MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

August 27, 2009

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on July 23, 2009 at 9:07 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chairman Chuck Nelson, Commissioners Robin Fisher, Trudie Infantini, Mary Bolin, and Andy Anderson, and Deputy County Attorney Shannon Wilson. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Bolin announced that Monday, August 31^st, at 9:00 a.m., is the opening of the Wickham Park Senior Center; it should be a nice ceremony; and everyone is invited.

 

 

 

Ron Bartcher stated library services should not be cut; libraries provide services that are needed now more than ever; many residents depend on libraries for computer access to other services such as unemployment benefits, food stamps, and job hunting; people who have lost jobs cannot afford to pay for these services; and they depend on the libraries to get the services.  He stated in addition, libraries provide no-cost entertainment with books and DVD’s, which is essential to libraries that are suffering through the recession; as one local newspaper stated, closing library doors is like closing the book of knowledge; and children will suffer now and pay the price later.  He stated a cut in library services will hurt those citizens who need it the most; and he urged the Board to not cut those services.  He stated reducing the County budget so drastically now will mean services will not be restored for decades, if ever; last year, the citizens of Brevard County shackled the Board’s ability to deal with rising costs; and in looking at the CPI, over the last 30 years there has been four years where there has been double digit inflation; and what the Board is doing today is making those matters worse because if growth does not grow at all, it is going to take at least four years to restore the cuts that are being made today.  He stated the quality and quantity of services provided by the County will only decrease; the citizens expect the Commissioners to be the leaders and to not lead downward, but to lead forward and protect citizens; and he urged the Board to not cut the budget so drastically that the County cannot recover.

 

June Horner stated the citizens worked 10 years to get a library in Mims; she hopes the services will not be cut so drastically; and she agrees with Mr. Bartcher that the libraries essential to the community.

 

Marlene Adams stated she would like to get a definition of a reasonable amount of time; she has requested public record  a number of times  over the past couple of years;  over two  weeks

 

ago she requested public record about the corrections to the fire assessment; and she has received no response. 

 

Shannon Wilson, Deputy County Attorney, stated unfortunately, the definition of reasonable amount of time is vague on purpose because it depends on the nature of the request and what is involved in responding to the request; without knowing more about the details of Ms. Adams’ request and being able to consult with staff, it is difficult to respond; there is case law that allows, because of the nature of the request, a couple of weeks and sometimes several months because of what is involved; and she would be glad to work with Ms. Adams and Fire Rescue separately to try to resolve the request.

 

Ms. Adams advised the most recent request was based on the corrections that should have been made on the fire assessment that was brought forth a year ago; there has been a year to get it corrected, and now the Board has two weeks to certify the non ad valorem assessment roll again before September 15^th; and she has to assume if the corrections were made, it was done well before now.  She stated the proof of those corrections should be available; and if they are not, she deserves a response saying it has not been done.

 

Stockton Whitten, Interim County Manager, stated the issue is with the 1,800 parcels that were improperly coded; to answer Ms. Adams’ request, which came to staff on August 12^th or 14^th, required some correspondence with the Department of Revenue (DOR); and that is why it is taking two weeks to respond; but he can do that as soon as the meeting is over.  He stated the bottom line is that the information DOR gave staff last year is now different information this year; last year the DOR said all that needed to be done is to fill out a DOR form and turn it in, and then the correction could be made; but this year, the DOR’s clarification is that the form does not need to be submitted because no prior roll is being corrected; and so going forward, it is just a matter of correcting those 1,800 parcels on next year’s assessment roll, and staff is moving forward with doing that.  He stated there were 1,800 parcels that were coded incorrectly; on average it was $15 per parcel for a total of approximately $28,000 to $30,000; and so the issue was how to correct it, and if it should be corrected going forward, or if those costs are recouped  from the prior assessment roll; and the Board never made a decision on that, or it simply said it could be corrected in the next roll; and it is now that point in time, and staff intends on making that correction. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she thought the issue was brought up in September; and she does not recall voting to go forward rather than going back and correcting the roll from the past.   Mr. Whitten stated Commissioner Infantini was not on the Board in September; it was the previous Board; and there was no action to go back and attempt to recover those dollars from last year’s assessment roll.  Ms. Adams inquired if those people in the Ordinance received the benefit of fire protection services for free; and that would mean their share of the benefit would be covered by everyone else, which makes it an invalid assessment. 

 

Ms. Adams stated over a year ago she asked for the actual proof of funding of the exempted property and she never received any proof; money has to be transferred from some unencumbered source and transfer it to the MSBU; and she has never received those documents.  She stated she just wants to know how to get public record, or even a response.  Mr. Whitten stated he thinks Ms. Adams received responses and answers, it was just that Ms. Adams did  not like the  answers.   Ms. Adams  stated  she  never received proof  of  transfer  of funds; the law states the County has to fund it some other way; and the County Attorney’s Office even said that.  Mr. Whitten stated staff will provide Ms. Adams those responses again. 

 

 

 

Shannon Wilson, Deputy County Attorney, stated the cases involved a situation in which the Ferraro’s sued the County and a neighbor, Mr. Baggs, doing business as Riverside Tavern/Bojo’s/Flip Flops, for the neighbors’ continuation of a non-conforming commercial use in a residentially zoned area.  She stated it is her understanding the Ferraro’s were not satisfied with how the County was handling their complaints to Code Enforcement and they sued the County for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, mandamus, and inverse condemnation; and they also sued Mr. Baggs for creating the nuisance in the first place.  She stated the County filed a cross claim against Mr. Baggs for illegally expanding on a non-conforming use; Mr. Baggs closed and has not been operating the business since shortly after the County filed the cross claim; and all three parties had been mediating, but things broke down earlier in the year. She stated Mr. Baggs and the County both have motions misspending; those hearings are scheduled for October; the County Attorney’s position is there is no basis for the Ferraros’ claim for damages, which is approximately $100,000. 

 

Kelly Hilmes, representing the Ferraros, stated she is here to ask permission to address the consent issue to make it a discussion item; and inquired if the Board would permit her to discuss it here, or is it more appropriate for another occasion.  Chairman Nelson stated as long as there are no legal issues, the Board can hear from Ms. Hilmes, as the Item is on the Agenda.  Ms. Hilmes stated Mr. and Mrs. Ferraro own a nice piece of waterfront property that they have owned since approximately 1992; next door to them was a small residential property that had a tavern attached to it; and it was quiet and peaceful, and everyone got along; but new owners came in and all of a sudden a dock appeared without a permit, and the Ferraros made the first phone call to the County with the information that a dock was being built, and that they thought a marina and a large bar was going to be built.  She stated eventually someone came out from the County and looked at the property; photographs were taken; and Mr. Baggs was ordered to take down the dock; but it was never taken down, and the dock flew into the Ferraros’ home during the hurricanes.  She stated also during the hurricanes of 2004, that property was completely destroyed; when someone came out from the County they deemed that it was an unsafe structure and it was ordered to be demolished, and if it was not demolished within 60 days, that someone from the County was going to come out and demolish the property for them and assess them.  She advised Mr. Baggs is a corporation, and when he received the notice he requested a permit to be an owner/builder to go ahead and make repairs to update the structure; and as a non-conforming structure, if it is more than 50 percent of the damage to the structure, it cannot just be redone and re-made, and only general maintenance can be done to the property; and significantly more than general maintenance was done to the property.  She stated the Ferraros called the County and began taking pictures and begging someone to come out and do something to stop it; the property was damaged and unsafe; and the Ferraros reported it many times to the County.  She stated after years of nobody paying attention to them, the Ferraros finally came to her firm and a lawsuit was filed on their behalf; since 2005, the matter has been litigated; a motion to dismiss was heard by the court, and the court allowed her to amend the complaint, but it did not feel the matters were without merit; there are new motions to  dismiss on certain  counts but not on all counts.   She stated the bar has finally been shut down after a Stop Order was in place because alcohol was served even though there was not supposed to be; her clients her deprived of the right to use and enjoy their property; one phone call should have been all that was needed; and one phone call could have stopped the problem.  She stated the Ferraros should not have had to file a civil lawsuit; once the civil lawsuit was addressed, still nothing was done except an occasional fine here and there; but nothing was to done to address the problem and fix it.  She advised eventually the bar was open and a Certificate of Occupancy was given to them; the permits were granted, the bar was open, and it was open until 2:00 a.m. everyday; the problem is that it is in the middle of a residential neighborhood, and it was a grandfathered use that disappeared in the hurricane; the bar was closed and sat abandoned for two years; and the only reason the Ferraros filed a lawsuit was just to get the County to listen to its own rules and enforce its own rules to get someone to listen.  She stated if some sort of settlement is not reached, her client will have to take it to the court for it to decide whether or not there is merit; the County Attorney feels there is no merit; and she is requesting that the Board leave aside some money in the budget so at least the County and Mr. and Mrs. Ferraro can entertain a settlement.  She stated if there is no money at all to entertain a settlement, then she will have no choice but to go forward with the courts.

 

Ron Ferraro stated he was rejected every time he called the County; he went to every agency in the County; and he was told he did not know what he was talking about.  He stated Mr. Baggs lost the opportunity for every being commercial when the septic system sat unused for over one year; but the County still let him open the bar; he told the Building Department he would sue if it issued a Certificate of Occupancy; but it was issued anyway.  He stated he has records and emails between himself and the County; and if it goes to court, the people can decide.

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if the Board rejects the offer of settlement, then the suit will move forward into a position in which a judge will make the decision.  Ms. Wilson stated it sounds to her that the suit is going to move forward through a normal litigation process; it does not mean that another potential resolution will not come forward after more discovery; there is usually another side to the story in these situations; but they were in mediation, and they can re-initiate mediation; and it sounds to her like the Ferraros are at the beginning of the process.  She stated there are additional motions that are likely to be filed in the case; once past the motion to dismiss, there is the motion for summary judgment; there are different levels of proof; at the stage of motion to dismiss, the court is bound to look at the case as if all the facts, as the plaintiff has pled them, are correct; and many times they are not all correct.  She stated there is a long way to go with the lawsuit; but it does not mean the offer off settlement will not be in front of the Board in the future if appropriate.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she does not want to close the door on the offer of a settlement, but at the same time, she does not know the other side of the story; and she would like to gain information on the other side of the story. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated rejecting the offer will give the lawsuit the vehicle to move forward to have both sides being discovered; she does not feel like she has the knowledge today to sit as a judge, versus having a real judge look at it; and in that sense she will support rejecting the offer of settlement.

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to reject the Offer of Settlement filed by the Plaintiffs in Ferraro v. Brevard County and Joseph Baggs/Brevard County v. Joseph Baggs, Case No. 05-2007-CA-021284.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Stockton Whitten, Interim County Manager, advised he has the outstanding issues as First Responder Program, the Sheriff’s STEP Plan, EDC funding, and the court facility fee; and if the Board wants to, it take those issues in that order.   He advised he would like to make two introductions to the Board; stated County Manager Select, Howard Tipton, is in the audience, and he will begin working for the County on September 28^th; and also in the audience is Fire Rescue Chief Select, Larry Collins, who will start on September 21^st. 

 

Dan Rocque, Space Coast Fire Chief’s Association, stated the First Responder Partners have spent the last six to eight weeks informing and educating the Board, elected officials, and the public about the merits, efficiencies, and effectiveness of the First Responder Program; and the First Responder Partners have garnered professional, political, and public opinion, who all agree the Program should receive the Board’s full attention and consideration.  He stated as of today, there is over 300 first responder partners from Fire Rescue and law enforcement agencies, who are providing exceptional EMS service as he speaks, to those that have been befalling by illness or injury; and he respectfully requests the Board fund the First Responder Program during fiscal year 2009/2010, less 30 percent of the current funding. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired what is the new number being requested.  Mr. Whitten advised the number is $980,000. 

 

Marlene Adams inquired how the First Responder Program is funded.  Mr. Whitten replied it is a General Fund transfer.  Chairman Nelson noted it comes out of the General Fund.  Ms. Adams inquired if the General Fund comes from all of the cities, even the cities not paying into the fire assessment.  She stated she remembers reading a recent article in which the Interim Fire Chief said the First Responder Program was funded from the fire assessment.  Chairman Nelson stated on the County level there First Responders is funded from the assessment; and that was the voter approval of 1998.  Ms. Adams noted that was the MSTU and not the assessment.  Chairman Nelson stated it is on the County side, so it is funded out of the MSTU piece of that; the assessment does not pay for any of that; the County pays from General Fund for the first responders because it is a service that is provided within the cities, so it is only fair that those in cities contribute towards service.  Ms. Adams inquired if the use codes are being changed on those properties that received a letter saying their assessment was zero.  Mr. Whitten stated the use code did not need to be changed, they just needed to be properly coded.  Ms. Adams stated those properties got a letter that said their assessment was zero; and by law, the County has to send them a letter and they have to have 20 days notice to come and talk about it if they are assessed anything other than zero.  Mr. Whitten stated there is no reason to change the use codes; the use code was correct; and the County Attorney’s interpretation of what needs to occur is going to be different, and is always going to be different; and he is not sure there is a requirement to give a 20-day notice,  but  staff  will  outline all of the requirements it has to meet, and the response to  Ms. Adams.   Ms.  Adams read  a summary from Hernando  County  about their fire assessment, which was done by GSG Consulting, stated the tax exempt status of government, churches, and charities do not automatically apply, and any exemption granted must be based on the fact that either no benefit to the property is provided, or that the service fee is already funded through a separate funding mechanism.  She stated mixed use property was another problem she found with the fire assessment; the Property Appraiser’s Office only had one basic use code for the tax roll, so those people got the benefit of fire protection services for other uses that they did not have to pay for.  She stated she is amazed that Brevard County is right and everyone else is wrong.  Chairman Nelson stated he is going to disagree because she only has one example where a county has taken a different approach; there are always two points of view; and he does not see any fault with what the County has done.  She stated in the tax bills that will go out this fall, Ms. Adams will find there are mistakes peppered throughout them because she is expecting 100 percent accuracy, and it does not always happen that way for a variety of reasons.  Ms. Adams stated she expects people who are receiving the benefit should be paying their share.  Chairman Nelson stated there were two issues; and the mistake with the parcels is being rectified.  Ms. Adams inquired how it is being rectified; with Chairman Nelson responding she will be getting information on how that is being done.  Chairman Nelson stated staff is going to give Ms. Adams the information on how those parcels are being addressed; the benefit issue is a little bit different as it relates to who gets the service and who is exempted; and the Board chose to exempt certain services.  Chairman Nelson inquired what was the total number of parcels.  Dennis Neterer, Interim Fire Chief, replied it was approximately 138,000.  Chairman Nelson stated out of 138,000 total parcels, there were 2,800 that had questions on them that is being corrected.

 

Buddy Spakes stated he has a letter to the County Attorney from the Department of Revenue; the letter says if Brevard County determines to use Statute 197.3632 for the level of special assessments, the County is not authorized to create a non ad valorem fire service special assessment exemption or adjustment program that would reduce the non ad valorem portion of the tax bill for certain taxpayers.  He stated the Board exempted churches; the State Statute says no revenue of the State or any political subdivision or agency thereof should ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church.  He stated in regards to mobile homes in RV parks, he was appalled at they County Attorney’s response; stated Commissioner Scarborough panicked when he revealed the RV parks were done incorrectly and they have to be assessed as a motel; and the legislature found it necessary to create its own State Statute, 125.0168, that deals with special assessments levied on recreational vehicle parks. 

 

Chairman Nelson directed Mr. Whitten to coordinate with the County Attorney’s Office and pull all correspondence associated with this issue. 

 

Chairman Nelson inquired what is the dollar amount to fund the First Responder Program.  Stockton Whitten, Interim County Manager, advised the request is to fund it at a 30 percent reduction, which would be $980,000.  Commissioner Infantini stated the Board should wait until it has heard all of the presentations before it starts giving money it has not found in the budget.  Chairman Nelson stated the Board is not giving anything away, it is just having a discussion about whether or not there is a willingness to fund it because it may, in effect, determine how the Board looks at other issues. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she can go forward with the First Responder Program; last year she was  on  record  stating  she  was  not  going  to  be  funding  it  this  year;  and  she is  willing to compromise with a percentage, but she does not know if she can find that amount of $980,000 extra out of the budget for it; but she is open to another percentage.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated his views have been pretty consistent; the Board is only here to do police protection, roads, and fire rescue; and he thinks the Board should find a way to fund it.  He stated he represents five municipalities; to keep the cohesiveness of the ALS, BLS, and all of the residents, it is a necessary item to be funded, and he would not support 30 percent at this time. Commissioner Bolin inquired if Commissioner Anderson is supporting the $980,000; with Commissioner Anderson responding affirmatively. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he would like to fund it, but he is not sure the Board is ready to make a decision on whether it is funded right now, or fund it later in the day, since the Board has not heard the other presentations of things it may want to fund; but long-term the Board needs to consider that every year the First Responders do not need to be coming back to the Board for the funding; and the Board needs to make a decision as to whether the First Responder Program is something it wants to support.  He stated he would like to see a way that the First Responder Program can pay for itself; it is possible they are providing services for which they are not getting paid for that might be billable; and there may be a way to make an adjustment in the fee schedule that will help them to be funded; but it is to early in the day to make a decision on whether or not to fund it.

 

Chairman Nelson stated he believes the First Responder Program is a primary piece of the EMS system; the County side funds the third man on the truck for that very purpose; the cities have been encouraged to do so and now the Board is talking about that piece of funding; there is still the fairness issue, but if the Board has a question about whether or not it is a service that it wants, the Board needs to decide that; and if that is decided, then the next question becomes how to fund it and how to get there.  He stated every year the Board gets into the back and forth of whether it is necessary and if it should be funded; he thinks the Board needs to decide if it is necessary; and if it is agreed that it is necessary, then the Board will figure out a way to fund it.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated if she can find money then that is one thing, but if she cannot find something she cannot give it to a department if it is not there to give. Chairman Nelson stated the question is if it is a money issue or a service issue, because if the Board believes it is a necessary part of the service, then the Board can begin the process of trying to determine what the value is and where the Board will find the money; and if the Board continues to tie it to if it can afford it, that is a different type of discussion. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he thinks it is a valuable service the Board should provide, but he thinks there should be other ways to help fund it; and the Board needs to decide if it is a service it wants to provide long-term.  Chairman Nelson stated it is his belief that it is needed long-term; he likes the consistency of service to know that whether you are in Rockledge or unincorporated that you are going to get a high level of service when in an accident.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Interim Fire Chief has some suggestions of how to get some additional revenue to fund the First Responder Program.  Dennis Neterer, Interim Fire Chief,  advised staff  looked at the  billing aspect to see if revenue can be generated for the First Responder Program through billing; the billing vendor was contacted to run some numbers; and if rates were increased by $50 per transport, what would that net.   He stated there was an issue of if the County can charge for first responder services on an item-by-item basis for supplies being used; and the answer is basically no, in terms of Medicare and Medicaid.  He stated the global rates were looked at for each of the service levels, and if it was increased by $50 per transport it generated between $200 and $250,000 per year; that is across all of the transports, and Brevard County Fire Rescue runs 21 engines; the actual municipal first responder services actually being provided would be a percentage of that, and just using a rule of thumb, it is approximately 40 percent or 45 percent.  He stated in terms of funding the First Responder Program going forward, he agrees that he would like to see a long-term solution; and there is perhaps opportunity through billing, but billing will not pay the full way.  Commissioner Fisher inquired how much Chief Neterer thinks he can generate.  Chief Neterer stated he would have to go back and look at the split; he thinks it can generate $200,000 to $250,000 per year; and that is just based on a $50 per transport increase; and he reminded the Board that every dollar the billing is increase, does not mean that dollar comes back.  He stated if there is a return of $200,000 he can look at the percentage and he would put it in the $120,000 range that the municipalities provide between the split of Brevard County Fire Rescue and the other agencies; and it may be a little higher, but he has not done that math yet. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if the Board is talking about making the First Responder Program a line item under the budget of the Fire Rescue Department so that it is in there every year for a certain amount of money, instead of a line item that is viewed as an add-on every year.  Chief Neterer stated that would be a Board decision; stated if he is directed to fund First Responder, it means the budget would be formulated based on what can generate billing and what the costs are, and then what the General Fund transfer is. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he believes it is a critical service; if the Board can get over the hurdle of determining that it is critical and making it part of the budget; and then the Board can deal with it in a better fashion on an annual basis.  He stated the consolidated service for EMS has worked well and can work even better if the Board locks into that. Commissioner Bolin stated at one time, Chairman Nelson mentioned the percentage that Brevard County did not get a percentage of this but yet it provides the service; as the Board goes through the day, it would have to determine how much it can afford; and it still boils down to whether or not the Board has money. Chairman Nelson stated he agrees, but he thinks it comes back to Commissioner Anderson’s point about what the core services are, and for him the First Responder Program falls in that category.  He stated the interesting thing is if the County were to receive some compensation in that same program, the MSTU would benefit by having additional resources available for capital or actually reducing the MSTU; and it creates more of an equity, so at least 50 percent of the citizens would potentially get some level of reduction. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he still thinks there is an opportunity in the private sector when they get called out to an accident and they provide supplies, that someone understands there is a cost for those supplies; and he thinks the private insurance market understands that, and it will police itself and make sure that that charge is reasonable and customary for the marketplace; but he is not convinced that he cannot bill an IV or a cast to somebody.  He stated if it can be figured out how to bill that, it can help long-term for the program to be self sufficient. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he is getting a consensus to place a value of the First Responder Program, but the Board has not figured out where to find the money at this point in time.  Chairman Nelson stated the full amount is  $1.4 million;  and  if the  County  participated in  that, that would reduce it.  Mr. Whitten advised the County has never been part of the formula; staff has talked about how it would do that; and inquired if Chief Neterer remembers that number.  Chief Neterer replied for $1.4 million, the unincorporated and the municipal partners the County provides service for, which is West Melbourne, Grant-Valkaria, Palm Shores, and Melbourne Village, makes up approximately 46 and one half percent of that; and if looking on a percentage basis of that $1.4 million, the unincorporated pays approximately $650,000, and the remainder would be approximately $750,000; but the percentages are based on the valuations.  Mr. Whitten stated it was a percentage of unincorporated valuation, plus the cities the County provides service for.  Commissioner Anderson noted the County also gives first responder fees to some of those cities; Melbourne Village gets $19,000; but he does not know how that figures into it.  Mr. Whitten stated he does not know how Chief Rocque felt about that formula based on the valuation split that is on the tax roll.  Chief Neterer advised it would represent approximately $230,000 difference if taking the $750,000 and difference between $980,000.  Commissioner Bolin inquired if the figure is closer to $750,000.  Chief Neterer replied yes, based on percentages.  Chairman Nelson stated it is in the range of $750,000 and $980,000, which are the two numbers the Board has talked about.  Chief Neterer stated Brevard County has one of the best two-tiered EMS systems anywhere; he would not want to see anything change with that system; approximately 114 people are transported to the hospital everyday; and it is done seamlessly and done very well. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board does not fund it, would the cities have to fund it themselves.  Chief Neterer replied if the Board decided not to fund the First Responder, the municipalities and the cities would have to figure whether or not to maintain ALS, or make a decision to step back to BLS; he cannot speak for all of the cities and the fire chiefs; some agencies may say it is a level of service it wants to provide its citizens; but others may say it is not viable in this tough economic time. 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired what is the difference for Chief Neterer’s guys in that transport if the city first responders are only doing BLS.  Chief Neterer replied if there were any ALS care requirement that needed to be done it would not be performed on the arrival of the Brevard County Fire Rescue, as it would have to provide those services itself, or start the interventions, or establish a higher level of patient care.  He advised under the BLS provider, they are basically doing just basic life support, providing critical care interventions; but beyond that, any ALS service would have to be done by Brevard County Fire Rescue.  Commissioner Anderson stated there would be a cost, but it is difficult to tell what it would be.  Chief Neterer stated he does not know what the cost would be.  Commissioner Fisher stated it could mean the difference between life and death; providing ALS is a whole different level of service.  Chairman Nelson stated the first responders were used as a mechanism to upgrade the entire system throughout the County, and he does not feel good about pulling it back; and the Board said it would give the cities money if they put higher quality firefighter medic on the engines. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated it was her understanding that the First Responder Program was set up as an initial start up cost, but not something to be funded forever.  Chairman Nelson stated if there was a consolidated EMS and Fire Rescue system throughout the County, and there  were no  cities,  that would be  a level  of service  that  would be provided,  and the Board would create the mechanism to fund it through its own system; the only difference is there are cities that are participating in what the County has taken on as its system, which is EMS; and he thinks the Board has a bigger responsibility to do that, and he thinks it is willing to look at that. 

 

Stockton Whitten, Interim County Manager, stated generally, the Sheriff asked for $700,000 to implement a STEP plan for this fiscal year; as the Board knows, that is not the full annualized cost, as it is the cost to payout the STEP plan for this year; about $150,000 of that actually can be absorbed in the Law Enforcement MSTU; and that is different than when the budget first started.  He stated as the Board knows, the health insurance costs have been reduced, and so the Sheriff would actually have enough dollars in the Law Enforcement MSTU millage to cover those STEP raises within the MSTU; the real issue is going to be about the $500,000 that is needed on the General Fund side to cover those STEP raises; and as the Board recalls, none of its unions are actually getting STEP raises, nor is its non-bargaining employees getting STEP raises.  He stated the Sheriff is able to fund within the proposed millage rate, the $150,000 for the Law Enforcement MSTU, and the Board would have to come up with approximately $550,000 for STEP raises within the General Fund portion of the Sheriff’s budget.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated the Board is again in the situation of trying to decide if this is a core issue service, and also if the Board would be able to find the money.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if it is an annual cost.  Mr. Whitten stated when annualized, it would be approximately $1.4 million, because they are not given at the beginning of the year, they are given on the anniversary dates, and so there would be an annualization in the preceding year; and those figures are only for the sworn deputies and sworn corrections officers. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if the number is $523,000 the Board would need to find in order to do that; with Mr. Whitten responding affirmatively.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if that is $523,000 between now and the end of the year.  Mr. Whitten responded yes, between now and the final budget hearing; and the Board would have to find $523,000; the first budget hearing is September 8^th and the last budget hearing is September 22^nd.  He stated the $700,000 is for the 2009/2010 budget, and then the Board would need an additional $700,000 for the 2010/2011 budget for a total annualized cost of $1.4 million. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated his concern is that police deputies are under a lot of stress everyday; and he thinks they deserve what they have been negotiated to get, and he supports the deputies. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated there are many important services that need to be provided; and inquired if there is any way possible to revisit the millage issue.  Mr. Whitten advised there is a re-trimming process that is required; the issue is always the cost that is incurred when having to reissue the notices that were probably just received last week; and the only other issue is the statutory deadlines. 

 

 

 

Stockton Whitten, Interim County Manager, advised within the budget proposal there is a 10 percent reduction to the EDC’s funding; it is approximately $150,000; and the Board had some discussions with regards to whether it was going to be a five percent or 10 percent reduction.  Commissioner Infantini stated she would like to point out that the $1.4 million would mostly cover the First Responder Program and the Sheriff’s STEP increases.  Commissioner Bolin stated yes, but in her mind the EDC is the Board’s economic first responder;  and it is as vital as the other services, because if there is not the EDC working to help the businesses survive, then there is no one to give first responder services to.  She stated she is fine with a 10 percent cut, but she would prefer to make it a five percent cut.  Commissioner Infantini stated she did not see a lot of businesses coming in during the boom time; she does not know how many businesses the EDC can be expected to bring in when the economy is down; and she appreciates the effort, but if she has to make the choice between funding first responders and the Sheriff’s deputies, she is going to go in that direction instead of economic development.  She stated companies are going to be seeking the Space Coast because there is a lot of talent that is going to be laid off soon. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated the lobbyist contract for space was $180,000; it was not renewed; it was mentioned to shift that over to make up the 10 percent shortfall with the EDC; and inquired if that is still the intention.  Commissioner Bolin advised the Board decided to hold that in the contingency fund; and she thinks it is a good idea because there may be a time when there needs to be someone in Washington D.C. or Tallahassee for a space issue.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he had a conference call with Bob Walker and Marshall Heard; one of the most pressing issues in the County is impact to the Space Center, with 3,500 to 4,000 jobs being lost; and indirectly, there is projected to be 18,000 more jobs lost.  He stated a pressing issue to him is the KSC job loss issue; stated he asked Mr. Walker what is being done to help make sure the County is in front of the Augustine Commission in trying to push an agenda favorable to Brevard County and its workforce; he thinks the Shuttle Program needs to be extended to 2012 or 2013; and the Board should have someone in D.C. everyday pushing the issue.  He stated when the Augustine Report comes out in September, whatever that says, the Board needs to make sure it is pushing the KSC workforces to help go beyond the 2012/2013 extension; and he asked Mr. Walker what he was doing before the contract expires.  He stated what he has provided to the Board is a list of recommendations by Mr. Walker.  He advised the Board needs to reconsider whether or not it wants to fund Mr. Walker as a space lobbyist; one of the things he also did was talked to Congressman Suzanne Kosmas because he was curious to know if Mr. Walker was the right person to push the issue; and Congressman Kosmas did not have an opinion one way or another.  He stated the job loss at KSC is going to be devastating to Brevard County; he is surprised there are not more citizens writing letters to their elected officials asking them to extend the Shuttle Program; stated he asked if Mr. Walker would reconsider his fee, and he said he would; and he thinks the Board should look at giving Mr. Walker a six month contract and try to make sure he is lobbying the Board’s position. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated the job loss is going to be devastating; she disagrees with Mr. Walker being the person; having had him under contract for the past year she has seen nothing that he has accomplished; and she has not been pleased with Mr. Walker’s service.  She stated if the Board is going to consider someone, she would prefer to look at a different avenue; stated Mr. Walker is well connected in Space, but she did not see him do anything to market KSC; and now that Mr. Walker knows his contract is ending, he is coming out with recommendations. She stated right now Frank DiBello is the interim President of Space Florida; he was one of the consultants under the EDC for space; and he was in D.C. all the time, and is just as well connected as Mr. Walker.   She stated Mr. DiBello will be the Board’s biggest advocate in D.C., and he is going to fight for the State of Florida and for Kennedy Space Center.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he is not lobbying for Bob Walker, and that is why he called Congressman Kosmas; Space Florida has as much of a need for a lobbyist as the Board does; but Space Florida also has money for a lobbyist; and his suggesting that the Board and Space Florida get together and hire a lobbyist, which would reduce costs for the Board. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated there is money set aside; she would propose that after there is a final decision for the new President of Space Florida, then the Board can revisit the issue in October; but as far as renewing Mr. Walker’s contract for October, she is not in favor of it.  Commissioner Fisher stated Mr. Walker has identified some things that need to be done between now and the Augustine Report; and since he is still under contract, the Board should direct him to follow through with those things. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated the money is set aside, and the Board can extend it any time after September; and the best way to handle it is to not spend the $180,000.  Commissioner Fisher stated he feels strongly that the Board needs to give direction to the D.C. lobbyists for the extension of the Shuttle Program; and he does not think Mr. Walker has been given that direction. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated early on, the Board had a good direction, but then as things got more complicated in Washington, the Board lost its way and was not able to say what it wanted; and he sees there still may be some value to it.  He inquired how much was the 10 percent reduction to the EDC.  Mr. Whitten replied $157,000.  Chairman Nelson stated the EDC’s efforts have been outstanding; this is a difficult time because nobody is moving; the seeds being planted now will come to fruition once the economy picks up; and the reality is there are a lot of great places to be for a variety of reasons, and it has to be explained to businesses why Brevard County is great.  He stated the EDC represents the Board and the community; and he would be willing to see a five percent cut to the EDC and utilize a portion of the Walker Wexler Contract, but still retain that funding for whomever the Board decides is the right person or group. 

 

Chairman Nelson passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Bolin.

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve funding the Economic Development Commission (EDC), with a five percent reduction, taking the $80,000 from the Walker Wexler Lobbyist Contract and retaining the remainder of the contract dollars in an account for future Board decision.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Infantini voted nay. 

 

 

Vice Chairman Bolin passed the gavel to Chairman Nelson.

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated Stockton Whitten, Interim County Manager, has indicated he will be doing the advertising for the court facility fees; stated he does not have a problem with that; and having people who are charged with crimes helping to pay for the court system is not a bad thing, as it is a $700,000 decision. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he would like to warn the Board that the higher a ticket, the less likely an officer will be willing to give it to someone; and it is getting tougher in some areas for road officers to give out tickets.  Chairman Nelson stated he hopes people would think it is too expensive to speed. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated Chairman Nelson just said he is okay with letting people charged with crimes an additional fee, but when she mentioned having people charged with crimes to have to pay bail bondsmen, Chairman Nelson said it needed to be remembered there are those that are still innocent; and stated it sends a double standard.  She stated she was trying to get those that were charged with crimes that wanted to get out of jail rather than go through pre-trial release to pay a bail bondsman, so it would not have to be subsidized by the County; it was quite a few million dollars; and she was trying to get the bail bondmen support that because it is a service that can be provided outside.  Chairman Nelson stated the point is that he said ‘charged’ in error, as these people have actually been convicted; the other issue is that the pretrial release keeps the population down in the jail, which the Board has to pay for; and there is a huge difference between the two. Commissioner Anderson stated with a traffic ticket, someone is innocent until he or she either pays the fine or appears in front of a magistrate. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if the Board votes to raise the fee, that will balance the budget closer and give the Board more opportunity to have money to fund the STEP Plan or the First Responder Program.  Mr. Whitten replied no, it is needed to balance the budget that was presented to the Board. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated because the item is coming back to the Board for an action, that is when it can make a motion on it.

 

 

The Board recessed at 10:53 a.m. and reconvened at 11:10 a.m.

 

 

 

Frank Abbate, Interim Assistant County Manager, advised the Employee Benefits Insurance Advisory Committee (EBIAC) has been meeting on a frequent basis to make sure it comes back with viable recommendations and consists of an appointee from each Commission Office, a representative from each of the Charter Offices, a Board of County Commissioners employee, a retiree representative, and representatives from the firefighters union.  He stated on August 19^th, the EBIAC unanimously provided the recommendations to the Board; and he would like to give the Board an overview of those recommendations.

 

Mr. Abbate advised the first recommendation deals with offering, as of January 1 2010, an HRA (Health Reimbursement Account); it is also known as a consumer-driven, or high-deductible, plan; the second option would be to offer, in addition to the HRA, a PPO (Preferred Provider

 

Organization Plan), which is currently offered today; and the committee also suggested that the current premium structure be changed.  He stated there has been a premium structure for the last 20 years that has one rate for employees only, another rate for an employee and one or two dependents, and the final rate structure was for three or more dependents;  and  the  committee recommendation is to go to a four-tier, which is very common in the industry, and would be for employee only, employee plus spouse as a second tier, employee plus children with not spouse involved, and the employee plus family, which would be the employee, spouse, and family.  He stated when dealing with the HRA there is an employer contribution strategy that applies to HRA’s; the recommendation is to provide a strategy that provides additional resources to lower paid employees so that they do not have the same hit when it comes to the high deductibles as employees making additional money; for under $35,000, they would receive the highest level; those making between $35,000 and $70,000 would receive the mid-level range; and above $70,000 would receive the lowest employer contribution toward the HRA. 

 

Mr. Abbate stated the retiree/retiree dependent premiums for both the HRA and PPO, would go up by 16.5 percent; the reason behind that is that the Board has historically funded retirees and subsidized 60 percent of those costs; and over the past few years, staff has been trying to incrementally decrease that subsidy.  He noted the way to do that is to go above the medical trend; when going above the medical trend, the subsidies end up being reduced; 16.5 percent is approximately one and a half times the medical trend; and that is why that recommendation has been made.  He advised another recommendation put forth by the committee is to increase pharmacy co-payments for both preferred and non-preferred brands by $10; the copay for preferred drugs would move from $20 to $30; for non-preferred it would move from $35 to $45; and for the mail order program it would be a $20 increase because the mail order is twice the monthly premium for a three month supply.  He stated in light of going to a high deductible plan and only having a PPO, the recommendation was to allow employees the opportunity to use more pre-tax dollars of their own money toward a medical flexible spending account; currently there is a cap of $3,000; and the recommendation is to allow a $6,000 cap where the money can be set aside, as long as they anticipate to have medical expenses during the year.  He stated if the Board accepts all of the recommendations, it would have an employer program funded cost reduction from where it is today of an additional $7.26 million, which is significant when looking at a $50 million plan.  He stated the medical trend is lowered from 11 percent to 9.5 percent, which means the Board needs an additional $3.2 million of influx dollars coming into the plan; with the pharmacy trend is nine 9 percent; and decreased the employer premium contributions by a total of $6.4 million.  He stated the total targeted cost containment is approximately $10.7 million. 

 

Mr. Abbate stated for many years the County has enjoyed an HMO and an EPO plan; there are 89 percent of all members participating in either the HMO or EPO; and those 89 percent are going to have to make a decision to change to one of two options of either the premiums and deductibles that apply in the PPO plan, or the HRA plan.  He stated it is important to look at the contribution history; in 1989, the County offered the traditional health plan; in that plan the employee-only did not pay anything toward the plan in terms of premium; today, they either pay $24 per month in the HMO, or $73 per month in the PPO; the dependents paid $110 in 1989, and today they pay $74, but on the PPO side they pay more than twice that amount because it is a different kind of plan, at $270 per month; the three or more dependents were at $142 in 1989 but today under the HMO they are at $127, and at $327 under the PPO; and over time, retirees have increase somewhat more.  He stated in 1989 the employer contribution was $192 on behalf of every full-time employee; by 2009 the employer contribution is for retirees is $907; and what is in the budget assumes the employer contribution rate will be reduced from $907 to $786.52, which is a 13.5 percent reduction from today’s rate. 

 

Mr. Abbate stated the four-tier employee premium structure goes from an EPO to the HRA; for the members who choose to go from the EPO/HMO to the PPO, there is little difference in the premium structure; it is more for spouses than currently, from $74.00 it would go to $78.00; and that is because as a group spouses are more expensive than children.  He stated a single parent would pay slightly less than what they are today, at $74.00, and those with a spouse would pay slightly more than they are today; the spousal surcharge, in which the spouse has coverage options elsewhere is still in play at the $100 per month. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she likes the idea of four different categories because it is giving a benefit to a single parent; and inquired how many employees have spouses with children.  Mr. Abbate stated right now he does not have that number because the County does not distinguish between a spouse and a child as dependents under the current method. 

 

Mr. Abbate stated going from the current PPO structure to the recommended four-tier structure, the Board will note that it is the one area where premiums have gone down; the committee was trying to recommend a viable option to the high deductible HRA plan; if it was left at the existing premium structure it would be impossible for people to look at that as a viable option; under the EPO, employees are paying $24 per month; to go to the PPO, they would have to go to $73 per month; by going to a reduced PPO of $47 per month, they are actually paying double what they are currently paying to choose that option; and the plan still generates more dollars in premium for people who choose that particular option.  He stated the employees are moving from an HMO strategy where they pay $20 or $30 for an office visit, to where they are going to have to pay double that and have a $500 deductible under the PPO, which is pretty significant, but it would be much more significant if it was left at the current rate structure of $73 per month; it makes it hard for people to look at; and it will have a dramatic impact on employees. 

 

He advised the impact on retirees is substantial; a retiree under 65 who would move from the current EPO/HMO plan to the HRA plan would pay an extra $570 in premiums; they are also going to have a $1,500 deductible before the plan starts paying anything; and for a retiree and spouse both under 65, they are going to have an increase of $985 per year, with a $3,000 deductible.  He stated when there is a 16.5 increase on retirees over 65 the numbers are lower because retirees over 65 have a variety of other options that those under 65 do not have.  He stated the County has 265 retirees under the age of 65, and there are 641 retirees over 65 between the EPO/HMO/PPO plans, and another 124 in the Healthfirst Medicare plan.  He stated if the Board chooses to approve the recommendations, the retirees or employees in the HMO/EPO are going to have two choices; one choice is to go to the premium structure proposed on the PPO, or the premium structure proposed on the EPO; for retirees currently in an EPO/HMO, going to the PPO plan is $1,000 difference in deductible; the PPO would be $500, the HRA plan would be a $1,500 deductible; and if a retiree under 65 went from the current EPO to the PPO structure it would be an additional $1,559 per year; and a retiree and spouse under 65 going from EPO to PPO would be an additional $3,600 per year.  He stated if a retiree is over the age 65 it would be $1,082, and a retiree and spouse over 65 would be $2,099; but those are very significant dollars; and it made the committee wonder what the impact would be if the retirees went to the HRA and not the PPO. 

 

Mr. Abbate advised he would like to explain the HRA (Health Reimbursement Account); stated the committee gave an example of the current PPO deductibles; it is $300 for an individual, and $600 for a family; if the  Board goes  with the HRA  the proposed deductible would be $1,500 for an individual, and $3,000 for a family; the maximum out of pocket expenses would be $3,000 for an individual and the deductible would be included in that maximum out of pocket, and $6,000 for a family if in network, but it doubles if out of network.  He noted there is very little out of network utilization because Cigna and Blue Cross Blue Shield are very robust networks with high percentages of providers available.  He stated certain preventive care would not go against the deductible.  He stated the changes from a plan design perspective were much more limited on the PPO plan; but the maximum out-of-pockets would not change; and the same is true for the out-of-network, although the deductibles would be raised.  He stated after the deductible is reached, the plan pays 85 percent, and the employee pays 15 percent up to the maximum out-of-pocket; under the proposed plan it would be an 80/20, which is much more common; for the HRA plan it would be a $1,500 for an individual per year and $3,000 per family per year with 80/20 co-insurance until that individual reached $3,000 in expenses, including the deductible that they paid, or $6,000 for the family; and then the PPO would jump slightly on the deductible from to $500 for an individual, and $1,000 for a family.

 

Mr. Abbate stated regarding the cost impact of HRA based plan on salary, the recommendation from the committee was to be sensitive to the lower paid employees; every employee making under $35,000 per year who participate in the plan would have an HRA contribution set aside for them of the first $1,000 of their medical expenses, and would be paid by the plan; the employees would then have to pay the next $500 to get to a $1,500 deductible; and there is a $3,000 cap, so the next $1,500 of medical expenses would be on an 80/20 basis.  He stated the middle group of employees would enjoy what is typical on an HRA, which is an employer contribution of half of the deductible; the first $750 of medical expenses would be paid by the plan; and beyond expenses, they would pay 80/20 until reaching the $3,000 cap.  He noted the numbers for families are doubled; $600 in medical expenses would be the cap for families; families in the middle tier would have $1,500 toward the $3,000 deductible; and there would be a $6,000 cap on medical expenses.  He stated because the Board has so many employees below the $35,000, the additional cost to give them an extra $250 it would be $340,000 cost to the Board to do this particular recommendation; that is assuming there is 70 percent of the employees participating in the HRA; the committee proposed to benefit the lower paid employees; the HRA’s are controlled by the IRS, which means IRS regulations apply; and there is a particular IRS provision that says employers cannot discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees.  He noted staff contacted an IRS attorney who advised he did not know for sure if the Board would not have a problem, but it would just be safer to give the employees the money; staff then contacted Cigna who did not think there is a problem; but Blue Cross Blue Shield advised they thought there is a problem; and so staff called the IRS directly and now has the name of an individual who has said it is okay to do it.  He stated at this point, staff has initiated a private letter ruling; but it is going to take the IRS six months to give that opinion. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired what it does to the cost factors if the Board has to put everyone at a $750 deductible.  Mr. Abbate replied it would save the Board money because the $750 analysis is less expensive because there are more people in the $35,000 and below range; and if they were given an additional $250, it will cost the Board that additional money to do that.

 

Mr. Abbate stated Option 1 is the typical HRA scenario; everyone who had employee-only coverage would get the HRA contribution money set aside in their account of $750, and everyone with a  dependent  will  get  $1,500;  the cost  impact  of  that is  $3.23  million;  that  is actually a credit that only gets utilized when the person has health expenses and the plan pays for that; the employee does not take the money with them; and if an employee leaves employment, that credit goes away.  He advised Option 2 recommends the Board gives the $250 to bring the employees up to a $1,000 contribution only for those making $30,000 or below; when doing that and leaving everything else the way it is, the impact is $149,000; and it is approximately $200,000 less for Option 2 than it would be in the Option the committee has recommended to the Board.  He stated employers do not typically provide any kind of reimbursement monies in high deductible-type plans to retirees; however, in the rates he explained earlier, the Board will see the deductible for someone going into the EPO is rather significant; the committee looked at what it would cost if there is some sort of retiree HRA contribution for those choosing the HRA; if 70 percent went into an HRA, it would cost $378,000 in terms of additional cost that would otherwise not be there; and if it was at a $750 deductible level, or $1,500 for retiree and spouse, the cost would be an additional $568,000.  He stated the committee, including the retiree representative, indicated not to recommend that to the Board; so there is no recommendation from the EBIAC to do that; but the impact is so significant based on the premium adjustments he already discussed for the PPO and the costs that are associated, that the committee thought it should be discussed with the Board.  He stated for a retiree under age 65 who moved from the EPO to the HRA as proposed they would move from a premium of $288 per month for retiree only to an HRA premium of $335 per month, which is approximately $570 per year more; on top of that, currently that person enjoying a $20 primary care physician office visit, or $30 specialist visit, would be paying a $1,500 deductible, then they would go to an 80/20 until reaching the $3,000 maximum; and what that means for a retiree is if they had medical expenses that year, they would have the additional $570 premium charge, plus the $1,500 deductible. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated if the committee recommend that the Board not fund it, she thinks that is a good idea because the retirees have an option to still go with the PPO plan rather than going with the HRA plan; and they would still have an alternative at a 16.5 percent increase.  Mr. Abbate advised it would not be a 16.5 percent increase for the retirees, it would be a lot higher than that because they would be jumping from the current EPO increase to the new increase for the PPO, which is 16.5 percent above the current PPO rate for retirees.  He noted for a retiree moving from the EPO to PPO, the additional premium would be $1,559; if it is a retiree with a spouse under 65, it would be $3,600; and if over age 65 it would be $1,082, and $2,099 if a retiree with a spouse.  He stated there are 1,035 retirees with average years of service of 17 years, and their average monthly pension amount is $982, based on the 17 years of service they receive $81 on a monthly basis as a health insurance subsidy in addition to their pension.  Commissioner Bolin inquired if Mr. Abbate stated the retirees receive $81 to use towards their health insurance.  Mr. Abbate replied the retirees get that in addition to their pension; and the average pension is $982.43 per month for those 1,035 people.  Chairman Nelson inquired how much the Board is raising it; with Mr. Abbate replying under that scenario the cost would be $1,082 per year for a retiree over 65, and $2,099 per year for retiree and spouse over 65; and it would be $1,559 per year for retiree and spouse, and $3,601 per year.  Chairman Nelson stated most of the under 65 retirees are firefighters and deputies.  Mr. Abbate advised they are going to be a higher percentage; and the reason for that is they get to retire at 25 years instead of 30 years for service, and age 55 instead of 62; but he is giving the Board the total for all County employees, and not just firefighters and deputies; and he would suggest if the Board looked at them as a group, theirs would be substantially higher.  He stated firefighters and deputies receive 3.0 credit for years of service  instead  of  1.6;  and  that is a  difference  of statutorily mandated benefits provided through the Florida Retirement System.  Commissioner Infantini inquired how Brevard County compares to other counties as far as the benefits they provide to their retirees.  Mr. Abbate replied he would suggest that the number he has utilized in the past, which if for employees, dependents, and retirees, Brevard County’s benefit package is more favorable than 85 percent of the other counties, between school boards, municipalities, and cities.  He stated the new plan will change that significantly; it will also reduce the $140 million unfunded liability for the post employment health benefits which exists today; and staff will not know the specifics of that until it gets the next actuarially analysis that would be done in another year.  Chairman Nelson stated there were 10 surrounding counties with higher salaries for deputies; it is a mistake for the Board to take the retirement issues in a vacuum; the Board has to look at the overall history of the employment as well; and it is not fair to say it is a great package for the retirees and it will be reduced to everyone else’s, because everybody else’s salaries over the course of their careers were greater.  Mr. Abbate stated there was discussion in the EBIAC about what to do; the committee wanted to be sensitive to the lower paid employees, and there was a struggle with the retirees; but ultimately, the EBIAC did a good job in what it proposed.  Chairman Nelson stated he thinks the EBIAC did a good job, but the choices were not good to begin with; the Board has discussed the fact that over time it needs to address the retirees; too much is being taken off in one year, and they do not have an opportunity to compensate for that; and it is going to be a big chunk at once for that particular group.  Mr. Abbate stated one alternative was how to be sensitive to both retirees and the lower paid employees; the option that was looked at was that instead of Option 3, where it is the $35,000 and below threshold, if the Board looks at Option 2, which is $30,000 and below, it saves $200,000; and if the Board did that and then provided the retirees who chose not to pay the extra $1,000 to $3,000 to the PPO, give them a little bit towards the HRA and go to the lower employer contribution of $500 for them, which almost equals the 16.5 percent increase they are giving.  Chairman Nelson stated it is a good idea, but he is concerned with how much the Board is placing on them in a single year.  Commissioner Bolin stated changing the threshold dollar amount to $30,000 is great, but her concern with the retirees is putting the $500 towards every retiree, or just those under age 65.  Mr. Abbate advised currently, it is those retirees who would be moving from the EPO to the HRA; but he would suggest that those over 65 are not going to be moving to the HRA; and most of them are already in the PPO or Medicare. 

 

Mr. Abbate stated he would like to give the Board two scenarios and how they would play out; the first one is an individual with a low utilization, meaning there are not a lot of medical expenses and it is a $30,000 or below; the Board would be giving that employee a $1,000 credit toward their medical expenses; instead of going to the doctor for the first time and paying a $20 copay, they will not pay anything because the plan is going to take care of expenses for the first $1,000; and the remaining money is carried over to the next year, so the next year, the employee would get the $600 credit, plus $1,000 credit toward the next year’s expenses.  He stated the plan can be built to let employees build up credits to be used towards retirement.  He stated staff can monitor the plan, and next year if the Board is in better position, it can make more of a contribution, but if it is in worse position, it may have to look at reducing it; but those are options the Board can decide in the future, so at this point the EBIAC is not recommending placing a cap on those who save over two or three years;  and it is common at a certain  point to say there is a cap on how much can be accumulated in the HRA.  He stated under the HRA, if someone leaves employment, they do not take those dollars with them, those were credits that were available while they were an employee in the plan.

 

Mr. Abbate stated another example would be of an employee with a low salary of under $30,000 with $20,000 of mixed expenses among different family members; those employees will have received $1,000 to their HRA employer contribution, so the first $1,000 of the $20,000 is an expense that is paid by the plan for the employee; once funds in the HRA have been used, the next $500 comes from the employee to fulfill the $1,500 deductible requirement.  He stated after the deductible has been met there is $18,500 of remaining expenses, which will be split 80/20 until they reach their $3,000 cap; of the next $7,500 of expenses, the plan would pay $6,000 of it, and the employee will pay $1,500, which will take them to their maximum out-of-pocket; but for this employee that is $2,000 of actual out-of-pocket because the employer has already contributed the first $1,000; and the remaining expenses in that plan year is paid by the plan.  He stated the committee was not as close as what it thought it needed to be to the numbers the Board was looking for; so there is an additional pharmacy copayment change that was also unanimously recommended; and that recommendation was to change preferred brand and non-preferred brand from the current copayment structure to $30 for brand and $45 for the non-preferred, which would generate an additional savings to the plan of $697,000.  He stated the approved cost containment strategies the Board approved on August 4^th equate to $1.275 million; the Board has already approved the impact from the pharmacy RFP, which is $1.2 million; if the Board approves the recommendation of the additional $10 copay, that is $697,000; and if the Board approves the package as recommended for the HRA and the PPO, it is another $6.56 million for a total achieved, either through cost containment, or cost shift of $9.7 million.  He stated if the Board shifts the recommendation to $30,000 for employees only, and then adding for those who choose to go to the HRA as retirees, then that number will probably will change by less than $100,000; and that will put the Board at approximately $9.6 million.  He noted that is not the full amount the Board charged the EBIAC with reaching, but it is close enough when dealing with these kinds of projections; it would be a viable plan to move forward; there are enough dollars this year with the collections that are going and the reserves that already exist that if the Board approves it he would feel comfortable moving forward; and next year the Board will be in a good position with the plan.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired what would happen if it was left at $35,000, but it still made an exception for the retirees.  Mr. Abbate replied if the Board did that it would have the additional cost of the difference between the retiree contribution, so instead of the number being $9.7 million, it would go down to approximately $9.3 million.  He stated the difference between the $30,000 and $35,000 is approximately 240 people; the recommendations are all based on a model of 70 percent participating in the HRA; if there is more participating, then that cost will go a little bit higher because more than the 70 percent of people will be receiving the extra $250; at the same time, retirees are more likely to go to either Medicare or stay in the PPO; and so the Board needs to understand there is some play in the numbers. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated there are a lot of employees at the $35,000 level that are going to be struggling because they are not getting a pay increase.  Commissioner Bolin stated the Board is also taking into consideration that it has to decide whether or not it can do the tiered plan on the salary versus the IRS saying it can.  Mr. Abbate advised staff is comfortable that if the Board chooses to move forward in this direction  that it is  doing the right thing and that there will be a favorable ruling from the IRS; but staff will be prepared to make the adjustments if necessary.

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired if Commissioner Fisher is suggesting to keep it they way it is proposed and leave it alone.  Commissioner Fisher replied yes, but add retirees into the mix; and he is thinking of keeping the number at $35,000, but also making the adjustment for the retirees and give them a $500 credit.  Mr. Abbate stated staff is going to follow the direction of the Board; the target was $10.7 million; the best the EBIAC could come back with was $9.7 million; and if the Board goes beyond that, staff will implement whatever it directs.  Chairman Nelson stated based on what Commissioner Fisher is suggesting, the number would be $9.3 million.  Mr. Abbate stated it would be between $9.3 million and $9.4 million.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if that is being taken out of reserves anyway.  Mr. Abbate advised if there is a shortfall, there are adequate reserves that would address it, but the Board would just have to readdress it next year; and the Board would once again have to look at what it is doing with the premiums and the plan design.  Chairman Nelson noted the Board would also have better information on utilization at that point as well.  Mr. Abbate stated that is correct. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if Commissioner Fisher is suggesting using the Option 3 model.  Mr. Abbate advised if the Board chose to stay with Option 3, then the only thing that would change would be the option he discussed about the retirees, which was Option 1; if there was 70 percent participation for the retirees going to the HRA it would be $378,000 additional dollars, or credits; retirees are more apt to be the group that uses the health benefits the most because of age; it would be a reduction from the $9.7 million of that amount of dollars; and the Board would reduce that by the $190,000 if it dropped to Option 2. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he agrees with Commissioner Fisher.  Commissioner Fisher stated it is a major mind shift for employees from the way it has been in the past.  

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopted the recommendations of the Employee Benefits Insurance Advisory Committee (EBIAC) as presented; approve Option for retirees for the Health Reimbursement Account (HRA), of $500 for those choosing the option as an individual, or $1,000 if an individual, dependent or spouse; and approve continuing to offer those plans next year with both Cigna and Blue Cross Blue Shield.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

The Board recessed at 12:20 p.m. and reconvened at 1:36 p.m.

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated the Board has heard the outstanding budget issues; and he does not know if the Board wants to do departmental presentations, unless a Commissioner has individual issues he or she would like to discuss.  Chairman Nelson stated he does not know that there is a benefit to hearing from the departments, as they have all taken pretty substantial cuts; if the Board wants to talk about any of those cuts, or if it wants to continue to drill down on the  issues  that  are  left  unresolved,  which is the First Responder  Program  and  the  Sheriff’s Office, then that is up to the Board.  He noted the two issues at hand are funding of First Responders, which is $980,000; and the Sheriff’s Deputies STEP increase would be $523,000.  Commissioner Anderson stated there needs to be discussion with the First Responder Program.  Chairman Nelson inquired how much is in reserves at this point in time; with Stockton Whitten, Interim County Manager, responding $17 million to $18 million is being budgeted.  Chairman Nelson stated based on that, the Board can reduce it to $16 million and say it funded the two programs; the question is if the Board is going to try to get it further from departments, or is it going to fund it at all.  Commissioner Anderson stated both the Sheriff’s Office and the First Responder Program he would like to see funded; what the Sheriff wants is fixed at $523,000; but the Board does not know where it is going to go with the amount for the First Responder Program; and he needs a feeling of comfort from staff on the reserve issues, which was a topic of discussion previously.  He inquired if the Board should keep dipping into the reserves.  Commissioner Infantini stated the Board would only have to dip into reserves this year and next year, and then it will not have to worry about dipping into it anymore.  Chairman Nelson stated that is not true.  Commissioner Infantini stated that is how it was presented by County Finance Director, Steve Burdett.  Chairman Nelson stated that is not the reserves that was being discussed, it was cash forward and cash flow issues.  Mr. Whitten stated he would like to give a clarification on the reserves; it is approximately $16. 2 million; but at some time, the Board has to back out of that figure the Embraer payment, which is $1.8 million.  Chairman Nelson inquired if that is not due until a Certificate of Occupancy is issues.  Mr. Whitten responded affirmatively, which will be approximately January 2011; but the Board needs to keep in mind when the CO is issued, and Embraer proves to the Board what it spent, there is a payment due of $1.8 million.  Chairman Nelson stated that was based on their construction costs estimated during a time when construction costs were much higher, so that number may be a bit less. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated if the Board carried forward like it historically has in the past, it will not have any carry forward in two years; and inquired if that was what Mr. Burdett said in his presentation.  Mr. Whitten advised in essence, it was Mr. Burdett’s contention that if the Board spends and does not have the same amount to carry forward two years from now that we will be out of cash, as it is a cash flow issue; and the Board will not have the cash to pay the bills at the beginning of the fiscal year, or it will be tapped out altogether.  He stated this year, the Board is spending approximately $10 million of the cash carry forward; the problem now is that there is not as much reoccurring savings, or cash carry forward, and there is not the ability to either appropriate that out, or the Board will not have as much even if it did not appropriate that out; and Mr. Burdett’s bottom line was that that cash carry forward is shrinking, and the Board has relied on that to fund reoccurring expenditures, and so it is sort of a double whammy going forward.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated one thing that concerns him in that scenario, and in trying to figure out what has happened with real estate values this year, he believes the Board is going to be down another $20 million next year; and inquired if the employees have had a pay raise in the last three or four years.  Mr. Whitten advised this will be the third year in a row the employees have not had a pay raise.  Commissioner Fisher stated the Board will have $20 less to work with; the healthcare cost will still climb another $4 million or $5 million next year; and it looks like the Board is putting the County in a difficult situation. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated with the First Responder Program the three options the Board has at this point is to get the funding out of this balanced budget somewhere, go into cash money, or it cannot fund it.  Commissioner Fisher stated it is a $1.5 million problem if it is done at a full level; the Board can fund it this year, but it is funding a lot of things with one-time revenues; and the Board is going to have to address a lot of issues in the next couple of years.  He stated setting the millage has really hindered and tied the hands of the Board for future years.  Commissioner Bolin stated previous Boards have used reoccurring costs without the money to back it, which also put the Board into this situation.  She stated last year she did not want to spend it.  Commissioner Fisher stated the Board can blame previous Commissions, but the current Board also needs to look at itself and ask what it is doing to help solve the issue; stated he does not think previous Boards thought they would be out of cash forward in two years; and all indications point to the cash forward being gone at the end of 2010.  Commissioner Bolin stated she is hearing from Commissioner Fisher that he does not want to use cash carry forward to fund First Responder and the Sheriff’s STEP plan.  Commissioner Fisher stated he thinks the Board should fund those two things and more, but there is not the dollars available to do it; and so he thinks the Sheriff’s STEP plan and First Responder is important, but so is the employees’ raises, roads, parks, and libraries.  Commissioner Fisher stated he would like to be able to reconsider the millage because he does not think it is right to put the County in the situation where there are bonding issues and other issues, and in a couple of years the dollars will not be there and the Board cannot go get the dollars because it has suppressed the millage.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he would like to talk about the First Responder Program and the $980,000 versus the $750,000; and inquired what the 30 percent cut came out to be.  Mr. Whitten replied the 30 percent cut was $980,000; the question was asked of Chief Neterer, if the County were to pay itself for First Responder, what would that be; and that was the number that took it down to the $750,000.  Chairman Nelson stated on the County side, it is funded for its portion this year, so any funding the Board gives itself just reduces the potential need in the unincorporated MSTU; but he also thinks it tends to underfund the First Responder piece of that; and it, in effect, takes the amount of money the Board has been paying for First Responder and cutting it in half.  He stated given the fact that the Board has discussed other potential fees associated with the service, he would be inclined to want to try to maximize the first responder piece that goes to the cities; the County is out of the discussion for this year only; but the money can be found to get the cities closer what they have historically received; and it is still a 30 percent cut of what they have historically received, but it is the $980,000 figure.  Chairman Nelson stated Chairman Nelson’s solution to start phasing it down is the best solution; and he would favor the $980,000 to move forward this year. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated historically, the Board needs cash forward to operate at the beginning of the year as the tax revenues come in; but theoretically, when a budget it put together, ‘x’ amount of dollars is budgeted in, and at the end of the year it has been spent because the Board has accomplished everything that it thought it was going to; but the reality is that that does not happen, so there is carry forward dollars.  He stated as the Board has had to reduce and has had to pull money out of the budget, it has been expending more of those dollars because it is providing a leaner and meaner kind of service, which means more of those dollars are being used; the alternatives are, the Board has the ability to borrow money until the tax revenues come in; there is a cost to that, but it is a mechanism that law allows for governments because the Board could find itself in a position where it did everything it said it was going to do at the budget it appropriated and to carry it forward; and inquired if that is a fair statement. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated yes, it is; stated he would like to give the Board a sense of what percentage of cash forward has been spent over the years; and he will go back to 2006.  He explained in 2006 the Board had $25 million in fund balances, or cash forward, and the Board re-appropriated 41 percent of that; in  2007  it  was $31  million, s o  the  Board  re-appropriated 29 percent of that $31 million; in 2008 it went up to $36 million, and the Board re-appropriated 33 percent of that; and there was a slight decrease coming into this year.  He stated the County is appropriating more than half of that $35 million; projected going into next year it is actually going down $7 million; the County is appropriating 40% of that; and that is the issue.  He noted the balance is going down and the County still has a need to appropriate a very high percentage of that to balance out the budget.

 

Chairman Nelson stated the County budgets for capital projects, road projects, park projects, etc.; and inquired how much of that cash forward is associated with that or is this all operational or a combination of all those.

 

Mr. Whitten responded staff is actually working on the answer to that because a fair percentage of that is going to be devoted to projects that did not finish up.

 

Chairman Nelson stated so there is no ongoing cost or need for those; and when the County says re-appropriated, it is if they were capital projects.

 

Mr. Whitten noted that is correct; this is General Revenue accounts; big users would be Facilities and Parks and Recreation; there are not very many other General Revenue accounts that the County actually would roll the dollars over for capital projects; and staff has never segregated out how much of that fund balance is appropriated for pure operating expenditures as opposed to capital.

 

Chairman Nelson stated Reserves are an amount that are budgeted each year; and that money carries forward also.  Mr. Whitten noted those Reserves are a part of that fund balance.  Chairman Nelson stated if the County had $17 million budgeted last year and $17 million this year, that $17 million would be there theoretically next year because it had not been allocated for any purpose and the Board during the course of the year did not use those.  Mr. Whitten noted if the County continues to spend a certain percentage of the fund balances either it is going to eat into those reserves or the Board is going to have to make cuts so that it does not eat into those reserves.  Chairman Nelson stated the County Reserves got down to as low as $11 million or $12 million at one point; and the County Commission did not set a goal to get those up to $20 million or whatever that number was.  Mr. Whitten stated the Board’s goal is 10% of the operating revenues; 2002 was $6.6 million; that is the lowest it has been all the way up to $24 million; and that is probably when the Board is at a discussion with regards to an appropriate amount that is needed for cash flow purposes when it is between the $6.6 million and the $8 million.

 

Chairman Nelson stated at the TDC meeting yesterday there was a vote taken that is going to be coming to the Board to authorize the utilization of some of what the TDC has set aside as disaster funds; in effect it is their reserve; the last time it actually requested to use them was after 9-1-1 when there was no travel; and there will be another request coming and it is because of the economy, which in their world it is kind of a disaster as well because their revenues are down.  He noted Reserves for what the County is going through is that kind of scenario; it is in a very difficult economic time; if it does not use Reserves for these purposes he is not sure, other than the classic hurricane, when it would use those; and they are for all those kinds of purposes, which is to get through those bumpy times to get to the times when they can be replenished.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired rolling the clock ahead a year and the County is here this time next year, if the General Revenue is down $20 more million, how it effects the Reserve.  Chairman Nelson responded the County is back in that position; he is absolutely right; he and Commissioner Fisher did not support keeping the millage the same; that is the same discussion the  Board  will  have  next  year; and  it  is  not  a  case of it has to, it is a case of this Board will choose whatever it wants to do at that point in time because it is not a tax increase, according to State law, to be able to advertise a roll forward millage.  Commissioner Fisher stated if the chart is right, it has been going down; last year started the big climb; and it was $24 million in 2008.  Mr. Whitten stated when looking at fund balances, whatever that number is, reserves are a part of that; the Board has had this recurring discussion on fund balances; this fiscal year there was $35.7 million in fund balances; and $16.6 million of that was reserves.  He stated how much was truly from savings, unspent dollars, was the difference between $35.7 million and $16 million is from savings; and as Commissioner Nelson pointed out, some of those may have been for projects that did not get finished up that are going to roll over in the next fiscal year.  He advised that is the problem, in talking about fund and cash balances some portion of that is dedicated or is the County’s actual reserves; the number of fund balances goes down automatically, the reserves go down if the Board is going to continue to appropriate from the fund balance or the reserve; the Board can call it what it wants, but it is pretty much the same pot of money.

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if anyone had considered cutting spending in lieu of dipping into the reserves because that is what the Board had talked about when it set the millage; stated it was discussed a good bit that the Board would only have two years if it followed that same scenario; and further inquired if anyone else besides her looked into cutting spending.

 

Chairman Nelson advised the Board cut $40 million; the millage that Commissioner Infantini approved reduces the budget by $40 million; and he does not know where she comes by the thought that the Board has not made any cuts.  He noted there are 200 people who do not have jobs as a result of this.  Commissioner Infantini stated she knew.  She inquired if anyone had any suggestions for where the Board could cut spending instead of dipping so much into the reserves.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board did not dip into reserves at all, how much more cutting would it have to do; with Commissioner Infantini responding about $10 million.  Mr. Whitten advised if the Board did not use fund balances it would $11.6 million because the Board has appropriated, out of the $28 million that it thinks it will have in fund balances, $11.6 million of that is appropriated in next year’s budget; that is a good question of how much of that is for capital projects; and staff will get the Board that answer.  He explained with one-time funds and reserve funds, a little bit of that has been cleared up with the insurance changes; but there are still one-time dollars that are actually funding reoccurring expenses; if the Board does not want to fund this budget using any of its fund balances, it would be $11.6 million; there are $2 million that is in there from the sale of property; and the Board did some other use of reserves there from the risk funds.  He stated $11.6 million plus another $2 million.  Interim Assistant County Manager advised he believes there was $1.5 million or more that was pulled out of the catastrophe reserve and moved it over to the general fund.  Mr. Whitten stated that is about $15 million; everyone uses a portion of their fund balances for the next year’s budget or re-appropriates a portion of those because if it is done right the State only allows the Board to record 95 percent of what it expects to receive; there is a built-in savings hopefully; but Brevard County is losing that now because as it shrinks and gets tight,  people  are  spending up  to  and beyond the 95 percent level, plus the property taxes; the County gets 97 percent now; and he is going to keep his fingers crossed that it can get to the 96 percent collection rate.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated Doug Baker came to the Board from the Citizen Budget Review Commission, and he has the same attitude as Mr. Baker had, is that when he was on the campaign trail there was a lot of waste in County Government; once getting into the budget cycle and starting to look at it he started to realizing that since 2005 every department has had a cut other than the Sheriff’s Department; in defense of them the Jail and the tents came on and some other things; everyone says public safety is the number one thing; but when looking at all the numbers, every department is down.  He stated if the Board decides not to use balance forward, then the assignment would be to find another $12 or $13 million; then it would not have to appropriate $11.6 million; but it would be hard.  He noted it would be people losing their jobs, which would ultimately mean services; but inquired what $11 million means in the number of people.  Mr. Whitten advised it would be another 220 people losing their jobs.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he believes in police, fire, and roads and that is it; so anything she wants to cut beyond that, he will support.  Commissioner Infantini inquired what about Economic Development.  Commissioner Anderson advised the EDC fulfilled their promise to him to cut their budget; that is unfair; he worked at the Space Center and Commissioner Infantini never have; and he knows what those people are going through out there.  He stated he does not know what to do; if Commissioner Infantini has a way to recoup; he is trying every day; he works on the Parkway and business recruiting; and that is all that they do out of his office. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated there was a gentleman who showed up right after the EDC meeting and he would like to present a consolidated effort to help work on the Space Program and to change the way business is being done; at times there needs to be change; there was change in County Management; that is positive; but other times there needs to be other changes.  Commissioner Anderson inquired if the Board should shut down EDC tomorrow.  Commissioner Infantini advised maybe it needs a new direction or new management.  Commissioner Anderson stated he is on the opposite end of a lot of things; he does not think the Board should be in the animal business; he does not think that is a government role; a million dollars is spent there; and if the Board wants to talk about things to cut he has a lot of things to talk about outside of fire, police, and roads.  Commissioner Infantini inquired if Commissioner Anderson wants to let the animals run wild and not have anyone pick them up.  Commissioner Anderson replied the SPCA and the humane society can handle it; he believes in minimal government; if she wants to go there they can; but the Board will probably not be happy with him.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if Commissioner Infantini is fine with $1 going towards animal control; and would she vote to get rid of it.  Commissioner Infantini inquired what would happen to the animals; with Commissioner Fisher replying to let someone else worry about it.  Commissioner Infantini stated say a dog comes by and bites his daughter; and inquired what would the County do about that.  Commissioner Fisher responded to take her to the hospital and get her fixed up.  Commissioner Infantini stated there has to be something to protect the public from animals roaming; even if animal control is gotten rid of there still has to be some type of enforcement against dangerous animals; and there needs to be some type of enforcement against cruelty to animals.  She stated it can be outsourced, that would be fine with her.  Commissioner Anderson state the point of the argument is that everyone has their thing that he or she thinks is important.  Commissioner Infantini stated she thinks all of these things are important; it is just she is the one person who is the spokesperson for it; but that is not her thing.  Commissioner Anderson stated the EDC is important to three Commissioners; there is no reason for him starting a war; it is kind of important to him; he had two Chamber presidents tell him they cannot do without the EDC; and when he has Chambers telling him, which costs taxpayers nothing, that they will go down without the EDC, there is big trouble.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she just will not come forward with anymore suggestions until someone else puts one out, because every one she has come out with is shot down.  Commissioner Anderson stated Commissioner Infantini acts like she is the only fiscal conservative on the Board, and he begs to differ with that.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he told Commissioner Infantini would just vote with him on everything it would be fine.

 

Chairman Nelson stated it is a difficult time; each Commissioner has something that he or she is interested in; his happens to be Parks; he has seen Parks have referendums that passed and the general fund contribution went up; it is down to $14 million for Parks now, which is probably a 2002 or 2003 level; and last meeting the Board voted to keep a 17-acre Park opened, which means it has to have its own maintenance staff that was originally scheduled to go to a different Park.  He stated he is fine with that as he values that for the community; but those are the kinds of choices the Board is making; there are additional cuts that can be made; the Board can gut the budget and get rid of Animal Services, Parks, and a lot of other things; he thinks the Board has taken it to the point where it is as good as it is going to get for this year; it needs to look at a couple of remaining issues; and he is fine with looking at the reserves issue because the reality is next year if there is not a vote to at least go to roll forward, there will be drastic cuts.  He stated the Board needs to make the cuts either this year or next year; his preference is the Board needs to continue to try to get through it this year; and deal with it next year.  He stated he has community centers in the Cocoa area similar to Titusville where recreation services are provided inside cities and those cities are taxed for it, but they are in disadvantaged areas; there is one in Cocoa, Merritt Island, and West Cocoa; the Board is going to see services cut to people who need those services; it is almost a safe haven in their community; it is how they get away from some of the bad things that happen; and the Board is going to reduce those hours and push them back into the community where is all sorts of opportunity to get in trouble.  He stated Commissioner Fisher has a couple of those centers. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated on September 2^nd he has kind of a task force meeting in his office with the Sheriff, City, Police Chief, and Kendall Moore and Kim Penson who both lost relatives in a horrible crime situation; he asked the Judge and Norm Wolfinger to attend and have some conversation on how to get a handle on this crime; if there are not Parks and Recreation and Police Athletic Leagues, YMCA, these kids do not have anywhere to go; and all could be victims some day.  He stated part of government it is just as important to make sure his daughter is safe

 

from a dog bite, it is also to try to keep her safe and alive from the criminal elements; and to make sure kids have opportunities to be successful. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if that entire division was privatized would the Board actually save money.   Mr. Whitten explained the privatizing issue is always getting down to they pay  possibly their people less and the Board pays staff fringe benefits associated with that; and inquired if the same service be done for less.  He stated the Board tasks the Animal Welfare Working Group with looking at the issue of privatization of the shelters; they worked throughout the summer but have not addressed that issue; so staff has not asked the question to get the answer; and an RFP has not been issued to sort of test the waters. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated they want the County to pay them, they would not take it dollar for dollar; they would not say they would take over Animal Control and take all of the animals; they are going to want transfer from general fund to their organization; and he is not sure there would be much of a savings at all the first few years.

 

Chairman Nelson stated he has been around long enough to remember when they were privatized; and the County got back into the business because of a performance failure on the part of the privatized group.

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired how long the County has been in charge of Animal Services; with Mr. Whitten responding approximately ten years; stated he was not sure when the County got it back; but it has been since he has been with the County.  Chairman Nelson advised the County was just doing enforcement, but there was a collapse of the system; and the County ended up getting back into the business. 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated the Board cut the Building Department, which in his opinion there was not the need for that many people any longer; he was contacted by several of their employees upset about it; and inquired if that was 17 or 18 people in that group.  Assistant County Manager Mel Scott advised over 20 people.  Commissioner Fisher stated since he has been in office, the County is down approximately 240 people; and was that done in less than a year.  Mr. Scott advised every department has its stories of how they have cut and where they have cut; and it is a story across-the-board of less spending.

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired if salaries could be cut five percent or rollback the Cody Study; stated she realizes it would not impact the firefighters and police department; and further inquired if the Cody Study was rolled back what percentage would be saved.  Chairman Nelson inquired why it would not impact the firefighters and police.  Commissioner Infantini stated it is already in their contracts; and inquired if it is under the union.  Chairman Nelson stated so are the laborers.  Mr. Scott stated the implications is that departments cuts are different; in some cases there are heroic efforts to not cut the services because the value systems many of these employees have; in a lot of cases there are less people trying their best to do the same amount of work; salaries could be cut further; but productivity issues would have be dealt with and moral issues, which are pretty bad already.  Commissioner Infantini stated moral issues should be addressed at the top; it is the tone at the top; if the top says here is what it is; at her house when everything changes, they talk about how they are going to go forward; and then they just work with whatever they have and go forward.  She stated if the new County Manager sets a positive tone.

 

Mr. Whitten stated he believes in that as well; if people do not realize that he or she is fortunate to have jobs at this particular point in time, him saying that is not going to help; Frank Abbate has the numbers on the Cody Study and rolling those back; those are not going to get the Board the dollars it needs to make this budget structurally sound; most of those dollars went to fire and law enforcement; but by reducing people’s salaries back to five or six years ago, it is a monumental task in terms of a tone.  He stated tone, feelings, and morale are also attributable to actions; he does not know if anyone can come in and set a tone that tell the employees are value and worthwhile and at the same time reducing their salary back to 2005-2006 level. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she would expect herself and her staff to take the five percent cut as well; she would not just want it applied to staff; and she would want it to be across-the-board.  She stated if it would help to keep current staff in place providing the services; and as long as employees see everyone is cut back the same amount, she does not think there would be so much of a morale issue.

 

Mr. Abbate stated it will difficult to be able to do across-the-board; there are multiple unions, different Charter Officers that are part of that; the Board does not have the choice about reducing its own salaries during the terms while in office as it cannot do it; it would be a violation of the Charter; it could be done for future Board’s; but it cannot do it for the sitting Board while the Commissioners are in office.

 

Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Abbate to explain what the Cody Study was.  Mr. Abbate advised the Cody Study was a survey done by an independent outside consultant hired by the Board to look at the proper classification of people within the organization, to look within job descriptions, and where those job descriptions were appropriately both from an internal equity and an external equity standpoint; the total amount of dollars by excluding the fire and the Sheriff is $2.9 million; that is for all of the employees; that is not all non-bargaining employees; he does not have the specific number with him; but the Cody Study in its full implementation was $2.9 million to employees, excluding Fire Rescue and the Sheriff’s issues.

 

Chairman Nelson stated Cody came in and looked at employees to see what they were doing compared to what similar jobs were making, and made adjustments accordingly based on market.  Mr. Abbate advised it was done in two phases; one was in March 1996, and the second was in October 1996.  Chairman Nelson stated Commissioner Infantini basically did the same thing with her staff; stated she looked at one of her employees and said that person was doing work at a certain level, but she was being compensated at a different level, and Commissioner Infantini gave that person a $9,000 increase.  Commissioner Infantini stated that is correct because she realized the job that she was hired for, she was not doing; she was doing the job of the other person as well.  Chairman Nelson stated that is what Cody did; Cody came in and looked at all County positions and did the very same thing as Commissioner Infantini. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated that is why she does not make recommendations; stated every recommendation she makes gets shot down; and no one has any recommendations to cut spending.  Chairman Nelson stated the Board has cut spending by $40 million.  Commissioner Infantini stated the Board does not have any other ideas.  Commissioner Anderson stated he has some ideas, but the Board will not like them; stated he does not need Code Enforcement; and he knows he will lose that by 4:1; but all the Commissioners have different ideas about what government should do.  Commissioner Infantini stated if the Board does not want to enforce its codes and have no standards, then it will have to get rid of its Ordinances.  Commissioner Anderson stated he is showing Commissioner Infantini how selfish that is, because most of his District is a municipality; and most of his unincorporated area is agricultural land that does not even fall under the codes, so he is okay if the Board wants to cut Code Enforcement.

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated staff has done a remarkable job of dealing with the budget, and have come up with a budget that the Board is going to have to live with; he does not think the Board can go any lower, so it is now up to the Board to ask if these things are important to it; and that is the raises to the Sheriff’s Office.  He stated the firefighters gave up their STEP increases in their contract for two years; he thinks that is a big commitment and an understanding of the current financial circumstance; but it also puts him in the position of how he says to the firefighters that the deputies get raises, but they do not; stated he hates being in that position; and that is why he did not want to go to the full $40 million cut.  He stated the Board is at the point where it can look to balance the budget out by going to the reserve issues; the Board has the ability to decide on First Responders and the Sheriff’s Office, and have a balanced budget at that time; and the Board has gotten to a point where it is as good as it is going to get.  He stated the Board does not to beat itself up over the job that has been done; and the Board needs to make the final last decisions and move on with the budget process.

   

Commissioner Anderson inquired where the Board is with the First Responder Program and the Sheriff’s Office.  Mr. Whitten replied the Board is at $1.503 million, which is the $980,000 for the First Responder Program and $523,000 for the Sheriff’s Office.  Commissioner Anderson stated he thought there was another issue.  Chairman Nelson inquired where the Board is in terms of savings to balance out the furloughs, and inquired if the Board is still $1 million short.  Mr. Abbate advised the monies being collected this year in the health insurance program and the reserves that built up in the health insurance program that are above the minimum requirements by the State of Florida, that are above those requirements, but below are the unfunded liability and the Gasby-45 liability for post-employment benefits; there would be enough money at the current level, so there would not be furloughs; and that $9.7 million the Board approved this morning would still leave the Board a healthy viable plan that would have to be monitored through the year.  Mr. Whitten stated the only other issues the Board discussed today were the EDC funding and the federal lobbyist issue. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired of the balanced budget, how much is the Board using out of reserves.  Mr. Whitten replied out of the Board’s fund balance, the Board is using $11.6 million.  Commissioner Bolin stated if the Board wants to fund First Responders and the STEP increase for the Sheriff’s Office, the Board is going to have to add another $1.2 million to that.  Mr. Whitten advised the Board will have to add $1.503 million. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated he would like to separate the two issues of the Sheriff’s Office and the First Responder Program.  He inquired if there is a Board direction for the Sheriff’s Office’s STEP increase.  Commissioner Bolin inquired how it will be funded. Chairman Nelson stated that is the question; and inquired if the Board is looking to fund it with reserves or is it looking to say the budget is complete.  Commissioner Anderson stated he believes the Board has to fund it, and if it is unwilling to cut in any other areas, then it will have to go to reserves. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, to approve funding the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office STEP Plan increases for sworn officers at $523,013 from Reserves.  

 

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he supports funding the STEP Plan, but next year he hopes the Board will look at the millage more closely.  Chairman Nelson inquired if the STEP was funded last year, which was the first year.  Mr. Abbate replied it has been multiple years, and it has been funded every year.  Chairman Nelson stated this would be the first year the Sheriff’s Office does not receive the increase.  Mr. Abbate stated it has not been negotiated, so it is an open issue for the Sheriff, as he is currently in negotiations, and he can go back to his union and deal with it like the Board did with the firefighters; the STEP has been something that has been in place for many years; and it has been received every year up through this fiscal year.  He noted it is already built into the budget; and the second half of this year’s STEP increase is already included in the proposed budget for next year. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if the Board is pre-emptive in the Sheriff’s negotiations.  Mr. Abbate advised STEP increases, when in a collective bargaining agreement, are going to continue indefinitely unless they are negotiated out; if it is the second year of a three year contract, and it is a closed contract when either side could have opened up a wage article, then the Board is going to be stuck unless it goes under the State’s provision for financial urgency, which very few jurisdictions have ever been to successfully utilize, but it does exist; the exception is that the Board, as the employer, has the opportunity to open up the wage article and successfully negotiate something different; and that is what happened with the firefighters when they recognized the dilemma the Board was in and gave up this year’s and next year’s STEP increases in the collective bargaining process.  He stated as he understands it, the Sheriff is in the middle of his collective bargaining. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated the difficulty he is having is that he would have preferred to have reduced the budget less and had been able to talk to the firefighters and deputies about the salaries as a group; now that the firefighters have agreed to not accept it, he is not going to be able to support funding one segment of public safety; and he would have liked to have funded both of them, but it is a difficult time. 

 

Chairman Nelson called for a vote on the motion.  Motion carried and ordered; Chairman Nelson voted nay.

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Bolin.

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve funding for the First Responder Program, recommending a 30 percent cut, which is a funding of $980,000 from Reserves.  Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Bolin voted nay.

 

 

Vice Chairman Boling passed the gavel to Chairman Nelson.

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 2:42 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

ATTEST:                                                                     ___________________________________

                                                                                    CHUCK NELSON, CHAIRMAN

                                                                                    BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

                                                                                    BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

_____________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

      

          (S E A L)