April 5, 2011 Regular
Apr 05 2011
CALL TO ORDER
|
Title
|
Status
|
Arrived
|
|
|
Robin Fisher
|
Chairman / Commissioner District 1
|
Present
|
|
|
Chuck Nelson
|
Commissioner District 2
|
Present
|
|
|
Trudie Infantini
|
Commissioner District 3
|
Present
|
|
|
Mary Bolin
|
Commissioner District 4
|
Present
|
|
|
Andy Anderson
|
Vice Chairman / Commissioner District 5
|
Present
|
|
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Pastor David Myers, First Pentecostal Church of Palm Bay.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Robin Fisher led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Board approved the February 22, 2011, Regular Meeting Minutes and March 3, 2011, Zoning Meeting Minutes.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bolin, Commissioner District 4
SECONDER: Chuck Nelson, Commissioner District 2
AYES: Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson
.
PRESENTATION BY CROSSWINDS YOUTH SERVICES, INC., RE: 13TH ANNUAL GREAT BREVARD DUCK RACE
The Board acknowledged the presentation by Crosswinds Youth Services, Inc. regarding the 13th Annual Great Brevard Duck Race to be held at the Indian River Festival in Titusville on April 10, 2011.
Chairman Fisher read aloud a resolution recognizing National Telecommunicators Week.
Robert Lay, Emergency Management Director, stated Brevard County should be very proud of all the Telecommunicators; he stated whenever anyone makes a 9-1-1, call the person is talking to one of these professionals who is making sure the caller is taken care of.
Deborah Sands stated Brevard County has approximately 230 Telecommunicators, 10 primary Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP), and one secondary PSAP; in 2010, over 400,000 9-1-1 calls were answered; there is information exchanged over the radios, the emergency and non-emergency lines, direct connect hot lines, monitoring of secondary radio channels, all information on the computer ADIC dispatch system, monitoring Florida Crime Information Center (FCIC) and National Crime Information Center (NCIC) computer data basis, handle information requests on stolen motor vehicles, drivers, suspects, vehicle, exchange information over the mobile data computers with the units in the field, handle phone calls from alarm companies, security agencies, in-house intercoms, all cellular phone traffic, face-to-face communications, interactions with the command staff, supervisory, sworn personnel, and civilian staff; it is a very unique profession that requires very unique professionals to handle the this type of high pressure situations all the time; and she expressed her thanks for the dedication and the service to the citizens of Brevard County.
The Board adopted Resolution No. 11-065, recognizing National Telecommunicators Week; and commended all Telecommunicators for their dedication to duty, professionalism, and commitment to saving lives, property, and the prevention of crime in Brevard County.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Chuck Nelson, Commissioner District 2
SECONDER: Andy Anderson, Vice Chairman / Commissioner District 5
AYES: Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson
.
ITEM I.B., RESOLUTION, RE: PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF APRIL 17 - 23, 2011 AS CHILDHOOD CANCER AWARENESS WEEK
The Board adopted Resolution No. 11-066, proclaiming the week of April - 23, 2011, as Childhood Cancer Awareness Week.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Andy Anderson, Vice Chairman / Commissioner District 5
SECONDER: Trudie Infantini, Commissioner District 3
AYES: Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson
Commissioner Bolin read aloud a resolution proclaiming April 2011 as Toastmasters Awareness Month.
Doug Tambor, Viera/Suntree Toastmasters Club President, expressed his thanks to the Board for it recognition of the Toastmasters Club; stated there are 26 Toastmasters Clubs, both community and corporate, where members increase his or her confidence and ability to speak in public sufficiently; there are leadership building skills built; he is very proud to work with youth leadership members of the community that are under age 18 and not yet eligible to become Toastmasters, but many of whom do once he or she become adults; all of the general public is welcome to find a Toastmasters Club and visit; it is very simple, by going to www.toastmasters.org; and Toastmasters is very proud to be in Brevard County.
The Board adopted Resolution No. 11-067, proclaiming April 2011 as Toastmasters Awareness Month.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bolin, Commissioner District 4
SECONDER: Chuck Nelson, Commissioner District 2
AYES: Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson
.
Commissioner Infantini read aloud a resolution proclaiming July 10 - 16, 2011, as Contract Management Week.
Janet Haun, National Contract Management Association (NCMA) Vice President, stated NCMA is an international organization; it promotes the professionalism in the contract arena; there is a big gap between the baby-boomer's, who are going to retire, and getting new people in, which has created a gap; it helps young people to get involved in the organization with mentoring programs at a professional level where NCMA supports and sends the individuals to training classes; it has a scholarship program that gives $4,000 a year to young students who are in the business area, and fill out the scholarship application and qualify; and it is having a golf tournament on May 7, 2011, at the Rockledge Golf Course.
The Board adopted Resolution No. 11-068, as Contract Management Week, in recognition and honor of thousands of contracting and procurement professionals within government and private industry.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Trudie Infantini, Commissioner District 3
SECONDER: Andy Anderson, Vice Chairman / Commissioner District 5
AYES: Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson
.
Commissioner Nelson read aloud a resolution proclaiming April 10 - 16, 2011, as the Week of the Young Child.
Marguerite Orban, B.A., Space Coast Association for the Education of Young Children (SCAEYC) Chair, stated the SCAEYC is local; it has 100 Members; it is an affilicate of the Florida Association, which has 3,500 Members, but its goal is to look out for education and welfare of young children; and she expressed her appreciation to the Board for its recognition.
The Board adopted Resolution No. 11-069, proclaiming the week of April 10 - 16, 2011 as the Week of the Young Child; and urged all citizens to support efforts to make our community a better place for young children and its families to live.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Chuck Nelson, Commissioner District 2
SECONDER: Andy Anderson, Vice Chairman / Commissioner District 5
AYES: Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson
.
Commissioner Infantini stated she will be presenting the resolution recognizing Days of Remembrance on May 1, 2011.
The Board adopted Resolution No. 11-070, proclaiming the week of Sunday, May 1 through May 8, 2011, being recognized as Days of Remembrance in memory of the victims of Holocaust and in honor of the survivors, as well as the rescuers and liberators; and further proclaimed that it strive to overcome intolerance and indifference through learning and remembrance.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Trudie Infantini, Commissioner District 3
SECONDER: Andy Anderson, Vice Chairman / Commissioner District 5
AYES: Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson
Commissioner Nelson read aloud a resolution proclaiming April 10 - 16, 2011, as National Library Week.
Barbara Jagrowski, Brevard County Library System Advisory Board Member, stated she encourages everyone to visit his or her libraries and to expect the unexpected.
The Board adopted Resolution No. 11-071, proclaiming April 10 -16, 2011, as National Library Week and encouraged all residents to visit his or her library that week to take advantage of the wonderful library resources available at www.mylibraryworld.com.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Chuck Nelson, Commissioner District 2
SECONDER: Mary Bolin, Commissioner District 4
AYES: Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson
.
ITEM II.A., REPORT, RE: JACK MASSON’S CAREER ACHIEVEMENT RECOGNITION LETTER
Howard Tipton, County Manager, stated he has a special opportunity to recognize the special career achievement for Jack Masson, Parks and Recreation Director; in January 2011, Mr. Masson received a letter from Dr. Steve Dorman, Dean and Professor of the College of Health and Human Performance at the University of Florida. He read aloud the letter of recognition, "Congratulations, I am pleased to inform you that you have been selected as a 2011 College of Health and Human Performance Alumni Hall of Fame Recipient. These awards are given annually by the college to alumni who through its personal or professional activities have made substantial contributions towards the enhancement and quality of life for others." He stated the induction ceremony is this Friday, April 8, 2011; he did not want to let this moment pass without recognizing this achievement and recognition; and he congratulated Mr. Masson for of all he has done.
Mr. Masson expressed his appreciation to the Board for recognizing him and his career achievements.
ITEM II.C., REPORT, RE: COCOA LIBRARY WALK-IN
Commissions Nelson stated this Friday he will be at a Walk-In at the Cocoa Library from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.; it is incredible to see the line waiting to get in at 9:00 a.m.; and he looks forward to seeing folks coming in and using the library.
ITEM II.D., REPORT, RE: POSSIBLE RELOCATION OF CATERPILLAR, INC.
Commissioner Infantini stated it has been in the news about Caterpillar, Inc. moving its headquarters from the State of Illinois; at the urging of Earl Medlin, she spoke with Tom Walters of Caterpillar, Inc.; and Mr. Walters is having discussions with his legislature about the government not being a business friendly State in Illinois; and with the State of Florida being a very business friendly State, she would like to send a letter to Caterpillar, Inc. telling it that Brevard County is open for business and the Board would love to have it relocate here.
Commissioner Anderson stated he had a conversation with Lynda Weatherman, President and CEO of Economic Development Commission (EDC), about it; it is very well know that Caterpillar, Inc. is being lobbied by four States; he does not know which four; and he thinks the EDC should investigate it.
Chairman Fisher stated it can be decided at a later date if the Board would like to do a joint letter with the EDC to send a letter on the Board's behalf.
The Board expressed its interest in the possibility of Caterpillar, Inc. relocating from the State of Illinois to the State of Florida; and asked the Economic Development Commission to investigate such.
ITEM II.E., REPORT, RE: LOPEZ FAMILY VIDEO
Commissioner Bolin stated she has a video to show that she received from the Lopez family in Suntree; it is in regards to the fire near their home; and she read aloud the note from the Lopez family. "The Lopez family expresses their gratitude for the amazing job that was done by the Fire Department and containing the fire with no casualties and no property damage. We live at Lenox Way Street and we had to evacuate the house on that day for almost four hours in face of a dangerous fire approaching very quickly. The tragic event based on the facts of efficiency and response time of the Fire Department, makes me as a citizen of Melbourne feel that the tax money was used accordingly and efficiently. There is no price for my family's safety, but they were able to protect my property as well, which was definitely a relief for us. I am really impressed with the response time and the equipment used to contain the fire, it makes us feel safe and protected. A special thank you to Fire Station No. 80 of Suntree, and the whole Fire Department of Brevard. I don't have more words to express our gratitude; we were so glad to be able to return home safe; and this is the video we took from our pool and of the neighborhood."
Chief Larry Collins, Fire Rescue, expressed his appreciation for the kind words from the citizens of the community; stated it is very special to Fire Rescue to hear that it is doing a good job, particularly with the resources that the community vests in Fire Rescue; it likes to make sure people feel good about those services; and in this particular case, the Lopez family obviously have done so. He stated he is proud and humbled to represent the men and women of Brevard County Fire Rescue Department; those men and women do a tremendous job day-in-and-day-out; this is just one instance; a lot of the time it is not seen, which is just the way the profession is; it does not look for recognition; it is dedicated to the community; it loves serving the community; and it has a great group of people who do that day-in-and-day-out. He stated if a person lives in an interfaced area he suggested clearing a distance of 30 feet width of the wild land growth around a home; be absolutely careful, burn only in approved containers; watch the open flames; if a person is ever in doubt call 9-1-1; and he reiterated he is humbled and honored by the support of the Board.
ITEM II.F., REPORT, RE: AERIAL VIEW OF BREVARD COUNTY AND VOLUSIA COUNTY LINES WILDFIRE
Commissioner Anderson stated he was flying into Orlando and was diverted towards the east; he saw the devastating aerial view at the Brevard County and Volusia County line; it gave him the perspective of how huge those wildfires really were and what a task it was for the firefighters and the Division of Forestry to get those fires contained; and he expressed his thanks for all the efforts taken to get the fire extinguished.
Commissioner Anderson stated many may have received a copy of a letter he sent to Brevard County Legislative Delegation and the Governor regarding the proposal to sweep $300 million out of the Transportation Trust Fund; it is a pet-peeve he has had for a long time, but as citizens paying gas taxes and tag and title fees, which have increased dramatically over the years, that are supposed to go into the Transportation Trust Fund, as a sort of user-fee to pay for the roads; however, it has become a slush-fund to fund other general fund items in the State budget; State Representative Rich Workman has voiced his opposition to that sweep; his letter he put out immediately to try and get it in while the committee was still hearing it; and he would like Chairman Fisher to send a letter similar to make sure those Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) monies are spent where its supposed to be spend on roads and infrastructures.
Chairman Fisher advised he agrees with Commissioner Anderson; he thinks by sweeping those funds out it will affect several projects that are on the drawing board to be cancelled.
Commissioner Bolin stated she would like to entertain the idea of taking the letter Commissioner Anderson has written and adapt it for the Board.
Chairman Fisher asked staff to assist with putting a letter together for his signature.
Commissioner Anderson stated if something unforeseen happens and he does not make the TPO meeting, he plans to ask the TPO to also send a letter; and if he is not able to attend someone else can ask for TPO to send the letter.
The Board authorized the Chairman to sign a letter to the Brevard County Legislative Delegation
requesting the Legislature not transfer State Transportation Trust Fund dollars to general funds, but to spend it on roads and infrastructure; and asking the Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) to submit a like request.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Andy Anderson, Vice Chairman / Commissioner District 5
SECONDER: Mary Bolin, Commissioner District 4
AYES: Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson
.
ITEM II.G., DINNER WITH FRANK DIBELLO, SPACE FLORIDA PRESEIDENT AND C.E.O.
Chairman Fisher stated he had the pleasure of dinning with Frank DiBello, Space Florida President and C.E.O. and his team, at the Fat Snook in Cocoa Beach for a trade mission with a group of 20 people from the United Kingdom, to look at the coast, and who are interested in space; it was a great meeting with discussions about the different meetings the group held in Los Angeles, Washington D.C., and Denver about trade missions; it was said the group is very impressed with Florida; Frank DiBello and his team are unbelievable people and gave well representation of the area; and he thinks there will be some business done with one of those U.K. companies. He stated there was one gentleman that has an energy company that said if Florida had an Energy Bill he would bring his company to Florida; and that is another reason to get those Energy Bills approved.
ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Infantini stated she would like to pull from Consent Agenda Item III.A.1., Resolution and Application for Grant Funds from Florida Inland Navigation District, Re: Waterfront Design and Permitting at Griffis Landing; Item III.A.2., Approval, Re: 2011 Marine Turtle Monitoring Contract; and Item III.B.1., Approval, Re: Budget Change Requests.
The Board adopted Resolution No. 11-073, and executed a Quit Claim Deed in favor of Flor-Ohio, LTD, d/b/a Lakes of Melbourne, reserving an easement in favor of Brevard County on property located on the west side of Hollywood Boulevard and south of Eber Road in West Melbourne.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Andy Anderson, Vice Chairman / Commissioner District 5
SECONDER: Chuck Nelson, Commissioner District 2
AYES: Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson
.
ITEM III.A.4., PERMISSION TO BID, AWARD TO LOWEST QUALIFIED BIDDER, AND EXECUTE CONTRACT, RE: BREVARD COUNTY LANDFILL STORMWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM REPAIRS AND MODIFICATIONS
The Board granted permission to bid and award to the lowest qualified and responsive bidder, and authorized the Chairman to execute a contract, for Landfill Stormwater Collection System Repairs and Modifications within Brevard County Solid Waste Management Facilities.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Andy Anderson, Vice Chairman / Commissioner District 5
SECONDER: Chuck Nelson, Commissioner District 2
AYES: Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson
.
ITEM III.A.5., APPROVAL OF NEEL SCHAFFER TASK ORDER 10-3, RE: PERMITTING, DESIGN, AND PART-TIME CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FOR A VEHICLE MAINTENANCE BUILDING AT CENTRAL DISPOSAL FACILITY
The Board executed Task Order 10-3 with Neel-Schaffer Inc. in the amount of $232,452, to provide permitting, design, and part-time construction services for a vehicle maintenance building located at the Central Disposal Facility (Cocoa).
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Andy Anderson, Vice Chairman / Commissioner District 5
SECONDER: Chuck Nelson, Commissioner District 2
AYES: Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson
.
ITEM III.B.2., AMENDED AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY HOUSING INITIATIVE, RE: EXTENDING CONTRACT EXPIRATION DATE
The Board executed Amendment to Agreement with Community Housing Initiative, Inc. to extend the contract expiration date from April 14, 2011 to July 14, 2011.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Andy Anderson, Vice Chairman / Commissioner District 5
SECONDER: Chuck Nelson, Commissioner District 2
AYES: Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson
.
ITEM III.B.3., AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH CHIPPERS, LLC, RE: HABITAT GOLF COURSE CONCESSIONAIRE
The Board executed the Amendment to Agreement with Chippers, LLC, reducing the monthly rent from $1,600 to $1,100; and authorized Jack Masson, Parks and Recreation Director, to renegotiate the contracted monthly rent on the one-year anniversary date of the execution of this Amendment to Agreement, and each year thereafter.
ITEM III.C.2., APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS, RE: CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS
The Board appointed/reappointed Tim Davis to the Contractors' Licensing Board, with term expiring December 31, 2011; and Jeff Boston to the Historical Commission, with term expiring December 31, 2011.
ITEM III.C.3., APPROVAL, RE: BILLFOLDER
The Board approved the billfolder, as submitted.
ITEM III.A.1., RESOLUTION AND APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT, RE: WATERFRONT DESIGN AND PERMITTING AT GRIFFIS LANDING
Commissioner Infantini stated she has a problem with this item because it deals with Blue Crab Cove; the property was assessed at $1.3 million, the County paid $2.8 million, and it is a boat ramp with docks; and she does not think it is appropriate for all Brevard County residents to pay for the repairs out of the General Fund. She mentioned when the Parks and Recreation Referendum was passed, the south part of the County decided there needed a new boat launch, docks, and it is to be paid for it out of the Referendum; now all of Brevard County is paying for the restoration of the boat docks and ramps in Merritt Island; she thinks it is not appropriate and the Referendum funding should be used; she advised she brought up this same issue when it was being contemplated to be purchased because it is not appropriate to use general fund dollars in these tight economic times to finance the acquisition of more land, but it did pass; reiterated she thinks the General Fund dollars should not be used, which is what funds the Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency (MIRA), to be paying for repairs and maintenance to Blue Crab Cove; and she will not be voting for it.
Commissioner Nelson stated the purchase price was $2.8, which was the average of the two appraisals and the County's portion of that through MIRA was $400,000, so it was almost a $3 million piece of property for $400,000; the funding for this is an application for a grant from the Florida Inland Navigation District, which everyone pays into; and the matching source for this is boat registration dollars, that voters pay into; it is a good project; and he is in support of the item.
Commissioner Infantini advised General Funds do come from MIRA; and it is all of the funds for the boating resources that should be going to all of Brevard County, and not continually going to Merritt Island.
Commissioner Nelson reiterated there are no General Fund dollars being used for this Agenda Item; the boating registration dollars are paid for by boaters; Commissioner Infantini is misstating that these are MIRA dollars; and they are not.
The Board adopted Resolution No. 11-072, and approved application for a grant from the Florida Inland Navigation District; approved the matching funds and any related budget change requests; and authorized the Chairman to execute the subsequent grant contract.
RESULT: ADOPTED [3 TO 2]
MOVER: Chuck Nelson, Commissioner District 2
SECONDER: Mary Bolin, Commissioner District 4
AYES: Robin Fisher, Chuck Nelson, Mary Bolin
NAYS: Trudie Infantini, Andy Anderson
.
Commissioner Infantini stated this item deals with a turtle monitoring contract; it is the only permit holder to monitor the turtles in the south area of Brevard County; it is possessed by one individual, who gets to reside at a $500,000 piece of property in the South Beaches free of charge; she would like to request in going forward to have open competition for bids of the turtle monitoring contract, that Brevard County applies for; and the only given organization is University of Central Florida (UCF), which is a fine organization, but she would like it to be open for bids to any organization. She advised some turtle monitoring can take place by volunteers, who necessarily do not have to be paid $168,000; so in going forward, she is recommending Brevard County apply for this permit because she believes it falls within the criteria permitted.
Ernie Brown, Natural Resources Management Director, expressed his appreciation for Commissioner Infantini's confidence in the staff; unfortunately, staff does not have the long-term experience in turtle monitoring in-house to actually apply and compete successfully for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) requirements under State rule, to be successful and getting that; but it is not where staff's expertise lies. He stated there are a number of qualified individuals throughout the State; the permit holder that does the turtle monitoring for Indian River County is a very qualified firm; it unfortunately charges three to four times as much as Brevard County pays through UCF; GEOMAR is another permit holder that covers the north end, which is twice as expensive as UCF; and while there is no competitive process, there is comparison of costs at other beaches that are performing the nesting process at a competitive rate. He stated the competition for the application process occurs at the State level; there is obligation to comply with State Statute, that states, "A valid permit holder must be used to do these turtle monitoring conditions and requirements"; the FWCC issues those permits, so if that is something the Board would like him to ask how to have more or multiple valid permit holders, he can ask the State, who are the ones to determine the qualifications for the permit holder.
Chairman Fisher inquired if there is any other valid permit holders locally. Mr. Brown responded not for that segment of the south area.
Commissioner Infantini stated there is only one valid permit holder; she would like for the person who is holding the permit to have open bidding, so that any organization anywhere can bid for that, rather than always giving the contract to UCF; and she thinks it should be an open bid process.
Mr. Brown stated he is not sure that is legal, as it relates to the County's contracting.
Chairman Fisher stated he thinks the Board cannot make someone open their valid permit holdings.
Commissioner Infantini inquired what if $500,000 wanted to be charged because that is what is charged, would the Board still have to pay. Mr. Brown responded if the charge is inconsistent with comparable contracts across the State, it would be readdressed with FWCC; he reiterated the County is paying about $4,000 per mile for UCF to do the work; GEOMAR charges about $7,000; the Indian River County is between $16,000 and $26,000 per mile; and if those comparatives are looked at, and while it is not competitive at the local level, Brevard County is certainly receiving its bang for its buck.
Commissioner Nelson inquired if Lew Erhart, UCF, is probably the foremost turtle expert in this hemisphere; stated Brevard County is fortunate to have the best person at UCF; and UCF is willing to do this for about half the price of what other contracts are charging. Mr. Brown responded yes, Brevard County is receiving a significant bargain as it relates to the quality and expertise received.
The Board executed the proposed Marine Turtle Monitoring Contract in the amount of $167,284 between the University of Central Florida and Brevard County; and approved all necessary budget change requests.
RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Chuck Nelson, Commissioner District 2
SECONDER: Mary Bolin, Commissioner District 4
AYES: Robin Fisher, Chuck Nelson, Mary Bolin, Andy Anderson
NAYS: Trudie Infantini
.
Commissioner Infantini stated this item deal with Fire Rescue asking to purchase four more emergency medical vehicles; the Agenda states, "The replacement rescue units are not budgeted and this approach is not consistent with the Departments Vehicle Replacement Plan (VRP)." She stated she is suggesting the Board not increase the budget again; she has continually fought budget increases, which cause budget change requests; and she thinks the funding mechanism that is in place for this is to collect more fees for the emergency medical services. She advised there was an $11 million write-off of uncollected emergency medical service fees; and she is recommending the Board postpone this acquisition until next year.
Howard Tipton, County Manager, clarified replacement rescue units not being budgeted is not consistent with the Departments VRP; the VRP is to replace vehicles every year and by deferring those vehicles replacements this year, may be a level of public safety service that will not be provided; and that is what the Agenda Report is referring to.
Chairman Fisher expressed his appreciation to Mr. Tipton for the clarification.
The Board approved and submitted Budget Change Requests.
RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Mary Bolin, Commissioner District 4
SECONDER: Chuck Nelson, Commissioner District 2
AYES: Robin Fisher, Chuck Nelson, Mary Bolin, Andy Anderson
NAYS: Trudie Infantini
.
The Board recessed at 9:56 a.m. and reconvened at 10:05 a.m.
ITEM VII.D.1., CONSIDERATION, RE: CLERK OF COURTS PARTICIPATION IN THE BOARD’S SELF-INSURED GROUP HEALTH PLAN
Chairman Fisher stated the Board has a 10:00 a.m. time certain to talk about the Clerk of
Court's participation in the Board's self-insured health plan and some of the options that might
be available for the Board; and he inquired how Howard Tipton, County Manager, would like to
proceed.
Mr. Tipton advised staff would set the stage for why everyone is present for this item today, and
the Board can follow through with the rest of the presentations.
Frank Abbate, Human Resources Director, stated he appreciated the opportunity to appear before the Board this morning; he is present today with the Board's Employee Benefits Consultant, John Robinson, Robinson Bush, and Jerry Visco, Insurance Director; and Board direction is needed concerning the Clerk's continued participation in the Board's self-insured health insurance program. He advised since its inception, the Board's self-insured health program has operated utilizing an established monthly employer contribution rate that is applicable for all full-time benefits-eligible employees of participating employers; this rate provides for the employer funding required to adequately meet all of the plan's projected costs; this is a common funding methodology, and it has been utilized for the last 20-plus years as a way that employer contributions can be collected in a manner that reduces budgetary uncertainty and variance that would be attributable to employee turnover and annual open enrollment variations that occur, because the Board is paying on behalf of every eligible full-time employee who is eligible to participate in the program, so everyone budgets the same amount for each one of those employees; and it has worked rather well for the Board over time. He stated when the Board became aware of the action taken by the Clerk to staff source a variety of positions, it became concerned as to whether or not there would be an adverse
impact to the Board's group health insurance fund; the Board inquired if the Benefits
Consultant would do a financial analysis; that financial analysis was completed; and it showed
that for a full year's impact, it would negatively impact the Board's fund to the group health
insurance program of $261,000 annually. He stated since 2008, the Board has had an
Interlocal Agreement with all of the participating agencies that are a part of the program; as part
of that Interlocal Agreement, there is a provision that states, "Any participant may be removed
from the program upon the recommendation of Human Resources and approval by the Board.
Human Resources shall provide the participant with written notice of its intent to recommend
removal of the participant to the Board in writing, at least seven days in advance of the request
being considered by the Board. Reasons for removal include: activities which adversely affect
the operation of the program"; it is believed that the Clerk has engaged in activities which
adversely affect the operation in the program, specifically, the activities include the following
four items: one, selectively staff sourcing all Clerk employees that opted out of participation in
the group health plan; such action fundamentally alters the uniform funding methodology of the
health plan and negatively impacts the plan's ability to adequately fund its obligations under the
existing fee structure; and two, by staff sourcing over 30 percent of his benefits-eligible
workforce, the Clerk is adversely affecting the operation of the program by materially altering the
ratio between active employees and retirees. He advised this adversely impacts the plan as
the loss of these employer premium contributions creates a funding shortfall, which
inadequately funds the Clerk's proportionate share of the Clerk's retiree costs; three, staff
sourcing has resulted in adverse selection of group health plan participants, by materially
altering the ratio between active employees and retirees, and the Clerk's ability to adequately
fund his retirees, which is primarily a State funded obligation, is being reduced; this result shifts
substantial costs associated with funding Clerk retirees to the remaining employer groups
participating in the group health plan; as a result of that, what was done on March 18th, when
he notified the Board of the financial analysis that was provided, that same day a letter was sent
to the Clerk explaining the concern, and the Clerk was given a copy of the financial analysis; it
gave him the opportunity to meet with the Clerk and his staff; and the recommendations were
reviewed with the Clerk of what is considering to be done, relative to the recommendations to
the Board. He advised the Clerk seemed somewhat concerned, and he will let the Clerk speak
for himself about the letter and the approach that was taken; however, it was shared with the
Clerk what the County is thinking of doing and it was explained to him that under the Interlocal
Agreement, it was felt that the County has an obligation to discuss the potential of the Board
considering pulling the Clerk out of the program; subsequent to that meeting, once the agenda
request was prepared, a copy was submitted to the Clerk's office the following week after March
18th, via email, that said he is open to discuss this matter prior to the Board meeting; he
does know the Clerk's office asked if he would be available for a meeting and he provided a
couple of available dates; and he believes the Clerk wanted to meet with staff on Friday, but
unfortunately, he was not available on Friday, due to personal reasons; but he did reach out to
try and meet with the Clerk and his staff yesterday, but there was no opportunity with the
schedules to make that happen. He indicated what staff believes the three options that were
put on the agenda request for the Board's consideration, and what staff believes the pros and
cons of those options are; stated he thinks think it is important to have all that laid out; Option 1,
the Board can consider is to advise the Clerk that on the grounds that his office engaged in
activities which adversely affect the operation of the group health insurance program,
specifically, the failure to adhere to the Board's established employer contribution structure, the
Clerk's Office shall be removed from the Board's program effective January 1, 2012; as part of
that option, staff would submit that the Board ask the Clerk to see if the Clerk has asked to
voluntarily remit the funds to offset the projected funding shortfall of approximately $196,000 for
the balance of this plan year in the group health insurance program resulting from the Clerk's
decision to staff source a significant number of his employees in March 2011, and in the event
that the Clerk does not voluntarily provide the funding for this projected shortfall staff would
request that the Board reduce its funding to the Clerk's Office to offset the projected shortfall of
$196,000 and redirect those funds to the group health insurance plan; and the advantages of
Option 1 is that it continues the current program participation for the Clerk of Court
employees for the remainder of this calendar year without disruption, while it provides the Clerk
of Courts the opportunity to explore alternative program options; it also, from an advantage
standpoint, provides for a one-time-only offset of the unpaid required employer contributions,
whether it is voluntarily made or it is made because of the Board's action to not transfer the
funds, and transfer a certain portion of those funds to the health fund, and it maintains adequacy
to the program funding, treating all participating entities consistently; and the cons of this
particular option is that it does reduce the Clerk's projected savings from his efforts to staff
source services; and staff believes that comparable replacement coverage meaning similar
plan design in coverage, similar premium structures, to the existing program is likely to result in
higher costs. He stated the former Clerk, when he looked at potentially leaving the program,
found that he could not find, in 2008, comparable coverage and comparable costs, and he
stayed with the program, so there have been others who have looked elsewhere; the County is
a self-insured program, the Board does not make a profit on that program, and he would like to
submit to the Board that a smaller entity will not be able to find comparable coverage at a similar
cost. He stated Option two would be for the Board to consider modifying the future employer
funding methodology from a full-time benefits-eligible model that it currently has in place, to a
model that is based on full-time plan participants who are enrolled in the program only; if the
Board chooses Option two, staff would ask the Board to also consider requesting the
Clerk to voluntarily remit funds to offset the projected funding shortfall of $196,000 for the
balance of this plan year, or if he does not voluntarily agree to do that, once again, to reduce
the funding to the Clerk of Courts by that amount and redirect those funds to the self-insurance
program; and the advantage of this is, it provides a uniform funding methodology that
accommodates the Clerk's action and eliminates necessary plan funding associated with
employer contributions for opt-out employees in favor of a plan funding that is based only on
full-time employees participating in the health program; he indicated some very significant cons
to this particular option; one, it fundamentally alters the existing benefits-eligible methodology
that is commonly utilized by employers, including the Board of County Commissioners, to
properly fund a self-insured health insurance program; one of the reasons it does that is
because it creates future budgeting uncertainty and variance that is attributable to employee
turnover and annual plan enrollment variations, meaning there will have to be a higher rate set
while still collecting the same amount of monies; and when that is done, with the
budgeting reductions taking place, it is going to be how the Board budgets for those monies,
because when there is a turnover of employees, such as this, some people may choose to
participate, some may not, unless the positions are budgeted for, which in fact, then causes
over-budgeting to do that; the funds would not be available when a shift happens, because
of employee turnover and who decides to participate and who decides to opt-out; and there are
additional concerns, it is really not from a human resources perspective, it is an organizational
budgeting issue, especially for an organization such as this one, where so many employees are
paid from so many different funds, that becomes more of a concern and of an issue from the
Board's perspective. He advised the additional con to Option two is that the Clerk's reduction
of full-time benefits-eligible employees by more than 10 percent, triggers that insurance
company program that operates in this similar manner to look at whether or not the Board will
have to re-rate, or readjust the premiums because of the shift that has occurred; and because
the Clerk has changed by more than 10 percent through staff sourcing, it is believed that there
is still material even under Option B, which reduces the Clerk's proportional contributions that
are necessary to fund his current number of retirees that are insured under the Board's group
health insurance program. He advised this change in the funding methodology will, in effect,
cost shift the funding of the Clerk's retirees to the remaining employers in the group that are
participating in the group health plan; that is because he has less employees, by over 100 of his
300 that he had previously, and he is not making those contributions; some of those funds were
responsible for covering the retiree costs; none of the retiree costs have been reduced by
this action, therefore, someone else is picking up the cost; and when the higher rate is gone
through, the Clerk is not picking up his proportionate share because he has reduced his
employees substantially by over 30 percent of what he previously had before he took this action,
which is why staff believes that has a very significant adverse impact to the plan. He stated
Option three, would be to continue to provide the Clerk participation in the Board's group health
insurance program contingent upon the following; one, receipt of funds from the Clerk of Court,
or a reduction of Board funding directed to the Clerk of Courts to offset the projected $196,000
shortfall for this plan year; second, effective January 1, 2012, a funding mechanism be in place
to adequately fund the recurring shortfalls that are created by the Clerk's staff sourcing actions;
and staff submits that staff would have to work with the Clerk to come up with that number; it
would be very similar to the annualized $261,000 number, but staff would work with the Clerk
and his staff, along with the benefits consultant, to determine what that number is; and from
staff's perspective, the two most viable options are Options 1 and Option 3, and it did
provide the three options and it tried did the best job it could in indicating what staff thought the
pros and cons were to those; and staff would be happy to answer any questions, as this
dialogue continues, that the Board may have.
impact to the Board's group health insurance fund; the Board inquired if the Benefits
Consultant would do a financial analysis; that financial analysis was completed; and it showed
that for a full year's impact, it would negatively impact the Board's fund to the group health
insurance program of $261,000 annually. He stated since 2008, the Board has had an
Interlocal Agreement with all of the participating agencies that are a part of the program; as part
of that Interlocal Agreement, there is a provision that states, "Any participant may be removed
from the program upon the recommendation of Human Resources and approval by the Board.
Human Resources shall provide the participant with written notice of its intent to recommend
removal of the participant to the Board in writing, at least seven days in advance of the request
being considered by the Board. Reasons for removal include: activities which adversely affect
the operation of the program"; it is believed that the Clerk has engaged in activities which
adversely affect the operation in the program, specifically, the activities include the following
four items: one, selectively staff sourcing all Clerk employees that opted out of participation in
the group health plan; such action fundamentally alters the uniform funding methodology of the
health plan and negatively impacts the plan's ability to adequately fund its obligations under the
existing fee structure; and two, by staff sourcing over 30 percent of his benefits-eligible
workforce, the Clerk is adversely affecting the operation of the program by materially altering the
ratio between active employees and retirees. He advised this adversely impacts the plan as
the loss of these employer premium contributions creates a funding shortfall, which
inadequately funds the Clerk's proportionate share of the Clerk's retiree costs; three, staff
sourcing has resulted in adverse selection of group health plan participants, by materially
altering the ratio between active employees and retirees, and the Clerk's ability to adequately
fund his retirees, which is primarily a State funded obligation, is being reduced; this result shifts
substantial costs associated with funding Clerk retirees to the remaining employer groups
participating in the group health plan; as a result of that, what was done on March 18th, when
he notified the Board of the financial analysis that was provided, that same day a letter was sent
to the Clerk explaining the concern, and the Clerk was given a copy of the financial analysis; it
gave him the opportunity to meet with the Clerk and his staff; and the recommendations were
reviewed with the Clerk of what is considering to be done, relative to the recommendations to
the Board. He advised the Clerk seemed somewhat concerned, and he will let the Clerk speak
for himself about the letter and the approach that was taken; however, it was shared with the
Clerk what the County is thinking of doing and it was explained to him that under the Interlocal
Agreement, it was felt that the County has an obligation to discuss the potential of the Board
considering pulling the Clerk out of the program; subsequent to that meeting, once the agenda
request was prepared, a copy was submitted to the Clerk's office the following week after March
18th, via email, that said he is open to discuss this matter prior to the Board meeting; he
does know the Clerk's office asked if he would be available for a meeting and he provided a
couple of available dates; and he believes the Clerk wanted to meet with staff on Friday, but
unfortunately, he was not available on Friday, due to personal reasons; but he did reach out to
try and meet with the Clerk and his staff yesterday, but there was no opportunity with the
schedules to make that happen. He indicated what staff believes the three options that were
put on the agenda request for the Board's consideration, and what staff believes the pros and
cons of those options are; stated he thinks think it is important to have all that laid out; Option 1,
the Board can consider is to advise the Clerk that on the grounds that his office engaged in
activities which adversely affect the operation of the group health insurance program,
specifically, the failure to adhere to the Board's established employer contribution structure, the
Clerk's Office shall be removed from the Board's program effective January 1, 2012; as part of
that option, staff would submit that the Board ask the Clerk to see if the Clerk has asked to
voluntarily remit the funds to offset the projected funding shortfall of approximately $196,000 for
the balance of this plan year in the group health insurance program resulting from the Clerk's
decision to staff source a significant number of his employees in March 2011, and in the event
that the Clerk does not voluntarily provide the funding for this projected shortfall staff would
request that the Board reduce its funding to the Clerk's Office to offset the projected shortfall of
$196,000 and redirect those funds to the group health insurance plan; and the advantages of
Option 1 is that it continues the current program participation for the Clerk of Court
employees for the remainder of this calendar year without disruption, while it provides the Clerk
of Courts the opportunity to explore alternative program options; it also, from an advantage
standpoint, provides for a one-time-only offset of the unpaid required employer contributions,
whether it is voluntarily made or it is made because of the Board's action to not transfer the
funds, and transfer a certain portion of those funds to the health fund, and it maintains adequacy
to the program funding, treating all participating entities consistently; and the cons of this
particular option is that it does reduce the Clerk's projected savings from his efforts to staff
source services; and staff believes that comparable replacement coverage meaning similar
plan design in coverage, similar premium structures, to the existing program is likely to result in
higher costs. He stated the former Clerk, when he looked at potentially leaving the program,
found that he could not find, in 2008, comparable coverage and comparable costs, and he
stayed with the program, so there have been others who have looked elsewhere; the County is
a self-insured program, the Board does not make a profit on that program, and he would like to
submit to the Board that a smaller entity will not be able to find comparable coverage at a similar
cost. He stated Option two would be for the Board to consider modifying the future employer
funding methodology from a full-time benefits-eligible model that it currently has in place, to a
model that is based on full-time plan participants who are enrolled in the program only; if the
Board chooses Option two, staff would ask the Board to also consider requesting the
Clerk to voluntarily remit funds to offset the projected funding shortfall of $196,000 for the
balance of this plan year, or if he does not voluntarily agree to do that, once again, to reduce
the funding to the Clerk of Courts by that amount and redirect those funds to the self-insurance
program; and the advantage of this is, it provides a uniform funding methodology that
accommodates the Clerk's action and eliminates necessary plan funding associated with
employer contributions for opt-out employees in favor of a plan funding that is based only on
full-time employees participating in the health program; he indicated some very significant cons
to this particular option; one, it fundamentally alters the existing benefits-eligible methodology
that is commonly utilized by employers, including the Board of County Commissioners, to
properly fund a self-insured health insurance program; one of the reasons it does that is
because it creates future budgeting uncertainty and variance that is attributable to employee
turnover and annual plan enrollment variations, meaning there will have to be a higher rate set
while still collecting the same amount of monies; and when that is done, with the
budgeting reductions taking place, it is going to be how the Board budgets for those monies,
because when there is a turnover of employees, such as this, some people may choose to
participate, some may not, unless the positions are budgeted for, which in fact, then causes
over-budgeting to do that; the funds would not be available when a shift happens, because
of employee turnover and who decides to participate and who decides to opt-out; and there are
additional concerns, it is really not from a human resources perspective, it is an organizational
budgeting issue, especially for an organization such as this one, where so many employees are
paid from so many different funds, that becomes more of a concern and of an issue from the
Board's perspective. He advised the additional con to Option two is that the Clerk's reduction
of full-time benefits-eligible employees by more than 10 percent, triggers that insurance
company program that operates in this similar manner to look at whether or not the Board will
have to re-rate, or readjust the premiums because of the shift that has occurred; and because
the Clerk has changed by more than 10 percent through staff sourcing, it is believed that there
is still material even under Option B, which reduces the Clerk's proportional contributions that
are necessary to fund his current number of retirees that are insured under the Board's group
health insurance program. He advised this change in the funding methodology will, in effect,
cost shift the funding of the Clerk's retirees to the remaining employers in the group that are
participating in the group health plan; that is because he has less employees, by over 100 of his
300 that he had previously, and he is not making those contributions; some of those funds were
responsible for covering the retiree costs; none of the retiree costs have been reduced by
this action, therefore, someone else is picking up the cost; and when the higher rate is gone
through, the Clerk is not picking up his proportionate share because he has reduced his
employees substantially by over 30 percent of what he previously had before he took this action,
which is why staff believes that has a very significant adverse impact to the plan. He stated
Option three, would be to continue to provide the Clerk participation in the Board's group health
insurance program contingent upon the following; one, receipt of funds from the Clerk of Court,
or a reduction of Board funding directed to the Clerk of Courts to offset the projected $196,000
shortfall for this plan year; second, effective January 1, 2012, a funding mechanism be in place
to adequately fund the recurring shortfalls that are created by the Clerk's staff sourcing actions;
and staff submits that staff would have to work with the Clerk to come up with that number; it
would be very similar to the annualized $261,000 number, but staff would work with the Clerk
and his staff, along with the benefits consultant, to determine what that number is; and from
staff's perspective, the two most viable options are Options 1 and Option 3, and it did
provide the three options and it tried did the best job it could in indicating what staff thought the
pros and cons were to those; and staff would be happy to answer any questions, as this
dialogue continues, that the Board may have.
Mitch Needelman, Clerk of Courts, expressed his appreciation to Board allowing him to be
present today; and he thinks it is important to go through this in a public manner and get the
messages out, and get things done in the proper way. He complimented County staff for doing
an excellent job; he has known Mr. Abbate for many years but just recently met Mr. Visco; and
they have been very cooperative and helpful. He stated “And I don’t blame Frank or Jerry,
they’ve talked to us about this problem, and I’ve been talking to the Board about this, that we
are billed a full year’s insurance for people that don’t take insurance; it’s $10,000 for a year, and
the quickest example I always use, if I have two employees, one is full-time and takes the
insurance, and one is part-time, does not take the insurance, we are billed $10,000 a year for
the person that takes the insurance. If the part-time employee then goes full-time, we’re billed
a second $10,000 for the second employee, even though they don’t use the insurance. This
has been an ongoing issue about how this has been billed and the costing. There have also
been issues with the retirees; there’s a retiree subside by the Board, that’s fine, but the way that
you that is you pass out to the active duty costs. For example, you don’t do a vote to move $4
million move to subsidize, take another $1,000 per year, per person, to cover that $4 million.
I don’t agree with this methodology.” He stated that was verbatim words from the previous
Clerk. He stated two years ago on April 22, 2008, the past Clerk dealt with what he is facing
today; and if the Board looked at the options that were provided in 2008 for the past Clerk and
the options that are offered today, the Board basically looked at the same issues dealing with
the same problems, very little difference between cut and paste. He noted even if the Board
looked at what his issues and concerns are, and what he has dealt with, it will look like cut and
paste; if the Board moves forward with removing the Clerk from group plan, the argument of the
reserves will have to be dealt with and how it is going to be paid out; inquired how that is going
to be taken care of with increasing cost ratio for the retirees, with the Clerk's office pulling out;
and the Board is already moving in a process of knowing that next year's increase is going to be
roughly eight and one-half percent for the year 2012 on its health insurance. He inquired
what has changed since 2008; stated the Clerk's Office has spent $9 million for health
insurance premiums in those three years; of that $9 million, $1 million has been paid out of the
County Commission from premiums for non-insurance coverage of employees; the Clerk's
Office has now moved up from the eight percent standard, because of the numbers dropping, it
is a 10 percent standard; and the reason for that is because the Port Authority has withdrawn,
and the County's insurance pool has dropped drastically since 2008 because it has moved out
over 780 employees during that period of time. He reiterated 780 employees have been
moved out by the actions the Board has taken; so his removal of 123 employees causing such
an adverse issue is something that needs to be discussed; inquired if his removal of 123 equals
an adverse, what about the 780 removed since 2008; stated that is about 250 people a year,
which exceeds the 123 he has done; and it could be that some of that eight and one-half
percent is actually making up that difference in participants in the County’s insurance to reflect
that cost change. He stated everyone is facing tough economic times, and for him, with no
action in Tallahassee as of this date, he is looking at some serious issues to be dealt with; due
to no changes happening as of this date, he would of had to lay off at least that many
employees, which would have put him standing at this same podium talking about the same
issues again about the insurance pool; and he feels he is stuck between a rock and a hard spot.
He noted the only difference this time is he took action to make sure employees stayed
employed. He stated everyone is facing similar issues, including the County; he saw the
County's budget proposal where its first issue was to not to furlough anybody; but not everyone
is fortunate enough to be in that position. He stated all Constitutional Officers are facing the
|same dilemma now; and he inquired what is the answer to do that. He advised there is another
problem, if Option 3 was to be approved, he inquired what numbers are going to be used to
determine that $190,000; his numbers will fluctuate as times improve and times get worse; an
example is last Friday he had four employees promoted, three of them came out of Source 2
back into the Clerk's Office, so now his numbers have changed; and he anticipates a continued
changing between now and the end of the fiscal year. He inquired what numbers he works off
of. He advised Florida Statute 28.35 requires him to take that deficit the Board is asking him to
remove, or that cost that it is asking him to remove, from its side of the budget; he inquired what
services does the Board wish for him to not cover, where does he find that $196,000; and stated
these are questions that need to be worked out. He added, this has been going on for a long
time, and it is going to continue to go on if this matter is not resolved today, the County will be
facing the same in the future; he suggested, as in the 2008 meeting, the Board suggested it
have Workshop and work it out, and the Board might find other alternatives in which to keep the
expectations in keeping this afloat, and at the same time not forcing the taxpayers to pick up
employees who are going to take the insurance option. He suggested at the Workshop the
Board include the participants, by having them engaged and involved in the process; the budget
process is about to be entered; next month everyone will be looking at their budgets, and it is
the perfect opportunity to address this issue. He pointed out if that is done, there is little doubt
in his mind that there will be a way to find a resolution to this problem, so the Board will not have
to be facing it again in three years. He expressed his appreciation to the Board for the
opportunity to be present today; and stated he hopes that it will consider the option, as a
temporary movement in which to resolve this issue; he is committed to continue to tear down
walls and build bridges; and this is an attempt in which to do that.
present today; and he thinks it is important to go through this in a public manner and get the
messages out, and get things done in the proper way. He complimented County staff for doing
an excellent job; he has known Mr. Abbate for many years but just recently met Mr. Visco; and
they have been very cooperative and helpful. He stated “And I don’t blame Frank or Jerry,
they’ve talked to us about this problem, and I’ve been talking to the Board about this, that we
are billed a full year’s insurance for people that don’t take insurance; it’s $10,000 for a year, and
the quickest example I always use, if I have two employees, one is full-time and takes the
insurance, and one is part-time, does not take the insurance, we are billed $10,000 a year for
the person that takes the insurance. If the part-time employee then goes full-time, we’re billed
a second $10,000 for the second employee, even though they don’t use the insurance. This
has been an ongoing issue about how this has been billed and the costing. There have also
been issues with the retirees; there’s a retiree subside by the Board, that’s fine, but the way that
you that is you pass out to the active duty costs. For example, you don’t do a vote to move $4
million move to subsidize, take another $1,000 per year, per person, to cover that $4 million.
I don’t agree with this methodology.” He stated that was verbatim words from the previous
Clerk. He stated two years ago on April 22, 2008, the past Clerk dealt with what he is facing
today; and if the Board looked at the options that were provided in 2008 for the past Clerk and
the options that are offered today, the Board basically looked at the same issues dealing with
the same problems, very little difference between cut and paste. He noted even if the Board
looked at what his issues and concerns are, and what he has dealt with, it will look like cut and
paste; if the Board moves forward with removing the Clerk from group plan, the argument of the
reserves will have to be dealt with and how it is going to be paid out; inquired how that is going
to be taken care of with increasing cost ratio for the retirees, with the Clerk's office pulling out;
and the Board is already moving in a process of knowing that next year's increase is going to be
roughly eight and one-half percent for the year 2012 on its health insurance. He inquired
what has changed since 2008; stated the Clerk's Office has spent $9 million for health
insurance premiums in those three years; of that $9 million, $1 million has been paid out of the
County Commission from premiums for non-insurance coverage of employees; the Clerk's
Office has now moved up from the eight percent standard, because of the numbers dropping, it
is a 10 percent standard; and the reason for that is because the Port Authority has withdrawn,
and the County's insurance pool has dropped drastically since 2008 because it has moved out
over 780 employees during that period of time. He reiterated 780 employees have been
moved out by the actions the Board has taken; so his removal of 123 employees causing such
an adverse issue is something that needs to be discussed; inquired if his removal of 123 equals
an adverse, what about the 780 removed since 2008; stated that is about 250 people a year,
which exceeds the 123 he has done; and it could be that some of that eight and one-half
percent is actually making up that difference in participants in the County’s insurance to reflect
that cost change. He stated everyone is facing tough economic times, and for him, with no
action in Tallahassee as of this date, he is looking at some serious issues to be dealt with; due
to no changes happening as of this date, he would of had to lay off at least that many
employees, which would have put him standing at this same podium talking about the same
issues again about the insurance pool; and he feels he is stuck between a rock and a hard spot.
He noted the only difference this time is he took action to make sure employees stayed
employed. He stated everyone is facing similar issues, including the County; he saw the
County's budget proposal where its first issue was to not to furlough anybody; but not everyone
is fortunate enough to be in that position. He stated all Constitutional Officers are facing the
|same dilemma now; and he inquired what is the answer to do that. He advised there is another
problem, if Option 3 was to be approved, he inquired what numbers are going to be used to
determine that $190,000; his numbers will fluctuate as times improve and times get worse; an
example is last Friday he had four employees promoted, three of them came out of Source 2
back into the Clerk's Office, so now his numbers have changed; and he anticipates a continued
changing between now and the end of the fiscal year. He inquired what numbers he works off
of. He advised Florida Statute 28.35 requires him to take that deficit the Board is asking him to
remove, or that cost that it is asking him to remove, from its side of the budget; he inquired what
services does the Board wish for him to not cover, where does he find that $196,000; and stated
these are questions that need to be worked out. He added, this has been going on for a long
time, and it is going to continue to go on if this matter is not resolved today, the County will be
facing the same in the future; he suggested, as in the 2008 meeting, the Board suggested it
have Workshop and work it out, and the Board might find other alternatives in which to keep the
expectations in keeping this afloat, and at the same time not forcing the taxpayers to pick up
employees who are going to take the insurance option. He suggested at the Workshop the
Board include the participants, by having them engaged and involved in the process; the budget
process is about to be entered; next month everyone will be looking at their budgets, and it is
the perfect opportunity to address this issue. He pointed out if that is done, there is little doubt
in his mind that there will be a way to find a resolution to this problem, so the Board will not have
to be facing it again in three years. He expressed his appreciation to the Board for the
opportunity to be present today; and stated he hopes that it will consider the option, as a
temporary movement in which to resolve this issue; he is committed to continue to tear down
walls and build bridges; and this is an attempt in which to do that.
Chairman Fisher stated inquired his understanding is Mr. Needelman is predicting a shortfall on
the Board side; and he thinks Mr. Needelman is making reference to if that $190,000, or
$196,000 was taken away, it puts him in a difficult situation on providing all the services the
Board has.
the Board side; and he thinks Mr. Needelman is making reference to if that $190,000, or
$196,000 was taken away, it puts him in a difficult situation on providing all the services the
Board has.
Mr. Needelman advised he has to be very careful in going forward with the constraints from the
pending lawsuit; he will answer the best way he can referring back to some of the things that
were questioned earlier; it is his intent, because of what he has done, to see a shift and request
a lower amount of money for next year's budget; but he cannot give the Board the exact
amount, because what happens is the numbers keep changing. He stated like in retail outlets,
the Clerk’s Office depends upon customers coming in; that number fluctuates back and forth; it
is anticipated that the Board will see a reduction, not only in his request for next year's budget,
but also there is a good possibility that the Board will see the figures of somewhere around
$60,000, that will be able to be returned back to the Board; he does not want the Board to hold
him to that because of changing numbers; he is working on making sure money is returned to
the Board, because it is the taxpayers money, and it deserves to come back; and reiterated he
cannot give the Board the exact number right now, as it is an ongoing process.
pending lawsuit; he will answer the best way he can referring back to some of the things that
were questioned earlier; it is his intent, because of what he has done, to see a shift and request
a lower amount of money for next year's budget; but he cannot give the Board the exact
amount, because what happens is the numbers keep changing. He stated like in retail outlets,
the Clerk’s Office depends upon customers coming in; that number fluctuates back and forth; it
is anticipated that the Board will see a reduction, not only in his request for next year's budget,
but also there is a good possibility that the Board will see the figures of somewhere around
$60,000, that will be able to be returned back to the Board; he does not want the Board to hold
him to that because of changing numbers; he is working on making sure money is returned to
the Board, because it is the taxpayers money, and it deserves to come back; and reiterated he
cannot give the Board the exact number right now, as it is an ongoing process.
Chairman Fisher inquired knowing the Clerk has constraints and other issues outside of the
Board, and he might have this predicted shortfall; could the Clerk turn those services back over
to this Board if it decided to take it, which are the functions that the Board hired the Clerk to do,
so he will not have to deal with the shortfall, and the Board will manage it. Mr. Needelman
responded he thinks there are a couple of issues with that; and he needs to figure out where he
wants to stand. He explained Commissioner Anderson requested, at the last meeting, to look
at the budget through an audit; he is sure he did not mean a forensic audit, because a forensic
audit would mean the Board feels there is some type of criminal activity going on at the Clerk's
Office; he is sure that was not the intent with that; but he is willing to move forward to have
dialogue with all the Commissioners, and he is willing to share the cost of the audit. He
advised he has paperwork to give the Board for the audit. He stated he would like to have
included in that audit an audit of the insurance, how the premiums are set up, how the
Constitutional Officers are affected by that, and other factors with dollars so there is a better
picture; and there is a duplication of services that has been noticed between the Clerk's Office
and the County's, that needs looking at to find out what those duplications are, what those
expenses are, and find out which is the best method in which to come up with it. He stated he
cannot give a definite answer now without having more facts and figures in which to back his
answers, but he is willing to move forward with the recommendation by Commissioner
Anderson, so that he can present to the Board a more logical answer and to be successful.
Board, and he might have this predicted shortfall; could the Clerk turn those services back over
to this Board if it decided to take it, which are the functions that the Board hired the Clerk to do,
so he will not have to deal with the shortfall, and the Board will manage it. Mr. Needelman
responded he thinks there are a couple of issues with that; and he needs to figure out where he
wants to stand. He explained Commissioner Anderson requested, at the last meeting, to look
at the budget through an audit; he is sure he did not mean a forensic audit, because a forensic
audit would mean the Board feels there is some type of criminal activity going on at the Clerk's
Office; he is sure that was not the intent with that; but he is willing to move forward to have
dialogue with all the Commissioners, and he is willing to share the cost of the audit. He
advised he has paperwork to give the Board for the audit. He stated he would like to have
included in that audit an audit of the insurance, how the premiums are set up, how the
Constitutional Officers are affected by that, and other factors with dollars so there is a better
picture; and there is a duplication of services that has been noticed between the Clerk's Office
and the County's, that needs looking at to find out what those duplications are, what those
expenses are, and find out which is the best method in which to come up with it. He stated he
cannot give a definite answer now without having more facts and figures in which to back his
answers, but he is willing to move forward with the recommendation by Commissioner
Anderson, so that he can present to the Board a more logical answer and to be successful.
Chairman Fisher stated he keeps hearing about the Board’s shortfall; he personally questions
whether there really is a shortfall, understanding the layoffs that is happening in Mr.
Needelman's organization and the different things, cost cutting measures that he took, and the
Board has not seen any of those savings on the Board side come back to it in the form of a
check; and the County continues to make one-twelfth of the payments every month. He stated
he is now hearing Mr. Needelman tell the Board that if it chooses one of these options, that
might make another $190,000 impact on his budget, which is a concern to Mr. Needelman. He
inquired if the County can take all those concerns that he has about the Board functions, back
onto the County Commission; and he thinks he might be able to get three votes for to do that if
that is something he is willing to do. Mr. Needelman responded he is not trying to avoid the
question, but the fact is he does not have enough facts here to make that presentation without
the numbers there; statutes are required for him to follow, or if the constitution requires him to
follow this; this is more than just a yes or no answer right now; but his staff and County staff can
work together, to sit down, and look at what those options are, as the budget process is
entered, because this is the a perfect time to do this.
whether there really is a shortfall, understanding the layoffs that is happening in Mr.
Needelman's organization and the different things, cost cutting measures that he took, and the
Board has not seen any of those savings on the Board side come back to it in the form of a
check; and the County continues to make one-twelfth of the payments every month. He stated
he is now hearing Mr. Needelman tell the Board that if it chooses one of these options, that
might make another $190,000 impact on his budget, which is a concern to Mr. Needelman. He
inquired if the County can take all those concerns that he has about the Board functions, back
onto the County Commission; and he thinks he might be able to get three votes for to do that if
that is something he is willing to do. Mr. Needelman responded he is not trying to avoid the
question, but the fact is he does not have enough facts here to make that presentation without
the numbers there; statutes are required for him to follow, or if the constitution requires him to
follow this; this is more than just a yes or no answer right now; but his staff and County staff can
work together, to sit down, and look at what those options are, as the budget process is
entered, because this is the a perfect time to do this.
Chairman Fisher advised his concern is, because he keeps hearing about the shortfall, he feels
bad for Mr. Needelman's organization having all these shortfalls; and advised the County would
gladly take those functions back if that is something that Mr. Needelman could research and
study for the County. Mr. Needelman stated he thinks if it is researched, there could be some
kind of conclusion that would be satisfactory.
bad for Mr. Needelman's organization having all these shortfalls; and advised the County would
gladly take those functions back if that is something that Mr. Needelman could research and
study for the County. Mr. Needelman stated he thinks if it is researched, there could be some
kind of conclusion that would be satisfactory.
Commissioner Anderson stated he may have misunderstood Mr. Needelman during the
discussions that took place in his office about his concerns with the shortfall affecting the Board
on this insurance deal for the rest of the calendar year, which is $196,000; and at that time, he
expressed to Mr. Needelman, that it would have to be made up because that is just a negative
impact the Board and the taxpayers of Brevard County cannot, handle right now, and it was
unanticipated. He advised Mr. Needelman mentioned a $160,000 number just now; his
expectation is for the County get all of the $196,000 back, because there is no way to dip into
Reserves any further; and he is definitely not going to ask the taxpayers to pony up any more
money because next year it is $261,000. He stated the characterization of the 780 employees,
which it out of several thousand, so a percentage-wise, it is far less for what the Board did,
including the outsourcing of Misdemeanor/Probation, versus 123 employees, which is 50
percent of Mr. Needelman's workforce. He noted if the Sheriff were to do the same thing to the
County, it could not continue on. He inquired if that is the Clerk’s Attorney; and stated that is
Another thing he has a problem with, that is transparency to the public and hiding behind
attorneys. He inquired if this Board is going to get $196,000 and not out of the Board money,
but out of the State money reimbursing it, because it does not want to rehash County money.
discussions that took place in his office about his concerns with the shortfall affecting the Board
on this insurance deal for the rest of the calendar year, which is $196,000; and at that time, he
expressed to Mr. Needelman, that it would have to be made up because that is just a negative
impact the Board and the taxpayers of Brevard County cannot, handle right now, and it was
unanticipated. He advised Mr. Needelman mentioned a $160,000 number just now; his
expectation is for the County get all of the $196,000 back, because there is no way to dip into
Reserves any further; and he is definitely not going to ask the taxpayers to pony up any more
money because next year it is $261,000. He stated the characterization of the 780 employees,
which it out of several thousand, so a percentage-wise, it is far less for what the Board did,
including the outsourcing of Misdemeanor/Probation, versus 123 employees, which is 50
percent of Mr. Needelman's workforce. He noted if the Sheriff were to do the same thing to the
County, it could not continue on. He inquired if that is the Clerk’s Attorney; and stated that is
Another thing he has a problem with, that is transparency to the public and hiding behind
attorneys. He inquired if this Board is going to get $196,000 and not out of the Board money,
but out of the State money reimbursing it, because it does not want to rehash County money.
Mr. Needelman responded he understands, and there is a couple of issues in there; there
actually was a percentage-wise done over a period of time; the numbers are fairly close; and the
County does succeed him by almost two percent, it was at 44 percent, and he was at 42
percent.
actually was a percentage-wise done over a period of time; the numbers are fairly close; and the
County does succeed him by almost two percent, it was at 44 percent, and he was at 42
percent.
Commissioner Anderson inquired if he is talking about Board employees, or all participants. Mr.
Needelman responded all participants. Commissioner Anderson advised at that the same time,
the Sheriff's numbers have increased; and that is why there needs to be an independent audit. Mr. Needelman stated he understands that; the numbers were looked at because he knew this question was going to come up; it is the reason for the offer of the audit, because his numbers are not matching County numbers; and he is not saying that someone is wrong, it is just to say it is a beginning point at which to start these discussions so the numbers are known.
Needelman responded all participants. Commissioner Anderson advised at that the same time,
the Sheriff's numbers have increased; and that is why there needs to be an independent audit. Mr. Needelman stated he understands that; the numbers were looked at because he knew this question was going to come up; it is the reason for the offer of the audit, because his numbers are not matching County numbers; and he is not saying that someone is wrong, it is just to say it is a beginning point at which to start these discussions so the numbers are known.
Commissioner Nelson stated the Board has heard downside to the Constitutional Officers, but
the flip side of that is that on an annual basis the County adjusts based on what has happened
in the previous year; he thinks, to go back two and three years and say that is where it was
three years ago and here is where it is today, and every year it gets adjusted; and last year
there was some additional General Fund money put in, plus there were benefit changes, so on
an annual basis it gets changed. He advised what is being discussed is what is going to
happen to the County between now and the end of this year, that is the key to it, because it will,
and has to be adjusted at the end of this year anyway; but he thinks on an annual basis the
Board of County Commissioners re-look at its pool and adjusts based on what each of the
agencies have done, and what the participation has been. He stated the County charges for
employees who may not take the benefit because they are part of the pool; the difference is
they can be removed and spread across to fewer people with ultimately getting to the number.
He stated that is what Scott Ellis, former Clerk of Courts, went through; when looking at a
smaller pool it cannot be afforded; if the total were looked at, even though payment is made for
an employee that is not taking insurance, when the total is looked at, it is still more beneficial to
be part of this program than to be outside the program; he thinks that is the flip side to what a
Constitutional Officer may see as a savings; but when the big picture is looked at, he thinks that
savings is shared by everyone.
the flip side of that is that on an annual basis the County adjusts based on what has happened
in the previous year; he thinks, to go back two and three years and say that is where it was
three years ago and here is where it is today, and every year it gets adjusted; and last year
there was some additional General Fund money put in, plus there were benefit changes, so on
an annual basis it gets changed. He advised what is being discussed is what is going to
happen to the County between now and the end of this year, that is the key to it, because it will,
and has to be adjusted at the end of this year anyway; but he thinks on an annual basis the
Board of County Commissioners re-look at its pool and adjusts based on what each of the
agencies have done, and what the participation has been. He stated the County charges for
employees who may not take the benefit because they are part of the pool; the difference is
they can be removed and spread across to fewer people with ultimately getting to the number.
He stated that is what Scott Ellis, former Clerk of Courts, went through; when looking at a
smaller pool it cannot be afforded; if the total were looked at, even though payment is made for
an employee that is not taking insurance, when the total is looked at, it is still more beneficial to
be part of this program than to be outside the program; he thinks that is the flip side to what a
Constitutional Officer may see as a savings; but when the big picture is looked at, he thinks that
savings is shared by everyone.
Mr. Abbate stated there is one or two points that he would like to make; one, in terms of the
employer contribution, the Board does not make a profit on this; the total employer contribution
that is collected is what is necessary to fund the program; the amount that is paid for every
benefits-eligible employee is just a budgetary funding mechanism; in fact, when a comment is
made that the taxpayers are paying for the opt-outs, they are paying for people who do not take
insurance, actually, the employer contribution would need to be higher for the participating
employees if it was done by a different methodology, it would be the same amount of money
utilized either way, so it would not be fair to say the County is paying for the opt-outs who do not
take insurance; Mr. Needelman would be paying that same amount of money, it would just be
a higher rate for the active employees; two, relative to any decreases, many of the participating
agencies over time have had several reductions in workforce with the Board being one of them;
it has 4,400-plus participating employees in the program; a 500-count difference over three
years is 10 percent; he is not talking about that; he is talking about a smaller group that had a
30-50 percent reduction in one year, which is what causes the adverse impact; and 200 of
those 700 employees, he believes, were the Port that left, took all their expenses with them, and
including the retiree expenses. He stated if the Clerk took the retiree expenses there would be
no need to be present discussing this today.
employer contribution, the Board does not make a profit on this; the total employer contribution
that is collected is what is necessary to fund the program; the amount that is paid for every
benefits-eligible employee is just a budgetary funding mechanism; in fact, when a comment is
made that the taxpayers are paying for the opt-outs, they are paying for people who do not take
insurance, actually, the employer contribution would need to be higher for the participating
employees if it was done by a different methodology, it would be the same amount of money
utilized either way, so it would not be fair to say the County is paying for the opt-outs who do not
take insurance; Mr. Needelman would be paying that same amount of money, it would just be
a higher rate for the active employees; two, relative to any decreases, many of the participating
agencies over time have had several reductions in workforce with the Board being one of them;
it has 4,400-plus participating employees in the program; a 500-count difference over three
years is 10 percent; he is not talking about that; he is talking about a smaller group that had a
30-50 percent reduction in one year, which is what causes the adverse impact; and 200 of
those 700 employees, he believes, were the Port that left, took all their expenses with them, and
including the retiree expenses. He stated if the Clerk took the retiree expenses there would be
no need to be present discussing this today.
Commissioner Nelson advised there is a lot of confusion in the community about what is the
County Commissions part is and how does it fit into this picture; he thinks when the numbers
are seen, it will show there will be a savings of $800,000, or whatever that number is, by
outsourcing, is that somehow that is going to save the Board $800,000; and that is not the
reality; he thinks the State has done a terrible job in dealing with the Clerk's budgets, which is
not Mr. Needelman's fault; they have been extremely remiss inadequately funding what they
expect him to do; he thinks the bulk of the blame lays at their feet, because they should be
stepping up and addressing this; and they have not, and they have forced Clerks throughout the
State to deal with this in different fashion. He stated it is unfortunate; the County piece is a
much smaller piece of that, and more closely to being how to break even; and he was interested
in what Chairman Fisher was saying in terms of let the Board deal with that piece of it if that
helps the situation in terms of letting the Board fund and address it; and he thinks it would be
something he would be interested in.
County Commissions part is and how does it fit into this picture; he thinks when the numbers
are seen, it will show there will be a savings of $800,000, or whatever that number is, by
outsourcing, is that somehow that is going to save the Board $800,000; and that is not the
reality; he thinks the State has done a terrible job in dealing with the Clerk's budgets, which is
not Mr. Needelman's fault; they have been extremely remiss inadequately funding what they
expect him to do; he thinks the bulk of the blame lays at their feet, because they should be
stepping up and addressing this; and they have not, and they have forced Clerks throughout the
State to deal with this in different fashion. He stated it is unfortunate; the County piece is a
much smaller piece of that, and more closely to being how to break even; and he was interested
in what Chairman Fisher was saying in terms of let the Board deal with that piece of it if that
helps the situation in terms of letting the Board fund and address it; and he thinks it would be
something he would be interested in.
Mr. Needelman expressed his appreciation to the Board for the consideration to do so. He
advised the numbers 780 versus 123 being discussed; over a period of time, roughly counts to
about 250 a year, to a year and one-half; he was questioning the definition in the agreement of
what is an adverse affect, at what level is that considered an adverse affect, when he is talking
about 123 during a period of time; and that was just a point to be made to the Commission at
the time.
advised the numbers 780 versus 123 being discussed; over a period of time, roughly counts to
about 250 a year, to a year and one-half; he was questioning the definition in the agreement of
what is an adverse affect, at what level is that considered an adverse affect, when he is talking
about 123 during a period of time; and that was just a point to be made to the Commission at
the time.
Commissioner Nelson advised it is a timing issue; the Board's discussions always occur in
terms of preparation of the budget, so it is in advance of the problem, and it deals with it until a
final number is reached; and here it is in mid-stream, and has an adverse affect.
terms of preparation of the budget, so it is in advance of the problem, and it deals with it until a
final number is reached; and here it is in mid-stream, and has an adverse affect.
Mr. Needelman stated he understands that, but as defined in the agreement it is very broad and
it has a tendency to be able to be chosen whichever way; he is not faulting County staff, it is just
that the definition is not there; and the issue about the constant changes, not only does he meet
on a bi-monthly period in which to go over the budget, but this is an ongoing process that has to
be gone through, that is why he cannot give the Board an exact amount today of what that
amount is, to be returned, it is an ongoing process. He advised if the numbers are looked at
that were provided, the numbers for a yearly cost to the Clerk, to request Option 3 to pay back
$261,901, which the contribution is for those people that do not take insurance that have been
pulled out, that contribution totals $266,000 and some change; $5,000 is not a lot of money, but
there is a difference in the numbers there, that is why he is requesting, like Commissioner
Anderson has been requesting, to sit down and do these audits so a starting point is known; and
he reiterated to look at this process and make a decision how to go forward to deal with this.
He stated he is not interjecting getting involved with the Board's policy; that is a policy that it has
been made to determine that instead of increasing the premium for the County or the
participants, by everybody paying for it, or increase the cost by not making them pay for it, that
is a policy decision, and he is not going to engage with the Board's policy; and all he is doing is
engaging with that there was a savings involved with that, and it would have been wrong for him
not to take some type of action in which to have a savings. He advised he understands the
consequences; it was not $1.4 million, it was not $900,000 for this year; it is $196,000 and some
it has a tendency to be able to be chosen whichever way; he is not faulting County staff, it is just
that the definition is not there; and the issue about the constant changes, not only does he meet
on a bi-monthly period in which to go over the budget, but this is an ongoing process that has to
be gone through, that is why he cannot give the Board an exact amount today of what that
amount is, to be returned, it is an ongoing process. He advised if the numbers are looked at
that were provided, the numbers for a yearly cost to the Clerk, to request Option 3 to pay back
$261,901, which the contribution is for those people that do not take insurance that have been
pulled out, that contribution totals $266,000 and some change; $5,000 is not a lot of money, but
there is a difference in the numbers there, that is why he is requesting, like Commissioner
Anderson has been requesting, to sit down and do these audits so a starting point is known; and
he reiterated to look at this process and make a decision how to go forward to deal with this.
He stated he is not interjecting getting involved with the Board's policy; that is a policy that it has
been made to determine that instead of increasing the premium for the County or the
participants, by everybody paying for it, or increase the cost by not making them pay for it, that
is a policy decision, and he is not going to engage with the Board's policy; and all he is doing is
engaging with that there was a savings involved with that, and it would have been wrong for him
not to take some type of action in which to have a savings. He advised he understands the
consequences; it was not $1.4 million, it was not $900,000 for this year; it is $196,000 and some
change; and he is getting closer to some kind of number to agree with before even starting an
audit.
audit.
Chairman Fisher stated one of the things that he thinks is important for the public to understand
is that the reason he is asking for those services to be brought back in-house, is that by Charter
the Board has to allow the Clerk to provide those services to the Board; the Board cannot
demand for the Clerk to bring it back in-house, it is a request; it has to be release back to do
that; he does not know if the public understands that, but the Board would have to go back and
do a Charter change; and the Board is respectively asking Mr. Needelman to consider
that.
is that the reason he is asking for those services to be brought back in-house, is that by Charter
the Board has to allow the Clerk to provide those services to the Board; the Board cannot
demand for the Clerk to bring it back in-house, it is a request; it has to be release back to do
that; he does not know if the public understands that, but the Board would have to go back and
do a Charter change; and the Board is respectively asking Mr. Needelman to consider
that.
Mr. Needelman stated there is nothing wrong with sitting down and looking at what options can
be done in which to save money for the taxpayers; he has absolutely no problem with that
whatsoever, as long as he meets his constitutional and statutory requirements; and he thinks
it should be done in open dialogue, to see what services can be rendered in such a way to pass
on savings.
be done in which to save money for the taxpayers; he has absolutely no problem with that
whatsoever, as long as he meets his constitutional and statutory requirements; and he thinks
it should be done in open dialogue, to see what services can be rendered in such a way to pass
on savings.
Commission Infantini inquired what the specific details are of the $2 million deficit that was
alleged that generated the need to move so many employees to Source 2, because she
understood there was a $300,000 surplus when he took over, a $600,000 lawsuit settlement,
and he had to have saved at least $200,000 with the termination of certain key employees; and
she just does not see the $2 million deficit that he referenced that generated the whole need to
transfer the employees to Source 2. Mr. Needelman responded, in a responsible manner in
which to protect the general liability insurance costs, and his costs, he cannot answer those
questions; however, with that put aside, he has offered for an audit to be done that was
requested by Commissioner Anderson; that audit is available along with the other two audits,
any time wished; it has been agreed all it is, is a matter of getting County staff and his staff
together to work out the details; and he is present today for the Board, to say that he has no
problem with that audit, which will produce the answers the Board is looking for.
alleged that generated the need to move so many employees to Source 2, because she
understood there was a $300,000 surplus when he took over, a $600,000 lawsuit settlement,
and he had to have saved at least $200,000 with the termination of certain key employees; and
she just does not see the $2 million deficit that he referenced that generated the whole need to
transfer the employees to Source 2. Mr. Needelman responded, in a responsible manner in
which to protect the general liability insurance costs, and his costs, he cannot answer those
questions; however, with that put aside, he has offered for an audit to be done that was
requested by Commissioner Anderson; that audit is available along with the other two audits,
any time wished; it has been agreed all it is, is a matter of getting County staff and his staff
together to work out the details; and he is present today for the Board, to say that he has no
problem with that audit, which will produce the answers the Board is looking for.
Commissioner Bolin stated the Board will be listening to speakers talk, but she does want to
preempt that, because the decision that has to be made by this Commission on Option 1, 2, or
3; she is concerned for the welfare of the remaining employees, as it is her understanding that
Mr. Needelman is going to go out and see what he is able to achieve as far as rates for
premiums on insurance; and if Option 1, is chosen, that forces him to make the change, and she
does not know if that is going to make the premium a lot higher for his remaining employees, or
lower, because the Board does not have the information of where he stands, as far as the
quotes he has been getting back; whereas, Option 3 gives him a little bit more leeway on that;
and she inquired if he can give some feedback as far as where he has been able to
communicate with other insurance companies for premium costs. Mr. Needelman responded
his option would be Option 4, in which to spend some time and effort to workshop this thing
through, especially since the budgetary process is being gone through; there is still time in
reference to make whatever necessary corrections for this fiscal year and also next fiscal
year; however, to be prudent, he has had no choice but to begin looking at other options out
there, and as of yet, stated he does not have those reports, but he is looking to see what is out
there; there has been contact with the Port Authority and their broker, Browning and Browning;
he believes he is meeting with one of the local insurance providers sometime this week. He
advised this is not to say that he is moving forward, he is just preparing in case there is a move
by this Board in which to move the employees out; however, he emphasized that it is early
enough in the budget process that there can be work done at a coming workshop in which to
resolve all of this; and in an all case scenarios, the bottom line could be that it goes back to
square one and he will be back looking for somebody; but he think it is worth the time and effort
to really put the cards on the table and resolve this issue once and for all.
preempt that, because the decision that has to be made by this Commission on Option 1, 2, or
3; she is concerned for the welfare of the remaining employees, as it is her understanding that
Mr. Needelman is going to go out and see what he is able to achieve as far as rates for
premiums on insurance; and if Option 1, is chosen, that forces him to make the change, and she
does not know if that is going to make the premium a lot higher for his remaining employees, or
lower, because the Board does not have the information of where he stands, as far as the
quotes he has been getting back; whereas, Option 3 gives him a little bit more leeway on that;
and she inquired if he can give some feedback as far as where he has been able to
communicate with other insurance companies for premium costs. Mr. Needelman responded
his option would be Option 4, in which to spend some time and effort to workshop this thing
through, especially since the budgetary process is being gone through; there is still time in
reference to make whatever necessary corrections for this fiscal year and also next fiscal
year; however, to be prudent, he has had no choice but to begin looking at other options out
there, and as of yet, stated he does not have those reports, but he is looking to see what is out
there; there has been contact with the Port Authority and their broker, Browning and Browning;
he believes he is meeting with one of the local insurance providers sometime this week. He
advised this is not to say that he is moving forward, he is just preparing in case there is a move
by this Board in which to move the employees out; however, he emphasized that it is early
enough in the budget process that there can be work done at a coming workshop in which to
resolve all of this; and in an all case scenarios, the bottom line could be that it goes back to
square one and he will be back looking for somebody; but he think it is worth the time and effort
to really put the cards on the table and resolve this issue once and for all.
Commissioner Anderson inquired if Mr. Needelman saw the memo from Alphonso Jefferson,
Budget Director, yesterday; and states there was a State spreadsheet attached with all of those
funding options. Mr. Needelman responded no, he has not seen the memo. Commissioner
Anderson advised all Commissioners have received it; on the back there is a summary data
chart showing the 17.53 percent decrease for the Brevard County Clerk of Courts; but as he
has gone through it, he did not understand it; there were other charts where it talk about revised
option 5, version 2, developed 3-20-11; and he inquired if those are legislative actions being
considered to get those different numbers, and are those active legislative actions in
Tallahassee at this point.
Budget Director, yesterday; and states there was a State spreadsheet attached with all of those
funding options. Mr. Needelman responded no, he has not seen the memo. Commissioner
Anderson advised all Commissioners have received it; on the back there is a summary data
chart showing the 17.53 percent decrease for the Brevard County Clerk of Courts; but as he
has gone through it, he did not understand it; there were other charts where it talk about revised
option 5, version 2, developed 3-20-11; and he inquired if those are legislative actions being
considered to get those different numbers, and are those active legislative actions in
Tallahassee at this point.
Mr. Jefferson responded Option 1a is primarily what the Clerks are looking at, because there is
no legislative action that has been taken at this particular point; if there is some legislative action
that occurs, it will be looking at option 5, version 2, as well; but right now, statewide, the Clerks
are looking at Option 1 at this particular point because there has not been any legislative issues
that are going on to assist the Clerks or the courts at this particular point. He advised his
conversation with John Dewey, Clerk of Courts Operation Corporation (CCOC), about a bill on
the Senate side to assist the Clerks, but there is no House companion at this particular point in
time; and until that is resolved, the Clerks will continue to have this funding issue for the court
functions that, that memo is dealing with; it is not dealing with the County functions, and it is
dealing with the court functions.
no legislative action that has been taken at this particular point; if there is some legislative action
that occurs, it will be looking at option 5, version 2, as well; but right now, statewide, the Clerks
are looking at Option 1 at this particular point because there has not been any legislative issues
that are going on to assist the Clerks or the courts at this particular point. He advised his
conversation with John Dewey, Clerk of Courts Operation Corporation (CCOC), about a bill on
the Senate side to assist the Clerks, but there is no House companion at this particular point in
time; and until that is resolved, the Clerks will continue to have this funding issue for the court
functions that, that memo is dealing with; it is not dealing with the County functions, and it is
dealing with the court functions.
Commissioner Anderson advised he was trying to get some clarity from the State on what Mr.
Jefferson is talking about; the Clerks shortfall, with all its different options, could be as little as
two percent if there was some legislative action; and he thinks it will probably never get close to
that 18 percent projection, just on base numbers. He inquired if Mr. Needelman is familiar with
the Senate bill that is going through, right now. Mr. Needelman responded yes, he is a new
member of the CCOC. Commissioner Anderson inquired if it will give him substantial relief, or
very little relief. Mr. Needelman responded the problem that he has with the Senate bill right
now not working out this fiscal year, in which to borrow the money with no clause in which what
the pay back is; the other thing the Senate bill includes, just recently through the amendment
process, is there is a 10 percent fund that is collected in fines, everything is sent to Tallahassee,
and he gets to keep 10 percent; and now there is an amendment to that bill that actually does
away with that 10 percent. He advised this is what he is dealing with; he is in his fourth quarter;
he has issues with trying to make that 18 plus percent cut this fourth quarter; all of that
paperwork is in that box for the Board; an audit will answer questions, as of today, he is at
Option 1. He stated the ideal thing would be to go with option 5, and as the newest member on
the CCOC, since they are acting as an agency, it has been his proposal that it act as an agency
and come up with a definition of what a work unit is, and define it in such a way that it can have
enough funds in which to operate the office, as of right now, that definition is coming from the
Senate staff of it being just new open cases; and to base the Clerk's income strictly on new
open cases does not take in the other functions of the Clerk’s Office; and he is pushing the
CCOC to come up with a ruling, or rule, just in case the Senate bill does not make it through.
He advised Mr. Jefferson has made it clear, there is no House companion; without a
companion, the only thing to hope for is some type of Committee bill to come up in the last
minute, which is getting closer to the clock, or when it comes time to go to conference, that
becomes a conference issue; and his strings are getting very frayed right now of being able to
hold onto that bill.
Jefferson is talking about; the Clerks shortfall, with all its different options, could be as little as
two percent if there was some legislative action; and he thinks it will probably never get close to
that 18 percent projection, just on base numbers. He inquired if Mr. Needelman is familiar with
the Senate bill that is going through, right now. Mr. Needelman responded yes, he is a new
member of the CCOC. Commissioner Anderson inquired if it will give him substantial relief, or
very little relief. Mr. Needelman responded the problem that he has with the Senate bill right
now not working out this fiscal year, in which to borrow the money with no clause in which what
the pay back is; the other thing the Senate bill includes, just recently through the amendment
process, is there is a 10 percent fund that is collected in fines, everything is sent to Tallahassee,
and he gets to keep 10 percent; and now there is an amendment to that bill that actually does
away with that 10 percent. He advised this is what he is dealing with; he is in his fourth quarter;
he has issues with trying to make that 18 plus percent cut this fourth quarter; all of that
paperwork is in that box for the Board; an audit will answer questions, as of today, he is at
Option 1. He stated the ideal thing would be to go with option 5, and as the newest member on
the CCOC, since they are acting as an agency, it has been his proposal that it act as an agency
and come up with a definition of what a work unit is, and define it in such a way that it can have
enough funds in which to operate the office, as of right now, that definition is coming from the
Senate staff of it being just new open cases; and to base the Clerk's income strictly on new
open cases does not take in the other functions of the Clerk’s Office; and he is pushing the
CCOC to come up with a ruling, or rule, just in case the Senate bill does not make it through.
He advised Mr. Jefferson has made it clear, there is no House companion; without a
companion, the only thing to hope for is some type of Committee bill to come up in the last
minute, which is getting closer to the clock, or when it comes time to go to conference, that
becomes a conference issue; and his strings are getting very frayed right now of being able to
hold onto that bill.
Commissioner Anderson stated the Board does not control the State; it does gives him some
idea of what is being looked at when the impacts to the County are being talked about while
dealing with the insurance side of it; and the whole picture needs to be looked at.
idea of what is being looked at when the impacts to the County are being talked about while
dealing with the insurance side of it; and the whole picture needs to be looked at.
Mr. Needelman stated he understands and that is what he tried to do when looking at the whole
picture of understanding the separation.
picture of understanding the separation.
Commissioner Nelson stated he thinks everyone has fiscal concerns, he does not want
everybody to forget the service concerns; that was one of his issues, as well as the
concern for the impact to employees; and he thinks after the public comment is heard, he would
like to talk about that, as well.
everybody to forget the service concerns; that was one of his issues, as well as the
concern for the impact to employees; and he thinks after the public comment is heard, he would
like to talk about that, as well.
Chairman Fisher advised before going to public comments, he would like Scott, Knox, County
Attorney, to actually state what exactly the Board's position is; and what kind of authority this
Board has with the Clerk's Office.
Attorney, to actually state what exactly the Board's position is; and what kind of authority this
Board has with the Clerk's Office.
Attorney Knox stated the Clerk functions as Clerk to the Board, and as the Financial Officer for
the Board, so the only function this Board has relative to the Clerk's Office is over the budget
that the Clerk gets to perform the duties he is required to under the Constitution, so, every year
when going through the budget process, the Clerk presents a budget to this Board for that
portion of the work that he does for the Board, and the Board approves, disapproves, modifies,
whatever it is going to do, to the budget; and the way the Clerk operates his business, and what
he does in his office, is entirely up to him once the Board gives him the money.
the Board, so the only function this Board has relative to the Clerk's Office is over the budget
that the Clerk gets to perform the duties he is required to under the Constitution, so, every year
when going through the budget process, the Clerk presents a budget to this Board for that
portion of the work that he does for the Board, and the Board approves, disapproves, modifies,
whatever it is going to do, to the budget; and the way the Clerk operates his business, and what
he does in his office, is entirely up to him once the Board gives him the money.
Tyler Winik stated he has three pages of remarks to make to the Board; some may know, some
may not know, that he was a Clerk employee until the second day of Mr. Needelman’s
administration, at which time he resigned, so that is where the basis of his comments come from
today; and he wanted to read something aloud, what he thinks the Board should hear. He
stated it is important because it gives severe weight to what is going to be considered today,
and/or in future actions. He read aloud, "What is the Florida Retired Workers Association", In
short you are! We are! Like you, I have seen through the years our concerns dealing with our
retirement falling on deaf ears and completely ignored. They, the policy makers, have forgotten
that those of us who have been there for the State of Florida with our years of service and
dedication and made Florida what this great State is today. Slowly but surely they have
forgotten that the only marketing tool that kept state employment bearable were benefits
promised, as salaries of those outside government employment swelled with the growth of
Florida over the decades. They have forgotten the rewards of service outside the State, County,
and city employment including monetary bonuses and perks that were never available to those
of us who worked in government, even during the prosperous years. They have forgotten that in
harsh times, like the late seventies when inflation ran ramped, it was state employees who gave
up retirement benefits to help Florida stay afloat. And up until 2001, they had forgotten their
promises to restore those benefits. It took legislative action to remind them of that promise
made 30 years earlier. So short are the memories of the eighties when workloads were
increased two, three, four times normal levels because of hiring freezes due to dimensioning
revenues in state coffers and we still kept Florida moving forward. And all for what?" And stated
he would like to put emphasis particularly on this paragraph, "The promise of job security for
dedicated employees, a decent affordable health insurance plan for our families and a
retirement plan that would relieve our concerns of having to burden our children in our golden
years. In other words, promises made for a secured future in return for years of service and
dedication. Well, it is time that promises made are promises kept. While certain Legislators
continuously throw to the media examples of over paid, double dipping, three figure retirement
government employees, once again they have forgotten that those are the exceptions and not
the rule. It is time to tell the rest of the story." He advised what he read aloud was taken from a
website Mr. Needelman moderates, it has his email, contact information, and he leads this
group; promises made are promises kept; he himself has worked for the Clerk; 143 people left,
and now he is telling the Board 120-some did, and that is because some people resigned,
because some people refused to be a part of the game; now, Mr. Needelman wants to know
how he is going to come up with $196,000; the base pay for two of his Chief Deputies he just
brought on are being paid $90,000 each, with their insurance benefits, it is almost over
$200,000; and he just found the $190,000 this year. He stated beyond that, the audit Mr.
Needelman refers to about outsourcing is actually done by the same company that he uses to
outsource his staff, so whether or not this Board would like to take that into consideration is
something that it might, as well; he finds it funny that the Clerk sits here today, and the reason
why he should not be taken out of the insurance pool was because he has to pay $10,000 per
person, over the pool plan, and he understands that; the reason everyone is here today is
because Mr. Needelman, made a decision without contacting this Board, based on legal advice
he was given to not contact this Board; and now, the Board is asking can it take over their
services, what is the cost it has saved the Board, well, Mr. Needelman fired his Chief Financial
Officer (CFO), and he has given it to somebody else in his office. He stated he has fired other
people that were County-funded; he inquired where did the money go for the rest of this year;
the answer is, no one knows, because Mr. Needelman is telling everyone today he cannot
provide the answer; he thinks if there was enough information to fire those people because he
did not have enough money, he should certainly be able to account for where the money went
as soon as those individuals were let go; and if a financial audit is going to be done, it should all
be out there. He stated there is information, as of last night, that there are individuals
connected to his campaign that are making a dollar off this; he cannot say for a fact that, that is
true, but he has been in the public, this is not something new, the Board has seen him write
about this, and Mr. Needelman has seen him write about this; Mr. Needelman has received
public records requests, given that they have been delayed, other members of the media and
other members of the public have attempted to get public records requests, and sometimes it
takes two or three days, or two or three weeks, to get them, but he is sure the Board can
understand his frustration. He stated the frustration is when he has requested a contract and
was told it does not exist, and magically, it shows up three weeks later, signed, after he asked
for the contract that was allegedly already executed; there are addendum's that are still being
executed on the Source 2 contract that this Board probably does not have; if it does, then he will
express is congratulations to the Board for having it, because it has taken him forever to get the
contract; and now Mr. Needelman has a legal suit against him, which is understood why, he
cannot talk about a lot of this, but he would like to tell the Board right now, if it wants $196,000,
Mark Gager and Sean Campbell, Chief Deputies, are two individuals who were brought into this
process and right there is $196,000. He mentioned government employees that are
double-dippers; Mr. Needelman has one State retirement; he also got a retirement when he
worked for the Florida House; he also now collects retirement as Clerk, contrary to what he told
his employees, they are mandated to pay into his Florida Retirement System (FRS) at a rate for
elected officials, but he told his employees it was not true; another thing he discussed in his
meeting with his employees, is he told everybody he only needed to get rid of 70 people this
year in order to balance his budget; and he inquired why 140 people were picked and Mr.
Campbell, told him it was because they were being proactive. He understands that, according
to media outlets, Mr. Gager is a psychic, but he does not understand how someone can be that
proactive and cut double the need; Mr. Needelman stood up here and told the Board that 140
people needed to go, he is not facing any different budget numbers than Mr. Ellis did; and he
personally sat at the table with Mr. Ellis and helped him make some legislative decisions and
advised with him; Mr. Ellis never had to get rid of 140 people; and he thinks getting rid of 140
people at this point in time is ridiculous, it is the biggest mismanagement of budgetary
information that he has ever seen, and it is budgetary information that he cannot provide to this
Board at the moment, because it doesn't exist.
may not know, that he was a Clerk employee until the second day of Mr. Needelman’s
administration, at which time he resigned, so that is where the basis of his comments come from
today; and he wanted to read something aloud, what he thinks the Board should hear. He
stated it is important because it gives severe weight to what is going to be considered today,
and/or in future actions. He read aloud, "What is the Florida Retired Workers Association", In
short you are! We are! Like you, I have seen through the years our concerns dealing with our
retirement falling on deaf ears and completely ignored. They, the policy makers, have forgotten
that those of us who have been there for the State of Florida with our years of service and
dedication and made Florida what this great State is today. Slowly but surely they have
forgotten that the only marketing tool that kept state employment bearable were benefits
promised, as salaries of those outside government employment swelled with the growth of
Florida over the decades. They have forgotten the rewards of service outside the State, County,
and city employment including monetary bonuses and perks that were never available to those
of us who worked in government, even during the prosperous years. They have forgotten that in
harsh times, like the late seventies when inflation ran ramped, it was state employees who gave
up retirement benefits to help Florida stay afloat. And up until 2001, they had forgotten their
promises to restore those benefits. It took legislative action to remind them of that promise
made 30 years earlier. So short are the memories of the eighties when workloads were
increased two, three, four times normal levels because of hiring freezes due to dimensioning
revenues in state coffers and we still kept Florida moving forward. And all for what?" And stated
he would like to put emphasis particularly on this paragraph, "The promise of job security for
dedicated employees, a decent affordable health insurance plan for our families and a
retirement plan that would relieve our concerns of having to burden our children in our golden
years. In other words, promises made for a secured future in return for years of service and
dedication. Well, it is time that promises made are promises kept. While certain Legislators
continuously throw to the media examples of over paid, double dipping, three figure retirement
government employees, once again they have forgotten that those are the exceptions and not
the rule. It is time to tell the rest of the story." He advised what he read aloud was taken from a
website Mr. Needelman moderates, it has his email, contact information, and he leads this
group; promises made are promises kept; he himself has worked for the Clerk; 143 people left,
and now he is telling the Board 120-some did, and that is because some people resigned,
because some people refused to be a part of the game; now, Mr. Needelman wants to know
how he is going to come up with $196,000; the base pay for two of his Chief Deputies he just
brought on are being paid $90,000 each, with their insurance benefits, it is almost over
$200,000; and he just found the $190,000 this year. He stated beyond that, the audit Mr.
Needelman refers to about outsourcing is actually done by the same company that he uses to
outsource his staff, so whether or not this Board would like to take that into consideration is
something that it might, as well; he finds it funny that the Clerk sits here today, and the reason
why he should not be taken out of the insurance pool was because he has to pay $10,000 per
person, over the pool plan, and he understands that; the reason everyone is here today is
because Mr. Needelman, made a decision without contacting this Board, based on legal advice
he was given to not contact this Board; and now, the Board is asking can it take over their
services, what is the cost it has saved the Board, well, Mr. Needelman fired his Chief Financial
Officer (CFO), and he has given it to somebody else in his office. He stated he has fired other
people that were County-funded; he inquired where did the money go for the rest of this year;
the answer is, no one knows, because Mr. Needelman is telling everyone today he cannot
provide the answer; he thinks if there was enough information to fire those people because he
did not have enough money, he should certainly be able to account for where the money went
as soon as those individuals were let go; and if a financial audit is going to be done, it should all
be out there. He stated there is information, as of last night, that there are individuals
connected to his campaign that are making a dollar off this; he cannot say for a fact that, that is
true, but he has been in the public, this is not something new, the Board has seen him write
about this, and Mr. Needelman has seen him write about this; Mr. Needelman has received
public records requests, given that they have been delayed, other members of the media and
other members of the public have attempted to get public records requests, and sometimes it
takes two or three days, or two or three weeks, to get them, but he is sure the Board can
understand his frustration. He stated the frustration is when he has requested a contract and
was told it does not exist, and magically, it shows up three weeks later, signed, after he asked
for the contract that was allegedly already executed; there are addendum's that are still being
executed on the Source 2 contract that this Board probably does not have; if it does, then he will
express is congratulations to the Board for having it, because it has taken him forever to get the
contract; and now Mr. Needelman has a legal suit against him, which is understood why, he
cannot talk about a lot of this, but he would like to tell the Board right now, if it wants $196,000,
Mark Gager and Sean Campbell, Chief Deputies, are two individuals who were brought into this
process and right there is $196,000. He mentioned government employees that are
double-dippers; Mr. Needelman has one State retirement; he also got a retirement when he
worked for the Florida House; he also now collects retirement as Clerk, contrary to what he told
his employees, they are mandated to pay into his Florida Retirement System (FRS) at a rate for
elected officials, but he told his employees it was not true; another thing he discussed in his
meeting with his employees, is he told everybody he only needed to get rid of 70 people this
year in order to balance his budget; and he inquired why 140 people were picked and Mr.
Campbell, told him it was because they were being proactive. He understands that, according
to media outlets, Mr. Gager is a psychic, but he does not understand how someone can be that
proactive and cut double the need; Mr. Needelman stood up here and told the Board that 140
people needed to go, he is not facing any different budget numbers than Mr. Ellis did; and he
personally sat at the table with Mr. Ellis and helped him make some legislative decisions and
advised with him; Mr. Ellis never had to get rid of 140 people; and he thinks getting rid of 140
people at this point in time is ridiculous, it is the biggest mismanagement of budgetary
information that he has ever seen, and it is budgetary information that he cannot provide to this
Board at the moment, because it doesn't exist.
Morton Rothstein stated rights, justice, and a box are being talked about; the box does not talk,
eat, or have children; it is figures; and he heard while sitting here today, it is the other person's
fault. He stated he would like to go back to 1776; maybe it is their fault, maybe it should have
been a kingdom, maybe he should have been Solomon, but he could have been Malichai, which
is his biblical name of a prophet, but he is not. He stated he would like to read something to
the Board; there are pieces of things in here from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; he
heard someone mention the Constitution; the Constitution; Washington says the Constitution;
and nobody can come up with an answer who knows the Constitution. He advised the
Declaration of Independence, has the word 'rights'; he read aloud "These among the life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness"; and he does not see a happy place here, a happy country today,
and he is ready to be water boarded over Niagra Falls. He read aloud from the Constitution,
"In order to form a perfect union"; he stated this is a union, not a physical labor union, not
paying dues, a union of County employees; this is every person in this rooms County; they do
not living in Seminole or Orlando; he inquired what is justice and are these brothers and sisters
not entitled to this. He stated he moved here in 1997; his first visit was the Clerk's Office and
there was an elderly lady by the name of Mary, who helped him and his wife; he has been all
over these chambers, a lot of people know him, and he has spoken before; this chamber, where
he can speak freely now, the Board can hear him, the public can hear me, and this is wrong to
take 123 people from this County and outsource them to the other side to Orlando, because
where is the guarantee they will not outsource them; and he expressed that Mr. Needelman
should be ashamed of himself. He stated he thinks the Board should have an investigation; he
would like to give the Board some number facts from 1989 compared to 2011; the population in
the country was approximately 250 million in1989 and 350 million in 2011; a three bedroom
house in 1989 was $87,000 and now costs $150,000 in 2011; a new Ford in 1989 was $11,000
and in 2011 a new Ford costs $35,000; he remembers as a kid a gallon of gas was a quarter,
but in 1989 it was $1.15 and now in 2011 it costs $3.66; a loaf of bread in 1989 was .78 cents
and now in 2011 a loaf of bread costs $2.10; and in 1989 milk was $2.17 a gallon and in 2011 it
is $3.65. He stated inquired if Mr. Needelman can tell him if he could live with one child on
$23,608 per year and wonders why this is not a problem for all the people in Brevard County, as
the tax payers; he is looking at the Board and he is hearing the Constitutional law and the
bending the law all day long, and Mr. Needelman is bending the law; and he is calling for an
investigation, not by the Board, but by these gentlemen with cameras, because they are the
press. He inquired if it is fair, or is it bias towards women; how many women are being laid off
against men; and stated these people have worked there for 15 years, is their pension like
cigarette smoke, gone, or are they going to get their pensions, is their hospitalization plan going
to continue, or forget about it when outsources gets it in Orlando, who owns outsource; he does
not know; and he wonders what more can he say to his friends. He stated there is one other
proverb he is going to give to the Board and all who go to church, he goes to a synagogue
sometimes, and he understands because he has a multi-colored family from all nations in his
family; he would like his friends behind him to stand up, be proud, and fight for their rights, as
they have certainly earned their strips; and he thinks Mr. Needelman is only a part-timer and
people will not forget his question, being is it biased upon women and mothers. He stated he
made a request to Howard Tipton, County Manager, by writing something a long time ago; and
it is to all the parents and mothers. He inquired if Helen Voltz was present and asked her to
come to the podium with him; there was a tragedy in the country a while back; in a parking lot
something happened to a little girl on a Saturday morning; he cried all night, he went to sleep,
he had a hard time waking up at 4:00 a.m. and walking in the laundry room of his trailer
modular; he is going to ask all the mothers and women, who can answer, who she was, if they
remember her, if they care, what was her name; and she had a smile, warm hands, and big
eyes that can make a person care. He inquired who is she, she is every ones, America's girl
with a date of birth 9/11; how many were lost that day, is it remembered, does anyone care; he
cares because she is America's girl; every one cares for that little girl for what is right in
America; and he will remember and never forget that day, Christina Taylor Greene.
eat, or have children; it is figures; and he heard while sitting here today, it is the other person's
fault. He stated he would like to go back to 1776; maybe it is their fault, maybe it should have
been a kingdom, maybe he should have been Solomon, but he could have been Malichai, which
is his biblical name of a prophet, but he is not. He stated he would like to read something to
the Board; there are pieces of things in here from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; he
heard someone mention the Constitution; the Constitution; Washington says the Constitution;
and nobody can come up with an answer who knows the Constitution. He advised the
Declaration of Independence, has the word 'rights'; he read aloud "These among the life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness"; and he does not see a happy place here, a happy country today,
and he is ready to be water boarded over Niagra Falls. He read aloud from the Constitution,
"In order to form a perfect union"; he stated this is a union, not a physical labor union, not
paying dues, a union of County employees; this is every person in this rooms County; they do
not living in Seminole or Orlando; he inquired what is justice and are these brothers and sisters
not entitled to this. He stated he moved here in 1997; his first visit was the Clerk's Office and
there was an elderly lady by the name of Mary, who helped him and his wife; he has been all
over these chambers, a lot of people know him, and he has spoken before; this chamber, where
he can speak freely now, the Board can hear him, the public can hear me, and this is wrong to
take 123 people from this County and outsource them to the other side to Orlando, because
where is the guarantee they will not outsource them; and he expressed that Mr. Needelman
should be ashamed of himself. He stated he thinks the Board should have an investigation; he
would like to give the Board some number facts from 1989 compared to 2011; the population in
the country was approximately 250 million in1989 and 350 million in 2011; a three bedroom
house in 1989 was $87,000 and now costs $150,000 in 2011; a new Ford in 1989 was $11,000
and in 2011 a new Ford costs $35,000; he remembers as a kid a gallon of gas was a quarter,
but in 1989 it was $1.15 and now in 2011 it costs $3.66; a loaf of bread in 1989 was .78 cents
and now in 2011 a loaf of bread costs $2.10; and in 1989 milk was $2.17 a gallon and in 2011 it
is $3.65. He stated inquired if Mr. Needelman can tell him if he could live with one child on
$23,608 per year and wonders why this is not a problem for all the people in Brevard County, as
the tax payers; he is looking at the Board and he is hearing the Constitutional law and the
bending the law all day long, and Mr. Needelman is bending the law; and he is calling for an
investigation, not by the Board, but by these gentlemen with cameras, because they are the
press. He inquired if it is fair, or is it bias towards women; how many women are being laid off
against men; and stated these people have worked there for 15 years, is their pension like
cigarette smoke, gone, or are they going to get their pensions, is their hospitalization plan going
to continue, or forget about it when outsources gets it in Orlando, who owns outsource; he does
not know; and he wonders what more can he say to his friends. He stated there is one other
proverb he is going to give to the Board and all who go to church, he goes to a synagogue
sometimes, and he understands because he has a multi-colored family from all nations in his
family; he would like his friends behind him to stand up, be proud, and fight for their rights, as
they have certainly earned their strips; and he thinks Mr. Needelman is only a part-timer and
people will not forget his question, being is it biased upon women and mothers. He stated he
made a request to Howard Tipton, County Manager, by writing something a long time ago; and
it is to all the parents and mothers. He inquired if Helen Voltz was present and asked her to
come to the podium with him; there was a tragedy in the country a while back; in a parking lot
something happened to a little girl on a Saturday morning; he cried all night, he went to sleep,
he had a hard time waking up at 4:00 a.m. and walking in the laundry room of his trailer
modular; he is going to ask all the mothers and women, who can answer, who she was, if they
remember her, if they care, what was her name; and she had a smile, warm hands, and big
eyes that can make a person care. He inquired who is she, she is every ones, America's girl
with a date of birth 9/11; how many were lost that day, is it remembered, does anyone care; he
cares because she is America's girl; every one cares for that little girl for what is right in
America; and he will remember and never forget that day, Christina Taylor Greene.
Scott Ellis stated he has listened to the comments, he has read the Agenda Item, and he is
present today to warn the Board to be very careful with what it is doing with laws of unintended
consequences, and not make any irrational reactions to an irrational action. He advised he
heard Chairman Fisher's comment about the Board taking over County Finance and Clerk to the
Board; it is a separated function, a check and balance under the State Constitution, and a
Charter amendment would have to be done to do so; and he is surprised that a Clerk would
actually agree to that, because quite truthfully, it is critical that those functions be separate from
the Board.
present today to warn the Board to be very careful with what it is doing with laws of unintended
consequences, and not make any irrational reactions to an irrational action. He advised he
heard Chairman Fisher's comment about the Board taking over County Finance and Clerk to the
Board; it is a separated function, a check and balance under the State Constitution, and a
Charter amendment would have to be done to do so; and he is surprised that a Clerk would
actually agree to that, because quite truthfully, it is critical that those functions be separate from
the Board.
Chairman Fisher stated Mr. Needelman could agree to it, though, correct. Mr. Ellis advised he
would never agree to it. Chairman Fisher felt he knows Mr. Ellis, would not agree to it, but the
Board could take over those functions. Mr. Ellis stated the Board would have to do it by Charter
amendment; it would have to go by referendum; and it cannot just simply take those functions over. Chairman Fisher stated he knows the Board cannot take them over, but if Mr. Needelman wanted to offer it to the Board, he could. Mr. Ellis advised he cannot do so. Chairman Fisher inquired if Mr. Ellis is sure of that. Mr. Ellis responded he is absolutely positive; Attorney Knox would tell the Board the same thing; the Board will have to go to Charter amendment; and he inquired if he is correct.
would never agree to it. Chairman Fisher felt he knows Mr. Ellis, would not agree to it, but the
Board could take over those functions. Mr. Ellis stated the Board would have to do it by Charter
amendment; it would have to go by referendum; and it cannot just simply take those functions over. Chairman Fisher stated he knows the Board cannot take them over, but if Mr. Needelman wanted to offer it to the Board, he could. Mr. Ellis advised he cannot do so. Chairman Fisher inquired if Mr. Ellis is sure of that. Mr. Ellis responded he is absolutely positive; Attorney Knox would tell the Board the same thing; the Board will have to go to Charter amendment; and he inquired if he is correct.
Chairman Fisher inquired if the Board could take over those services, if he turned it over to the Board. Attorney Knox responded it certainly could be done by Charter amendment; and he is not sure if it could be done by interlocal agreement.
Mr. Ellis inquired if the State Constitution could be undone and it be done by interlocal agreement. Attorney Knox responded the Constitution does not tell Mr. Needelman how to run his office; and if he can outsource to a private company, he may be able to do so by interlocal agreement. Mr. Ellis stated those employees are still under his control, which is another legal issue,that they are not allowed to talk about. Attorney Knox stated that is a different issue. Mr. Ellis stated the fact is, the Board cannot; it is no different if the Board took over the Property Appraiser and he let the Board decide the value of properties; it can only affect the Board's side of the money, so that if $200,000 were taken, it can only come out of County Finance and Clerk to the Board; it is half way through the fiscal year and it is equivalent to taking $400,000 from Clerk to the Board and County Finance, that is the only place the Board can take the money; and stated he is not sure if the State money can be given to the Board for this. He stated he is going down the list of things the Board is talking about that do not make sense to him because it is trying to react in an environment that it should not be in, in the first place; the Board cannot take the functions; it can only take the money from itself, if it is done; and there could be another problem if the Board starts splitting off the retirees, because if it is going to do it for the Clerk, it will needs to do it for every other Constitutional Officer; it will have to be separated because it is not going to be able to just separate the Clerk. He stated regarding the $200,000 Mr. Needelman owes the County, he hates to tell the Board, but he agreed with Mr. Needelman, and he thinks he does not owe the County one nickel; he reiterated he has argued this with the Board for years and years; every Commissioner has heard his arguments here that the billing situation is improper; it should only bill for active duty insurance cost to those people that are active duty; it should not be including the retiree subsidy in that billing; it should not be billing for people that do not take the insurance; and if it billed properly, it would not matter how many people who came or went, it would have no impact on the County’s, and it has set itself up for that. He stated he can remember one time at a Board meeting when Commissioner Bolin asked staff why there are billings for people who do not take the insurance; Commissioner Infantini is a CPA, Commissioner Anderson has done finance; when cost accounting is done, it has to try and do proper cost accounting because it is not proper cost accounting to charge those retirees to the active duty people and to bill the people that do not take it; and because the Board did not change it here, it cost 20-some people their jobs because it refused to change it. He stressed the Board really needed to step back and look at this situation and the proper thing to do would be to do the accounting on the insurance to charge based on how many people take that insurance. He stated he can tell the Board when he left office there was $300,000 carry forward, there was $300,000 in the Reserve Fund, $600,000 dropped out of the sky on an old legal settlement; if the Clerk takes the 18 to 20 percent cut in the fourth quarter, which is Senator Alexander's bill, that is about $700,000; had nothing been done since the first of the year, there was plenty of money to cover all those problems; the Board expenses do not fluctuate on a day-to-day basis; that is the most stable part of the entire Clerk's Office, is the Board, which is the most absolutely stable part of the entire office; when the Board money comes in, it pays for a certain number of employees who are fully-funded, and if there is too many or too less, the Clerk can come back to the Board in the following fiscal year; there have been times when more people were wanted in Clerk to the Board; there are times when SAP has come in and have reduced the number of people in Finance; but that is the most stable function in the entire office. He stated he does not know about the audit; he does not want to get into the audit issue, but the Board has every right to demand to know where its money has been spent this year; when he came to the Board last year, at budget time, he told the Board, if it gives the Clerk this much money, he told the Board what it would pay for by position, such as Fund Accounts, Accounts Payable, Supervisors, and Clerk to the Board; the Board has the right to know where its money had been spent year-to-date, and where it is projected to be spent until the end of the fiscal year; and he knows Mr. Jefferson has done something dealing with the State side, which is a morass if the Board gets into that; and he thinks the Board needs to get a strong handle on where its Board money is going to today, what has been spent to date, where it is being spent, and where it is projected to be spent.
Commissioner Nelson stated Mr. Ellis has raised an interesting point, because the starting point
for the Board is the budget that he presented to the Board, which was funded; and he inquired
in his best estimate the Clerk’s Office was balanced at that moment and were set to go forward.
for the Board is the budget that he presented to the Board, which was funded; and he inquired
in his best estimate the Clerk’s Office was balanced at that moment and were set to go forward.
Mr. Ellis responded that is correct, in fact, he got to the point where three months into it there
were projects on the Board side that were going to be short about $60,000; $60,000 out of $2.1
or $2.2 million is adjusted as going along, because everything else fluctuates in the Clerk's
Office: and there would have been no problem having that $60,000 come back to zero and the
Board would have to be even by the end of the year. He advised four people got laid off; that is
a Board savings; people got outsourced that it paid for full freight; it is a savings to the Board; he
does not know if other people are charging; he knows that accounts and accounts payable
clerks, but have not added people to the Clerk to the Board; there may have been other people
who have shown up that it charged for, and that is where the Board needs to know where its
money is going to right now; and he does not agree with the Board that it is owed the money on
the insurance, which will leave the Board better off with proper billing. He stated this is just the
Clerk side; he inquired in future years, as the money continues to go downhill, what if the Sheriff
has to lay off 100 people; is the Board going to split out the Sheriff's retirees; and bill for more
money for those losses and the County has to set its accounting squared away on this
insurance issue. He stated this has been discussed; it is not something new to this Board;
there is not a member of this Board that has not heard his arguments on this, for at least 10
years, and it really needs to be cleaned up; the Board got bit by it, he is sorry, and he is sorry
for the employees that had got bit by it as well, but the Board needs to be very careful about
making an irrational reaction to an irrational action. He advised he cannot emphasize it enough
that; and the Board needs to be very careful about what it is doing, because what it does do
does not just affect the Clerk, it affects the Board and all the other Constitutional Officers.
were projects on the Board side that were going to be short about $60,000; $60,000 out of $2.1
or $2.2 million is adjusted as going along, because everything else fluctuates in the Clerk's
Office: and there would have been no problem having that $60,000 come back to zero and the
Board would have to be even by the end of the year. He advised four people got laid off; that is
a Board savings; people got outsourced that it paid for full freight; it is a savings to the Board; he
does not know if other people are charging; he knows that accounts and accounts payable
clerks, but have not added people to the Clerk to the Board; there may have been other people
who have shown up that it charged for, and that is where the Board needs to know where its
money is going to right now; and he does not agree with the Board that it is owed the money on
the insurance, which will leave the Board better off with proper billing. He stated this is just the
Clerk side; he inquired in future years, as the money continues to go downhill, what if the Sheriff
has to lay off 100 people; is the Board going to split out the Sheriff's retirees; and bill for more
money for those losses and the County has to set its accounting squared away on this
insurance issue. He stated this has been discussed; it is not something new to this Board;
there is not a member of this Board that has not heard his arguments on this, for at least 10
years, and it really needs to be cleaned up; the Board got bit by it, he is sorry, and he is sorry
for the employees that had got bit by it as well, but the Board needs to be very careful about
making an irrational reaction to an irrational action. He advised he cannot emphasize it enough
that; and the Board needs to be very careful about what it is doing, because what it does do
does not just affect the Clerk, it affects the Board and all the other Constitutional Officers.
Chairman Fisher inquired if staff, could explain why the billing is done the way it is. Mr Abbate
responded Mr. Ellis has had the position of Clerk for a lot of years; when he was a County
Commissioner, the County billed the same way it bills today; the County has continued to bill
the same way for a number of years; Mr. Ellis has disagreed with the opt-out; he will tell the
Board for him to say that he does not like it, to say that it is wrong, but it is just a different
methodology than what he would like to see be used; and it is not wrong from staff's
perspective. He went on to say this has been done for 20 years; and Mr. Ellis signed the
Interlocal Agreement in 2008 after he decided that he wanted to look elsewhere, when he knew
the funding methodology was going to continue. He stated every participating agency, every
year, has the decision whether or not to continue in the Board's program under the Board's
approved-funding methodology; the questions today that the Board is talking about really is not
what to decide to do in the future next year, because there is a current funding methodology that
is in place that every agency participating agreed to abide by; and he thinks the question is,
when this adverse change is made during this plan year, what is the ramifications are. He
stated there is a difference of opinion, which has been had over time; the total employer
contribution rate is not impacted, it is how those funds are collected, and it is a budgetary issue,
that he would submit, whether a person is a CPA, a budget guru, or one could say that there are
jurisdictions all over the place that do it in a wide variety of manners; and there is many that do it
the way this Board has done it for 20-plus years.
responded Mr. Ellis has had the position of Clerk for a lot of years; when he was a County
Commissioner, the County billed the same way it bills today; the County has continued to bill
the same way for a number of years; Mr. Ellis has disagreed with the opt-out; he will tell the
Board for him to say that he does not like it, to say that it is wrong, but it is just a different
methodology than what he would like to see be used; and it is not wrong from staff's
perspective. He went on to say this has been done for 20 years; and Mr. Ellis signed the
Interlocal Agreement in 2008 after he decided that he wanted to look elsewhere, when he knew
the funding methodology was going to continue. He stated every participating agency, every
year, has the decision whether or not to continue in the Board's program under the Board's
approved-funding methodology; the questions today that the Board is talking about really is not
what to decide to do in the future next year, because there is a current funding methodology that
is in place that every agency participating agreed to abide by; and he thinks the question is,
when this adverse change is made during this plan year, what is the ramifications are. He
stated there is a difference of opinion, which has been had over time; the total employer
contribution rate is not impacted, it is how those funds are collected, and it is a budgetary issue,
that he would submit, whether a person is a CPA, a budget guru, or one could say that there are
jurisdictions all over the place that do it in a wide variety of manners; and there is many that do it
the way this Board has done it for 20-plus years.
Chairman Fisher stated even though the system is not perfect, it is the best system, and
Constitutional Officers continue to use it.
Constitutional Officers continue to use it.
Mr. Abbate stated it works for this Board in a way that many funds are supported.
Chairman Fisher added, it is obvious the Constitutional Officers continue to sign the Interlocal
Agreements, because they do not go out and get their own service, because they cannot find
service at a lower rate; even though the system is not perfect, it still saves them more money
than if they went out privately; and they have that opportunity every year, which is why Mr. Ellis
signed the agreement in 2008, and that is why the other Constitutional Officers have not left the
plan.
Agreements, because they do not go out and get their own service, because they cannot find
service at a lower rate; even though the system is not perfect, it still saves them more money
than if they went out privately; and they have that opportunity every year, which is why Mr. Ellis
signed the agreement in 2008, and that is why the other Constitutional Officers have not left the
plan.
Commissioner Infantini stated she agreed with Mr. Ellis; she still believes that the mechanism
of allocating the insurance costs is erroneous; she understands the methodology, and it is the
easiest method to allocate, but it does not make it the most accurate and reliable to be billing
cost centers where people are not using a product or a service, and they should not be charged
for it; it is consistently done, and while she knows people do things for a long time just because
it has always been done that way, it does not make it the right way; that is why there is change
and new leadership; she is still a proponent for changing the funding mechanism and the
allocation so that going forward, there is not this type of problem; and she makes a proposal for
a change in billing insurance based on those that are using it rather than charging to those that
are not. She noted it will increase the cost allocated to each individual using it, but that is the
most accurate way, rather than allocating costs to those that are not using it.
of allocating the insurance costs is erroneous; she understands the methodology, and it is the
easiest method to allocate, but it does not make it the most accurate and reliable to be billing
cost centers where people are not using a product or a service, and they should not be charged
for it; it is consistently done, and while she knows people do things for a long time just because
it has always been done that way, it does not make it the right way; that is why there is change
and new leadership; she is still a proponent for changing the funding mechanism and the
allocation so that going forward, there is not this type of problem; and she makes a proposal for
a change in billing insurance based on those that are using it rather than charging to those that
are not. She noted it will increase the cost allocated to each individual using it, but that is the
most accurate way, rather than allocating costs to those that are not using it.
Chairman Fisher inquired if this is a motion to, in this funding cycle, to charge more people more
for their health insurance, instead of using it per policy. Commissioner Infantini responded no,
to do an allocation the way that the funds are allocated; and change the mechanism. Chairman
Fisher stated if the mechanism is changed, there will be less people to charge for, it is still the
same cost, that cost has to be moved to the people that are actively in the plan, which means
that would drive up those peoples' cost on insurance. Commissioner Infantini stated it would
drive up the cost allocation allocated to those people; it does not necessarily drive up those
costs; that would be Board direction to determine who would absorb those costs, whether it is
the Board or the employees; and she would be very cautious that somebody may try to put
words into her mouth, saying that she is trying to drive up insurance employee costs.
for their health insurance, instead of using it per policy. Commissioner Infantini responded no,
to do an allocation the way that the funds are allocated; and change the mechanism. Chairman
Fisher stated if the mechanism is changed, there will be less people to charge for, it is still the
same cost, that cost has to be moved to the people that are actively in the plan, which means
that would drive up those peoples' cost on insurance. Commissioner Infantini stated it would
drive up the cost allocation allocated to those people; it does not necessarily drive up those
costs; that would be Board direction to determine who would absorb those costs, whether it is
the Board or the employees; and she would be very cautious that somebody may try to put
words into her mouth, saying that she is trying to drive up insurance employee costs.
Chairman Fisher asked staff to tell what would that do, if it was done to the people in the plan.
Mr. Abbate responded that would depend on what is trying to be accomplished because there
are employees with children dependents and families; those are all very significantly different
costs; composite ratings are when the average rate is taken nationally and it is spread across
the group across-the-board; and there is a variety of different methodologies that are utilized, in
fact, if the Board, in the future went to a different funding methodology, he thinks the biggest
consideration that the Board would want to be sensitive to would be, how does it budget for
those changes as it moves forward; and that would be a discussion to have, that the Board is
going to want some input on.
Mr. Abbate responded that would depend on what is trying to be accomplished because there
are employees with children dependents and families; those are all very significantly different
costs; composite ratings are when the average rate is taken nationally and it is spread across
the group across-the-board; and there is a variety of different methodologies that are utilized, in
fact, if the Board, in the future went to a different funding methodology, he thinks the biggest
consideration that the Board would want to be sensitive to would be, how does it budget for
those changes as it moves forward; and that would be a discussion to have, that the Board is
going to want some input on.
Commissioner Nelson stated his concern is the Board was not given the chance to talk before,
and he told Mr. Needelman, he wished that there had been an opportunity to have this
discussion, because he would have argued that the outsourcing would not be something he
would want to see as a County Commissioner; he worries about the service levels that the
County may see, because the first three levels are going to be turned into turnover-type
positions; he does not know how a person will ever make it to be into one of those other
positions, because the chances of a person being there long enough to actually work their way
into a promotion position is just improbable; he thinks that what the Board is looking at is a
circumstance where it has employees who had many years of experience that will be lost as
turnover positions; and as the economy comes back, they will go to positions where they have
benefits, and better benefits than they are receiving under this scenario. He stated on the
Board side, his disappointment is, he never had an opportunity to be able to say he does not
think this is a good decision; he advised he does not contest Mr. Needelman's ability to make
that decision for the court side, it is not necessarily a decision he would have made, but it is
certainly his right to do that; but on the Board side, he worries, because doing Board minutes,
for instance, these folks begin to understand each Board Member, in terms of the participation
in the meetings, and he thinks they do a great job; and he also worries that the Board could be
looking at somebody new every few meetings, and that is not something he thinks is beneficial
to the County operation. He advised one thing that troubles him people talk about the benefit
packages that government employees have, he pulled up Publix and Sears, and some of the
others, and it was interesting that the County wants to perform as a business, but it does not have stock options or profit sharing, Christmas bonuses, and discounts; those are all things that
the private sector does; it is real easy to do the sound bite about needing to be more like
business; but the reality is that the County does not have the same benefits and tools that
businesses have. He stated the County has people who have worked for an extended period
of time who made decisions to stay here because of benefit packages; he was talking with some
other employees, and during the course of his career as a government employee, he made that
decision several times, where he could have left, but he stayed because he felt that he had
invested his time and energy, in this setting, and it was not about money in its entirety, it was a
broader question about serving ones community, but also the benefits that had been promised;
and if he could undo what has been done, he would do that because he certainly would like to
see the Board side go back to non-outsourcing positions. He mentioned he spoke with a
company last week that is looking to bring manufacturing to this County because it is currently
doing work overseas and bringing it back here, and this is just the opposite being done, by
sending it out; and even though the Board is told those employees are still here; and the
benefits are paying for the privilege of losing benefits, which is unfortunate to him and it is
something that is going to take him a while to get over, because he thinks it was the wrong
decision, certainly on the Board side, but if there is an opportunity for the Board to straighten
that out, he would be more than receptive to it.
and he told Mr. Needelman, he wished that there had been an opportunity to have this
discussion, because he would have argued that the outsourcing would not be something he
would want to see as a County Commissioner; he worries about the service levels that the
County may see, because the first three levels are going to be turned into turnover-type
positions; he does not know how a person will ever make it to be into one of those other
positions, because the chances of a person being there long enough to actually work their way
into a promotion position is just improbable; he thinks that what the Board is looking at is a
circumstance where it has employees who had many years of experience that will be lost as
turnover positions; and as the economy comes back, they will go to positions where they have
benefits, and better benefits than they are receiving under this scenario. He stated on the
Board side, his disappointment is, he never had an opportunity to be able to say he does not
think this is a good decision; he advised he does not contest Mr. Needelman's ability to make
that decision for the court side, it is not necessarily a decision he would have made, but it is
certainly his right to do that; but on the Board side, he worries, because doing Board minutes,
for instance, these folks begin to understand each Board Member, in terms of the participation
in the meetings, and he thinks they do a great job; and he also worries that the Board could be
looking at somebody new every few meetings, and that is not something he thinks is beneficial
to the County operation. He advised one thing that troubles him people talk about the benefit
packages that government employees have, he pulled up Publix and Sears, and some of the
others, and it was interesting that the County wants to perform as a business, but it does not have stock options or profit sharing, Christmas bonuses, and discounts; those are all things that
the private sector does; it is real easy to do the sound bite about needing to be more like
business; but the reality is that the County does not have the same benefits and tools that
businesses have. He stated the County has people who have worked for an extended period
of time who made decisions to stay here because of benefit packages; he was talking with some
other employees, and during the course of his career as a government employee, he made that
decision several times, where he could have left, but he stayed because he felt that he had
invested his time and energy, in this setting, and it was not about money in its entirety, it was a
broader question about serving ones community, but also the benefits that had been promised;
and if he could undo what has been done, he would do that because he certainly would like to
see the Board side go back to non-outsourcing positions. He mentioned he spoke with a
company last week that is looking to bring manufacturing to this County because it is currently
doing work overseas and bringing it back here, and this is just the opposite being done, by
sending it out; and even though the Board is told those employees are still here; and the
benefits are paying for the privilege of losing benefits, which is unfortunate to him and it is
something that is going to take him a while to get over, because he thinks it was the wrong
decision, certainly on the Board side, but if there is an opportunity for the Board to straighten
that out, he would be more than receptive to it.
Commissioner Anderson stated Mr. Needelman made this change to outsource some Board
employees, laid off some in Finance, and outsourced some of the Value Adjustment Board
employees; he thinks there should be a net savings; the Board budgets a little over $2 million;
his anticipation would be that there should be a refund check from the Clerk; and he inquired if there were any personnel being charged to that account center for any of those Board functions that were not previously charged there, such as an Assistant Deputy Clerk or any of the new employees being charged to that accounting center in any way. Michael McDaniel, Finance Director responded no. Commissioner Anderson inquired if there will be a refund seen. Mr. McDaniel responded yes. Commissioner Anderson inquired how much of a refund will be seen. Mr. McDaniel responded he cannot tell right now as that number moves. Commissioner Anderson stated he gets upset about this, because the State is very picky about what the Clerk does with its money, as far as, reimbursing for insurance, but he does not want to be subsidizing State activities; and if these were budgeted accurately last year, it should show some sort of savings with these changes made.
employees, laid off some in Finance, and outsourced some of the Value Adjustment Board
employees; he thinks there should be a net savings; the Board budgets a little over $2 million;
his anticipation would be that there should be a refund check from the Clerk; and he inquired if there were any personnel being charged to that account center for any of those Board functions that were not previously charged there, such as an Assistant Deputy Clerk or any of the new employees being charged to that accounting center in any way. Michael McDaniel, Finance Director responded no. Commissioner Anderson inquired if there will be a refund seen. Mr. McDaniel responded yes. Commissioner Anderson inquired how much of a refund will be seen. Mr. McDaniel responded he cannot tell right now as that number moves. Commissioner Anderson stated he gets upset about this, because the State is very picky about what the Clerk does with its money, as far as, reimbursing for insurance, but he does not want to be subsidizing State activities; and if these were budgeted accurately last year, it should show some sort of savings with these changes made.
Mr. McDaniel advised a refund is anticipated.
Commissioner Anderson inquired if the Board can get a copy of everybody, by position, that is
being charged into those accounts at this time, by function. Mr. McDaniel responded yes, he
certainly can.
being charged into those accounts at this time, by function. Mr. McDaniel responded yes, he
certainly can.
Chairman Fisher stated Mr. Needelman was definitely elected by the people and he gets to
make the decisions that he wants to make for his office; his concern is that when it comes to
legal liability and the unexpected costs to the County, that there was not more consideration
given to this Board that will have to defend the Clerk's Office in a lawsuit; and also the
budgetary constraints, that there was not enough respect to at least come and have some
dialogue and conversation with the Board on those topics; and he thinks that something this big,
that is obviously, hot and heated, that engaging people in the conversation is more healthier
than the way it was handled, and he is disappointed, personally, that this Board was treated in
that manner; and he is not looking for claps as he told Mr. Needelman that personally.
make the decisions that he wants to make for his office; his concern is that when it comes to
legal liability and the unexpected costs to the County, that there was not more consideration
given to this Board that will have to defend the Clerk's Office in a lawsuit; and also the
budgetary constraints, that there was not enough respect to at least come and have some
dialogue and conversation with the Board on those topics; and he thinks that something this big,
that is obviously, hot and heated, that engaging people in the conversation is more healthier
than the way it was handled, and he is disappointed, personally, that this Board was treated in
that manner; and he is not looking for claps as he told Mr. Needelman that personally.
Mr. Needelman stated Chairman Fisher told him that personally; he understands that, and he
understands and appreciates his comments, too; as the Clerk, he has a responsibility here to
Brevard County and that time clock was running; and he did what was necessary to make sure
that he kept people employed, kept them off of unemployment, and kept the service levels that
the Board demands.
understands and appreciates his comments, too; as the Clerk, he has a responsibility here to
Brevard County and that time clock was running; and he did what was necessary to make sure
that he kept people employed, kept them off of unemployment, and kept the service levels that
the Board demands.
Commissioner Bolin stated in the information received, the office does have an Interlocal
Agreement between the County and the Office of the Clerk of the Court, that had the existing
insurance agreement that it would be paid at that amount; because of the change there is a
problem with one-half of a year of a $196,000, and because that agreement was signed, it goes
not with the person whose elected, it goes with actual office; and she thinks that it should be
honored and due contrary to other peoples' decision; she thinks that the County is due because
it was a surprise and it is something that affects it monetarily right now. She stated the Clerk
has the right to do what is felt necessary to run his office; she inquired if going with the existing
Agenda Item in front of the Board, she is leaning towards Option 3, which is to collect the
money, but also as of January 1, 2012, have an understanding of the funding mechanism; and
the other option that was thrown out by the Clerk in the conversation today was the workshop;
but she thinks that would go in tandem with one of the options that would be selected because it
is going to be in preparation for the January 1st requirement of the funding, to go forward with
the mechanism, so I am proposing that to go with Option 3, with the additional workshop added
to it.
Agreement between the County and the Office of the Clerk of the Court, that had the existing
insurance agreement that it would be paid at that amount; because of the change there is a
problem with one-half of a year of a $196,000, and because that agreement was signed, it goes
not with the person whose elected, it goes with actual office; and she thinks that it should be
honored and due contrary to other peoples' decision; she thinks that the County is due because
it was a surprise and it is something that affects it monetarily right now. She stated the Clerk
has the right to do what is felt necessary to run his office; she inquired if going with the existing
Agenda Item in front of the Board, she is leaning towards Option 3, which is to collect the
money, but also as of January 1, 2012, have an understanding of the funding mechanism; and
the other option that was thrown out by the Clerk in the conversation today was the workshop;
but she thinks that would go in tandem with one of the options that would be selected because it
is going to be in preparation for the January 1st requirement of the funding, to go forward with
the mechanism, so I am proposing that to go with Option 3, with the additional workshop added
to it.
Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve Option 3, with the addition of a workshop, for discussion.
Commissioner Nelson inquired if the decision needs to be made today because there has been
a lot of information given. Mr. Abbate responded he thinks it is important, from an integrity of
the current funding mechanism, that the Board approve October 1st, because if the Board does
not take that action that addresses the shortfall, which is on the agenda request, that if every
participant just decided to stop paying for their opt-outs, it would result this year in a $3 million
shortfall to the health plan, and it would be $4 million on an annualized basis; and he thinks it is
an important issue because every office has opt outs; and it is the current approved funding
mechanism. He advised when one agency unilaterally takes an action that eliminates that
those dollars are needed to properly fund the program; he expressed credit to Mr. Ellis, who
disagrees with the County on this, but principally, he always honored his commitment to
continue paying the opt-outs because he understood the need to properly fund the program;
and he thinks everyone is looking to see how exactly the Board will handle this situation.
a lot of information given. Mr. Abbate responded he thinks it is important, from an integrity of
the current funding mechanism, that the Board approve October 1st, because if the Board does
not take that action that addresses the shortfall, which is on the agenda request, that if every
participant just decided to stop paying for their opt-outs, it would result this year in a $3 million
shortfall to the health plan, and it would be $4 million on an annualized basis; and he thinks it is
an important issue because every office has opt outs; and it is the current approved funding
mechanism. He advised when one agency unilaterally takes an action that eliminates that
those dollars are needed to properly fund the program; he expressed credit to Mr. Ellis, who
disagrees with the County on this, but principally, he always honored his commitment to
continue paying the opt-outs because he understood the need to properly fund the program;
and he thinks everyone is looking to see how exactly the Board will handle this situation.
Commissioner Nelson stated Mr. Abbate does a great job of protecting his program, but that
was not the question; the question was, can the Board make that decision in two weeks; stated
it is not going to change the integrity of the decision; and the number will not change between
now and then, but the star point for the deficit has already been created. Mr. Abbate stated any
decision, including that one, can be made at any point the Board feels appropriate.
was not the question; the question was, can the Board make that decision in two weeks; stated
it is not going to change the integrity of the decision; and the number will not change between
now and then, but the star point for the deficit has already been created. Mr. Abbate stated any
decision, including that one, can be made at any point the Board feels appropriate.
Chairman Fisher stated he thinks the goal is to not hurt the current people who are still
employed by the Clerk’s Office, but there is a shortfall on the County's part, and he does not
know if it has to have it in one lump sum; and while this is being workshoped, he inquired how
many months does the $196,000 consists of. Mr. Abbate responded the $196,000 represents
nine months. Chairman Fisher inquired if the $196,000 is divided that by nine what would the
monthly payment be. Mr. Abbate responded he can tell the Board exactly what it is; for three
months it would be $65,475; that would be the end of the Clerk's and State's fiscal year; if it was
the end of the Board's fiscal year, that would be six months it would be $130,950; staff utilized,
for purposes of the $196,000, was the nine-month period, which is the group health insurance
plan year, January 1st to December 31st. Chairman Fisher stated as mad as he is at the Clerk,
hitting him with $196,000 right now staff might want to consider taking it on a monthly basis or
taking it on a quarterly basis. Mr. Abbate advised month-to-month would be $21,800.
Chairman Fisher stated $21,800 until this thing can be resolved; and he prefers to hear a motion
for support.
employed by the Clerk’s Office, but there is a shortfall on the County's part, and he does not
know if it has to have it in one lump sum; and while this is being workshoped, he inquired how
many months does the $196,000 consists of. Mr. Abbate responded the $196,000 represents
nine months. Chairman Fisher inquired if the $196,000 is divided that by nine what would the
monthly payment be. Mr. Abbate responded he can tell the Board exactly what it is; for three
months it would be $65,475; that would be the end of the Clerk's and State's fiscal year; if it was
the end of the Board's fiscal year, that would be six months it would be $130,950; staff utilized,
for purposes of the $196,000, was the nine-month period, which is the group health insurance
plan year, January 1st to December 31st. Chairman Fisher stated as mad as he is at the Clerk,
hitting him with $196,000 right now staff might want to consider taking it on a monthly basis or
taking it on a quarterly basis. Mr. Abbate advised month-to-month would be $21,800.
Chairman Fisher stated $21,800 until this thing can be resolved; and he prefers to hear a motion
for support.
Commissioner Bolin advised she will amend her motion.
Commissioner Anderson stated he is assuming Chairman Fisher does not want to wait the two
weeks.
weeks.
Chairman Fisher stated he thinks the Board should go ahead and take what it has cost to this
day; and then start taking it on a monthly basis until it can get resolved.
day; and then start taking it on a monthly basis until it can get resolved.
Commissioner Anderson stated he is fine with that even though Mr. Needelman's predecessor
says he probably does not owe the County money legally; usually Mr. Ellis is right about those
things; he is assuming Mr. Needelman is going to keep his word and make sure the County gets
reimbursed at some point; and he knows there is some discrepancies about the $30,000 being
$36,000.
says he probably does not owe the County money legally; usually Mr. Ellis is right about those
things; he is assuming Mr. Needelman is going to keep his word and make sure the County gets
reimbursed at some point; and he knows there is some discrepancies about the $30,000 being
$36,000.
Chairman Fisher advised Mr. Needelman could always say it was not his contract because he
did not sign it.
did not sign it.
Commissioner Anderson stated it needs to be on the record that Mr. Needelman is going to help
the County out a little bit.
the County out a little bit.
Mr. Needelman stated he is present to help the County out; however, he wants the Board to
understand that he does not agree with the numbers that are coming out of County staff; his
staff thinks there is different numbers associated with it; in addition to that, those numbers are
changing on a daily basis, such as last Friday three more people, were moved into the process;
the Board has to consider the fact that this is a moving target, he is not dealing with a set of
numbers, and some of these issues are based upon policy decisions, which is why his
suggestion is to workshop this, with an agreement at the end of it; and he will take a position
because he has been advised that he did not sign that Interlocal Agreement, but he is willing to
continue to work in which to resolve this issue, but the Board needs to be fair to him, also.
understand that he does not agree with the numbers that are coming out of County staff; his
staff thinks there is different numbers associated with it; in addition to that, those numbers are
changing on a daily basis, such as last Friday three more people, were moved into the process;
the Board has to consider the fact that this is a moving target, he is not dealing with a set of
numbers, and some of these issues are based upon policy decisions, which is why his
suggestion is to workshop this, with an agreement at the end of it; and he will take a position
because he has been advised that he did not sign that Interlocal Agreement, but he is willing to
continue to work in which to resolve this issue, but the Board needs to be fair to him, also.
Chairman Fisher reiterated taking it on a monthly basis and adjusting the numbers would be fair.
Mr. Needelman stated he understands, and he thinks the numbers need to be looked at before
coming up with a cost that will be on a monthly basis.
coming up with a cost that will be on a monthly basis.
Commissioner Anderson stated it is understood, that to be fluid as those numbers change, he
does not think it is a set number.
does not think it is a set number.
Mr. Needelman stated that is not what he heard, but if that is what is being said, then at least it
can get there.
can get there.
Commissioner Anderson inquired if he is adding people back on the participant program, would
his number not change. Mr. Abbate responded the numbers that were utilized were the
numbers received from the Clerk, as of a specific date, probably around the middle of March.
his number not change. Mr. Abbate responded the numbers that were utilized were the
numbers received from the Clerk, as of a specific date, probably around the middle of March.
Commissioner Anderson stated that is fine; he does not know if there needs to be a full-length
workshop; he thinks staff can work it out with his staff and get that number and bring it back to
the Commission for proposal; and there are budget workshops coming up, in general, and the
Board will have to talk about this. He stated the Board and the Sheriff are always in the
limelight; usually the Board does not have to hear about the Supervisor of Elections, the Clerk,
or the Property Appraiser; he was on the Internet and this is a national story now in some
publications; he likes good publicity; this is not so good right now and there needs to be a way
to turn it around; the Board is out to recruit companies to come to Brevard County every day;
and negative publicity kills their efforts.
workshop; he thinks staff can work it out with his staff and get that number and bring it back to
the Commission for proposal; and there are budget workshops coming up, in general, and the
Board will have to talk about this. He stated the Board and the Sheriff are always in the
limelight; usually the Board does not have to hear about the Supervisor of Elections, the Clerk,
or the Property Appraiser; he was on the Internet and this is a national story now in some
publications; he likes good publicity; this is not so good right now and there needs to be a way
to turn it around; the Board is out to recruit companies to come to Brevard County every day;
and negative publicity kills their efforts.
Chairman Fisher stated he thinks if he understands Commissioner Bolin's motion; instead of a
lump sum, figure out what that cost has been to date and then charge him that much; have
staff continues to work on this, and staff will have another cost that might be fluctuating,
adjusted, and credits, based on people coming back in the program; and figure out what that
cost is going to be, and do it on a monthly basis until it can get this resolved.
lump sum, figure out what that cost has been to date and then charge him that much; have
staff continues to work on this, and staff will have another cost that might be fluctuating,
adjusted, and credits, based on people coming back in the program; and figure out what that
cost is going to be, and do it on a monthly basis until it can get this resolved.
Mr. Tipton stated in two weeks this can come back to the Board for further discussion if that is
the Board's intent; staff will work with Mr. Needelman's office and get a number, and can bring
that back to the Board for confirmation, or if the Board just wanted it to be worked, but
he just wants to be clear on this. Chairman Fisher stated send him a bill. Mr. Tipton stated
send him a bill based on what was jointly decided; as the budgets are being built for the
presentations and discussions in July; this issue needs to be worked out before then; and he
inquired if the Board would like him to schedule a time on a regular meeting agenda, there are
some workshops coming up on the 28th of this month, one on May 19th; it can be talked about
again in two weeks, or he could make it as part of a regular agenda; but he does think it is a
large and complicated discussion, that if it is going to have it, it probably ought to be prior to the
budget discussions.
the Board's intent; staff will work with Mr. Needelman's office and get a number, and can bring
that back to the Board for confirmation, or if the Board just wanted it to be worked, but
he just wants to be clear on this. Chairman Fisher stated send him a bill. Mr. Tipton stated
send him a bill based on what was jointly decided; as the budgets are being built for the
presentations and discussions in July; this issue needs to be worked out before then; and he
inquired if the Board would like him to schedule a time on a regular meeting agenda, there are
some workshops coming up on the 28th of this month, one on May 19th; it can be talked about
again in two weeks, or he could make it as part of a regular agenda; but he does think it is a
large and complicated discussion, that if it is going to have it, it probably ought to be prior to the
budget discussions.
Chairman Fisher stated the Board can workshop it; he thinks everyone agreed to that; Mr.
Tipton can still continue to work with him, and come back with some information and data once
he gets his hands around this a little bit and come back with a workshop date suggestion for the
Board.
Tipton can still continue to work with him, and come back with some information and data once
he gets his hands around this a little bit and come back with a workshop date suggestion for the
Board.
The Board approved the Clerk's continued participation in the County's self-insured group health
insurance program, with the following provisions: 1.) Staff to calculate costs up-to-date that the Clerk owes the County; 2.) Staff to continue to adjust costs to the Clerk, as necessary, due to people being added to the insurance program; 3.) Staff to collect insurance costs from the Clerk on a monthly basis until the matter can be resolved; 4.) Staff to coordinate with all parties to schedule a workshop; and 5.) The County Attorney to get an Attorney General's Opinion (AGO) regarding the County-funded Clerk's operations being managed by the County.
insurance program, with the following provisions: 1.) Staff to calculate costs up-to-date that the Clerk owes the County; 2.) Staff to continue to adjust costs to the Clerk, as necessary, due to people being added to the insurance program; 3.) Staff to collect insurance costs from the Clerk on a monthly basis until the matter can be resolved; 4.) Staff to coordinate with all parties to schedule a workshop; and 5.) The County Attorney to get an Attorney General's Opinion (AGO) regarding the County-funded Clerk's operations being managed by the County.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bolin, Commissioner District 4
SECONDER: Andy Anderson, Vice Chairman / Commissioner District 5
AYES: Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson
.
Commissioner Nelson stated he would like to get an Attorney General’s Opinion on the
contracting issue, because there is information that says the County could actually contract with
the Clerk; and the Board has heard contrary information; and he thinks it would be worthwhile to
understand what the County can or cannot do, and get that information from the Attorney
General.
contracting issue, because there is information that says the County could actually contract with
the Clerk; and the Board has heard contrary information; and he thinks it would be worthwhile to
understand what the County can or cannot do, and get that information from the Attorney
General.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Chuck Nelson, Commissioner District 2
SECONDER: Andy Anderson, Vice Chairman / Commissioner District 5
AYES: Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson
.
Chairman Fisher stated Sandy Sanderson with Florida Power & Light Company has been
waiting in the audience for quite some time; and he would like to take that Agenda Item.
waiting in the audience for quite some time; and he would like to take that Agenda Item.
There being no comments or objections heard the Board executed Temporary Use Agreement with Florida Power & Light Company and Zachry Industrial, Inc., to utilize a 9.022-acre vacant parcel zoned GU for the temporary placement of portable equipment, support material, and temporary parking to assist in the reconstruction of the Cape Canaveral Energy Center.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Trudie Infantini, Commissioner District 3
SECONDER: Andy Anderson, Vice Chairman / Commissioner District 5
AYES: Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson
.
The Board recessed at 11:45 a.m. and reconvened at 11:56 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS, RE: FORMER HOMELESS CAMP CLEAN UP
Susan Stevens stated she wanted to discuss a piece of property located and described as Burnett Acres Lot 1212, Block 1; this property does not have a technical address; in some reports it is considered 600 Clearlake Road, because that is where most Sheriff's Department and Fire Rescue comes to; and it is Clearlake, Lake, School Street, and Palm Avenue. She advised in 2008 it was called tent city; Former Judge Joseph A. Cowart owns the property there; and there were a lot of homeless people living in that area. She went on to state the County went in and totally cleaned up this man's property; Natural Resources, Code Enforcement, and Environmental Services were involved in the cleanup; there was all kinds of human waste and all kinds of trash and rubbish; and she has pictures that she obtained from Code Enforcement. She stated the Code Enforcement information she received was minimal; it said that Code Enforcement does not participate in what they call criminal activities; they did not have a lot of information as far as a Code Enforcement report, but they were involved in the cleanup of the property; and the County paid for this, the Judge didn't pay for any of the cleanup. She added Code Enforcement does not go in unless someone makes a complaint; there were multiple complaints, but it was sort of blown off because it is criminal activity and Code Enforcement does not participate in that; but not three blocks down the road at the very same time, there was an individual that Code Enforcement prosecuted for commercial dumping. She pointed out to consider commercial dumping, and individual has to have over 500 pounds of what is considered litter and debris; there were over 500 pounds of liter and debris; a letter was sent to the Judge that said there would be legal action taken; there were shootings, people were stabbed, and prostitutes; and if a gentleman is arrested for commercial dumping on his own property, then the Judge should be responsible for what happened on his property. She stated there was public outcry, so something was finally done, yet the County paid for everything at the Judge's property; but reiterated the individual down the road was prosecuted for commercial dumping at the same time. She inquired how can there be two different sets of standards. She noted that no one seemed to care about the money that the County paid to clean up the property; the Judge was not held responsible; and she feels like he should be held responsible. She added, Mr. Beal was put in jail for commercial dumping on his own property; most of what is there are vehicles; every vehicle weighs over 500 pounds; and that is considered commercial dumping. She explained that the Code Enforcement is supposed to be reactive if it is a health and safety issue; with all of the fires, shootings, and prostitutes, that is a health and safety issue; and Code Enforcement should have been more active on that.
Chairman Fisher stated this is the first time this Board has heard of this, but maybe Commissioner Nelson has some knowledge of it.
Commissioner Nelson advised the site was cleaned up by prisoners that were trustees; it was a homeless camp of 80 to 100 people living in it; there were multiple services sent out there to try to deal with the homeless and to break up the camp; but the difference is, is the Judge was not facilitating; and he was not dumping trash on his own property. He added these were people who were vandalizing his property; that is a different circumstance where the gentleman on his own property, at his own hand, is doing the act.
Ms. Stevens inquired if the County made it a practice to clean up people's property if other people put the litter there. Commissioner Nelson replied each case is different. Ms. Stevens stated for the 10 years prior to, this man would not trespass anyone; he writes a letter finally giving his authorization to trespass these people; and none of that expense that all taxpayers pay for matters.
Commissioner Nelson inquired if she is angry at the individual, because he is missing the point. Ms. Stevens responded she lives in the house with Robert Beal who was put in jail for commercial dumping; they have never hurt anyone; but the things that happened on that property hurt a lot of people; and the property owner was not held accountable. She went on to say there are still people who live in those woods; she fears walking to her mailbox because of people who may approach her; and because there is no public outcry at this time, nobody is doing anything.
Commissioner Nelson inquired if the County had cleaned up her property two times at its expense. Ms. Stevens replied no, there is a lien against their property. Commissioner Nelson advised it was at the County's expense initially; it has never received any money back; and it did not happen once, it happened twice. Ms. Stevens advised nobody has been shot on her property or stabbed.
Chairman Fisher inquired what Ms. Stevens is asking of the Board. Ms. Stevens stated Code Enforcement pursued Robert Beal because it was not getting what it wanted under the Civil; there are properties that look like this all over the place; but no one is pursuing anyone else; and he is the only person who has been prosecuted under this Statute.
Chairman Fisher stated the current Policy of the Board is it is not a proactive Board, there has to be a complaint filed before Code Enforcement goes out; until that position changes, she will not see this Board go proactive; and he thinks the Statute she wanted to change it towards the proactive stage. Ms. Stevens advised they have been held accountable, his possessions have been taken away. Chairman Fisher further inquired what Ms. Stevens would like from the Board. Ms. Stevens advised she would like to see the Judge held accountable for the clean up.
Commissioner Bolin inquired what Ms. Stevens wanted the Board to actually do. Ms. Stevens stated she wanted the Board to look into this man's property; she wanted to know why it was not pursued for monetary damages at that time; she is not actually wanting the County to back charge him; but she wanted to understand why it was not handled in the same manner.
Chairman Fisher asked staff to look into the matter and get back with Ms. Stevens on it.
PUBLIC COMMENTS, RE: KNIGHTS ARMAMENT
Connie Pontius played a tape of the gunshots coming from Knights Armament she could hear from her home.
Chairman Fisher explained to the audience this is going to be a recording of the testing at Knights Armament, in Titusville on State Road 405, the old McDonald Douglas location.
Ms. Pontius advised that is what she listens to, all week long, off and on, a person never knows when it will start or stop; and she lives two and one-half miles away.
Chairman Fisher explained that Knight Armament has a federal contract for testing firearms for military use; he went by there twice this week trying to hear this noise; but he does not hear it. He added, he was lead to believe it was 24/7, at least all during the day, but it is not that exactly. Ms. Pontius advised the noise starts generally at 8:55 a.m.; it depends on the wind; and some days she hears it off and on all day long. Chairman Fisher noted he has had conversation with Knights Armament, actually Reed Knight, and they are going to get together in a day or two; he has a concern that there is an issue with the way his CUP with his permit was issued that said all activities would be indoors; and this is outdoors activities, which is the only place they have to fire these weapons. He went on to say they are going to try to figure out what their options are; their concern is they employ 400 plus people; they do testing for the military, as they say for the fight of freedom; and if they are not allowed to do that, they cannot meet their federal government contract. He stated something needed to be worked out to satisfy the neighbors, but at the time to fulfill the contract. Chairman Fisher reiterated that something will be coming back to this Board in the near future.
ITEM VII.A.1., RIGHT-OF-WAY USE AGREEMENT WITH IROQUOIS SOUTH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., RE: CONSTRUCTION OF A DRAINAGE DITCH RETAINING WALL, LANDSCAPING, AND MAINTENANCE WITHIN JILLOTUS STREET CUL-DE-SAC RIGHT-OF-WAY, IROQUOIS SOUTH SUBDIVISION, MERRITT ISLAND
John Denninghoff, Public Works Director, stated this is a proposed right-of-way use agreement that would take place between Brevard County and the Iroquois South Homeowners' Association; the project that is the subject of this agreement is a modification that had been undertaken by a private property owner initially; and upon finding out about it, County staff informed the individual that he needed to either remove the improvements or take other action as necessary in order to be able to obtain approval to have it stay. He went on to state the typical method of allowing that type of improvement to remain in the County right-of-way would be through the implementation of a right-of-way use agreement, which the County does not do with individuals, it is done with homeowners associations; and subsequent to that, the Homeowners' Association eventually took action to approve the use of that mechanism to implement the acceptance of the improvements. He added, the improvements are basically altering the way the drainage system is set up without interfering with the actual conveyance of the water from the storms; initially staff thought this system would not be acceptable; they went out and looked at it and determined that it would be if it was modified with particular improvements to the way it had been constructed; but eventually they applied for a permit to have the materials there and executed the right-of-way use agreement. He pointed out there is a dispute in the neighborhood, within the Homeowners' Association and the residents, it is a relatively small subdivision; the Association appears to have taken its action and executed the agreement; and it is now before the Board. He explained there was a re-vote where the Homeowners' Association reconsidered its previous actions; there has been comments made that the County should require the individual to remove all of the improvements and start over, and then seek approval in advance rather than going through a process to try to rehabilitate the situation; and staff decided to let the individual rehabilitate the situation if he could, and that has been done.
Chairman Fisher inquired if Mr. Denninghoff had anything in writing from the Homeowners' Association that it is withdrawing its position. Mr. Denninghoff replied because of the dispute that had arisen, the Homeowners' Association had asked staff to delay bringing this to the Board from the time it had been originally scheduled to come before the Board; that gave them time to do several things; one was to reconsider the entire issue and seek a re-vote; and it appears it was done and the right-of-way use agreement was re-approved. He noted the right-of-way agreement is a mechanism that allows the use of the right-of-way for the convenience of the Homeowners' Association with controls on it, which requires insurance policy in favor of Brevard County to protect it against the liability that may be incurred as the result of their activities; it also has provisions in it for the County to terminate the agreement, and require the facilities or materials to be removed within a specified period of time; failure to do so gives the County the right to go in and do it and charge them for it; and either party can terminate the agreement, and with reasonable notice, implement the corrections it would need. He went on to say if at any time the Homeowners' Association wanted to terminate the agreement, all it needs to do is send staff a letter and the agreement will be terminated; and if the Board does not approve the use agreement, then the individual will be required to remove the materials.
Chairman Fisher inquired assuming the individual came and asked for a permit, would staff would have permitted the design and layout. Mr. Denninghoff responded if a permit was applied for with this same project, staff would have reviewed the plans, issued a permit, subject to the use agreement, and the use agreement would be before the Board today; and then the project could be constructed.
Joe Hauser stated the first stage of the subject project was completed last year, while the property owners most effected were up north for the summer; his wife first noticed the project while visiting the area as a Homeowners' Association secretary to check if the retention pond area needed to be mowed; and pictures of the project were taken and emailed to the Homeowners' Association president. He went on to add this stage of the project included a line of scrubs planted along the line and some 10 to 15 feet outside of the property at 670 Jillotus Street, known as Tract A; and two retaining walls and two lines of scrubs were constructed and extended from 670's driveway and along the right-of-way the entire length of the Homeowners' Association's common area, and even a small portion of another property. He advised visits were made by the Road and Bridge Manager, Scott Spillman, with his suggestion that the project be removed or that Code Enforcement action would be required in the October/November time frame; the scrubs in the common area were removed; the subject right-of-way use agreement was introduced at the annual Homeowners' Association meeting in January 2011, but without the membership's knowledge of the contents, especially Sections 4 and 10; Section 4 mentions that the plans and specifications for all improvements 'shall' be submitted as an attachment to the application form with appropriate fees paid prior to any construction; Section 10 addresses compliance with applicable Statutes; the original project violated the County Code that disallows expansion onto abutting property with the planting of the scrub line on the HOA's common area; and there was non-compliance with State Statute Chapter 246(3), and that the original project altered the right-of-way without a permit; and the third Statute violated was the Iroquois South HOA's Declarations, Covenants, and Restrictions, specifically paragraph 5, recorded in ORB 4001 PG 3196, that addresses construction review.
He stated there are several examples of review committee examples that seem to set a precedent. He gave an example of a review previous committee recommendation being upheld. He noted the intent of a right-of-way use agreement is intended for beautification of an area like an entrance way or other median-type areas, and not a right-of-way abutting a road. He went on to state he has received comments in emails that the County supports beautification in the right-of-way in front of personal property; however the better part of the subject area covered by this project is in front of the HOA's common area and not personal property. He stated a right-of-way permit for the project would not have been approved had it been requested before the project was completed. He stated he does not understand the visits and inspections by County staff that resulted in two modifications to the project before approval of the document before today; and no plans should be submitted and approved before any construction is completed. He summarized by saying the project has been completed, originally without a right-of-way permit; now with two revisions before having a right-of-way use agreement approved; it seems to violate four of said agreement; the project was in non-compliance with the Statutes; and most importantly, with the HOA's Deed Restrictions in which the owner had personal knowledge both as an HOA officer and personal use of the review committee. He requested that the Board deny the right-of-way use agreement before it.
He stated there are several examples of review committee examples that seem to set a precedent. He gave an example of a review previous committee recommendation being upheld. He noted the intent of a right-of-way use agreement is intended for beautification of an area like an entrance way or other median-type areas, and not a right-of-way abutting a road. He went on to state he has received comments in emails that the County supports beautification in the right-of-way in front of personal property; however the better part of the subject area covered by this project is in front of the HOA's common area and not personal property. He stated a right-of-way permit for the project would not have been approved had it been requested before the project was completed. He stated he does not understand the visits and inspections by County staff that resulted in two modifications to the project before approval of the document before today; and no plans should be submitted and approved before any construction is completed. He summarized by saying the project has been completed, originally without a right-of-way permit; now with two revisions before having a right-of-way use agreement approved; it seems to violate four of said agreement; the project was in non-compliance with the Statutes; and most importantly, with the HOA's Deed Restrictions in which the owner had personal knowledge both as an HOA officer and personal use of the review committee. He requested that the Board deny the right-of-way use agreement before it.
Barry Swift stated he and his wife picked their home because it was in a deed-restricted area. He stated he has always followed the rules his entire life; that is why he lives in a deed-restricted subdivision; if a person follows the rules, very seldom are there any issues; but what is before the Board today are multiple violations of Brevard County, Iroquois South Homeowners' Association Deed Restrictions by Jay and Ann Martin. He noted in order to keep Jay and Ann from having to make right their wrong doings, they are asking the HOA to approve a right-of-way use agreement; in doing so, the HOA will have to assume a huge liability burden; and he feels that is unreasonable. He stated many of the homeowners did not understand what they were voting for at the time; they did not know the liabilities that were involved; there were several meetings on this, but there was a lot of misinformation that was being given by Jay and Ann Martin and Steve Trapp; and it was always a conflict. He added the HOA should not have to assume liability just someone else can make a modification to their property and make it look bigger. He asked the Board to deny the request for the right-of-way use agreement.
Commissioner Nelson inquired if the HOA took this on; stated he understands the argument; but the Board is being asked to override the HOA. Mr. Swift advised if they had gone through the process before they turned the first shovel, they would have had to gone before a review committee; and the members on that review committee would not have approved it. Commissioner Nelson inquired of the HOA heard this twice and said it was okay; and the Board is being asked to override the HOA.
Chairman Nelson stated after not following the proper procedures, they had the opportunity to correct themselves.
Commissioner Anderson stated before it goes any further, the Board is treading on dangerous ground reviewing the internal workings of a homeowners association; the homeowner votes for their members; and if they do something wrong, those members can be removed. He added litigation can be done or whatever remedy is in the deed restrictions.
Commissioner Infantini stated she agrees with Commissioner Anderson; she has been asked before to enforce homeowners association rules set forth by the HOA; Brevard County staff follow County rules; and it is up to the homeowners association rules.
Jay Martin stated he is the person responsible for building the retaining wall; by hearing the words, it sounds like a great wall; it is a wall that is less than 24 inches; it was built to improve the drainage ditch that was there before. He agreed that a mistake was made in not realizing all that was necessary, because it was a small project; there are 14 active members in the HOA; it was voted on twice; and the issues addressed were corrected; and everything in between is based on objections of the minority of individuals. He added the HOA has spoken as a majority vote that it thinks it is a improvement and would like the wall to remain.
Jeff Gilchriest stated every one of the HOA Members were provided with the right-of-agreement, a copy of what it meant to vote yes, and he gave them instructions. He advised the results were to approve the right-of-way agreement.
Steve Trapp stated he was on the review committee last year; he was not asked to look at the wall or even give his input; and the committee was not at all called together about the wall when it all started. He went on to state he got all of the paperwork started to help the Martin's; it was voted on twice; and the second vote that came in via email was 8:5 for the project.
Commissioner Nelson stated the question for the County is does it meet its requirements, and the answer is yes. He stated the HOA has also signed so it has agreed to enter into an agreement with the County for this purpose. He went on to stated he would not get involved in a homeowners association's decision; they are legally entitled to enter into the agreement; if there is an issue, it is among the homeowners to deal with; and he has no choice but to approve it.
The Board approved and granted permission for the Chairman to execute the Right-of-Way Use Agreement with Iroquois South Homeowners Association, Inc. for construction of a drainage ditch retaining wall, landscaping, and maintenance thereof, within the Jilotus Street Cul-de-sac right-of-way in the Iroquois South Subdivision, Merritt Island.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Chuck Nelson, Commissioner District 2
SECONDER: Andy Anderson, Vice Chairman / Commissioner District 5
AYES: Fisher, Nelson, Infantini, Bolin, Anderson
.
Upon Board consensus, the meeting adjourned at 12:39 p.m.
ATTEST: ___________________________________
ROBIN L. FISHER, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
________________________ BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
MITCH NEEDELMAN, CLERK