MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

January 29, 2009

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on January 29, 2009, at 9:12 a.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chairman Chuck Nelson, Commissioners Robin Fisher, Trudie Infantini, Mary Bolin, and Andy Anderson, Interim County Manager Stockton Whitten, and County Attorney Scott Knox. 

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she would like to withdraw her support for Tom Jenkins as County Manager; and it appears he reciprocated the support of her vote.

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated that Tom Jenkins said he respectfully is asking that he not be considered because of the 18-month time limit; he felt that was not enough time to do the job and had other concerns; and unless the Board would like to take some other action, then the Board needs to discuss where to go from here. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve retaining Stockton Whitten as Interim County Manager until such time as the Board locates a permanent replacement for the County Manager.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated her support for the Board placing Stockton Whitten as Interim County Manager; but also would like to clarify for the record, that if he does step into this position his position as Assistant County Manager is secure for his return; and it will not be classified as a vacant position and eliminated in the budget.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated if Mr. Whitten wants to apply for County Manager he should be allowed to.

 

Chairman Nelson stated he appreciates the fact the Tom Jenkins was willing to step up; but he respects his decision; it is a decision he had to make based on his own circumstances and his family considerations as well; and he wishes him well as he will continue to be a great asset for the Sheriff’s Department.  He stated the Board needs to have a discussion on allowing him to work with Mr. Whitten on the issue of salary and benefits associated with the position; as much as the Board would like to see this done in a reasonably short period of time, it will  take months

to do; and the Board is going to find itself in the middle of the budget, so it reasonable that Mr. Whitten be compensated appropriately for the position and have the benefits of the Manager during that period of time.  He suggested that the salary be the same as Mrs. Busacca’s; the car allowance that was being received should be made available to him; any other discussion, he will bring back to the Board, but these are the two critical ones; and if the Board would include that in a motion to move Mr. Whitten into Interim position he would appreciate it.

 

Motion by Commission Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to authorize the Chairman to work with Stockton Whitten on the issue of salary and benefits associated with the position of County Manager; approve Mr. Whitten’s salary and car allowance to be the same as Peggy Busacca’s had been; and if there are any other discussions, those can be brought back to the Board.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Chairman Nelson congratulated Mr. Whitten; stated everyone will do the best he or she can and everyone is in this together; Commissioner Bolin and he have been on the Board for two years; the new Commissioners have different levels of experience in some areas, but most of them have not seen this; everyone will work together to get through this year; and whatever help Mr. Whitten needs, the Board will be there for him.    

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board was going to move forward on the Request for Proposal (RFP) that was submitted by Human Resource Director Frank Abbate; with Chairman Nelson responding he has not had a chance to review it, but would expect that the Board would move ahead at reasonable speed.  Mr. Whitten stated that for the Board to review and vote on it, majority or consensus, it probably does need to be on the agenda and staff can do that.  Chairman Nelson stated to put it on the following meeting next week.  Commissioner Anderson stated the original motion was 30 to 60 days; with Chairman Nelson responding to have it on the streets; as he believes that will not be inconsistent or for that matter slow down the process.  Commissioner Bolin inquired if the Board could leave the RFP open for her to read and approve; if she had no problems with it she would relate to the County Manager as to not delay it, and then put it on the next meeting; with Chairman Nelson responding to Mr. Whitten to review and put on the next meeting.

 

 

Interim County Manager Stockton Whitten stated that Chief Dennis Neterer is the Interim Fire Chief; beside him is a new face, Asheley Hepburn, who is the Finance and Administrative Services Manager for the Fire Department; Asheley has one or two months on the job; he is from Miami in Dade County, has an Accounting Degree, Accounting and Finance background, and an Operations background, not in fire, but certainly in County Government; Asheley is also finishing a Masters Degree in Public Administration; and he will be helping with the presentation.

 

Mr. Whitten stated the presentation is long and will move through it as quickly as possible; he has revised it a number of times and believes the revisions make for a better more concise presentation.  He stated that prior to Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was funded through a Non-Ad Valorem Assessment and the Fire Services was funded through a Property Tax MSTU; on July 2006, the EMS assessment was ruled illegal; on September 2006, based on the Courts ruling and Board actions, the funding mechanisms for

Fire and EMS were switched; and EMS was funded via a General Fund transfer (Property Tax) and Fire Services was funded in part by a Non Ad Valorem Assessment.

 

Chairman Nelson stated one thing has been missed by some of the citizens, Fire is an MSTU, which is an unincorporated area only or where Brevard County has contracts with the cities to provide the service; and EMS is Countywide and that changed the dynamic when the change was made, because the assessment only effects unincorporated and cities contracted with Brevard County.

 

Mr. Whitten stated the Fire Assessment is in the unincorporated areas and four cities.  Interim Fire Chief Neterer advised the Towns of Palm Shores, Melbourne Village, Grant-Valkaria, and City of West Melbourne are the four municipalities.  Mr. Whitten stated to be very clear, EMS is a Countywide service, now funded out of the General Countywide property tax.  Chairman Nelson stated if Brevard County ambulance on EMS runs recovered all of the costs, it would be zero tax dollars going to it; but the reality is that it does not; and there is a portion that the County never collects.  Interim Chief Neterer stated the billing gives a revenue stream of $10 million annually; it is subsidized by a General Fund transfer, of approximately $12.1million; the Office does not collect everything due to Medicare, Medicaid, and the other mandates; so there is a subsidy from General Fund of about $12.1 million.

 

Mr. Whitten explained that Brevard County has the same predicament as other cities and counties out there; the presentation outlines the assessments that are occurring in other locations, Osceola County, Brevard County, Polk County, Sarasota County, Lake County, Charlotte County, Escambia County, and Hernando County; Miami Dade is now preparing to develop a Fire Assessment; and Miami Dade paid more than Brevard County paid its consultant, as the projection for the consultant cost is $800,000.  He stated the County and the Board started discussing the Fire Assessment in July 2005, and the next couple of slides highlight significant Board action dates with regards to the Fire Assessment; ending on September 9, 2008, the Board accepted a new methodology for the assessment; the assessments levied in the unincorporated area are the four cities; assessment methodology was modified this current fiscal year for residential parcels; and the residential rates are based on square footage of the primary residents weighted by a base rate benefit factor.  He noted the base rate factor is a value maintained in the Property Appraiser’s system, which represents the building cost per square foot; that serves as the basis for the Property Appraiser going out and doing reassessments or valuing the residential properties; and it is one of the triggers that are used to reassess parcels.  He explained what he means by the base rate factors, is in the methodology of a single-family home or condo are considered a base rate or benefit unit of one; the doublewide and triple wide mobile homes are some percentage of that base rate factor; in this particular instance, if it is a triple wide or doublewide manufactured home it is .58 or 58 percent of one unit; and in a singlewide it is 42 percent of one unit. He stated in terms of the rate structure the Board set up, this was largely in response to what the Board perceived as inequities; the old fire assessment was a flat rate; and it did not take into account construction value or perceived value of homes or a flat rate across square footage range. He stated this particular example was for a square footage of 1,400 through 1,800; and the Board can see that a single-family home that falls within this range pays $177.87, a triple wide is $103.16, and a singlewide manufactured home is $74.71.  He stated the assessment revenue of $21.3 million was a 15 percent reduction in assessment revenues coming into the this fiscal year; the Board approved no adjustment until it decided that it was necessary to go back and review the assessment revenues; it was a 15 percent reduction in the assessment rates to  non-residential;  that also includes apartments not just commercial, it would be apartment complexes and commercial buildings; 83 percent of the assessment is collected from residential parcels and 17 percent is collected from non-residential parcels; and that is how a breakout occurs within a Commission District.

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if the breakout is a percentage of homes that received a lowering; with Mr. Whitten responding no, this is a collection of $21.3 million by District; the chart shows the change from the old assessment to the new assessment; and there are very slight changes for the current fiscal year. He stated the taxable value range of the assessment properties, the majority fall within the taxable value range of $100,000 to $200,000; staff looked at tax accounts and tracked the cost of EMS and Fire over time; over time this particular tax account for under $50,000 went from paying $79 for Fire and EMS to currently paying $110.40; and there are five taxable ranges going up to over $400,000.  Commissioner Bolin inquired if in 2007/2008 the total was $223 and then in 2008/2009 it went down to $110; with Mr. Whitten responding yes, because of the Boards change in methodology, this home last year paid $212 for the Fire Assessment and this year it pays $99.61.

 

Mr. Whitten stated as an example, if the Board was able to flip or to move $21.3 million back above the line and collect that as a property tax; staff had to make some assumptions; the first assumption is that $21.3 million could be moved above the line, and these are the revenues that are needed to support Fire Operations; the second assumption is the General Fund transfer for EMS will remain the same; the General Fund transfer was reduced real time probably two fiscal years ago, and perhaps last fiscal year; as its trending now, they will be hard pressed to actually live with the amount; and the amount is approximately $11 to $12 million with $8 million going directly to Fire Operations and the other portion going to Support.  He stated the third assumption is taxable values for properties in the assessment and Countywide will remain the same.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board is collecting the EMS in the General Fund; with Mr. Whitten responding it is in the General Fund property tax that is collected and transferred to the Fire Department for support of EMS.  Commissioner Fisher inquired in 2005/2006 the Board increased that General Fund in order to collect EMS; with Mr. Whitten responding in 2006/2007 as part of the flip the General Fund millage rate was increased because Fire MSTU was reduced and established as an assessment; and stated what used to be collected for EMS under assessment is now being collected under the General Revenue account so that millage was increased.  Commissioner Fisher inquired to what amount was it increased; with Mr. Whitten responding $18 million.  Commissioner Fisher then inquired if the Board increased the General Fund to create $18 million and the Board will payback $12 million; with Mr. Whitten responding they are now transferring $12 million; stated before the budget was adopted, an amount was identified that was not necessary for EMS expenses; and that was utilized in the fiscal year for other General Fund expenses.  Mr. Whitten stated all fund balances will be utilized and spent down over time for capital outlay and capital improvement expenses; staff has run the entire scenario on properties within the database; the results are 57 percent of all residential properties, based on those assumptions, would experience an increase over what they are currently paying for fire rescue services, that being the Departmental Services EMS and Fire; and 52 percent of non-residential units would experience an increase in Fire Rescue Services.

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired when talking about residential, does that include commercial and apartment buildings; with Mr. Whitten responding yes, along with agricultural; stated all taxable unimproved  land  currently  within the Fire Control  MSTU would  also experience  an increase; right now under the assessment, unimproved lands are not assessed; but if they were to go back to a property tax collection, then unimproved properties would be taxed.  Commissioner Bolin inquired if grazing land for cattle would be taxed as it currently is not; with Mr. Whitten responding yes. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated the chart shows taxable value range, the percentage of parcels that would go up, those less than $50,000 in taxable value would go up approximately 11 percent; those between $50,000 and $100,000 would go up approximately 42 percent; the biggest increase would be for properties between $100,000 and $200,000 in value; all of the properties that are over $200,000 in value would experience increase; and these are based on assumptions that were outlined earlier.  He stated the break-out by residential District is as follows: Commissioner Fisher’s District is approximately 45 percent of all the properties that are covered by the assessment; Chairman Nelson’s District is approximately 57 percent; Commissioner Infantini’s District is approximately 56 percent; Commissioner Bolin’s District is at 70 percent; and Commissioner Anderson’s District is 51 percent.

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if 70 percent of the people in her District would have a tax increase; with Mr. Whitten responding correct, for residential only; stated for commercial in District 1 it is approximately 34 percent; District 2 is approximately 47 percent; District 3 is approximately at 64 percent; District 4 is at 67 percent; District 5 is at 54 percent; and the total would be 52 percent of the commercial properties.

 

Mr. Whitten projected out a five-year cost for Fire Rescue; he stated step raises have been built in, which is part of the union contract; staff has flat lined the capital expenditures; the Board has approximately $50 million in fund balance and will spend it down to zero in 2012/2013; and in 2011/2012 the Board is in a position to where it has a reserve of $1.6 million. He stated the reserve is there for emergency contingencies, capital emergency, and natural emergency; based on 100 percent expenditure, at this projection 2011/2012 is where the Board would consider to do it in terms of expenditures in that department or revenues; there is a small increase built into the MSTU tax revenues, the EMS assessment, per Board direction; the approved plan is flat lined, which is $23.3 million until the Board says different; and over time the fund balance, if spent down, will go from $17 million in the current fiscal year to $1.6 million in 2012/2013. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired how does the reserve get built up, is it a General Fund transfer; with Mr. Whitten responding the reserves are collections primarily from the assessment; stated over time it is a product of revenues coming in and expenditures that were under projection are not at budget; and the entire reserve is the Fire Assessment or a combination of Fire Assessment and other revenues.  Interim Fire Chief Dennis Neterer stated it is a combination of principally Fire Assessment and MSTU ad valorem; historically keeping on a larger issue, Fire Rescue did not spend what was budgeted, so the fund balance accumulated overtime; during those years Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) and Capital were budgeted, and the Fire Apparatus Spender went bankrupt; the Fire Department has not been able to buy fire trucks for two years, so the monies came forward in subsequent years as balance forward; the budgeted operating costs are operating as well; and the effect of an accumulation of time was the fund balance the Fire Department has now.    

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Fire Assessment from 2006/2007 that 212 people are paying is what built up $17 million; with Mr. Whitten responding it is primarily the build up of 2006/2007 to today; stated going back to the projected cost for those reasons that is why he is   not concerned when looking at the 2011/2012, because again this is predicated on spending 100 percent of the revenues that are currently in Fire Department, and revenues that they will receive in the subsequent fiscal years; traditionally they have not spent 100 percent; and the expenditure percentage has been in the range of 80 percent.  He advised this is conservative and there is no reason to not believe they will not expend closer to 100 percent; but again there is no reason to panic with regards to what looks to be reserves in 2011 and 2012 and no reserves in 2012 and 2013.    

 

Chairman Nelson stated the assessment in the MSTU can only be expended for fire purposes in the unincorporated areas, or in the cities that are participating; over the last two budget years the identified excess has been trimmed away; $5 million was taken back; over the last two years, after it was identified that MSTU was higher than necessary dollars associated with this, they have been pulled back; in one case Fire Assessment has been rolled into the rate reduction; and the Board is giving it back through the rate structure, but on the other side the Board took it out of the Budget. Mr. Whitten stated the $18 million that was projected for 2006/2007, as an EMS transfer never occurred; it was taken back during Budget development; and the actual transfer for that year was $12 million.

 

County Attorney Scott Knox stated there are a variety of referendum scenarios that could take place, and some scenarios where it will have to take place if this switch out of the assessment were to occur.  He advised he can go over that if the Board would like.  Chairman Nelson stated only if it gets to the point where the Board wants to go in that direction; and the Board will take Public Comment to see what the comments are.

 

 

Jack Kunasek stated he lives in Cedar Lakes, a mobile home park that consists of 129 units, 72 which are co-op owners, and 48 renters; the management company gets all the bills and the owners pay the taxes; the 48 people who are renters received no tax bill at all; and the 72 people who are co-op owners paid various amounts.  He inquired how a renter who lives between two co-op owners pays nothing, and the co-op owners pay the fire tax; stated the park is a Florida Not-for-Profit Corporation; and he would like to know the clarification on the Not-for-Profits. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated the assumption of the Board is that whoever owns the rentals pays the taxes; and asked Interim Fire Chief Neterer to take a look at the specifics of his circumstances because he is not familiar with the site.  Interim Fire Chief Neterer stated the person who actually owns that property is paying into the assessment; and stated he would like to meet with Mr. Kunasek and go over the issues to see what is accruing in the case.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated the Not-for-Profit does not go on every homeowner; and the Association might be Not-for-Profit; with Mr. Kunasek responding Not-for-Profit is everyone in the Park.  Commissioner Fisher stated it does not go with every residence, just with what the Homeowners Association owns, such as the club house and those types of things; and just because every residence is a part of the park does not mean they fall into the Not-for-Profit category.  

 

Chairman Nelson stated there is an issue here with the State Statute as it relates to ad valorem; the Board legally waives Not-for-Profits on an assessment, which is an issue the Board is going to have to deal with; and Interim Fire Chief Neterer will get the specifics on the questions that were asked today. Mr. Kunasek stated the renters themselves received no taxes.  Chairman Nelson advised that someone should have gotten it on a tax bill.  Interim Fire Chief Neterer stated he would like to meet with Mr. Kunasek and figure it all out.

 

 

 

Town of Palm Shores Mayor Carol McCormak congratulated Interim Fire Interim Chief Dennis Neterer and Interim County Manager Stockton Whitten on their new endeavors; stated there is a lot of new information distributed today that she had not previewed previously so it is difficult to address some of the issues; however, she would like to remind the Commission that the people did sign an MSTU in 1991; and the people were assessed the fire assessment due to the lawsuit drawn on by another city. She stated the members of her community feel like they are being overtaxed, as the economy has changed dramatically in the last couple of years, particularly since the fire assessment was enacted; inquired what the Board is going to do about houses that are being foreclosed on; and is the County going to redistribute that cost to District 4, or are the people going to have to pay for those homes that have been foreclosed on.  She stated if the County files a lien on those homes, some of the homeowners associations are in the process of filing liens due to non-payment of dues because of Code Enforcement issues; it is a Countywide problem trying to maintain those properties, which impact the value of the home next door; inquired how is the County going to charge a fire assessment for one house that is owned and a house next door is foreclosed on; stated in one subdivision there are 40 homes that have been foreclosed on and she has not heard that addressed here today; she does support the Fire Department but also wants to be treated fairly and equitably as does the rest of the County; and inquired how the County is going to address the foreclosure issue.

 

County Attorney Scott Knox stated the fire assessment is collected in the same way the taxes are, which means if it is not paid there is a certificate issued and the taxes are paid by the people who buy the certificates; in this case the assessment is paid by the people who buy the certificates; if that certificate is not redeemed by the owner, which could be the bank who takes over the foreclosed property, the tax deed is issued to the person who bought the certificate, so eventually is gets paid.  Chairman Nelson stated the reality is, even during good times there are people who do not pay their taxes and it ends up going to Tax Certificate sales; and the County at some point in the future will collect it because someone will either buy the certificate or the County will end up with the property.

 

Mayor McCormack stated the Board knows that people are not just rushing out and buying Tax Certificates; and inquired if the County is going to file a lien, does the lien supersede what the Homeowners Association may file to try to obtain the Code Enforcement; stated someone has to be responsible for maintaining these properties; and with the amount of homes that are listed on the MSTU and that are in foreclosure she does not see that there is a real rush out there to
pick up tax deeds.  Mayor McCormack stated the houses are just sitting there empty, they are overgrown and are affecting the value of the homes on either side; and inquired again how is this going to be distributed.

 

Chairman Nelson stated it will be distributed throughout the entire system, which includes all the unincorporated areas, Merritt Island, and Mims; it happens on a routine basis in terms of the County having properties where people do not pay taxes; it is built into a five percent non-collection fee by State Law that the Board budgets to; if it exceeds that, the Board will adopt the budget accordingly; but sooner or later the County ends up with the property or the money, and it would then go back into the system.

 

Mayor McCormack stated they supersede each other; if the homeowners are trying to collect their money and the County is going to get its money first, someone is going to end up with the short fall.  Chairman Nelson stated the County will not get its money until everything is sorted out in terms of legality.  Mayor McCormack inquired if the County would have to satisfy the liens that are already in place.  Commissioner Fisher stated the County does not have to satisfy them, whoever ends up with the house has to make the satisfaction; and the County would be first in line.

 

Chairman Nelson stated the Code issues that are being talked about is something the Board is concerned with, and trying to take some actions in the unincorporated areas to deal with it; the Board has talked about lawn companies cutting the grass just to keep houses from being overgrown; and the Board is here today to talk about the Fire Assessment as it exists today, which is the same one the previous Board approved. He stated this is just a rehashing of how the County got to this point; there will be a discussion by the Board to see if there are any changes to be made; and it is not new.

 

Mayor McCormack stated the last time she was here, and now there are three new County Commissioners, the Board was discussing bins and a report by a company that was hired by the County; and inquired if this has changed from the bins or is it based on the square footage of the house; with Chairman Nelson responding it is the same system in place as the bins with more information of how it impacted the County.  Mayor McCormack stated there is a lack of information given to the public, and understanding to the general public about how and why this system works; she believes there is no one out there who does not want to support the Sheriff’s Department, Police Department, and Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT), but there is an overall general lack of information and explanation should be made to make sure the public knows what they are paying for; she believes that is an important part; and thanked Peggy Busacca publicly for her many years of dedicated service to the County.

 

 

Buddy Spakes stated there is a lack of information given to the public; he has a great wealth of information on Fire Assessment because he has studied it for three years; and to this day, Fire Assessment is illegal.  He stated he supplied each Commissioner with a single page from Brevard County’s website under the Road and Bridge Department; it explains what an MSBU is a local law; a letter from the Attorney Generals Office to the County Attorney says that the Board cannot exempt properties from a special assessment; it says in the State Constitution that one cannot give public money to a church; and that the Board has gone against the County Charter because the people have the right to vote, excluding a Municipal Service Benefit Unit is (MSBU), and the County has defined what an MSBU is.  Mr. Spakes advised there is Board Policy that says an MSBU has to be voted on or needs a petition signed by 66 percent of the people; the Board did not do that on this Fire Assessment; and therefore, it cannot be done by an MSBU.  He stated that some time ago he brought up mobile home parks and saw Truman Scarborough get upset for the first time ever and it was put it off until the end of the meeting; he was appalled by Attorney Knox’s excuse because he said he was referring to the Great Outdoors so it was okay; he was not referring to the Great Outdoors, any campground in the County, including the Government campgrounds must be assessed in the same manner as a motel, that is square footage, not just the buildings but all the land in the campground; this has not been done; the Solid Waste Department did it when assessing it; but the assessment is invalid and has been from the start.  He stated there is a group of people who strongly urge one or more of the Board members today to take the bull by the horns, turn to the Attorney, and to demand answers on how this can be justified; he has back-up documents in the room today to prove every one of these; he urged the Board not to accept that it will be looked into because it has been being looked into for three years; and someone here needs to step up and demand the County Attorney answer how the Board does not have to follow the law.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he would step up.  Attorney Knox advised this is old ground; the Board has had four lawyers look at the Fire Assessment, two which where outside the County and two from inside the County; everyone agrees that this assessment is not illegal, it is not invalid, and it has been properly enacted;  there is reasonable basis for doing all that and if need be he could reproduce all the documents that have been submitted, opinions that have been rendered, and emails that have gone back and forth; and he would be glad to  put it together as a package for the Board.  He stated it has been looked at from every angle possible; people outside and inside the County has looked at it; and everybody that has looked at it says it is valid except Mr. Spakes and Ms. Adams. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired what an MSBU is; with Attorney Knox responding is a legal mechanism that the Florida Legislature created that allows the Board of County Commissioners to impose special assessments to collect revenues to provide a service such as fire service; and it could be other services like water, sewer, or a variety of things.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if there any other things; with Attorney Knox responding it can be roads, or any kind of capital improvement that benefits any property.  Chairman Nelson stated it has been used for dredging canals. 

 

Interim County Manager Stockton Whitten stated it shows up on the tax bill just like the Fire Assessment would and so through uniform method the MSBU are also collected through the tax bill.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the County has been challenged in court on whether the Fire Assessment is legal; with Attorney Knox responding no. Commissioner Fisher then inquired if a person thinks it is illegal, then it will take a citizen or someone to legally go and file a suit about the legality of it; with Attorney Knox advising that is correct.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if there is an Attorney General statement; with Attorney Knox responding the Attorney General statement has been referred to as an informal letter from the Attorney General’s Office, which said the County cannot use the uniform collection methods set fourth in the Florida Statutes, which is the way the County collects the fire assessment if the County is going to
differentiate the benefits between mobile home low-income residents and mobile homes and
other people.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board asked the Attorney General to look at the fire assessment to see whether it was legal or not; with Attorney Knox responding no. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she thought if the Board requested from the Clerk of Courts a legal opinion from the Attorney General a couple years back; with Attorney Knox responding the one asked for was in relation to the exemption for low-income.  Commissioner Infantini inquired is the County not in some form making charitable contributions to all the organizations that are exempt properties and differentiating between certain non-profit organizations as opposed to other non-profits, such as the Housing Development; by exempting certain non-profits, is the Board not in some form making charitable contributions kind of out of the scope of its authority, but distinguishing one non-profit verses another non-profit or agriculture or non-agriculture; with Attorney Knox responding the Board does not make the distinctions for non-profits, but the Board does create the exemptions for non-profits, for churches, and educational institutional; there is legal authority to do that; whether the Board wants to do that or not is another issue; the Board can impose this assessment on all those if the Board wants to; legally the Board does not have to; and the Board that enacted this particular assessment chose not to do that. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated this goes back long before the present Board as the concerns were that the County was switching from an ad valorem source for churches and other organizations that  had exemptions by the fact they are exempted under property tax; and they were shifting to an assessment and trying to match up that exemption; whether it be right or wrong, that was the attempt because they had been exempt under property tax; and then they were not exempted under assessments and they wanted to be.  He stated it is a Board policy that the current Board can enact.

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Property Appraiser exempted them and the Board went along with it; with Chairman Nelson responding ad valorem churches are exempt, certain other types of property are exempt, so the Board was trying to match that because if one had the exemption one could continue to have the exemption, and that was the thought process. 

 

Attorney Knox stated there is a Florida Statute that the Board did not use for the fire assessment; but there is one that pertains to other assessments that allows an exemption for churches and not-for-profits; the Statute allows this, and since the Board has Home Rule authority and is not being inconsistent with general law by allowing that kind of thing, it is okay to it; but whether the Board wants to do it again is a different issue, that is something the Board can talk about. 

 

Commissioner Anderson inquired how vulnerable is the Board and taxpayers if challenged in court; with Attorney Knox responding the Board would not lose; and stated fire assessments have been upheld since the law began in Florida.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if other communities challenged whether it was legal or not and did they prevailed in court; with Attorney Knox responding yes.

 

 

Marlene Adams stated when the Board received the Opinion from the Attorney General’s Office, that a discount could not be given to low-income; the discount that the Board did give the first year in  2006/2007,  people  that qualified  received  $129  discount;   she inquired how was that share funded; and if it fell through the cracks, did the people who paid it have to pay their share; with Mr. Whitten responding it was funded through the Fire Assessment revenues;
stated he did not know that there were any additional General Fund dollars set aside; it was the first year of the program; and the Board enacted the low-income assistance and that was a part of the Fire Assessment revenues.

 

Attorney Knox explained the Attorney General stated the County cannot use the non-ad valorem uniform collection method to collect that revenue if that system is set up where it has low- income exemptions; the extent was done the first year and the revenues collected used in the uniform method; and it is water under the bridge. He stated the money has already been received, it has been expended on fire services, there is nothing that can be done about it now as the Board corrected that the following year; but, however, that does not make the assessment illegal, it means the collection method should not have been used that year if the Attorney General is right about that.  Chairman Nelson stated the County has not done it that way for two years now. 

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired does the Board have a responsibility to go back and collect that; stated the cities that were not assessed one year were then assessed double the subsequent year; when someone catches an oversight due to a misunderstanding, at that point a person has to go back and pay what was owed; and she believes what Ms. Adams is asking is have they had to repay the County for what was refunded to them erroneously; with Attorney Knox responding no.

 

Mr. Whitten stated it was an application process in which a person must meet certain income requirements, and if he or she met those income requirements then the assessment was not levied on their properties; and there was no money provided to them, they simply were exempted out of the assessment because they met the income requirement.  Attorney Knox stated he wanted to explain one more time, the assessment as it was given to the people was not invalid, there was no refund involved because the assessment they received was perfectly alright; the only thing the Attorney General said was the Board cannot use the collection method; the Board is choosing to use is the low-income exemption method; he stated the assessment itself was okay, not invalid.    

 

Ms. Adams stated she had the Attorney General’s Opinion in front of her and that is not exactly all it said; in one paragraph is reads, “Thus the Legislature has recognized that adjustments may be made by the Board for particular parcels based on the differences in the benefits provided with the non-ad valorem assessment monies;” no other adjustments to assessments are authorized by Section 197.3632, and it does not say the Board cannot collect using Section 197.3632, it says no other adjustments are authorized by that Statute, which Attorney Knox is saying that Statute is what authorized the Board to create this mess to start with.  She stated Section 197.3632 is nothing more than a mechanism to collect a lawfully imposed non-ad valorem special assessment; and it has in those provisions that say, ‘pursuant to your charter’, ‘pursuant to the Codes’ in that same Statute.  Attorney Knox stated with all respect, she is
cherry picking what she wants to read out of the letters and that is not what the whole thing says.

 

Chairman Nelson inquired what was the total value of all the non-ad valorem; with Interim Fire Chief Neterer responding $650,000; stated the situation with the cities was different because there was a timing issue and an agreement with the cities to come into the system and make up the difference; and as soon as the back payment is made, they go to the same assessment everyone else pays.  He stated lack of information causes the greatest heartburn because they did not understand for one-year they got the service free.

 

Ms. Adams stated this is not going to go away; it is not just a mobile home problem, not just exemptions, not just the cities, and not just unfair in the beginning and now more fair; when added all up collectively the Board has an invalid assessment; and yes, Mr. Fisher, that is what she believes and that is what a court of law would tell him.  She stated it has to be by two legal prongs in case law after case law; one, it has to provide a benefit to the property to be funded this way;  two, it has to be fairly apportioned amongst all the properties receiving the benefit of that funding; and if it is not, then it is invalid.  She inquired why should the people have to take their money and sue the Board when it is laid out there; stated in July, 2006 Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson stated if certain properties are exempted from the assessment the amount levied against each non-exempt parcel must increase accordingly; this is illegal, the people cannot pay for those exempted properties; and yet in the minutes and all indications of a spreadsheet showed that the people did go up to pay those, and if it does smell like a tax in a court of law it is going to be declared invalid.  She explained the Board tried to match exemptions just like it was an ad valorem; she was sympathetic, but she remembers coming before the Board one time and asking what happens when a church abandons that use; she went to a Zoning meeting and begged the Board to rezone it so they would have to pay their share of the Fire Assessment because it just fell through the cracks; and they did not have to pay if the church abandoned the uses for years, she noted now the County has a church building that does not have to pay the fire assessment because they are already exempt, across the board use codes, until the use code changes.  She stated there is countless problems with this; and now the Board comes with the new methodology.  She noted a woman was in Mr. Fisher’s office and said she was paying $16.44 for a mobile home; she asked her why she was complaining, and she said it is not right; she paid $212 the first two years; and inquired where is her refund as she paid too much.  She explained that it can only be changed based on the benefit, which is from the Attorney General Opinion.  She inquired how about the 18,000 properties that did not get charged this year; stated they fell through the cracks and got charged zero; the Board just goes to the Department of Revenue and gets a fix for that; a Board member can fill out a 409 form for them; the 409 form may correct the assessment roll; and inquired who is going to give the taxpayers due process that they were not given, actually they were given because they had a letter they were going to be charged zero. She stated now they are going to be charged something because it is not right according to the Ordinance; now the Board has to go back and send new letters saying they are going to be charged double, because last year the Board screwed up; the Board can not do that, she does not see where the Board has any solution and it is a matter of time before a law suit will happen; and the Board needs to stop the bleeding because it happens year-after-year and the Board just keeps adding to it. 

 

 

David Sinton stated he is a public official from Melbourne Village and he is representing himself; all of the material the public has received has not been reviewed by anyone in the Village; if there is one service that is absolutely critical to the homeowners in Brevard County, it is fire protection; changes in fire protection effect insurance ratings, which effects peoples insurance payments; and in one case he actually saw changes in  the  insurance  rating and one does not want to get into that.  He stated a lot of the speakers have rehashed the material that he has either sat through here, was presented in special meetings with the Fire Chief, or watched it on Space Coast Government Television; there are legal opinions that differ on this matter; there are potentially people who think they do not really want to support an MSBU activity, and therefore, should band the MSBU.  He noted the people need fire protection; it is the ultimate requirement that Commissioners have; he does not care if the Board chooses to stay with the MSBU, or move it all to the MSTU, he simply wants to see the Fire Department properly and adequately funded; does not what to see anyone proposing to get rid of the MSBU until there is a proposal for how the Fire Department is going to be funded; and those two have to go hand-in-hand.  He stated just proposing the MSBU go away without dealing with the problem of how the County is going to fund the Department is hurting the people of the County of Brevard; the people of Melbourne Village happen to choose to be part of the MSTU because of being small; it would be uneconomic for Melbourne Village to have its own Fire Department as they get excellent fire service now.  He stated he gets worried by Mr. Whitten’s chart on the presentation; it shows the reserves dropping to zero; he is not clear if that means the Board has zero reserves; he stated a fire department should not be operating with zero reserves; it might be and it is the duty of the Commissioners to determine what the proper level of reserves is; and dropping the reserves to zero is not really an option.  He stated the fires in Palm Bay were certainly more than the County had been expecting to cover in the normal budget; the Board needs to go to the normal budget and needs adequate reserves; what concerns him is Attorney Knox’s memo, regarding the difficulty of making this MSBU to MSTU;  inquired if the Board messes this up and rushes it to the point where suddenly it cannot raise the taxes on the MSTU, but there in no MSBU, how is the County going to fund the Fire Department; and this is a very critical service and the Board can not rush it and make rapid decisions.  He stated the memo is horrifying, the fact that it takes this amount of effort to make the change is really horrifying; there might be an alternative option; he had done a rough calculation and believes if the Board was to increase the MSTU by 110 percent over 11 years the MSBU could be reduced to almost zero; and over a period of time that should be possible to do, but it is not dramatic; and it is not going to change a whole lot each year as it just moves a little bit of money each year.  He stated it does not give anyone a quick answer to the problem of getting rid of the MSBU, and he does not care whether it is a MSTU or MSBU, he just wants the fire protection so that he gets advantageous rating on insurance. 

 

 

Vic Brungart stated he heard Commissioner Anderson on the radio this morning and that is what brought him to the meeting; and if someone wants something done, go to the a County Commissioners meeting and say something.  He stated this is based on Attorney Knox’s December 12, 2008 memo to the Board, specifically looking at page four, item two; what the Board can do today can change from a fire assessment to an increase in the Fire MSTU, Municipal Services Taxing Unit Ad Valorem Tax.  He inquired how is this done; stated for the Board to adopt such an increase in the millage rate an unanimous vote would be required; no referendum on the millage rate would be necessary under Florida Law; Florida Law holds this in Section 125.271, of the Florida Statutes; the Board could do that today.  Mr. Brungart stated the meeting is for fire services and read from the power point presentation, “it is funding fire through property taxes;” Brevard County is forecast for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 is the housing market is going to be depressed, no signs of recovery are  projected  until  the  end  of calendar year in 2010; the State of Florida will continue to revise its revenue forecast for the current fiscal year; and significant reductions of $18 million are expected for the next fiscal year.  He stated in the County taxable property values will probably remain flat or decrease; there will be no new construction valuation added to the property tax rolls, and the Board of County Commissioners will continue to set the aggregate operating millage below the rollback rate and development revenues; property taxes are excepted to be down $50 million; but today the Board could adopt an increased millage rate for the Fire MSTU, which requires a unanimous vote of the Board.  He stated what it will do is stop the Fire Assessment fee because the MSTU has been involved for fire protection MSTU; the ad valorem tax on properties has been in existence since 1975 for the unincorporated areas of Brevard County; modified in 1983 and then in 1991, Palm Shores, West Melbourne, and Melbourne Village were brought on and Grant-Valkaria later; what it does is raise this whole discussion from Fire Assessment fees to ad valorem or property taxes; and people tend to look much harder at taxes when the ad valorem  is on their property.  He stated the Commission is coming in new, and that is great because the past Fire Administration apparently did not know exactly how to bring budget numbers correctly to the Board of County Commissioners; apparently there was a flap over about $17 million of budget items that was a big problem for previous Boards; Chief Farmer in particular did not know how to bring the information to the Board; and he stated the operating expenditures for fiscal year 2005/2006 were $55 million, increased to $57 million in 2006/2007, and then it shot up to $72 million in fiscal 2007/2008. 

 

He stated being a 20-year fireman volunteer and paramedic in three different states, he supports Fire Rescue; fire services should be given to the citizens as a necessary thing for the minimum possible cost; he stated what can be done today, as a Board of County Commissioners, is to vote, by unanimous vote, to bring it into ad valorem taxes as apposed to a fire assessment; and to bring this fire protection in totally as ad valorem taxes.

 

The meeting recessed at 10:43 a.m. and reconvened at 11:05 a.m.

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated fire assessment while new was not additional; the Board had talked about Miami Dade County implementing a fire assessment based on the need for additional dollars; some people thought that is what happened in Brevard County, but that was not it; the discussion today is not a change from the fire assessment, it is what the Board approved last year; but inquired was it okay with the Board, does it want to make changes, what would the changes look like, and how does the Board get there.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated philosophically he believes basic services should come out of the General Revenue stream but knows that it cannot be done tomorrow; he believes that over a length of time it could phase this away; it would be tough to do with property values and assessments continuing to decline; from a philosophical standpoint, past Boards had made some irrational decisions in this instance; and at the time it had budget windfalls and probably could afford to take it in another direction.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated it sounds like when it was implemented there were some mistakes, because it seems like the Board keeps trying to correct them as time goes on and that probably created more of a hardship; several people in his District do not like it; it is more the commercial side; and when looking into it, the majority of the residential people would have an increase. He stated at the end of the day, looking at the bottom line on the tax bill and how much is it costing to have taxes on their property, anything that is increasing in this environment would be very difficult to sell. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated when originally passed it was not revenue neutral, so the Fire Department increased its budget by $14 million or $9 million, but it was not revenue neutral; she does not see where the Board is still at the point of a $21 million decrease; one gentleman brought up the 2005/2006 going from $55 million; now it is at $76 million; and she questioned exempting properties.  She advised she pays fire fees for her whole property; a lot of the land is vacant and she is paying for fire assessment for all of the land; and should there be a fire she does not think it would just be her house that would burn, but believes it would be the trees around it that would be in danger.  She stated she does not understand what the exemption is for vacant land; she has done a lot of traveling in Palm Bay in the last few months; it was all the wooded areas that were burnt down; so she does not understand why all the vacant land has been exempted from this.  She stated while some properties will see a higher tax if the Board puts it back above the line where it belongs, more people will be included in that tax assessment; and reiterated she does not understand the exemption so she would like to have the exemptions removed because everyone benefits from having fire protection.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated the way it is now is by square footage, and she has the philosophy that fire protection is for the square footage, not the value of the home; just because a home has marble countertops and has higher taxable value it does not mean it has different fire protection service; the quality of having to pay more for fire services because of the location of a persons home puts it into a higher tax bracket; and to keep the assessment as it is.  She noted she cannot imagine having 70 percent of District 4 adding to the burden because a lot of the homes are in a high tax bracket. 

 

Chairman Nelson stated when people look at the tax bill and they are in a unincorporated areas they are going to see the Fire MSTU and Fire Assessment; it is two portions, a blended collection system, the MSTU portion pays in effect for the vacant properties, wild fires, pays for the increases that were voter approved in 1998 or 1999.  He stated the assessment was a replacement; the millage dropped two mills when the assessment was created and it was taken off the MSTU; the first Fire Assessment was not fair, too across-the-board as it hammered everyone; and a property in Barefoot Bay that was paying $200 total in taxes suddenly was paying $200 for fire alone, plus other taxes.  He stated the Board went to assessment and through this process they came up something that is pretty fair, because everybody pays something; if the County goes back to the millage base, bad things start happening; some people will pay nothing; it will be the same cost to protect them; but who is going to pay it.  He stated it will be anyone with property values that are assessed at $125,000 to $150,000; what that means is that there are going to be numerous people who are going to be subsidizing others; the County is going to be giving away a service to some and taking it from those who have the money; he believes the Board got to the right place; the Barefoot Bay homes are now paying $60 and that is reasonable; and the Board needs to look at tweaks periodically because staff has recognized that there is a point where reserves are going to be an issue.  He stated the Board committed at that time, and he hopes this Board will commit on an annual basis to review so that it does not find itself in a position of not having reserves; if the Board chooses in a different direction, one of the things he would like to do is put in on the ballot; he believes the Board has come up with the right answer but is having a terrible time explaining that to the citizens; and if it wants to take some actions, he is open for suggestions.  He advised one of the reasons there was an increase in the budget that was so significant was the County was carrying a bad debt; and inquired how much was the bad debt. Mr. Whitten responded $5 million; stated it was between $5 and $8 million, a sizable bad debt; and the Board decided to pay it off; the rest of County Government bad debit gets to a point where it has to be written off; but for some reason with EMS the County was carrying that debt and then decided to fund itself for it; the Board did not need to as, that money in effect was pulled back; and that was part of the reduction that was seen.  He noted that is why when looking back, after $72 million it started dropping dramatically; it was an error in terms of how the billing process was looked at; but now since have collected it.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated it would be very difficult to start assessing the churches because they are exempt now.  Commissioner Infantini stated so are all the vacant properties, and she does not know why; and someone who has a house on ten acres pays taxes on all ten acres, but someone who has ten acres that does not have house, theirs is exempt.  Commissioner Anderson stated some of that is agriculture, commercial enterprise.  Commissioner Infantini advised some of the land is not producing.  Chairman Nelson stated the Board is paying for the MSTU side so it is paying for that protection through the MSTU; and the assessment is strictly structure-related.  Commissioner Anderson stated the agriculture land in his District is producing and working facilities and those do not need to be dinged right now; and he does not want to start hitting businesses that are providing a lot for the community.

 

 

Interim County Manager Stockton Whitten presented a high level overview presentation of the current Fiscal Year budget for 2009 being $1,095,718,332; he stated the pie chart shows the majority is divided between the General Fund and Special Revenue Funds; and he is going to let Interim Budget Director Elizabeth Swanke explain.

 

Ms. Swanke stated General Fund is a category of funds under the accounting system that are not required to be segregated; examples of these kinds of agencies that are funded through the General Fund are all the part of the Charter Offices, including the Clerk of Courts, Property Appraiser, Sherriff’s Office, Supervisor of Elections, and Tax Collector; the County Commission, County Manager, County Attorney, Parks and Recreation Department, Agriculture and Extension Services Office, Medicaid, Family and Children’s Services, Veteran Services, Animal Services and Enforcement, Land Development, Traffic Engineering, Detention Center, Court Services, Probation, Per-Trial Release and Diversion, and Dispute Resolution also supports service functions, which benefit all County agencies and Charter Officers such as Facilities Management, Personnel, Purchasing, Budget Office, Property Control and Fleet Services; special revenue funds are segregated by the type of revenue that they receive and required to be reported individually in financial reports:  they include Road Construction Services, Road and Bridge Maintenance, Storm Water Improvements, Mosquito Control, Library Services, Fire rescue, Fire Rescue Dispatch, Law Enforcements  Unincorporated Area Road Deputies, Building Code Review, Ocean Lifeguards, Tourism, and Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency (MIRA); they receive funding through gas taxes, municipal services taxing district funds, special taxing districts, tourism tax, special port charges, and grants or special assessments.

 

Mr. Whitten stated the billion dollar budget really is a collection of bins or buckets that cannot be intermingled; when thinking of the size of the County’s budget, discretionary funds are isolated to the General Revenue accounts; special revenues can only be used for the purposes for which they are established, as well as enterprise, capital, and debt services funds; and special revenue and General Funds are the percentagewise and dollar amount of the majority of the funding.  He stated the operating property taxes at $208 millions are less than a quarter than the County’s total budget and even within that the $208 million there is further segregated; he referred to the chart stating tax sheet group in categories, general – Countywide at $141.6 million, Libraries $16.9 million, Law Enforcement MSTU $14.8 million, Fire Control $10.8 million, which the majority was voter approved in 1998, all the Parks & Recreation referendum operating millages are there at $8.7 million, Mosquito Control $7.0, in Road & Bridge MSTU’s are grouped together for purposes of this presentation of $4.7 million, and also have two additional MSTU’s that is  District 1 and  District 4 Parks and Recreation at $3.8 million.  He stated the $141 million is combined with the revenues that are shared from the State, revenues that are collected through the FPL Franchise Agreement and the Communications Services Tax (CST), the property taxes being the largest portion of the $220 million.  He reiterated the $220 million is a combination of property taxes that are collected from the Countywide tax rate and those major revenues from State shares sales tax and FPL and CST, the break-out of all the agencies comprise 34 percent, the Sherriff’s Office is 19 percent, excluding the MSTU; and recall that the MSTU was $12 million.  He stated the County Jail makes up 18.4 percent, other Charter Officers 11 percent, and the Facilities department 5.5 percent and any Emergency Medical Services.  He stated if combined core functions of law enforcement and public safety is over 50 percent of $220 million General Revenue allocation.   He stated since Fiscal Year 2007, the operating tax revenues have been reduced by $23.3 million; that is spanning the last three fiscal years; in the same period of time the County’s budget has decreased by $64.6 million; and what has been done over the last couple of years is the increased expenses could not because of the lack of revenue be funded from new dollars; and so staff asked agencies to absorb increase expenses through reductions in other parts of their budget.

 

Chairman Nelson inquired if tax reform the first year was a reduction of the budget, and Amendment One was reduction of the revenue stream; with Mr. Whitten responding the first year the property tax revenue operating was $4 or $5 million, and the difference the second year being the $17 million.  Chairman Nelson stated he wanted to make a point that there was a difference between one that was a revenue stream reduction the other was an expenditure reduction, which is how the County achieved those savings. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated the economic downturn is leading to reductions in State-shared revenue sales tax and also new construction; the State and Nation is not projected to come out of this until sometime in 2010, depending on what source a person reads in terms of those benchmarks; the State has twice this Fiscal Year amended its revenue projections and he anticipates that it will continue to do so through the close of the Fiscal Year.  He stated the County’s  current situation, when compared major revenue sources, again those that are bended with the General Revenue tax dollars,  is  trending downward on  two revenue sources, the franchise fee and State-shared revenues; and Kathy with the Library lost $76,000 in the State Library; and so adjustments to the budget will have to be made.

Commissioner Bolin inquired if Mr. Whitten had a listing of the items that were new expenses, such as the Medicaid; with Mr. Whitten responding staff has not fully-assessed if there are going to be any expenditure increases that are going to  be  passed  on to  the County;  he thinks the County is okay on the expenditure side in terms of what happened in Special Session; there is still and question mark on that; and the only thing staff knows for sure is the loss of Library aid.  He stated in terms of managing the current fiscal year budget, in November staff began to require all requests to fill vacant positions, were approved through County Management, as well as travel, and capital outlay; and staff is only allowed to budget 95 percent of operating revenues, so each year as the Board is developing, staff is developing the budget.  He stated the housing market will continue to be depressed and the State will continue to revise its revenue projections; staff has had to make some assumptions in budget development in where the Board is going to be going in 2009/2010; the taxable values will remain flat or decrease; there is some debate about how many properties the County has that are still covered by Save-Our-Homes; there will be limited or no new construction revenues; and the Board will continue to set the aggregate rate below the rollback rate. He explained this year the aggregate operating rate was approximately 10 percent below the rollback rate; based on those assumptions, property taxes will be reduced by $14.6 million; the State share revenues will decline by $830,000; the sales tax by $2 million; and the development fees look really low because that department has been reducing real time as those hits have occurred.  He stated there was a reduction in revenues and staffing at the end of last fiscal year; and other reductions at the beginning of this Fiscal Year.

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired how many staff reductions; with Permitting and Enforcement Director Ed Lyon responding that the Permitting and Enforcement Department is down to 76 employees; and stated two and one-half years ago it was at 124.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if staff did not assume the Board would continue to set operating millages below the rollback rate, what does that change in property taxes; with Ms. Swanke responding if all the other assumptions remain true and do not go below rollback, the Board could set the same millage rates that were set this past year, which will give the Board no decrease in taxes.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the $14.6 million does not have to happen; with Ms. Swanke responding yes, it does not have to happen with a simple majority vote.

 

Mr. Whitten stated in term of revenue reductions, based on the scenario of $17.5 million, as the Board looks at potential expenditures for next year in contracts, the Fire and Sherriff step raises are $728,000 and $650,000; the County’s contributions to the retirement rates were projected at 10 percent, so that impact is $1.4 million; the employer insurance contribution percentage and the six percent is the same amount that the Board is contributing this year; and that impact is $3 million.  He stated assuming that there is something passed down to the staff, projected Florida Retirement System is at 10 percent on top of the existing State mandates, for a total of $1.5 million; and when looking at potential revenue reductions, staff is at $24.8 million as a challenge for next fiscal year.

Mr. Whitten noted the Board starts next month with strategic planning to begin to develop some reduction strategy, and the goal is to develop some organizational priority services and service levels; County Finance is working on closing out last Fiscal Year and staff will know the status of fund balance projections for the current Fiscal Year; additional considerations for the current Fiscal Year or next year in terms of holding the line are a more restrictive freeze on vacant positions, layoffs are a real possibility, further reduction of capital outlay or capital replacement, and some reduction or suspension of Capital Improvement Projects; and there is not a lot of General Revenue Capital Improvement Projects, so when looking at Capital Improvement Projects, capital outlay is contained in special revenue funds.

 

 

 

Tamara Cribben stated the Board received a packet from Attorney Margaret Zabinski regarding the Office of Public Guardian for Brevard County; she was looking at Indigent Health Care costs plus the Medicaid expenses, and Aging Solutions directly impact those expenses; the guardianship service has full legal custody of adults over the age of 18; Aging Solutions recently did a hospital study and will bring those numbers back to the Board again because Holmes Regional Hospital actually has two individuals that Aging Solutions will be accepting in order to study; and the bottom line is the County and State is spending on Medicaid 50 percent funded from the State of Florida and 50 percent from the County.  She stated currently due to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and physicians an ability to have someone sign a inform consent when they are lacking the capacity to give inform consent, those individuals can sit and remain in the hospital system unnecessarily; the largest point is that funding for public guardianship services is usually $3,000 per year or under, and in the hospital study recently done the individual was costing the hospital about that per day; and each day this person remains in the hospital, the funding could have be redirected to the Office of Public Guardian who then gets legally appointed through the court to be the representative and the advocate for that person that can sign the inform consents, get the treatment taken care of, move them along to continue out to a skilled nursing facilities or a assisted living facility, or possibly a home on one of the diversion programs, which is far less costly than remaining in a hospital system in an acute care setting that is not necessary anymore.  She stated their funding is capitated at 83 individuals, like the Diversion Program they are on a waiting list; without funding these individuals literally sit there and remain in the hospital; the two individuals that were taking have been there much longer, but they were contacted about the two that sitting in Holmes Regional Hospital today in September; and Aging Solutions is taking them to do this study, but they are unfunded.  She stated she would like the Board to take into consideration Brevard Guardianship Services, who served as the Office of Public Guardian prior to Aging Solutions, did receive County funding; when it transitioned to Aging Solutions, she believes there was a lack of knowledge that Brevard County has a Office of Public Guardian; not every County in the State of Florida has an Office of Public Guardian; and Aging Solutions is here, they have the infrastructure and are ready to serve, but they do need the funding. She advised actually it is a more fiscally responsible decision to fund Aging Solutions; the individual that they studied cost $2,520 in one day, which would fund a person to more over into Aging Solutions for a year of service; and reiterated they are here and able to make a fiscal difference and this is really happening in these individuals are really sitting in hospital system unnecessarily.

 

Commissioner Infantini inquired where does this come out of the Boards budget, where is the Board  paying for those  costs,  what the  Board is currently paying  for the  people to stay in the hospital, and which line item is that coming out of on the budget; with Ms. Swanke responding General Revenue under Medicaid. Commissioner Infantini inquired how much did the Board spend on that last year for that expenditure; with Mr. Whitten responding Medicaid is $4 million.  Ms. Cribben advised it was piece of that and part of it is the nursing home; they did receive the report in the office and she has been working with one of the staff members to bring an updated listing and some background information back to the Board by the beginning of next week.  Commissioner Infantini stated that would be great so the Board could see the cost benefit and it makes it a lot easier to move forward.  She stated she could attain the actual admission date of the two individuals that she is speaking about to see the cost associated with their hospital stay so the Board can look at that; and if Aging Solutions had had the funding to accept them, how many days could have been avoided just on those two individuals.

 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired are the Fire Union step raises, and Sherriff’s Union, is that a union contract negotiated with what those raises should be; with Mr. Whitten responding they are in the current contract.  Human Resources Director Frank Abbate stated the increases that are seen are step increases, which exists in the current Collective Bargaining Agreement; staff has two bargaining units for the fire fighters supervisory and ranking file; the supervisory is currently under negotiations; staff has put in for an upcoming Agenda request for an executive session so staff can come to the Board and discuss that particular Contract, which is being negotiated; and then there will be an opening to the ranking file Contract that will begin after that, and then come back to the Board as well.    He stated those dollars are anticipating that the step plan that is in place will continue and unless changed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement than even a status quo contract would be a cost; and if it is a long process the Board would continue with step increases, that is an obligation the Board would have even if the Contract expires.  Commissioner Fisher inquired  if other employees with no raises are just General Fund; with Mr. Abbate responding there were no raises this past year; stated staff has currently set another negotiating session with the blue collar unit, which is Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA); he anticipates staff will be back to the Board within 30 to 45 days in an executive session to give the Board a full briefing on the status of that negotiating session; and currently the County is in statues quo mode, no increases based on a contract that expires on October 1st. 

 

Commissioner Anderson stated he has received some requests for additional expenses in the next budget from Constitutional Officers; and inquired has it been a practice of the Board to sit down with those individually or how has it been done in the past; with Chairman Nelson responding the Constitutional Officers have been invited to come to the Board meetings; stated the Supervisor of Elections, Sherriff, and Clerks Office came; and the others did not avail themselves the opportunity.  Mr. Whitten stated there are submission dates; the County Manager is required to present the Board with a balanced budget proposal by July 15^th; he believes the Sheriff’s Office submits a budget June 1^st, and Tax Collector and Property Appraiser are not required to submit until later; and generally the Board invites them to the Budget workshops to discuss their submittals.

 

Chairman Nelson stated on the Clerk’s budget, the portion the Board pays is for the services of Tamara Ricard and her staff for Board meetings and a small portion of financial staff; and the rest of Clerk’s staff is funded from court fees and recordings.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated there is a facility assessment on the way; and inquired does Steve Quickel know when the Board will get a brief synopsis; stated the Board has lost a lot of money by not doing preventive maintenance on facilities in the past and he knows the Board is looking at facilities assessments and has asked for some information; and further inquired when the Board will have the information; Facilities Director Steve Quickel advised he has designated one of the staff members to actually go out and start this assessment; staff is lacking a professional facilities assessment  crew,  so facilities is  relying  on  the capabilities  of staff;  a supervisor has been assigned the responsibility and he has the assistance of a other construction personnel to help get that information together; and what staff is trying to do is get a numerical rating of the condition of the facility and then start putting numbers to it.  Commissioner Anderson stated according to his preliminary investigation, the County has sacrificed a lot of preventive maintenance, things that are going to cost money in the end.   Chairman Nelson stated during the discussion last year there was a proposed larger cut in the budget and the Board put money back in because there had been an across-the-board discussion of reductions; and the Board put $600,000 back in.  Mr. Quickel advised they have a line to go back and get approximately $600,000, that was the dollar equivalent of the positions that were lost last year. 

 

Commissioner Infantini stated Commissioner Bolin had instituted a group that did a study and analysis and came forward with a lot of recommendations; reading through the report for the recommendations she did not see where the Board moved on any of those recommendations or implemented them; and perhaps Mr. Whitten would be available to come up with suggestions such as centralizing some things like Purchasing, maybe consolidate some of the departments, possibly look at reorganization, and ideas so the Board is not double doing the same service. She noted different departments need to be better consolidated; she has done research on staffing and the hierarchy; she requested an organizational chart from every single department and looked at how many people were supervising how many people; and started seeing where one person was supervising two people and then two people overseeing four people.  She stated it seems like there is a lot of supervision, which is great except for when it is too much supervision; and inquired if the Board would consider looking at the organizational chart for ways to reorganize how much supervising the County has taking place.

 

Mr. Whitten advised one of the big things in the report is fund balances and dollars that are primarily there at the end of the year for dedicated projects that carry forward each year; there are a number of recommendations in the report staff is working on; obviously the one recommending the present value that staff accounts for, some of the insurance funds on a present value basis staff took advantage of that and was able to return some dollars to the agencies; and is working centralizing Information Technology (IT), and the next focus being Purchasing.  Commissioner Infantini stated the estimate came back from Purchasing with 10 or 20 percent reduction in all Purchasing costs; and the Board should increase the Purchasing function and start putting projects out for bid. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Board could see some of the core services that it provides and some extras that it might question whether it wants to continue to support or not; stated there are a lot of great services out there, but with these kinds of short falls he does not know whether the Board can support them or not; he wants to get a better understanding on rollback and the $14.6 million; and inquired does it mean a tax increase if the Board does not do the rollback and what exactly does it mean; with Mr. Whitten responding technically it does not mean a tax increase and he will let Ms. Swanke explain it; stated  he will give the  Board a cheat sheet on three issues with regards to where the Board is against the rollback; the new Charter provision caps at three percent or Consumer Price Index (CPI) whichever is less; the special act from 72 or 74, which caps it at 10 percent; and then the Statutory caps that were put in place over the last two fiscal years.  Ms. Swanke stated the difficulty is that the most important numbers staff needs to give good estimates for next year; staff will not have until June 1^st; the Property Appraiser is not required to give staff any information on values until June 1^st; and $14.6 million represents what the previous Board did this past year in terms of adopting taxes.  Commissioner Fisher inquired is that adopted  millage rate;  with Ms. Swanke responding yes.
She stated the majority of the decrease of this past year was due to State regulation; it is in the Florida Statutes cap discussion for the last two years because of amendment one; because of State Legislative action staff has had to reduce the tax base and tax rates; two years ago the State aid nine percent of the County’s taxes, this past year it was based on the impact of amendment one by taxing district so it was somewhere between 16 percent and nine percent, depending on which District and which part of the County; this coming year those requirements are lifted so staff is left with a new rollback calculation and are allowed a new CPI increase every year; and with a simple majority vote, all the different languages that apply, and all the different caps, there is opportunity for the Board not to have what the State would call a tax increase and not to have to cut as much as $14 million from the tax rolls. 

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if Mr. Whitten was going to make suggestions to the Board regarding reductions; with Mr. Whitten responding yes, staff will begin to do reduction scenarios based on some percentage and will bring those back to the Board.  Commissioner Bolin stated her philosophy is she would rather do a few things well than to do a lot of things poorly; and the Board is going to have to look at actual services that are going to have to be eliminated so that the County keeps quality of what it does have.  

 

Chairman Nelson stated the Board does not have a billion dollars in the bank; the accounting system the Board has creates numbers that get counted several times; what the Board has is all these dollars that are flowing back and forth in the accounting process, and the Board adds up all the transactions and creates this billion dollars; and the other irony is that the Board has large pockets of money associated with things like Solid Waste, which is a revenue enterprise operation.  He noted the Utility Department is revenue driven; special funds, the referendums were done by area, so the County does not pay anything towards recreation improvements that are being made in the south, only for those in Merritt Island; Cocoa Beach pays nothing because it was not a part of the referendums; it is a very complicated process; and the quickest way to get under a billion dollars is to spend down the capital projects.  He stated the County does have projects that are in the pipeline; these dollars have been dedicated for a purpose and these projects need to move forward in expending those dollars to help the economy locally; the Board needs to move projects forward and is not aware of any that should not be built; the Board needs to take a look at where the projects are, and can those continue to move forward.  He stated it has been a good discussion in terms of the budget, and believes it is moving in the right direction; the Board knows what type of challenges the Departments are up against and it is going to be difficult; staff will do a good job of putting the information together so that the Board has good information to make decisions on; and he wishes the Property Appraiser would get the information quicker but that is not going to happen.  He stated if any individual Commissioner comes up with some ideas during the course of this, he or she certainly have every right to talk with Mr. Whitten about it; and if it needs Board action, then bring is back to the Board.    

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired how to get other Constitutional Officers to be part of this process and who determines their budget; with Commissioner Bolin responding different organizations or the State determines a portion of their budget too; and stated the Board has not been successful in getting them to agree with the Board to do a voluntary reduction because they can overrule the Board.  Mr. Whitten stated the Tax Collector and Property Appraiser are submitted to and approved by the Department of Revenue (DOR); the Sherriff’s is submitted to the Board and approved with appeal to the Governor; and the Supervisor of Elections is submitted to the Board and does not know who it appeals its budget request to.   Commissioner Bolin stated she believes the Supervisor of Elections is the only one that does not have a high authority to overturn what the Board does.  Chairman Nelson stated last year the Sherriff did a very good job of trying to work within the budget stream; and he noted that it is very frustrating that with some of the Constitutional Officers the Board never see the budget; and it is just here as a bill.  Commissioner Fisher stated maybe with a new Commission it can open up  dialog a little bit because they need to be part of it.

 

 

 

Assistant County Manager Mel Scott stated staff was presented with an opportunity to see some community improvements occur through the purchase of a house in the ultimate demolition of something that has been a law enforcement issue for a long time; and if approved, the Board would be recouping the hard costs, which the Board had directed staff to identify; and it would free up $18,000, the much larger lien that would allow this sale to go through. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to direct staff to prepare and execute Release and Satisfaction of Lien upon receipt of payment for all investigative/administrative costs incurred by the County in the amount of $1,852 on Code violations related to property at 123 Ocean Boulevard, Satellite Beach.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously. 

 

 

 

Chairman Nelson stated one more item, which is an appointment to the Internal Audit Committee; he has the Resolution, which states, “shall be comprised of five qualified citizens to be determined by the Board of County Commissioners;” but it does not say how that process is or who makes that appointment.  He stated an individual in Merritt Island was appointed by the previous Commissioner and he has not been able to find out what occurred in that first appointment; suggested all the Board members should have the opportunity to submit a name for consideration, including information of qualifications; he read from the resolution “should possess the expertise in accounting and experience in accounting, auditing and financial reporting needed to understand and resolve issues raised by the independent audit;” that is the criteria, and he will make sure each of the Commission offices gets a copy the Resolution; and he would like to bring this back as an Agenda Item for the next meeting, of February 17, 2009.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated she would like to voice an objection to that because this position has sat open for two years; having seen an opening, she took the opportunity to present the appointee, and does not see any objection to the candidate that she has presented; instead of moving forward and postponing it, she believes the other Commissioners had this opportunity in the last couple years;  and thought if there was concern  that there was only four members,  the Board has had two years to voice its concerns; and that is why she is voicing it the first couple of months of her election, to get this advisory board solidly staffed with five members.  She stated the Commission is allowed to put up to seven people, so if other Commissioners would like to appoint someone also she does not see any reason to object having James Rosasco appointed at this point; and then if the other Commissioners would like to present an opening or

deficiency he or she would still have that opportunity to do so.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Infantini, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to appoint James Rosasco to the Internal Audit Committee.  

 

Chairman Nelson stated he is going to disagree because the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends the Audit Committee consist of seven, the County Commission said five; one of the problems with all of the committees is that they are not being managed in a way that gives the Commission an understanding of when appointments are due and for whom; he is going to discuss with Mr. Whitten to standardize Advisory Boards in a better way; and he has no information on Mr. Rosasco’s background.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she would not support the motion; and she was not aware there was a vacancy.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated this is a Resolution that can be changed by this Board at anytime; and maybe the Board should go back and revisit individual District appointees and the Internal Audit Committee Resolution.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he appointed people to Advisory Boards and knew his or her personal background, and the Board accepted them; inquired if there is a formality of putting together a resume; the Board put Doug Baker, who is a CPA, on the Citizens Budget Review Committee, and historically there was just a bunch of citizens that were put on there with no accounting background; and when he saw Citizens Budget Review he starting thinking of someone with an accounting background.

 

Commissioner Anderson stated his office struggled so much with Advisory Board Appointments; and he believes there needs to be a workshop.

 

Chairman Nelson stated the requirements are different for different boards; typically the District Commissioner makes the appointment, and the Board respects the appointment; but this one is different.  Commissioner Fisher stated if the Board is going to delay this, then bring back a candidate with a resume’; and then the Board can decide who the strongest candidate will be.  Commissioner Bolin inquired if the Board can make that standard whenever the appointment is going to represent the entire Board to have a resume’.

 

Chairman Nelson stated the motion is to accept the appointment that has been proposed, which is with Mr. Rosasco; and this is not personal with him.  Chairman Nelson stated making an appointment at this time, given the fact that the Board is getting ready to change it and not knowing what the criteria is going to end up being, the Board may end up having two citizens who do not have financial experience and five that do.

 

Commissioner Infantini stated going backwards the Board does not know what the other four members background is; and Mr. Rosasco was the head of the trust department for J.P. Morgan.  Commissioner Bolin stated maybe the Board needs to see the resume’ of the people who are existing on the Internal Audit Committee because she does not know who is currently on the Board and their background.  Commissioner Infantini stated the past Commission approved the appointment of the existing four members in October 2008, to serve for another two years. 

 

Commissioner Fisher inquired who Chairman Nelson had in mind; with Chairman Nelson responding Jim Strickland, who is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA).  Commissioner Fisher inquired if he could make another motion to appoint them both.  Chairman Nelson stated the simplest would be to bring it back at the next meeting.  Commissioner Infantini stated she would be willing to amend the Resolution at the next meeting and appoint Mr. Strickland as well.  Chairman Nelson inquired if it has been vacant for a year, what is the urgency today; with Commissioner Infantini advising if it was important for Chairman Nelson to appoint someone then it would have been done in the past.  Chairman Nelson stated Advisory Boards are all handled in different fashions, different times, and in different ways; and he believes it needs to be fixed.

 

Commissioner Fisher stated he is going to say nay with the understanding at the next meeting to come back with a modified Resolution; and he will appoint Commissioner Infantini’s person but also appoint Chairman Nelson’s person. 

 

Chairman Nelson inquired if the Board has a preference on what the background should be; if the Board is going to modify the Resolution, it needs to have the same background and experience for consideration.  Mr. Whitten advised when the Board changed the makeup of the committee, it solicited from major companies in the County; the members on now are Certified Financial Officers, Accounting Directors of Brevard Community College, the Space Center, Florida Institute Technology, and Boeing; and those are the type of qualifications that are there now.  Commissioner Fisher inquired if the Committee is meeting; with Mr. Whitten responding yes.  Commissioner Fisher inquired when; with Mr. Whitten responding it is required to meet four times a year.  Commissioner Anderson stated he would like to modify the Resolution with the suggestion that the Board bring in requirements of background.

 

Chairman Nelson stated he is hearing to expand to seven with the same background requirements; and with the two new members there would be one additional appointment available.  Commissioner Fisher inquired to have a CPA background; with Commissioner Infantini responding a financial trust background.

 

Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Infantini, for staff to come back to the Board with a modified Resolution at the February 17, 2009 Regular Board Meeting; to expand the Internal Audit Committee membership from five members to seven members, with the same background requirements and qualifications; and to include the names and resumes’ of the individuals interested in serving on the Committee.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m.