July 17, 2003

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on July 17, 2003, at 9:02 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairperson Jackie Colon, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Nancy Higgs, and Susan Carlson, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson. Absent was: County Attorney Scott Knox.

REPORT, RE: PRAYERS FOR ACCIDENT VICTIMS AND MILITARY

Chairperson Colon advised she tries not to watch the news as it is too depressing; and she wants to take a moment to include prayers for the families of the nine people who died in a terrible accident in Santa Monica, California, and for the men and women who are overseas and in harm’s way.

REPORT, RE: CELIA CRUZ

Chairperson Colon stated it is a sad day for the Hispanic community as Celia Cruz passed away; and she was 78 years old, and an icon of the Hispanic community. She stated Ms. Cruz was, to the Hispanic community, a mix of Mother Theresa and Lady Diana; and the communities of Latin America and throughout the world are mourning her passing away. She advised Ms. Cruz was of Cuban decent, but she was admired throughout the entire world.

REPORT, RE: BUDGET COMMENTS

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the 2003-2004 tentative budget follows the philosophy of operating within existing means; the current aggregate ad valorem property tax remains unchanged for next year from the current year; most property tax rates are being reduced; and many of them remain unchanged. He stated the tentative budget maintains the Board’s policy goal of a General Fund balance forward of 10% and a General Fund reserve balance of 5%; there are a few service enhancements in the budget; but there are an extensive number of unfunded program enhancement requests received. He noted the tentative budget includes the elimination of several positions in different departments; in this series of budget workshops, staff is trying a different approach this year to see how it works; it is trying to make the Board’s review time as productive as possible; and the agenda format is different. Mr. Jenkins stated most of the departments are not experiencing significant changes, other than salary increases for employees, health insurance costs, Florida State retirement costs, and other insurance costs; so there is little change in most of the budgets; as part of the agenda package, staff will have ample opportunity to go over specific department budgets that the Board chooses; and it will do it later in the process. He noted staff has taken the two workshops and created one agenda; the first issue proposed is to go over the revenues and financial indicators

REPORT, RE: BUDGET COMMENTS

for the year, move to the major cost impacts affecting the budget, and show the Board what the tentative millage rates will be as it relates to the proposed budget; this year staff created a separate book for program change requests received; and the blue pages are unfunded requests and the white pages are funded requests. He stated staff has included on the agenda an explanation of the Article V process that begins July 1, 2004, which is nine months into the fiscal year; there is an update on the strategic planning progress report; staff has extended an offer to any of the Charter Officers who want to appear before the Board and discuss their budgets, as well as any department directors; and the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) item needs to be inserted on the agenda. Mr. Jenkins stated a number of people want to make presentations at the July 24, 2003 workshop at 9:00 a.m.; and the Board can discuss and make any changes it deems necessary at that time.

REPORT, RE: REVENUE OVERVIEW AND FINANCIAL INDICATORS

Budget Director Dennis Rogero stated the tentative budget totals $742.9 million; staff has it broken down by the different fund types under the Board; the General Fund is at 25.2% on the pie chart; and it includes Animal Services, Budget Office, County Manager, and a number of other services. He stated special revenue funds are 29.2%, which includes Fire/Rescue, Mosquito Control, and Libraries; revenues and funding coming into the special revenue funds can only be used for those purposes they are coming in for; the debt control funds total 4.6%; and those include sales tax revenue bonds and some of the parks and recreation bonds. He advised the capital projects total 10.6%; the bulk of those are made up from the parks and recreation referendum projects and a few other projects; the Enterprise Fund totals 21.4%; and it represents agencies under the Board that operate more or less like a business, such as Solid Waste and Water Resources Departments. Mr. Rogero stated the Internal Service Fund totals 9.1%, which represents agencies under the Board that serve the internal customers, such as Information/Communications Systems Department; and reviewed the dollar figures and increase or decrease associated with the fund types. He advised with the exception of the General Fund and Internal Service Fund, all the other funds are anticipated to decrease in the tentative budget; he would not describe that as unusual, especially in the Special Revenue Capital Projects and Enterprise Funds; the County normally sees that as agencies anticipate projects being completed in the current year, so there is no need to carry forward funding into the next year; and the General Fund has a slight increase. He stated the Internal Service Fund increased a little over 2½%; and within the Fund is the Employee Benefits Program, which is primarily the reason for the increase.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when he was briefed, staff advised the salary increases were $1.5 million, employee retirement was $2.5 million, and employee health insurance was $800,000; the Internal Service Fund is approximately $1.7 million; and inquired how the rest of the increases reflected. Mr. Rogero responded such increases will be in the General Fund. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if some of the employee costs are spread through the various funds; with Mr. Rogero responding yes. Mr. Rogero stated the State revenue sharing and local half-cent sales tax revenue will be affected by Article V, Revision 7; and beginning July 2004, the Board can no longer recognize any additional revenue due to growth in those revenues.

REPORT, RE: REVENUE OVERVIEW AND FINANCIAL INDICATORS

Mr. Rogero advised the largest program fundings with general revenue transfers are the Sheriff’s Office at $53,725,062; Parks and Recreation at $15,446,299; Facilities at $9,468,694; Property Appraiser at $6,594,396; and Tax Collector $4,934,380. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Rogero has not touched on the ad valorem or new construction, and inquired if that will be presented separately; with Mr. Rogero responding yes. Mr. Rogero advised new ad valorem revenue anticipated for the tentative budget, presuming the aggregate millage stays at the current rate, is a General Fund increase of $4.36 million, due to new construction; approximately $3 million is for the other taxing districts; additional property tax revenue, excluding new construction, is from the General Fund at $4.75 million; and non-General Fund ad valorem is $2.5 million. He stated the local half-cent sales tax will be capped from Brevard County’s point of view, beginning July 2004; any increase associated with growth the State will retain; and he expects a slight increase in those revenue sources.

County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if it will cost the County $519,000; with Mr. Rogero responding no, it is an increase. Mr. Rogero stated it will cost Brevard County more than that; staff would normally anticipate an increase far greater than one-half a million dollars; under other revenue information, the difference in the balances forward from the General Fund is $1.8 million; and staff has itemized some of the actions that are impacting that reduction. He noted the expenditure rates for general funded-supported agencies continue to increase; the Sheriff’s Office has said it expects to spend 100% of its General Fund transfer this year; and in the past, staff has recognized up to millions of dollars of returned revenue from the Sheriff. He stated the Tax Collector’s excess fees, the funding he returns to the County after all of the collections and expenditures are met, are projected to decrease $694,000; this year, the Sheriff expects to spend all of his excess fees; however, staff is maintaining the operating reserves for the General Fund at 5% of the operating revenue in accordance with Board Policy. Mr. Jenkins advised in order to do that, staff will have to infuse additional money back into the reserve to sustain it at 5%, as the various agencies are spending higher than they have historically; the reason is that inflation and other items continue to increase their costs; the Budget Office has not been increasing the budgets to correspond with the cost increases of inflation, material supplies, and so forth; and the agencies are spending more of what they get.

DISCUSSION, RE: MAJOR COST IMPACTS

Budget Director Dennis Rogero advised he will highlight the major cost impacts; the Florida Retirement System contribution is increasing for an estimated impact to the General Fund of $1.7 million and the non-General Fund ad valorem agencies of $130,000; tentatively, the County has scheduled a maximum of 3% pay increases for about three-fourths of next year for employees; and it will impact the General Fund by $2.6 million, and the agencies that receive funding from other tax districts by $1.6 million. He stated the County has funded an increase in the jail medical services Contract of just over $1,180,357; and it is a continuing trend at the Sheriff’s Office.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the Contract was increased approximately one million dollars or more this year; and in two years, it has increased in excess of two million dollars. Mr. Rogero stated the group health insurance is anticipated to impact the General Fund over $910,000 next year and $250,000 for those agencies funded from other tax revenues; the County has funded two additional elections next year, for an impact of $750,807 in the Supervisor of Elections Office; that is all from the General Fund; there is an increase of payments to the redevelopment agencies of $354,000; and the last bulleted item is the full-year impact of pay increases the Board approved for the current year.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it is his understanding that increases in payment to redevelopment agencies come from the General Fund, and inquired does it have to do with the amount of money such agencies get from the increase in taxes; with Mr. Rogero responding yes. Mr. Rogero noted the County anticipates the same for next year; it implements pay increases historically for less than a full year initially; the following years there is a full-year impact; and that is the impact staff anticipates for the pay increases approved this year.

DISCUSSION, RE: TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATES

Budget Director Dennis Rogero gave a comparison of the tentative millage rates for each of the County’s operating tax districts. He stated the district is itemized on the left; the current year millage is next; the rollback millage is the third column; the proposed millages, as included in the tentative budget, is the fourth column from the left; and to the far right is the increase or decrease by percentage compared to the current millage. He advised the General Revenue Countywide millage is 0.41%; Mosquito Control District is 4.86%; and the Recreation District 1 MSTU is being increased at 18.09%. He stated the reduction in General Revenue Countywide millage and increase in the Mosquito Control District millage reflects a transfer of expenses; the Mosquito Control District tax was increased to fund five inspectors that were previously funded from General Fund; and as the millage is increased, the General Revenue Countywide millage was reduced by the same amount.

Commissioner Higgs stated there is an increase of 18.09% in the District 1 MSTU for recreation; and inquired if staff can explain the impact of it on the aggregate millage and other MSTU’s. Mr. Rogero responded from a funding standpoint, it approximates less than one-half million dollars; and as a percentage of the aggregate, it approximates at .2%. Commissioner Higgs inquired since the aggregate millage rate will remain, how does the County balance the increase with the decrease. Mr. Rogero responded the Road and Bridge District MSTU’s are being reduced to the rollback rate. Commissioner Higgs stated the Road and Bridge MSTU’s in every District are being decreased, which means less repaving of roads; and inquired if the County is going to decrease the Road and Bridge Districts and repaving in order to balance the District 1 MSTU. Mr. Jenkins responded it is in the proposed budget. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to discuss the issue at some point; it is $100,000 of repaving in District 3; and she wants to have an extended discussion about it as the Board needs to be sure it is ready to do same.

Commissioner Scarborough noted any of the MSTU’s can be increased, as the Board has not set the tentative millage yet; and if any Commissioner wants to increase the MSTU in his or her District, it is within his or her discretion. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board had discussion that it was interested in no aggregate increase, so it is what staff has provided; she understands the operational costs involved with the recreation projects; reiterated the Board is seeing a decrease in each of the Road and Bridge MSTU’s; but it is a Countywide issue that needs to be discussed. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is an increase over rollback, which is what the TRIM notice will show; the public is not going to be looking at those numbers, but the increase over rollback; and they will not see the data the Board sees, but the percentages over rollback or not over rollback. Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the increase over rollback; with Mr. Rogero responding it is 5.95% in the tentative budget. Commissioner Pritchard inquired is the perception that Districts 2, 3, 4, and 5 MSTU’s are paying for the increase in District 1; with Commissioner Higgs responding all of the Road and Bridge MSTU’s show a decrease. Commissioner Pritchard stated according to what Mr. Rogero indicated, the impression is that the other Districts are assisting in paying a higher amount for District 1 MSTU. Mr. Jenkins responded the County has lowered the millages in the Road and Bridge MSTU’s in order to increase the millage in District 1 for parks and recreation; the Board’s Road and Bridge dollars are not going to District 1; the County has simply lowered the tax rate, which means the residents will be paying less for Road and Bridge; and the residents of North Brevard will be paying a slight increase in order to fund parks and recreation. Commissioner Pritchard stated it means an actual reduction in dollars of approximately $130,000 for each District, leaving less money available for roads; and the County is doing this to maintain the aggregate millage rates. Commissioner Scarborough stated the aggregate is like a game as the public will not see the aggregate increase, but a percentage increase over rollback; Florida Statutes are quite clear and the percentage is published; District 2 Road and Bridge shows a lower millage, but the millage remains the same; and it is at rollback.

Commissioner Carlson stated when she was briefed by staff, she asked how the County will make up the difference; staff talked about Mosquito Control and manipulating those dollars; and requested staff explain it. Mr. Jenkins responded staff does not manipulate anything; it took five Mosquito Control positions that had been in the General Fund and put them back into the Mosquito Control millage where they should have been; and the Mosquito Control millage has increased and General Fund has decreased. Commissioner Carlson noted it was to help balance and get the aggregate down. Mr. Jenkins stated it was moved from one fund to the other. Mr. Rogero noted it had no net effect.

Commissioner Scarborough stated District 1 has an increase because there are more operating expenses; numbers can be adjusted any way the Board wants to come out with an aggregate; it is going to do Road and Bridge by keeping it at the current millage at rollback; and it will show 0% increase. He noted if the Board did the contrary and went to where the millage was last year, the tax bill would show an increase in the millage. Commissioner Pritchard stated he was trying to clarify what initially came out that could have been interpreted as District 1 getting an increase at the cost of the other Districts. Commissioner Higgs stated sometimes the Board gets hung up on various factors in talking about the budget; one of the things that is advertised and the public sees is the issue of rollback, being the millage to generate the same amount of revenue Brevard County has this year; and it is misleading. She noted her focus has been on the millage the Board charges this year and next year, and how that equates to what people pay in taxes; it is a realistic assessment to what the Board’s budget is and what it is asking people to contribute in terms of taxes; and she has always focused on the millage rate and what the Board is levying. She stated the County has an overall Countywide tentative millage rate of aggregate; in order to get the aggregate not to increase, the Budget Office is suggesting a budget to take care of the District 1 MSTU and Parks and Recreation; the Board is seeing a decrease in the Road and Bridge MSTU’s in every District; and she is not ready at this point to concede either an increase in the aggregate or a decrease in the District 3 MSTU of approximately $194,000 as it impacts the delivery of repaving services on streets that need it. Commissioner Scarborough stated if Commissioner Higgs believes her District needs the money and wants the millage to remain the same as last year, he defers that decision to each Commissioner. Commissioner Higgs noted her preference for District 3 MSTU has impacts on the aggregate. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County has a large budget; when the Board talks about $100,000 for an MSTU and how it impacts, it can be made to work; and right now the Board is talking of small numbers in comparison to a large budget. Commissioner Higgs advised when adding all of the Districts, loss of monies in the Road and Bridge MSTU is significant dollars.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the numbers are, for example, $150,000 for each particular District, were they being utilized for other purposes trying to get the aggregate down to status quo. Mr. Jenkins responded staff did that to achieve the proposed budget at the current aggregate; there are other options out there, but that is the option selected; staff wanted to get it at the current millage; and that was one way of doing it. He stated District 1 did not participate in the decision; the District 1 Parks and Recreation MSTU had to increase; the budget was looked at as a whole; and the decision was made to hold the Road and Bridge MSTU at rollback. Commissioner Higgs noted staff chose to identify in the General Fund increases in certain things it thought were a priority over the paving of roads; the Budget Office has chosen to put in some increases, as it has every year; and it brought same to the Board at the expense of some other things.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct the County Manager to prepare options so that the Road and Bridge MSTU’s reflect no decrease in current millage, and provide those options at the next workshop. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon noted staff does its best in giving the Board a budget; and it is up to the Board to decide. Commissioner Higgs stated staff sets the agenda for the Board with certain expectations that are no win. Chairperson Colon noted the workshops are to discuss and work out the problems. Mr. Jenkins stated balancing the budget and getting it to the current millage was not a small undertaking; Commissioner Higgs made a comment that he made priority recommendations; there are few discretionary program changes in the budget; and there are things in the budget that are not funded that should be funded, but the money is not there. He advised in order for the Budget Office to achieve just under $400,000 for the Road and Bridge MSTU’s, it will take a reduction in someone else’s service or the employees contributions; it has to come from somewhere; and staff can find the money, but there will be pain associated with it. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the Board does not like the solution, it can be discussed; every business and family has to deal with a budget; priorities have to be set; and Mr. Jenkins brings the Board options.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what will be the effect on Road and Bridge projects and dredging in District 2 by funds coming out of the other Districts. Commissioner Higgs requested staff let the Board know what positions are unfilled and could remain unfilled so it does not have to dip into other things or take away services to constituents, particularly in the road resurfacing area. Chairperson Colon stated the tentative budget includes many things that are not popular; there is elimination of positions in the Facilities and Information/Communications Systems Departments, Planning & Zoning Office, Animal Services and Enforcement Department, and the former Public Works Department Director’s position. Mr. Jenkins advised it reflects employee contributions to health insurance that are increased by 10% to offset some other projects. Chairperson Colon stated a lot of hard work has gone into the budget. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the sales tax passes, there is discussion about doing the resurfacing program with some of those dollars. Mr. Jenkins stated Commissioner Higgs mentioned the issue of unfilled positions; such positions are how the County maintains the cash forward at the end of the year; if unfilled positions are eliminated, it shrinks the cash forward at the end of the year; and if the Board wants to reduce the budget, it has to eliminate filled positions as those are the ones being funded. He noted the Board is not spending unfilled positions as the dollars build up; the money is rolled forward each year; and the County had to make up the cash forward this year with several million dollars of the new money received. Chairperson Colon stated it will reflect on the kind of service Brevard County is giving to its constituents.

Mr. Rogero provided a comparison of the total millages in each District; stated there are reductions in all Districts, with the exception of District 1; and it takes into account the varying tax districts. Commissioner Scarborough noted it is important as there are districts within Commission Districts that vary; and it does not apply across-the-board as there are different ones within.

DISCUSSION, RE: BUDGET CHANGES

Budget Director Dennis Rogero stated there are a significant number of unfunded program changes, which total over $24.3 million; and the funded program changes in the General Fund submitted to the Board total $1.9 million. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated most of those were not discretionary. Mr. Rogero advised they are included in the program change book. Mr. Jenkins advised it is important to point out that Districts 2, 3, 4, and 5 experience a tax reduction in the budget.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the County Manager gave the Board a memorandum dated July 9, 2003; most of the major issues are touched on in such memorandum; the first question he has is regarding the employees picking up 10% on the insurance issue; and requested further explanation on it. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board is picking up 7% of the increase; the employees are picking up 10%; and every 1% the Board funds equates to 7% increase to the employees. He stated the documentation shows the impact on some entry-level positions and the average position; the proposed annual salary increase for the average salary in the County is $33,500 and would be $1,000 salary increase; the health insurance can vary; and the HMO is $88 to $102 per month. Commissioner Higgs noted that is the cost if someone adds dependents; but it is nothing for employees. Mr. Jenkins stated Commissioner Higgs is correct that the employee pays nothing on the HMO plan; there is an increase if there are dependents; but those who select the higher coverage of the EPO or PPO pay a slight amount. Commissioner Scarborough stated one of the things that has concerned him with salary structures is the Board gives percentage increases; the employees with the higher salaries get the greater percentage increases; and when the County passes costs onto employees, it impacts the employee at the lower end of the scale to a greater extent. He noted he is not comfortable with it and has not studied it enough, but believes there are some inequities in the whole methodology when combining multiple factors; one of the problems with the school system is there are teachers who have dropped health coverage because their increase was not sufficient to pick up the cost; it may be because they had dependents; and he wants more discussion on the issue.

Commissioner Higgs stated if one chooses to go with the HMO plan, he or she is fully covered; it is a tremendous benefit from Brevard County; and a person carrying one or two dependents is seeing an $88 increase annually. Commissioner Scarborough noted if someone earns $15,800, $88 is different than someone who makes substantially more money. Commissioner Higgs stated the $88 increase is a good deal, given health care costs throughout the country. Commissioner Scarborough stated if an employee earns $100,000, with 3%, he or she will have an additional $3,000 in their pocket; it impacts the increase much more substantially at the lower end than the upper end; and it is an excellent plan for employees, but it is how the Board handles the overall picture. Commissioner Higgs stated Brevard County affords people, at all levels, the ability to cover their dependents; the increase is reasonable, beyond any stretch of the imagination; and looking at health care costs across the nation, if individuals do not begin to feel the impact of their lack of responsibility for their personal health care, the Board will never be able to cover health costs. She stated as a business entity, government, and individuals understand they have to accept the responsibility for health care; if they do not take steps to take care of themselves, the nation cannot afford what they are looking into; and until people take responsibility for their health, shifting the dollars so people assume some of the responsibilities is the only way to do it.

Chairperson Colon inquired what happens once Article V takes effect to those employees who will become State employees; and stated the more people under insurance, the better the premium.

Human Resources Director Frank Abbate responded the Clerk of Courts e-mailed him regarding the Clerk’s interest in remaining part of Brevard County’s group; he does not know if it is possible; and he is having dialogue with the Budget Office. Mr. Jenkins stated it is not a budget issue, but a personnel policy issue that needs to be investigated; the County allows Port Canaveral to participate in its health insurance program; and it needs to be receptive if it is permissible through the State system to do it. He noted he is not aware of any health insurance program that bases its premiums on salary levels; most health insurance programs have a fixed rate, regardless of how much money is made; and if the Board does not believe it is giving a large enough increase to its lower paid employees, it can address the issue through salaries.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the difference between the HMO and PPO costs for an individual employee; with Mr. Abbate responding it is close to $150 a month. Mr. Jenkins stated the County is subsidizing the dependent coverage; it shows as a contribution from the employee, but in reality, the County covers the cost of dependent coverage in what it contributes for the employee; and if the dependent coverage was fully funding itself, the rates would be considerably higher than they are.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he appreciates Commissioner Scarborough’s comment regarding the costs of insurance to the individual; it is the same comment he made about the sales tax issue; it always costs people more as a percent of income when they are not making that much; but the issue comes down to $88 a year or $1.80 a week. He noted it is not as if it will be a major impact on someone’s life; Brevard County has a program where someone can set aside money per payday that would be pretax; at the end of the year, they can retrieve that money on costs they have had; and it would give them a higher return because it is pretax money. He stated $1.80 a week increase is reasonable; the plan is a mutual effort with the School Board; it shows a substantial reduction over what could have been the cost to the County and School Board; pooling the resources ended up being a win/win to both entities in this case; and he had PPO for years, but it turned out that an HMO worked better for him, as his doctor of choice was on the provider list. Commissioner Pritchard noted some employees who are in the PPO plan because they think they are getting a higher level of care may find out they are simply using their doctor as the gate keeper, which is what is necessary in the HMO plan; and there is an opportunity for employees to get out of one plan and into another, recognizing there are a lot of cost savings with HMO’s that would give them the same level of care.

Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis advised under the current Article V, Clerk’s employees remain County employees; the only possible employees that may go from County to State are in Court Administration; and next year, the Clerk will be in the County budget cycle and not the State budget cycle. He advised there is no change to the Clerk’s Office and all the employees remain County employees; and he wants to make that clear so there is not a fourth-quarter problem.

Commissioner Scarborough stated during his briefings with staff, they had discussions of retirement and he was given a number of retirement costs; such costs were increased $2.5 million for the County; and inquired what is the reason for such increase. Mr. Jenkins responded the State of Florida increased the percentage the County has to contribute.

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten advised the $2.5 million is the increase the State of Florida required in the rates. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is a memorandum explaining the issue; with Mr. Jenkins responding no, but the Budget Office can get one to the Board. Commissioner Pritchard stated usually when something like this shows such a significant increase it is because of the actuary tables; there is an unfunded liability that goes out 30 years; the State of Florida, probably having suffered in the stock market, does not meet the unfunded liability for the 30 years; so it has to pass the costs on to someone in order to reach what the actuary tables require it to maintain on an annual basis. Mr. Jenkins stated it was going to be more than that, but as a result of the efforts of the Legislative Delegation, the Florida Association of Counties, Guy Spearman, and others, it was reduced to this number; and it was higher going into the year. Commissioner Higgs stated a few years ago, the State gave the County a decrease in the Florida Retirement System (FRS) rate, as the County was given additional responsibilities; it was a gift; and now the State is taking it back.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Page BS-1 is expenditure summary of all funds; General Fund 0008, Permitting and Enforcement Department, shows a decrease of 100%; and inquired is it because the Department is becoming self-sufficient. Budget Analyst Elizabeth Swanke responded the Department has been self-sufficient; and it is moving to Fund 1080, which is on the second page within the Special Revenue Fund Section; and Building Code Compliance has been self-sufficient. Commissioner Pritchard noted the amended budget for Permitting and Enforcement Department is $4.1 million; and the revenue stream for some of this is coming from increased fees. Mr. Jenkins stated Building and Construction has been self-sufficient; and it is not subdivisions or site plans, it is building permits only that have been self-funding for a number of years. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the self-funding comes from fees; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard stated under the Emergency Management Office, there has been a 48 ½% decrease in general funds; and inquired if such Office is becoming self-sufficient. Mr. Whitten responded those are the reductions in grant revenues; Emergency Management Office has had some one-time revenues it has received for projects; such projects are completed; and the County recognizes grant revenues in the general funds. He noted those revenues are not recurring next year. Commissioner Pritchard stated Countywide Parks and Recreation Operations shows a 32 ½% decrease from revenue from the General Fund; and inquired if any of it has to do with an increase of fees; with Mr. Rogero responding not that he is aware of.

Commissioner Carlson requested next year that the Budget Office explain where the percentage comes from; stated in trying to apply that percentage to the numbers given from the final amended tentative budget, there is no application of that percentage; the Board does not know what the reductions are unless it asks the question; and if there can be an explanation on how staff came up with the percentage increase or decrease, it would be helpful. Mr. Jenkins stated the explanation is in the individual budgets. Commissioner Carlson requested other additional detail.

Commissioner Scarborough stated in the past, department heads came before the Board and addressed unfunded items, and inquired if that will occur this year; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes, if it is the Board’s desire. Commissioner Scarborough stated with the Sunshine Law, he cannot call up other Commissioners to discuss the issues; and the only way to have a discussion, if the Board wants to look at unfunded items, is to have department heads come before it. Mr. Jenkins noted the issue will be scheduled for the next workshop. Commissioner Scarborough stated it will be beneficial; the Constitutional Officers come before the Board as well; and inquired if that will happen this year. Mr. Jenkins responded the offer has been extended to the Constitutional Officers. Commissioner Scarborough inquired will outside agencies have time to make a presentation; with Mr. Jenkins responding everyone has been sent the invitation to participate at the next meeting.

Commissioner Higgs stated Al Pennell with the Melbourne/Tillman Water Control District is present; and requested he come before the Board to answer questions at this time. Commissioner Pritchard advised he has questions for Lynda Weatherman.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Pennell can explain what the District is proposing in terms of fee increases on property in Melbourne/Tillman, and when the public hearing will be held.

Melbourne/Tillman Water Control District Manager Al Pennell responded the Agency has been impacted by insurance costs; the District is requesting a user fee increase of 55 cents for the typical residential homeowner, which represents 81% of the individual parcels within the District; and he has a one-page summary which may help, as it outlines who the District is. He noted there was a question last year on how the District’s user fees impact the County’s General Fund; and the answer is they do not, as it is an enterprise fund. Commissioner Higgs advised there were legislative changes that occurred in regard to the Special District; and Melbourne/Tillman is a creature of the Legislature, although the Board appoints and must approve the District’s budget. She requested Mr. Pennell explain the changes heard at the Legislative Delegation, and the proposed exchange or sale of land that was part of the package. Mr. Pennell responded the legislation, prior to the last session, does not allow the District to sell or convey land; there were two or three specific requests that were passed on to the Attorney General; the District received written confirmation from the Attorney General that said the District cannot sell or convey land; and one example is the County’s road project on Minton Road with the turn lane. He stated it was beneficial to the County to own the strip of property, which would assist in getting funding from the State; Melbourne/Tillman could not give or sell the property to Brevard County; and there are two sections in the western part of the District that were acquired from General Development Corporation (GDC) when it went bankrupt. Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the size of the two sections; with Mr. Pennell responding approximately 1,200 acres. Mr. Pennell requested a change in the legislation that will allow Melbourne/Tillman to sell or convey land; stated the City of West Melbourne requested a minor change in boundaries in the District to incorporate some land it was working with; it was submitted to Tallahassee, and a bill was entered on the House side and Senate side; and an amendment was made to the bill, which will allow for the annexation of the two land sections into the City of Palm Bay. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it was allowed or required; with Mr. Pennell responding it was just a statement that it will be annexed. Mr. Pennell stated it was not a request by the District, as it had no involvement in it; it was done at the last minute; there were a number of phone calls on the last day to make sure the Senate and House were dealing on the same page; and it was passed by both the Senate and House, with the additional amendment. He noted the Governor’s Office called several times concerned about the annexation; he explained that the District had nothing to do with it; St. Johns River Water Management District came to the Water Control District and requested it donate a portion of the two land sections; He advised the District Board entertained that, but indicated until the legislation passes that it could not do anything fully; and it gave the intent that it would be willing to donate wetlands of approximately 450 acres and sell the balance of the uplands, less what is necessary for canals. Commissioner Higgs inquired who the Water Control District wants to sell the balance of the uplands to; with Mr. Pennell responding the Water Management District. Mr. Pennell noted it was all represented by the Water Management District as being beneficial, if necessary, for the overall Western Diversion Project; there was an incentive by the District

Board to consider this as a positive, as it will be going from one government entity to another; the land remains in public use; and it was looked at as a win/win situation. He stated the Water Management District went to the Governor’s Office and indicated it was the intention of cooperation by the Water Control District; the Governor accepted that; and the bill was signed. He noted the Water Control District will conduct a public hearing, at which time, by law, the District Board must determine if it can sell the land and does not need it for other purposes; and it will take place next week. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the District Board is having a hearing next Tuesday to entertain offers on the land; stated it can go to the Water Management District or someone else; and the Water Control District is unsure as to who the sale could go to. Mr. Pennell noted that is correct. Commissioner Higgs advised the new legislation says the sections shall be annexed into the City; and inquired if that provision had a public hearing. Mr. Pennell responded the Melbourne/Tillman Board took no action relative to the annexation as it knew nothing about it. Commissioner Higgs stated she wants to get information from the County Attorney in regard to if a public hearing occurred on the amendment to the legislation; and inquired since it would seem contrary to general law concerning annexations, could the Board find out about it. Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson responded affirmatively. Commissioner Higgs noted she has no problem with Melbourne/Tillman, but the Board has a different type of responsibility in the budget; the District is looking to sell a large amount of property; and the Board needs to be aware of the wrinkle. She stated such property could significantly affect the District’s budget; if there is a large flow in of revenue, the Board needs to know about it; and it needs to look at that in regard to the request the District is making. Mr. Pennell stated looking into the future for approximately 20 years, if Melbourne/Tillman sells the property, the potential impacts are in terms of looking at rates to the citizens, and how it can better maintain its equipment.

Chairperson Colon inquired if the City of Palm Bay ever contacted Melbourne/Tillman concerning the issue. Mr. Pennell responded he discussed the legislature with the City of Palm Bay in January 2003; the Legislative Delegation asked him to come before the City Councils of the Cities of West Melbourne and Palm Bay; the question was asked if the Melbourne/Tillman Board would consider annexation of the property by the City of Palm Bay; and the response was for the City to come before the Melbourne/Tillman Board and make the request. He advised a presentation was made to the District Board; it felt it was information only; the flavor was would the District be interested in initiating, as the land owner, a request from the City to annex; and he was told at the meeting with the City that it would consider legislative action. He stated the legislation is already in; and Representative Mitch Needleman’s office asked him to reissue the public notice on the legislation to include the possibility of annexation. Commissioner Higgs inquired when was that; with Mr. Pennell responding late January 2003. Chairperson Colon stated the District has been communicating with the City of Palm Bay; but it did not necessarily get a blessing from Melbourne/Tillman. Mr. Pennell noted the District was aware that the City was interested in the land, but he did not think Melbourne/Tillman was aware that was the methodology that would be done; and he cannot say the amendment was made at the request of the City, but presumptions can be made. Chairperson Colon stated the City brought the issue to Melbourne/Tillman’s attention; it indicated as long as the entire legislative package is not messed up, it will be fine; she was uncomfortable when she first heard it because she is big on communication; and it almost came across that there was no communication and Melbourne/Tillman was not aware of the possibility of annexation.

Commissioner Scarborough stated this goes beyond the budget; he does not understand the reason property is annexed and one gets the capacity to tax it; and inquired if the property in question is on the tax roll. Mr. Pennell responded not at the present. Commissioner Scarborough stated the only benefit to the municipality is it could sell the property to someone who would develop the land. Mr. Pennell advised the City will not own the land. Commissioner Scarborough stated the tax base occurs only if the property passes from a governmental entity to a private entity.

Mr. Jenkins stated it is part of the mitigation, and the City wants to have conservation lands; and the City Manager of City of Palm Bay mentioned that the City was interested in getting several parcels out west to include conservation lands for an overall mitigation plan. Commissioner Higgs stated the property is scrub, so it does not fit; the change Melbourne/Tillman requested came before the Legislative Delegation; and it was heard and went forward. She noted the request for the phrase that says, “Thou shall annex into”, was added, not with the consent of the District, to the legislation; it was in a different venue, without notice to the general public; the Board has a responsibility in regard to Melbourne/Tillman; and that is why she brought it to the Board’s attention. She stated the Board needs to understand how the requirement in the Special Act is going to be affected by general law, and if the procedures were followed.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the land is being sold to St. Johns River Water Management District; with Mr. Pennell responding that is the intent. Mr. Pennell advised the Water Management District has requested the Water Control District donate a portion of the property as wetlands; and it would like to buy the balance of the uplands. Commissioner Pritchard stated he was contacted by Army Corp of Engineers; and it is working on a project dealing with Lake Sawgrass and Hell N’ Blazes to enhance Lake Washington, which is part of the Water Management District’s restoration project. Mr. Pennell stated the Water Management District is partners with Army Corp of Engineers; he does not know if the Water Management District’s interest in the property is tied to the project; the Water Management District came to Melbourne/Tillman with expressed interest in acquiring the two land sections; and Melbourne/Tillman has interest in selling the property to them. Mr. Jenkins advised the Army Corps of Engineers told him it was looking for money; and inquired what are the chances of Melbourne/Tillman taking the money it receives for the property and cleaning up the two lakes. Mr. Pennell responded his recommendation would be no. Commissioner Higgs advised the lakes are not in the Water Control District.

Attorney Wilson inquired if someone came to the Water Control District and requested it to reissue the public notice; with Mr. Pennell responding he received a telephone call from Representative Mitch Needelman’s office requesting the District reissue the notice to include the language that annexation may be considered. Attorney Wilson inquired if the District reissued the notice; with Mr. Pennell responding affirmatively. Mr. Pennell advised Representative Needelman sponsored the bill; and he has no reason not to do what he asks. Commissioner Higgs inquired what was the notice for; with Mr. Pennell responding when the legislation is changed, a notice must be put in the newspaper stating, in general terms, what is being changed.

Commissioner Pritchard congratulated the Economic Development Commission (EDC) on bringing Washington Mutual to Brevard County.

Economic Development Executive Director Lynda Weatherman stated it was a six-month project that began in January 2003; the EDC worked almost every day on it; and it was a team effort. She stated the client chose to hire three separate consultants to work on three separate projects; part of that was site relocation; Washington Mutual will have 500 jobs or more, with $36,000 average yearly salaries; and one of the consultants was dedicated to the right facility at the right place, with the right price, and the right fiber optic backbone. She noted the other consultant was tied to investing the quantity of the labor, quality, and training programs available; the third consultant was tied to incentives and what a community can invest to recoup such a company like this; there were four site tours over the course of six months; and the Ad Valorem Tax Abatement Program from the City of Melbourne and Brevard County applied to that. She stated the EDC was able to match with a $1.5 million State Program Qualified Target Industry Grant that brought in additional leverage for incentive factors; there may be other cities with more incentives; the EDC offered the best thing it is allowed to provide, given the support of the Board and City Council of the City of Melbourne; and it worked in this case. Ms. Weatherman noted the tough part is making sure that when Washington Mutual comes in, that the City of Melbourne is there to provide permits as fast as it can; and Brevard Community College (BCC), City of Palm Bay, and the Board will play a big part in this.

Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the criteria that Washington Mutual had was the capability of the workforce; it says a lot for the community when the Company is looking for a specific level of knowledge, skill, experience, and ability; and Brevard County has it. He extended thanks to all Brevard County institutions, such as BCC, Florida Institute of Technology (FIT), University of Central Florida (UCF), etc. He stated under the unfunded program change of $167,500 under Economic Development BC-ED1, it says, “Additional funds will be used to maintain the economic and industrial base through Economic Development’s Program on industrial recruitment, enhancement, and expansion”; it has several items it will need to purchase in order to accomplish this; and inquired if the County can come up with the $167,500, what is the rate of return on investment. Ms. Weatherman responded every year before the EDC goes before the Board, it provides a return on investment, based on the outcome and monies provided; it would be based on the County compliance contract, which is a model in the State, of the output regarding certain business climate endeavors, as well as site relocation and working with existing industry, if the Board wishes. She stated the EDC will review it in regard to number of companies looking to relocate, should the Board decide to go that route; it has been focusing on business climate and intellectual infrastructure issues; there would be certain objectives to meet on that; and it will be tied to County compliance. She advised the EDC looked at marketing dollars; the chart includes the marketing dollars from 1999 through 2003; the EDC has not had a requested increase in the last three years; and it tied that to the number of trade shows it was able to do, site tours it was able to capture, and number of prospects it was able to develop. Ms. Weatherman stated there is a correlation between money spent and return; with more money, the Board should expect a higher rate of return of prospects, site tours, companies looking to relocate to the area, and ultimately, companies locating into the area; and the EDC can get into more detail next week at the workshop.

Commissioner Pritchard stated improving the economic engine benefits the community; and inquired if the Board is going to invest $167,500 of taxpayer money, can it expect to get a return on top of the $167,500. Ms. Weatherman responded there are two different markets, the existing business market, and companies looking to make an investment; and the one most profound is the existing business market here. Chairperson Colon stated she will not support an increase for anyone this year; the EDC does a wonderful job with what it has; but it is a tight year. Commissioner Scarborough stated he went with Ms. Weatherman to a presentation by Dr. Richard Fox; and an analysis is being conducted on where the markets exist. He stated it is important for Ms. Weatherman to have a smart presentation at the workshop for the Board to consider more money; it needs to know what will happen in a few years, which industries exist, and which ones the County can service; but if the EDC wants additional dollars, there must be a high-powered intelligent analysis. Ms. Weatherman noted Mason Blake is present; the EDC looked at the budget and what needed to be done, including the challenges and opportunities; the easiest thing for the EDC to do is not do anything and coast for another year; but it will fight a good fight. She stated the EDC respects the questions the Board asks; and it is ready for them. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is not what he said; and clarified he said tell him where the EDC is going and why.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Board needs to have a feeling of why now, as opposed to prior to September 11, 2001, because of the way things have changed in the minds of individuals that are looking to relocate; and it needs the comparative analysis done before, how hard it was to bring the company here, and what was the criteria that won Brevard County over to such company versus other communities. She noted on the blue unfunded sheet, the last comment under justification says, “Additional funds are needed to add requested and required programs”; and she wants an understanding of that, and if the County requested certain programs to occur through the process, or if they are required through the auditing side.

Ms. Weatherman stated as an example of what is requested versus required is base realignment closure; no organization in the community was getting involved in it to a great extent; the EDC felt it was critical and needed to take a leadership role; and it impacted its time and efforts, but something needed to be done aggressively and a plan of action was necessary. She noted the EDC is required to do certain objectives based on County compliance; the requested issues that come to the EDC’s attention have to be responded to; and the EDC will provide additional detail for its workshop presentation next week. Chairperson Colon stated the EDC does a wonderful job; and commended it for its efforts.

Mason Blake, Chairman of the Government Relations Committee, stated the EDC has not sought requests for several years in a row; and it is in the same situation as many of the other County agencies and getting at the end of the rope in terms of managing on the same budget if it is going to do the kinds of things the County expects. Chairperson Colon noted there are hundreds of funding requests from various agencies. Commissioner Pritchard stated budgets are tight all over nationwide.

The meeting recessed at 11:00 a.m. and reconvened at 11:10 a.m.

DISCUSSION, RE: ARTICLE V

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated he provided a memorandum to the Board updating it on Article V implementation; as approved by the voters of the State, in November, 1988, Revision 7 to Article V of the Constitution addresses the funding and operation of all components of the State court system; Revision 7 to Article V attempts to segregate the funding and operational responsibilities of the State court system between State and County government, and the users of the court system through fees, fines, and charges for services; and Article V State responsibilities include Court Administration; judges, judicial assistants, and law clerks; Offices of the State Attorney and Public Defender; masters and hearing officers; court reporting, transcription services, and interpreters; expert witnesses and pre-trial consultation expenses; case management and drug court case management; mediation/arbitration; conflict attorneys and related expenses; and library and electronic research services. He noted Article V County responsibilities include communication services, computer systems and equipment; an integrated computer system capable of transmitting case information; public area equipment and furnishings; construction, leasing, maintenance, security, and utilities for facilities for the courts, and Offices of the State Attorney and Public Defender; law libraries; and legal aid and alternative sanction coordinators. Mr. Whitten stated Article V revenue impacts include that counties will no longer receive court-related revenue, which include traffic fines, driver’s license reinstatement fines, court fines, bond forfeits, criminal court fees, Circuit Court services fees, Public Defender restitution, and Criminal Justice Trust Fund County and Circuit Court fees, that in FY 2002-03 are budgeted at $4,000,000; growth in the half-cent sales tax and Revenue Sharing Trust Fund will be capped, beginning July 1, 2004, for two years, with the growth revenue directed to the State; and the clerks of courts are authorized to raise filing fees and service charges in order to make court operations fully fee supported. He noted the Article V programs and services funded within Court Administration’s budget include Model Dependency at $95,000 for fourth-quarter funding, Family Mediation at $13,000, and Mental Health Court position at $8,000; there are a number of programs that the County is no longer responsible for funding, effective July 1, 2004; and the tentative budget does not provide any funding beginning in the fourth quarter for such programs, which include conflict attorneys, witness coordination, dependency attorneys, teen court, drug court, and Guardian Ad Litem Program.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired about the effect on the County’s revenue stream of reducing signature bonds and requiring a surety bond or some other type of bond posted.

County Manager Tom Jenkins responded it would help the County during the first nine months; starting with July, the funds would go to the State; and the County gets access to bond forfeitures. Mr. Whitten noted it will be a part of the fine and forfeiture collection; and to the extent the County could collect it, the revenue stream would increase. Commissioner Pritchard stated it could be in not only the County’s best interest, but the State’s and courts’ best interest to reduce the amount of signature bonds that are issued and require some other type of bond that is insured, either by cash or certain property, etc.

Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson stated if the defendant appears, there is no money to the County; the only circumstance in which money would come to the County is if the defendant does not appear, and the bondsman does not turn the person in within the required period of time; and there is an increase in scale upon which the longer the defendant is not able to be brought back, then the bondsman has to refund monies to the County, which would go into the Fine and Forfeiture Fund.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it becomes incumbent on the bondsman to do that. Attorney Wilson noted it is incumbent upon the bondsman, but it is not money that comes to the County; ultimately the money will be refunded to the bondsman if he brings the person back. Commissioner Pritchard noted it would become money not used by the County in terms of having a deputy retrieve the person; one of the problems is that the defendant is not coming to court; and it could eliminate the problem and transfer the burden to the bondsman instead of the deputy, so the County would not be spending its money on deputies to retrieve people who should be in court. Attorney Wilson stated the flip side of that is the increasing numbers of people who still cannot make the bond if a surety bond is required; there is an impact on the jail in terms of the overcrowding; and there has not been an analysis of that and what the impact could be.

Commissioner Carlson inquired has staff done any preliminary projections on the dollars that the County has because the State is funding certain things and any accrued reserves in County programs to see what the number is compared to those things it is going to have to take on. Mr. Jenkins responded the County would have the services that the State is picking up versus the revenues it is losing; the County has been using some of the court revenues to pay for the debt service on the Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Justice Center; and it is losing those, which means it has to make them up as well. He inquired if staff has done a balance; with Budget Director Dennis Rogero responding negatively. Mr. Jenkins stated the County is also going to lose the growth in the sales tax, which is another impact. Mr. Whitten noted the County’s fourth- quarter expenses are budgeted within the tentative budget; and what everyone has projected as expenses for the fourth quarter are either in other judicial services or the Facilities Department budget. Commissioner Carlson stated County responsibilities for the State Attorney and Public Defender include everything but paying their salaries. Mr. Whitten noted the County pays for their buildings, network systems, and computer systems. Commissioner Carlson stated it is not a sizeable amount that such Offices are giving the County to offset some of the costs of programs.

Commissioner Higgs noted staff has not allocated any funding in the fourth quarter for Guardian Ad Litem; with Mr. Whitten responding that is correct. Mr. Jenkins stated the State is scheduled to fund nine and one-half positions; Guardian Ad Litem has 12 and one-half positions; it was looking for the County to pick up the additional three positions; and there would be about a $30,000 or $35,000 impact for the last quarter and four times that for the following full year.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired did individuals from Legal Aid visit staff. Mr. Jenkins responded they requested an increase; and the County gave Legal Aid the historical amount of money it would have received, but did not increase it as requested. Commissioner Scarborough stated there are some heart touching stories; and he is glad the funding is in there. Mr. Jenkins noted the County is legally required to fund Legal Aid; there are a lot of important programs in the court system; but the proposed budget includes those items that the County is legally required to fund and is not a reflection on the merit of any of these programs.

Commissioner Carlson inquired on the receipts from court-related revenues that the County is no longer going to be getting, were the dollars appropriated to anything other than court-related; with Mr. Jenkins responding negatively.

DISCUSSION, RE: STRATEGIC PLANNING STATUS REPORT

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated Leigh Holt could not be present today, so she cannot answer any questions the Board may have; but he will try to answer them or the questions can be deferred to the next meeting.

DISCUSSION, RE: BUDGET OPTIONS AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TENTATIVE
BUDGET

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated staff has extended invitations to all the agencies that are funded if they wish to appear before the Board and make presentations at the next budget workshop; staff needs to follow up on Commissioner Scarborough’s request that it be prepared to do some overview of priorities within the program changes; it would like to do a review of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) at the next workshop; and it will follow up on the Board’s discussion about the Road and Bridge MSTU’s. He noted if there are any other agency budgets that the Board wants to discuss, it would be helpful to let staff know in advance so it can make sure the appropriate individuals are readily accessible to answer questions on the budgets, expenditures, or any other items; and it can be done at the next workshop.

Chairperson Colon stated throughout the year there were monies in Contingency; the Sheriff’s Department and other individuals appeared before the Board and requested funds; and inquired what was the amount of funding.

Budget Director Dennis Rogero responded it is budgeted at $400,000. Chairperson Colon inquired has it been included or is it something the Board needs to review. Mr. Jenkins responded every year the County puts $400,000 in General Fund Contingency; and this year there is approximately $112,000 left. Mr. Rogero stated if the Board voted to fund any recurring expenses from Contingency in the current year, staff has carried forward that next year.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it was one of the concerns that was brought up several times; primarily it was the Sheriff who kept coming back for things the County felt should have been addressed in the budget; he looked at it as simply a way of avoiding the discussion or coming back for a second or third attempt to have the budget increase on items that he considered should have been known; and grants come and go, but grants are always there and there is always a certain amount. He noted if the Sheriff’s Department tracks the history of the grant program, it would realize that it is going to come; so for it to come months after the budget is set and ask for a matching fund, smacks of a poor budgeting cycle; and he does not want to see that happen and does not want people coming back in, unless it is something that comes out of the blue and is a once in a lifetime opportunity. He stated he does not want to be inundated with the additional monies that everybody knows are coming; the radios the Sheriff’s Department did not get does not need to come back because all of a sudden there is a grant; it needs to be all part of the process upfront so the Board is not surprised and inundated by additional requests during the year; and he does not want to hear as a justification that more money is needed for certain things, but what is the justification behind the reason for the requests. Commissioner Pritchard noted if he is going to be reviewing requests and they are going to have one small line item on them, it is going to be hard-pressed to get his support; it needs to be clear; he wants to see justification why the extra money is needed; and he does not want to see someone back during the year unless it is a surprise and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. He stated there is a move on the part of various agencies within the budget to become self-funded; and he would like to know which ones are moving in that direction.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Page GG-3 includes reserve operating; the County wanted to keep 5% in; he was given a different number by Steve Burdett; and it is $6.9 million with the amended budget of FY 02-03. He noted he was advised that the amended budget now stands at $7,596,300. Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated he does not know what the discrepancy is, and would like to see. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County is either increasing by $1 million or $500,000 in that reserve; Mr. Burdett indicated it took about $500,000 out of the account during the year; although it appears to be putting money in, its adopted budget is different than its amended budget; and requested staff come back to the Board with additional information on whether the amended budget was $6.9 million or $7.5 million and why, and elaborate on the adopted and amended budgets for FY 02-03.

Chairperson Colon stated she was trying to send the message throughout the year that she voted no time and time again; and she wants to make sure it is clear.

Commissioner Carlson requested staff provide a historical account of what the County manages to pull out of cash reserve to see what the trends have been when things come in at mid-year, and how it is approaching the reserve account.

PUBLIC COMMENT - JOE D’ACHILLE, RE: ARTICLE V

Attorney Joe D’Achille stated he is present to address the Article V issues regarding conflict attorneys; he presently has a Contract with the County; since 1997, there have been no budget increases for conflict attorneys; and over the last couple of years, there has been a lot of turnover among the conflict attorneys. He noted the experience levels of such attorneys serving the positions, particularly in Circuit Court, are decreasing; it tends to put a drag on the court system in terms of how quickly the cases get resolved; presently the Board has nine attorneys on contracts at $26,000 a year; and he obtained caseload information from the Clerk of Courts Office over the last five years. He stated he has done calculations based on what the State is going to consider the value of conflict attorneys’ services when it picks up the tab, starting July 1, 2004; at a minimum rate, an 80% billing rate of what the statutory fee cap would be, the State estimates the value of the services at over $1 million a year; he presented the information to Commissioner Scarborough when the Conflict Committee met recently to look at extending contracts for the upcoming partial year through July 1, 2004; and the dependency attorneys had recently been given a 38.5% increase, from $36,000 a year to $50,000 a year. Attorney D’Achille noted the criminal conflict attorneys did not request an increase; it may be bad timing on their part; the conflict attorneys are concerned about getting stuck with a lot of cases toward the end of the budget year; and suggested if the regular annual amount of $26,000 is budgeted over nine months instead of 12 months, it would achieve a partial increase relative to the dependency attorneys. He stated if the County would like to maintain the same level of service, particularly in Circuit Court, the budget item should be addressed to make sure such service is afforded to the clients who do not get representation from the public benefit.

Assistant County Attorney Cliff Repperger stated an agenda item is being prepared for the Board’s consideration; the Selection Committee made a recommendation that an agenda report be put together, and suggested a recommendation of condensing down the criminal conflict contracts, from the 12-month term they would have been given, to the nine-month term, which ends July 1, 2004. He noted one of the benefits of doing that would be to restructure the contracts, such that all the attorneys would agree to take all appointments up to and including June 30, 2004 and finish out all of the cases; it would help with the transition period; and the County would not have any attorneys trying to terminate their contracts or have any issues outstanding with respect to payment past June 30, 2004. Attorney Repperger stated it would help to put everybody on the same field by ending all of the contracts on June 30, 2004; and the agenda report is being prepared by Public Safety Department.

Chairperson Colon inquired will the agenda report include all similar conflict attorney contracts as it would make sense for everything that is going to happen and the changes that will take place on June 30, 2004. Attorney Repperger responded the County Attorney’s Office suggests that all the conflict attorney contracts should be amended similarly; the capital conflict contracts, criminal conflict contracts, and dependency contracts could be condensed down and amended; the Selection Committee did not have anything to do with suggesting that for dependency contracts; but his Office suggested it be included in the agenda report for the Board’s consideration.

Commissioner Carlson stated there has been a lot of supplemental data requested; and requested Mr. Jenkins either e-mail or send the Board members a list of everything the Commissioners requested so they can check it off as it comes in to keep things straight.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.

ATTEST: __________________________________
JACKIE COLON, CHAIRPERSON
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)