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.  

 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired what is the criteria to qualify for budget prioritization process, in the interest of getting more information, not knowing it was going to be on today’s Agenda until late yesterday afternoon.  Government Relations Manager Leigh Holt advised it is important to recognize that the projects are member projects; each of the County’s Congressional Representatives have their own guidelines; the Representatives ask the Commissioners to check boxes as to what of their priorities the Board’s project might be needing; there has to be a purpose and a justification for federal funding; and they are basically one year projects.  She stated the projects are capital in nature because the Representatives are going to Congress and saying they would like the projects in next year’s budget; and projects that require ongoing operating are not eligible.  She stated the Board is asked what federal department or budget, or guidelines it meets; for example, the Natural Resources Office works with the federal offices; they know what the requirements are; they know the beach projects are approved; and that box can be checked because it is a project that is approved by the appropriate federal department.  She advised the guidelines in the budget opportunities change from year to year; this year there is a project that deals with Emergency Management; after Hurricane Katrina there were different guidelines and opportunities for Emergency Management that were not there before; and so that opportunity has opened up.  She stated there are local agreements with the cities; for example, transportation projects are not put in because those projects are outlined by the TPO and agreed on with the cities; and so transportation is not normally included in the local agreements.  She stated there are long-term priorities that have been set by the Board over time; beach renourishment is one of those;  it is something that the federal government makes money available for; the State provides matching money; and the County applies for that money and is ranked high.  She stated there is input from citizens’ groups; one of the projects is from the TDC; and another one is a project of the Farm Bureau and Cattleman’s Association in partnership with the County. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired when the Commissioners are able to have input into the projects that are considered for inclusion because twice she has been offered to choose between the three; and that is not really a choice.  She stated she would like to be more of a part of the process, which she asked for on the 17^th; stated if the Board is asking someone to spend $85 million, then she thinks she should look over all of the options available.  She stated she is trying to justify a welcome center in the middle of the State.  Chairman Nelson stated it is not in the center of the State, it is in Mims at the I-95 rest stop.  Commissioner Infantini stated it is not one of the northern borders and it is not one of the southern borders; typically, a welcome center welcomes people as they are coming into the State, and not into the County; and she does not see that as a priority.  She stated she had someone draft some work on a project that would cost $1.5 million; stated she has been working on animal control issues recently; and someone has designed an animal shelter which could be used for emergencies, such as hurricanes.  She stated she thinks an animal shelter is a bigger priority than having a welcome center in Mims, which is located somewhere in the middle of the State; and she would like to have a bigger list to chose from rather than choosing from the three that have been offered.  She inquired how the Commissioners can be part of the process.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated the welcome center is more of a visitor’s center, which has some TDC funding; and he does not think TDC funding can go towards an animal shelter.  He stated part of the visitor’s center is going to help tourism and the rail to trail project; it was a way to promote Brevard County; and the State was going to use an old rest area to convert into the visitor’s center.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated the Commissioners can propose whatever they like; but whether the individual Congressman is going to sponsor it is different.  Commissioner Infantini stated she has never seen a list like the one proposed; stated there needs to be some flexibility within a list of choices; and she would like to be part of the process.

 

Chairman Nelson stated the process started years ago; some of the projects have been on the list for several years; the important thing is that the new list process will start sometime later this year for the kind of process the Board is going through now; and in other words, this list was already in motion when the new Commissioners were elected.  He noted in upcoming years there will be an opportunity to put things on the list; stated he does not know that an animal shelter is going to rise to federal level, but if Commissioner Infantini wants to put it in there, she can.  Commissioner Infantini stated she is just trying to get other projects on the list because she was given a choice of three; and she does not know what the criteria is; but she just wanted to pick from more than three projects. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated his concern is that the Board’s input is needed soon if there is going to be any hope of getting the projects done; and the Board needs to prioritize the projects.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he would like the visitor’s center to be at the top of the list. Commissioner Infantini stated she would like the beaches to be the number two priority.

 

Chairman Nelson stated he supports the beaches as the number one priority, even though the proposed beach project is not in his district.  He stated the TDC is continuing to work with the State; the reality is if the visitor’s center is going to work, it is going to work at the State level, not the Federal level; and what the TDC is trying to do is intercept the traffic that is going to South Florida and convince them Brevard County is a better place to stop than Ft. Lauderdale; but in his perspective the visitor’s center is number three.  He stated he thinks the beaches are the most important;  there is not a great  likelihood that  the emergency operations center is going to occur, but there needs to be a better facility than the current one; and he would recommend the emergency operations center as number two.  Commissioner Fisher stated he is fighting for the visitor’s center.

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Chairman Nelson, to approve prioritizing the Brevard County 2009 Federal Budget Requests as follows:  1.)Beach renourishment for the South Reach (Indialantic and Melbourne Beach) and initial restoration of the Mid Reach (Satellite and Indian Harbour Beach); 2.) Agriculture and Extension Services Office/Emergency Management Office – Regional Emergency Operations/Agriculture Center; and 3.) Tourist Development Council – I-95 Visitor’s Center.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Fisher and Infantini voted nay.

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:                                                                     ___________________________________

                                                                                    CHUCK NELSON, CHAIRMAN

                                                                                    BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                                                    BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

      

          (S E A L)