March 10, 2005

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on March 10, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Ron Pritchard, D.P.A., Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Helen Voltz, Susan Carlson, and Jackie Colon, Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson.

REPORT, RE: MOODY’S RATING AGENCY REPORT

Chairman Pritchard distributed a letter to the Board from County Finance Director Stephen Burdett; stated he asked Mr. Burdett to respond to some questions he had regarding Moody’s Report addressing Brevard County’s credit and its reference to weakened financial operations and unfunded capital; the letter contains several points that Mr. Burdett is making; and the Five-year Capital Improvement Plan shows a significant percentage and amount of transportation needs remain unfunded. He noted there was discussion at the last meeting; if there is a significant amount of unfunded capital improvement requests then he has to question why they are on the list; the County is addressing it; and at the bottom of page 1, it says, “If 80% of the receipts from local option gas tax six cents, 9th-cent gas tax, motor fuel and the local option gas tax second five cents were made available to fund infrastructure requirement, the County could access $161 million of capital funds through either a 20-year financing or a commercial paper line.” He stated it is something the Board needs to address; it not only needs to look within to insure what it is doing is necessary and not something it started at some point or added to the portfolio of things it does, but it needs to address what the costs of these things are, as well as creating appropriate revenue streams to fund appropriate projects; at the last budget meeting the Board increased transportation and library impact fees to 100% of their costs; and it was a good move because it is going to provide the necessary dollars to provide the work the County always says it needs to get done, but never has the funding to do. Chairman Pritchard stated the County also needs to insure that it does not create divergences from the revenue stream into other areas within the County’s budget; and should the issue come up later in conversation or at another budget session, the Board will know where it is.

DISCUSSION, RE: BUDGET WORKSHOP

Chairman Pritchard noted at the last meeting the County was going to have the various departments looks within their budgets, including what was needed and what was not needed; and inquired has there been any work toward that effort and when might the Board hear about that.

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated staff is prepared to go over the budget presentations before the Board; they have done an analysis of what each department does; they have included sources of funding and budgets that are mandated, and when appropriate, a level of service standard; staff has put together some budget savings or efficiency opportunities, and other considerations, which include trends and issues, estimated budget impacts, and service impacts; and staff has gone forward with possible revenue enhancement opportunities. Ms. Busacca noted each department will be prepared to discuss that; staff hopes the information will be useful to the Board; and if not, they stand ready to provide any information they can.

Chairman Pritchard stated Jack Callinan, member of the Citizens Budget Review Committee, is sitting at the table with the Board today.

Commissioner Carlson inquired in the department considerations is there anything that has been done regarding the strategic departmental plans in terms of what has occurred based on their own strategies and is it included in the information.

Ms. Busacca responded included in the Board’s package is an update of the previous Strategic Plan established by the Board in 2003, as well as recommendations for meeting the goals for the Board; they are new goals under item IV.; pages 1-20 are the additional recommendations for this year; and pages 1-8 are the Strategic Plan status reports.

Valkaria Airport

Valkaria Airport Manager Jim Shimkus stated the Airport operates as an enterprise fund; it lives off of the revenues it generates; it tries to keep its expenses within that; and sources of funding include grants, charges for services, and cash forward reserves. He noted in the Operations and Maintenance Program and fixed base operator services, the Airport is selling fuel and managing the tie-downs; it is getting 50 cents per gallon profit on the fuel; it has been a traditional thing since the Airport took over the fixed base operator services; and under budget savings/efficiency opportunities, the Airport could use a fixed base operator to provide basic aviation type services, like a mechanic on the field or something. He stated it would be a commercial operation and produce some additional revenue; the reasons the Airport needs some revenue is in its trends and issues; it is currently using its carry forward cash reserves to make up about a $3,000 to $5,000 shortfall in budget revenue versus expenses; and the Airport has a need for a little bit more revenue. He noted the Airport is also going to have to budget this fiscal year a capital purchase of a pickup truck; the one the Airport got out of salvage last time is slowly dying and needs to be replaced; the Airport will have the money in cash reserves to do that; however, it will reduce reserves by about $18,000.

Ms. Busacca stated it is important because the Airport has been living off of its reserves to make up the difference.

Mr. Shimkus stated under revenue enhancement opportunities, the Airport has additional T-hangars; the Board has currently authorized Airport staff to move forward with a request to the State for a 50-50 match grant to build T-hangars; it received information that the policy at the District 5 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is changing in July 2006 to where T-hangars will be eligible for an 80% grant; and it would be wise for the Airport to wait for that as it would be a considerable savings. He noted once the Airport could get that it would get a good revenue stream off of those additional T-hangars; in the short term a possibility to make up this shortfall other than the reserves might be to increase the gasoline profit by 10 cents a gallon; and in over one year the Airport would realize about $5,000 more.

Chairman Pritchard inquired would it take it to 60 cents; with Mr. Shimkus responding yes. Ms. Busacca requested Mr. Shimkus describe what the gas prices are at Valkaria Airport versus other areas. Mr. Shimkus stated Valkaria Airport has been the lowest price in the local area, from Vero Beach to Arthur Dunn Airport in Titusville; what Valkaria Airport had to pay in its last delivery was the second lowest by about 3 cents under Arthur Dunn Airport, which is the most inexpensive right now; the way gas prices are going right now, a 10-cent per gallon increase may not be too bad to do; and it would be paid by the users. Chairman Pritchard inquired how much recreational traffic is at Valkaria Airport. Mr. Shimkus responded of local-based aircraft it might average one flight per day; 90% or more of traffic at the Airport is transient traffic; people come in to purchase fuel because they know it is a good deal; and it is not a landslide operation, but a few airplanes. He stated the Airport gets a lot of student traffic out of Vero Beach, Melbourne, and Florida Institute of Technology (FIT) that use the Airport for touch-and-go landings and training; recreational use is 10% to 20%; and the rest of it is training. Chairman Pritchard stated there is not a flight school at the Airport due to the line in the operational documents that prohibits commercial activity. Mr. Shimkus stated that is correct; the Airport does not have a flight school there or any other commercial activities; and it has been the policy of the Board that there would be no commercial operations at the Airport. Chairman Pritchard stated Melbourne International Airport is the wrong place to have a flight school; Melbourne has its own traffic patterns and is more highly developed surrounding the Airport; there is a lot of vacant land around Valkaria Airport; and to have a commercial operation like a flight school in that location would benefit the Airport and provide additional revenue. He noted there would be less traffic to worry about than there is at Melbourne International Airport; it would require a change in the Policy the Board created; it is the direction the Board needs to go in addition to having a fixed base operator; and inquired can FIT, which operates a flight school, operate a fixed base operator. Mr. Shimkus responded FIT was operating a fixed base operator type operation at Melbourne International Airport when it was on the south side. Chairman Pritchard inquired does Mr. Shimkus think there would be an interest in FIT moving to Valkaria Airport; with Mr. Shimkus responding he has no idea at this time and would have to contact FIT.

Commissioner Voltz stated she is not so sure it would be a good idea; financially it would be great, but the County would create a tremendous problem for the residents if Valkaria Airport had a flight school; there needs to be something to raise funds; and the County needs to move forward with T-hangars. She noted she has no problem having night lights; and they could be off except in an emergency situation.

Ms. Busacca inquired if Mr. Shimkus has a plan for that. Mr. Shimkus responded there has not been any real plan formulated as far as runway lighting; he had discussions with Mosquito Control Director Scott Linkenhoker; he has expressed in the future that Mosquito Control might need to move some of its nighttime operations to Valkaria Airport; so it might have a need for runway lighting. He stated he and Mr. Linkenhoker have been discussing the idea as to what it might take, the issues involved, funding sources, etc.

Commissioner Voltz stated it would benefit the people who live in the area; and inquired how big of a commercial issue would the County be looking at.

Chairman Pritchard responded he is only looking at a flight school. Commissioner Voltz stated there are a lot of people who probably would support that, but also a lot of people who may not. Commissioner Carlson stated Valkaria Airport is being used by the Vero flight school for touch-and-goes and things like that; Ms. Busacca is probably a good person to go to in terms of the history of Valkaria Airport and the number of hours the Board has spent with the Valkaria folks; it is absolutely a less populated area; and the only difference is the folks in Melbourne are used to having little planes going around in circles on a continuous basis. She noted they have learned to try to ignore it, deal with it, or whatever and would probably love to get rid of it; to displace it and put it in another place where more problems are created may not be a good idea; and the Commissioners of that District have dealt with the issue on numerous occasions. Chairman Pritchard stated he realizes that, but times change; the concern he has is the increased flight patterns at Melbourne Airport; it is an international airport and flight schools should not be at that type of airport, and should be more offsite in areas that are less developed; and there is a lot of nothing around Valkaria Airport, and a few houses in the vicinity. He noted it is the type of enterprise that could get a significant boost by better utilization of a field, including having a fixed base operator and adding more T-hangars; there is a demand; and most of the fields have a waiting list of 50 to 60 pilots that would like to get a T-hangar. He stated Valkaria Airport could be a much better utilized field; and that is what he is looking at.

Commissioner Carlson stated she and Commissioner Voltz were speaking the same language five or six years ago where they thought maybe the County did not need the Airport and could offload it someplace else, but they found out they could not do that; and they went through the whole gyration. Chairman Pritchard stated the Airport would go back to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) probably. Commissioner Voltz stated it would definitely bring the Airport up to commercial or whatever. Chairman Pritchard stated having an airport like this is a lot like having a golf course; it costs a lot of money to have an airport and golf course; if a golf course is not utilized, then the cost of it falls back and is distributed throughout the community; and if the airport is utilized, it becomes a revenue stream that enhances the airport operation and becomes more self sufficient. He noted the County would not be tapping into reserves; it is able to get the vehicles it needs; and that is why he is looking at this saying it is grossly underutilized. Commissioner Voltz stated she agrees.

Commissioner Colon stated she does not support a flight school at Valkaria Airport based on feedback the Board received; it needs to be sensitive; it would have been a good idea, but based on the location and past history, things have not changed; and there is more development taking place now than five years ago.

Chairman Pritchard stated the less traffic in the vicinity of an airport the better it is for operation of the airport; Valkaria Airport is grossly underutilized; the flight school could be shifted and the fixed base operator could be created using FIT as the operator; and the cost of fuel could be increased to where it is not prohibitive, but at least it is more competitive. He noted the County could get more revenue from it; people who live next to an airport should not complain about airplanes; it is like living next to the river and complaining about boats; and reiterated that Valkaria Airport has been grossly underutilized. Chairman Pritchard stated it is coming to a point where traffic needs to be reduced in Melbourne and have a small plane traffic flight school at Valkaria Airport. Commissioner Colon stated it does not look like Chairman Pritchard is getting the support from the majority of the Board. Chairman Pritchard stated he has two Commissioners that are leaning this way. Commissioner Voltz noted she does not think so; but if the County looks at the future and what happens with the Melbourne Airport, and should it decide to grow and bring in more, it may be an option the Board needs to look at. Commissioner Carlson stated Melbourne Airport may not renew FIT’s lease. Chairman Pritchard inquired what does the Board want to do with Valkaria Airport. Commissioner Voltz responded it needs to do the T-hangars; and she does not know about increasing the price of fuel. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board needs to deal with the reserves; and inquired where are they after this year.

Mr. Shimkus responded the reserves are $90,000 to $100,000. Commissioner Voltz inquired can staff wait until next year to do the match. Mr. Shimkus responded the County would be wise to wait for the 80/20 match now that the policy is going to change; and in July 2006 the County will be eligible for 80/20 funding. Chairman Pritchard stated he does not see any reason to rush that side of it; and for 80/20 funding it makes sense to him.

Ms. Busacca inquired is there anything the County needs to do to get in line to get the grant money; and advised the planning period is several years. Mr. Shimkus stated March 18, 2005 is the cutoff date for the online computer grant programming; he needs to get the grant request into the computer by that date; and if he gets direction today to go for the 80/20 grant for T-hangars for July 2006, it would be good.

Chairman Pritchard inquired what about development of a master plan so the County can participate more in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and FDOT grants. Mr. Shimkus responded there were two master plans that were previously created for Valkaria; the Board direction was not to use either one of those; there is some work there that could be resurrected, possibly piecemeal or as a starting point; and a full blown master plan is a very expensive type of thing, up in the $80,000 to $100,000 range with a consultant. He noted it is grant eligible and the County would have to come up with the local match; it would be an 80/20 type thing; the County can do some informal master planning with staff, local citizens, and pilot groups, putting ideas on an airport layout plan; and the plan could be presented to the Board for approval. He stated it can be done very inexpensively in-house; and having it on an airport layout plan would make the project eligible for grant funding.

Ms. Busacca stated the direction Mr. Shimkus needs is not only to put the grant forward, but to amend the Airport Layout Plan to depict an area for the hangars. Mr. Shimkus stated the hangars he is talking about have already been approved by the Board as far as the 20-unit T-hangar; he was approved to go forward for a 50/50 grant; he is asking for direction to postpone it for the 80/20 funding; and as far as future things, in lieu of master plan and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to do such plan, staff could do it inexpensively utilizing an airport layout plan and local staff work. Chairman Pritchard stated as long as the product gives the County what is acceptable with FAA and FDOT, it works for him.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to authorize staff to apply for 80/20 grant match for T-hangars at Valkaria Airport for July 2006. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard inquired how often does the Valkaria Airport Advisory Board meet; with Mr. Shimkus responding it meets quarterly. Chairman Pritchard stated he has heard from a couple of members who think that more frequent meetings might be a good idea; and inquired is it something Mr. Shimkus would set up if the Advisory Board wanted to meeting monthly. Mr. Shimkus responded the Resolution that formed the Advisory Board stipulates quarterly meetings unless the chairman has a reason to call a special meeting. Chairman Pritchard stated he would like to amend the Resolution. Ms. Busacca inquired if Chairman Pritchard wants staff to bring the Resolution back to the Board. Chairman Pritchard responded if staff does not need to bring back the Resolution, then the meetings can be held monthly.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not prepared to vote on those issues that have not been discussed previously; he prefers bringing the Resolution back to the Board; the idea may be great; but he wants to give people an opportunity to call him and give their thoughts if they desire. Chairman Pritchard stated the Resolution can be put on the Board’s agenda.

Jack Callinan, Citizens Budget Review Committee, stated he likes the Excel worksheets as they are a positive action; and inquired how much does it cost to build a tie down and how much is it rented for. Mr. Shimkus responded the tie downs are already in existence as far as the tie down rings and the area, so there is no expense involved in that; and they are currently rented for $30.00 a month plus tax. Mr. Callinan inquired what about adding new ones; with Mr. Shimkus responding there is no discussion of new tie downs, but new T-hangars. Mr. Callinan inquired what does it cost; with Mr. Shimkus responded the 20 T-hangar project is currently being forecast at $600,000. Mr. Callinan stated the County is looking for an 80/20 split; and inquired what is the rent for a T-hangar. Mr. Shimkus responded $175.00 plus tax per month. Mr. Callinan stated it is about $30,000 for each T-hangar; if the County was paying the whole thing it would be a 15-year return on investment; and if it is only going to pay 20%, then it is down to a three-year return on investment, which is terrific. He noted the word “profit” has been used; but the Airport is not profitable when taking the capital expenditures out; it is running a slight loss on the operating expenditure part; and the gas increase will probably cover the cost. He stated people get the wrong idea when the term “profit” is used. Mr. Shimkus noted the word should have been “markup”. Mr. Callinan stated Mr. Shimkus’ initiative should be applauded.

Planning and Zoning Office

Planning and Zoning Interim Director Robin Sobrino stated this year has been an active one for the Planning and Zoning Office; staff anticipates next year being a more intensive year as the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) will be due in August 2006 in Tallahassee; in addition to all of the small area studies and other activities the Office has been doing this year, the EAR will be added as part of the major work products for next year; and there are 25 employees in the Office. Ms. Sobrino noted there are six work programs that are performed; comprehensive planning and zoning are probably the most well known of the programs, followed by concurrency review; the other activities the Office is involved in include impact fee administration; the graphic and demographics research sections provide a lot of support to the planning and zoning efforts; and one of the things that may not be clearly evident is the fact that while the Office is General Fund based, it provides and generates revenues through the Office. She stated approximately 60% of the budget for this year will be covered by the fees collected as part of the Office; some of the trends forecasted for this coming year have been the demand for small area studies to supplement the comprehensive planning effort; currently there are five additional studies that the Board has directed staff to undertake; the Office recently filled the position that will handle primarily small area studies, so it can get going on the backlog of such studies; and the other activity that has taken a tremendous amount of effort during this past year has been that of the municipal annexations and joint planning agreements. Ms. Sobrino noted in the past this was viewed to be an ancillary activity that a planner could incorporate into his or her work schedule; staff is finding with the number of annexations that are taking place with the various municipalities the issues that are now emerging as far as compatibility and other concerns; annexations have taken a tremendous amount of staff time and effort; and staff has recognized the need for increased joint planning agreements. She stated currently the County only has two of them; staff would like to maintain an effort of going forward and pursuing such agreements with the other municipalities to yield a better cohesive planning effort for the County and benefit its citizens; the building permit activity continues to boom; and the County is going to have a busy year. She noted staff has been performing building permit reviews with one staff person augmented by taking in professional staff planners to help keep up with the backlog of permits where necessary; some of the things staff is proposing in the budget would be an additional Planner III to help supplement the small area studies, and annexation and joint planning agreement efforts; and staff envisions this to be one person who could possibly split his or her time to provide additional support to those various functions.

Commissioner Scarborough stated in last year’s budget the Board approved $60,000 for a position; staff hired somebody; and inquired was it for that position or the other open position. Ms. Sobrino responded the person recently hired was for the small area studies. Commissioner Scarborough inquired is it the position the Board specifically approved; with Ms. Sobrino responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough inquired are there two open positions. Ms. Sobrino responded there is a Planner II position; it has been traditionally envisioned to be the individual who would handle annexations and joint planning agreements; and there is also a vacancy on the zoning side. Commissioner Scarborough inquired is Ms. Sobrino asking for another position; with Ms. Sobrino responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board asked that a memorandum come back on those positions; John Denninghoff is having a great deal of difficulty finding someone to help him; the Board asked for a traffic study on S.R. 524; and Mr. Denninghoff is at an impasse on how to do that without going outside, and it would cost a lot. He noted if the Board funds a position and does not attach enough dollars with it or if it does not have the right salary structure, it can create all kinds of problems; it is a Human Resources problem and not a planning problem; he is not opposed to creating positions; but there have been at least two positions open in the Planning and Zoning Office for over one year; and the Board has a more profound problem.

Ms. Busacca stated staff has identified 13 positions that have been open; the positions for the Planning and Zoning Office and Transportation Engineering Department were identified on those long-term open positions; the second part of the study is how does the salary for those positions match the going market rates of other communities; and the work is ongoing. She noted it will probably be another week or two before staff has all the information; and the two positions identified are on the list. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board was looking at the turnover rate; it has some key positions to make; Mr. Denninghoff is at a loss to do certain things the Board asks him to do because he cannot fill the position; and he has tried hard. Ms. Busacca stated the Planning and Zoning Office is not comfortable with necessarily the people who have applied because the amount of money the County is offering is attracting people who have less experience.

Commissioner Colon inquired what is the total amount that is supposed to be coming to the County with the impact fee, where do the dollars go, and who is administering it; and stated out of all the departments in the County, the Planning and Zoning Office needs the most help because of the amount of growth that is taking place. Ms. Sobrino stated while there are a number of impact fees that are being collected Countywide, they typically do not benefit the Planning and Zoning Office; they are earmarked for other County agencies; the Office derives an administration percentage out of the total fees collected; and that helps to offset Steve Swanke’s time in administering the program. Commissioner Colon inquired are the impact fees being collected from the municipalities.

Planner Steve Swanke responded impact fee administration revenues are collected from the impact fee revenues that are collected; there are impact fees that are collected by the County in incorporated areas; and these primarily fall into the correctional facilities impact fee and transportation.

Commissioner Colon inquired about the school impact fees for residential homes; stated it was “x” amount of dollars the County was going to charge; it was somewhere around $300,000; and inquired where do the dollars go. Mr. Swanke responded the school impact fee administration revenues are retained from the school impact fee revenues that are paid to the County and include all the cities; and it is not more than 2 ½%. Ms. Busacca inquired what happens with those fees. Mr. Swanke responded staff will make out a budget for its estimate of what it is going to cost to administer all of the impact fee programs; it will spread those costs evenly between all the impact fees and charge a fixed percentage to all the programs to cover that expense; the way the Ordinances are written, it allows the County to collect up to a certain percentage, but not more than that amount of the impact fees that are collected; so it varies from year to year, and how much money the County has varies according to how much impact fees are collected. Commissioner Colon stated she wants to know which department is going to be getting that percentage. Mr. Swanke stated for the school impact fee all the administration revenues come into the Planning and Zoning Office; and they are held in a separate business area and used only for impact fee administration. Ms. Busacca stated it includes not only Mr. Swanke’s position, but the people who actually collect and calculate the impact fees in Land Development. Mr. Swanke stated last year and this year staff has budgeted for $150,000 for the development cashier system; there are probably five positions there; they are not entirely funded with impact fee administration revenues but they are all partly funded; and they all do some work in administering the Impact Fee Program, either collecting the money or preparing assessments, dealing with the public, and answering questions. Ms. Busacca stated what monies are not spent are accrued; there is a pot of money from administration that staff has saved; it is what is paid to the consultant when he does work; and staff does not take the total amount of money and spend it every year.

Commissioner Colon stated she wanted to make sure it was not going to General Fund; the dollars can change every year; the County does not know what those dollars are; and she wants the Board to keep those dollars in mind, how it applies, and how many departments would be split. She inquired are the municipalities being charged the fee; and stated she does not want to have an impact fee issue again. Mr. Swanke responded all of the impact fee programs are set up to where the fee payers pay directly to the County and the cities play no role in that; and they do not share in any of the impact fee administration revenues. Commissioner Colon stated the Board was under the impression that it was getting impact fee dollars for the libraries, etc.; and she wants to make sure the County is getting the dollars from the cities. Ms. Busacca stated the County is not currently collecting impact fees through interlocal agreements on that; it is moving forward to correct it; it is a separate issue than the administration fees the County gathers; and the cities, through their Interlocal Agreements, tell someone when they get their building permit to come back with a receipt from the County saying he or she has paid the impact fee. She noted the County collects the fee and administers the program.

Commissioner Carlson stated the Planning and Zoning Office does not have anything to do with the impact fee administration. Ms. Busacca responded yes, it does. Commissioner Carlson stated if there was no impact fee, there would be no money coming in for administration of the impact fee; and inquired what is the percentage that would go back to such Office.

Mr. Swanke responded the County collects a certain percentage of the total amount of the fees collected each year for administration; and it goes into a separate fund. Ms. Busacca stated part of Mr. Swanke’s salary comes out of those impact fees; and that part goes to the Planning and Zoning Office. Commissioner Carlson noted it does not impact what is being discussed here. Ms. Busacca stated Page 1 under the Planning and Zoning Office includes the Impact Fee Program 2004-2005 budget; $69,723 has the source of funding as other; and it is intended to be impact fee administration dollars. Commissioner Carlson stated she is trying to get to what Commissioner Colon was interested in finding out as far as any additional dollars going to the Planning and Zoning Office other than what is already laid out to be used for any other purpose other than impact fee administration. Ms. Busacca noted that is the only thing those dollars are utilized for.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the impact fee is more complex for transportation; the County is currently at 31.5%; the item is scheduled on the agenda for April 26, 2005; and the Board is going to consider bringing it to 100%. He noted the County is involved in the transportation, but for some exceptions, including Palm Bay, Melbourne, and Titusville; at the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting it was stated that it is at $144.00; the County is at approximately $3,000; and the City of Titusville is talking about going to the County’s measure and coming back to it as part of the Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) negotiations. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the City is going to have road problems, it needs to have a means to fund such roads; it is a number of different impact fees for a number of different purposes; in different places and different ways people have opted in and opted out; and inquired are the Cities of Melbourne and Palm Bay still between $800 and $900. Mr. Swanke responded yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is an assumption that everything is across-the-board, but it is scattered throughout the County. Commissioner Carlson stated that is correct; the City of Melbourne chose to keep transportation impact fees when the County decided to get rid of them with regard to non-residential; and if the County could get a JPA with each city it could even all out. Commissioner Scarborough stated the City of Titusville executed a JPA and sent it to the County six months ago; the Board did not act on it because staff was concerned about a lot of unanswered issues like impact fees being at $144.00 and the County is sitting at $3,000; the cities are asking where the money is coming from the County to build the roads; and the County has said it needs to talk more with the cities, but it is making some progress. Commissioner Scarborough stated he heard that Palm Bay may not want to come back in and be an integrated part, but may want to increase its impact fees; maybe by what the Board does it may find that it will move Palm Bay into having more funding methodologies; it is a complex issue; and he does not want anybody to think that it can be understood with one or two comments.

Mr. Swanke stated the cost of administering the impact fee programs is fairly well fixed; they may increase gradually each year, but in the coming year with adding new impact fees in the incorporated areas for EMS and libraries, the prospect of increasing transportation impact fees, and having the school impact fee come on line, the County is going to see an enormous increase in revenues without seeing an enormous increase in costs; and the percentage of the impact fee that is used for administration is going to decline drastically because the costs have not increased as much as the impact fee revenues have.

Ms. Sobrino stated she was talking about the staffing adjustments she was proposing for this upcoming year; one of the issues she had not addressed that has been important to the Planning and Zoning Office is trying to establish some independence when it comes to the Geographic Information System (GIS) based zoning map and maintaining the Office’s own zoning information; currently it is dependent on other organizations for its GIS databases; one is the Property Appraiser’s Office; and most of the Planning and Zoning Office’s information gets transmitted electronically by way of a server in the Water Resources Department. She noted her Office is built to bring up its zoning maps electronically; they happen to be the most current ones available, but when the system goes down and somebody asks for zoning information, staff goes back to the older paper maps kept in the Office; there is always a little bit of concern that maybe the maps are not the best and most current data available; and staff feels extremely vulnerable in that area. She stated the Office is proposing to try to establish its independence in order for it to be able to maintain its own GIS mapping system; some of the benefits of that would be not only guaranteeing its ability to provide the most current information to customers, but it would allow the Office to respond to any custom demands from the public or the Board as to mapping and data that can be gleaned from the GIS information; currently there have been suggestions by the Board how it would like the zoning and Comprehensive Plan maps in its agenda packages, and how they could be refined to be a better product; but her Office does not have the ability to do that because it did not write the program to create the maps. Ms. Sobrino stated the Office can only generate maps based on a program created by somebody else; when it gets requests for specific projects, different types of data, and information that can readily be removed from the GIS databases, the Office is unable to do it because it does not have the programs written to do that; if her Office was able to have a systems analyst to give it independence to maintain its own GIS database, it would serve the public better and provide better information, maps, and data for the Board.

Commissioner Voltz stated several months ago Ms. Busacca suggested the County was going to be going to a paperless agenda and the Board would have laptops; and inquired would the maps be on the laptops.

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated the first initiative that needs to be undertaken before getting to the computerized agenda process is the upgrade of the network; staff is currently at the end of the study portion of the network and expecting within the next couple of weeks some recommendation from the consultant; and the network will be upgraded and staff will then roll out the project for computerizing the agenda. He advised the maps will be end products on the computerized agenda package and will be data received from whatever system such data is from; and it may be a PDF file.

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board will be able to link right to the information. Mr. Whitten noted it would pull it as a photocopy.

Commissioner Carlson stated page 2 references eliminating hard copy zoning maps and those things, and updating paper zoning maps to supplement the GIS database requires additional time; and inquired how are the two correlated with the GIS, having more control for planning purposes, and doing away with hard copy zoning maps. Ms. Sobrino stated the paper zoning maps date back many years; the Property Appraiser’s Office used to maintain parcel-based maps that showed parcel information and how property is carved up; based on those maps her Office would overlay the zoning onto the parcel maps; and over time property is subdivided, split, re-parceled, and new parcel identification numbers are given to them. She noted the Property Appraiser’s Office no longer maintains the parcel maps in hard copy form; the only way it shows changes with parcels in the County is through its electronic GIS maps on the computer; what her Office might have on a hard copy right now is an outdated parcel map; and the only way to guarantee what the zoning is, is to go online to the computer to see if the parcel is still the same parcel configuration as shown on the maps. She noted if it is not, then staff has to do some interpretation as to how the piece of real property today is laid out and what it is currently zoned; when there is a rezoning action, the graphic section will pencil in the new property configuration on the old maps; it is labor intensive; and staff takes the metes and bounds, scales it out, and creates a new hand drafted version of what the parcel looks like and how it relates to the most recent zoning action that has taken place. Ms. Sobrino stated her Office is doing something manually, while the Property Appraiser’s Office is doing it electronically; and if her Office was fully electronic, it would not have to be doing that manual step, which is duplicative and takes a lot of time.

Commissioner Carlson stated if the Planning and Zoning Office can have a little more flexibility with GIS, then it could eliminate the hard copy zoning maps and the time issues that go along with them; it is an efficiency issue; and inquired would the efficiency come down to the cost of allocating one full-time equivalent for GIS, and has staff done that analysis. Ms. Sobrino responded for her Office to have control over its destiny with regard to any zoning mapping exercises, any type of data manipulation that usually goes hand-in-hand with GIS information would be able to be done where now it is very much limited; GIS is a wonderful resource, but now the program her Office utilizes was developed by the Property Appraiser’s Office to benefit it; it has been customized to serve that Office’s needs and not necessarily to further the needs of her Office or the interests of the Board when it comes to development issues, trends, and data; and if her Office had control over the GIS mapping for zoning purposes, it would be able to utilize that wonderful resource a lot better.

Chairman Pritchard stated Parks and Recreation Department has a GIS planner; he thought it was producing the majority of GIS maps; and Water Resources Department has the server that the Planning and Zoning Office utilizes. Ms. Sobrino stated that is correct; her Office used to be linked to the Property Appraiser’s Office; and now it has a link through Water Resources Department.

Assistant County Manager Don Lusk stated Parks and Recreation Department has a person who manipulates the GIS data, but that is not the only thing that person does.

Commissioner Carlson inquired is it just for the EELS Program; with Mr. Lusk responding no, it is also for parks projects and what the Department does that is land based.

Chairman Pritchard inquired how many vacancies are in the Planning and Zoning Office. Ms. Sobrino responded there are currently two planning vacancies; and both of them are Planner II positions. Chairman Pritchard inquired have the positions been vacant for one year; with Ms. Sobrino responding they have only been vacant since either the summer or fall. Chairman Pritchard stated there are two current vacancies and Ms. Sobrino wants to add three more positions, a Planner III, a Permit Specialist, and a GIS analyst; the positions are going to cost $162,000; page 5 shows $18,250 in projected revenue with the additions Ms. Sobrino wants to do; and inquired why do the two existing vacancies need to be filled. Ms. Sobrino responded one of them is a planner in the zoning side who handles site planning, subdivisions, customers, zoning applications, and all of the routine zoning activities that all the planners share in the Planning Office; on the comprehensive planning side the vacancy is the one that the Office is feeling a tremendous pinch in; and traditionally that vacant planner position has been the one that has been assigned doing the annexations and joint planning agreements. Chairman Pritchard inquired what purpose do neighborhood action plans serve. Ms. Sobrino responded the Planning and Zoning Office provides professional expertise to the Housing and Human Services Department for its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding.

Ms. Busacca inquired does such Office help pay for that position. Ms. Sobrino responded it is defrayed by the Office paying a portion of it; staff bills it hourly for any amount of time that is spent on that; last fiscal year there was more time spent on it; and so far this year it has only been about $2,000 of staff time that has been allocated to that. Chairman Pritchard inquired is it a critical component; with Ms. Sobrino responding it is a support function or service that staff offers to the Office and it is not integral to the Planning and Zoning Office. Chairman Pritchard inquired is it critical to Housing and Human Services Department or can it get by without that service.

Commissioner Voltz stated if the Planning and Zoning Office is getting paid for that service, then it should not be an issue and should be a wash. Ms. Sobrino stated the time the planner is spending doing that work is time he or she is not working on tasks that directly benefit the Office’s efforts; and if it was to no longer participate in the neighborhood action plan process, that person would have more time available to do planning and zoning related activities. Chairman Pritchard stated a proportionate share of the salary is paid by CDBG, so it is a bit of a wash. Ms. Sobrino stated there are two issues, one of them is money but the other issue is the amount of assignments that the Office has versus the number of bodies to do it. Chairman Pritchard stated there is either an overage in salaries because CDBG is reimbursing the Office a portion or it would have to increase to pay for this person based on a historical share with CDBG; and his assumption is that the Office funds the position fully and CDBG provides excess money. Ms. Sobrino noted it helps defray the cost of the salary. Chairman Pritchard stated he assumes it is a critical operation on behalf of Housing and Human Services Department; and it requires Planning and Zoning Office’s service. Ms. Sobrino noted she presumes the Department has a strong appreciation for such service. Commissioner Carlson stated neighborhood action plans were a big thing when they first got started; and they are established now.

Commissioner Scarborough stated they were very well received; he thinks what Chairman Pritchard is saying is rather than hiring a new position maybe the County needs to reclassify a position if it is not being utilized for what it was anticipated with CDBG; and it is a good question. Chairman Pritchard stated he is looking to see whether it is a necessary action. Ms. Sobrino stated she is suggesting since the time does not directly benefit the Planning and Zoning Office and the issue of hiring additional personnel is not going to happen, then the Office needs to think about how it is allocating its existing resources; and she would like to have the planner on her staff be able to invest more of his time in planning and zoning related things rather than being farmed out to someplace else at the expense of the Planning and Zoning Office’s assignments not getting completed. Chairman Pritchard stated he does not know the role of this person in that plan and whether it is a critical role or whether it is just nice to have him there. Commissioner Scarborough inquired is the person Alan Woolwich; with Ms. Sobrino responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board was going to drop Mr. Woolwich last year and picked him up when it did its final budget adjustments. Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Woolwich’s time was more focused on neighborhood plans; and he does Open Space Ordinance-type plans as well. Commissioner Scarborough noted the Board does not have the information, but staff asked the question. Chairman Pritchard stated maybe the information would come from Housing and Human Services Department; and suggested Ms. Sobrino speak to such Department. Chairman Pritchard noted if it is only nice to have the service, then it is not critical so the County does not need to do it; and if it is critical to the Department’s operation, then it needs to be done. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not see why there cannot be an arrangement set up so that the Department has access to someone like that, but the person’s primary job is planning. Chairman Pritchard stated the Department has access now and pays for it; and inquired does it need the access.

Mr. Lusk stated the Department has utilized Mr. Woolwich because he has a talent in that area, so it can be bought in-house from the Planning and Zoning Office; and if that is not available and the Department needs it, it would have to look and buy it elsewhere. Chairman Pritchard inquired is the service needed; with Mr. Lusk responding yes. Chairman Pritchard inquired if Mr. Woolwich is being funded at 100%, then how is the money that the Department reimburses the Planning and Zoning Office applied and to where. Ms. Sobrino stated any money that the Office does not use for salaries and benefits goes back to the General Fund; at the front end the Office budgets 100% of Mr. Woolwich’s time coming out of the General Fund; and as he bills back Housing and Human Services Department then there is a certain amount of that money that had been earmarked for his salary that no longer would be utilized, and therefore, it would be returned to the General Fund. Chairman Pritchard inquired does the Office charge a loaded amount including everything, such as lights, carpet, and electricity. Ms. Sobrino responding it charges only salary and benefits, and no operating expenses. Chairman Pritchard inquired when the County charges the public an increase in permit fees, is it based on all of the costs associated with that individual, including salary and everything.

Budget Director Dennis Rogero responded it would depend on the agency that is issuing the charge; if there is a self-sustaining agency, then the fee that the citizenry or the client has to pay would cover everything and would be loaded; and in referencing the Planning and Zoning Office, since it receives a subsidy from the General Fund, it is not accountable.

Chairman Pritchard inquired is a courtesy notice sent to someone within 500 feet of a property whose owner is applying for rezoning; with Ms. Sobrino responding yes. Chairman Pritchard inquired does it need to be done; with Ms. Sobrino responding no, it is not mandated by State law. Ms. Sobrino stated the legal advertisements that are run in publications are what are mandated by State law. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not coming to zoning meetings anymore if the County does not send courtesy notices; and inquired does Chairman Pritchard want to be able to drive home or does he want his tires slashed. Commissioner Scarborough stated people are upset when they do not know what is going on; and he will pay the $5,000 to send courtesy notices if Chairman Pritchard will not. Chairman Pritchard stated he was only asking the question. Commissioner Voltz stated she had the same question; a lot of times a property owner posts his or her property; that is how the majority of people find out; and then they start making phone calls. Commissioner Scarborough stated sometimes people do not post the property well or hide it, and only one person will get a notice; and he or she will make the phone calls. Chairman Pritchard inquired about eliminating hard copy zoning maps and was there any real decision that came out of it. Commissioner Carlson stated if the County wants to pay for the fulltime equivalent for the GIS analyst, it can be more efficient and see if it can save the money that the position costs.

Ms. Busacca stated there are also some software and computer costs as well. Commissioner Carlson inquired is it in the $60,000; with Ms. Sobrino responding no, it is strictly for the position. Ms. Busacca stated if the Board is interested in it, staff can bring the information back. Chairman Pritchard inquired is there any duplicity throughout the structure; if so, can all of it be located in the Planning and Zoning Office instead of having pieces of the system in different locations; and can the entire system be in one location and have that location distribute in some fashion. Ms. Busacca inquired is Chairman Pritchard talking about a consolidated GIS department; with Chairman Pritchard responding yes. Ms. Sobrino responded initially staff made inquiries with Information Technology Department to see whether it had that type of ability; it currently does not have that type of ability; and another way to proceed is to have Information Technology Department develop a GIS branch to serve the specific needs of the Board-related agencies. Ms. Busacca stated when the GIS system went to the Property Appraiser, all of that expertise went with it. Chairman Pritchard stated he does not want to create something that is going to cost $100,000 to eliminate something that is costing $20,000. Ms. Sobrino stated she understands; what is important is to understand the limitations her Office is experiencing now; getting past the current shortcomings of the system and thinking about the benefits of being able to provide the Board with all kinds of research and data crunching in the future is an intangible cost; and value to it is real good.

Commissioner Voltz stated the positions in the Office have been open six months; and inquired does staff return on a monthly basis the funds back to General Fund, and if not, why not. Mr. Rogero responded the funds are returned at the end of the year after the books are closed for the preceding fiscal year; staff makes a monthly transfer to the agencies of one-twelfth of the budgeted General Fund transfer; it could identify every month how much staff is or is not spending of the General Fund component and withhold that portion of the next month’s transfer; and it may complicate some things the Finance Department does since it is the entity that makes the transfer. He noted staff can explore it; there is also the option throughout the year of perhaps the Planning and Zoning Office coming to the Board and saying it has had this vacancy for six months and has some funding it does not anticipate spending based on the vacancy, but it has a need for a truck or three computers, and can it reallocate that; and the Budget Office sees that happen from different departments from time to time. Commissioner Voltz stated on a regular basis it would be beneficial for the General Fund and departments; the County needs to make sure the money goes back into such Fund; if it is on a monthly basis, obviously those funds have not been spent in a couple of months; and there are many other departments that are in that same situation. She noted all that money needs to come back into the General Fund
as soon as the monies are not being utilized.

Ms. Busacca inquired should staff ask the Finance Department for the impact to its operations and provide that information. Mr. Whitten responded the impact would be more on the departmental and Budget Office sides; they would have to identify each month those dollars they do not need transferred; they lag probably one month behind in making the transfer; and staff would have to sit down with the agencies each month and ask what needs or does not need to be transferred. Commissioner Voltz stated the department heads can review what vacancies they have, what money has not been spent, and what needs to be returned to the General Fund. Mr. Whitten stated at the end of the year when the books are closed then General Fund agencies do not have any discretion in regard to using those dollars; and the County gets its money back. Ms. Busacca stated the Board has been using the money as a revenue source for the next year. Mr. Whitten noted it is part of the fund balance issue; and there are built-in savings through attrition that occur each year. Commissioner Voltz stated the County does the 5%; and it is not going to utilize 100% of all the monies it has going toward salaries for every department. Mr. Whitten stated it is a statutory requirement to budget 95%; the County does not budget an attrition rate; and a number of years ago it budgeted a certain set aside. Commissioner Voltz stated the County has that attrition; and to be building General Fund when it comes time for an emergency, such as hurricanes, beach renourishment, or whatever, the County can say it has an excess in General Fund because the funds have not been spent throughout the year. Ms. Busacca stated it will make the next budget year more difficult. Commissioner Voltz noted she is not saying the County should spend it. Ms. Busacca stated the County has been using the General Fund almost as a savings account.

Commissioner Scarborough stated that was one of the key issues and there were some disagreements by people on the process and how it should be treated in the next budgetary year; and Mr. Whitten was taking the position since it was coming back as a transfer in, it was to be figured as an income source. Mr. Whitten stated the County uses its savings almost as a revenue source. Commissioner Scarborough stated it knows every year it is going to have a return it dispersed, but it is not being spent and it has a return; Mr. Whitten was showing it as an additional source of revenue that is now coming back to the County from all these accounts; Ms. Busacca’s point is if it gets this in throughout the process, it would be putting it in reserves; and the reserve balances would be building up through the year. He noted it would still be there and would be reflected differently. Chairman Pritchard stated the personnel costs need to be adjusted so they reflect accurately what is needed; the County does not have a set aside that could be used for other purposes; the purpose of budgeting is to set aside “x” amount that may be needed; and he can see a contingency. He noted the County is forever tapping contingencies; these contingents happen frequently; the dollars set aside for personnel costs should be there and for that cost; and if at the end of the year a department finds it has gone by with a vacancy and is not able to hire someone, then it may be down to 24 people instead of 25 people, but it does not buy a pickup truck, as that should come out of the vehicle replacement fund. He stated if there is new software, then it should be someplace; if a disaster happens, then the County deals with it; and he does not like the idea of using personnel costs as money in the bank.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner Voltz was raising the departmental level discretion; he does not know if a department can move from personnel over to buy software; it cannot deviate from the positions that are already assigned; and inquired without coming to the Board, can a department create new positions. Ms. Busacca responded new positions come to the Board. Commissioner Scarborough inquired can a department decide to buy different types of furniture and things. Mr. Rogero responded in most instances it would require Board action; but if the dollar amounts were low enough, the County Manager’s Office could approve it. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is not a lot of discretion; and at the constitutional office level, there is a little bit more discretion. Ms. Busacca stated there is not much in any budget for emergencies; staff has defaulted to utilizing in some cases these salaries as an emergency fund because it is not there; it has been discussing the use of something like an opportunity fund where money could be put aside for an opportunity that has arisen this year, which could save money next year; but if there is not any money set aside for those kinds of things, then staff sometimes goes to the Board with a budget change request and says it has a salary issue, and would like to be able to utilize it for some other opportunity that has come through this year.

Chairman Pritchard inquired how is the County doing on cash reserves; and stated to achieve a reasonable level of fund balance and consider the expected growth and expenditure levels over the next five years, Steve Burdett recommends annually increasing the budget of general cash reserves by $2.5 million. Mr. Whitten stated his report also indicates that the County did better coming into this year than it had in previous years; it is making progress; it is not where it needs to be; the Board established last year the replenishing of the reserves as a priority; and it has given some direction this year that it again is a priority. He noted the County is doing better; it is not at a point where it has six months of operating expenses in reserves; and there is still some progress that needs to be made in terms of reserves. Ms. Busacca stated the County is tentatively talking about $2 million to put in reserves

Chairman Pritchard stated he reviewed the summary report Mr. Burdett gave him based on the questions he asked; he hit on some highlights about the unfunded capital outlay, etc.; and inquired how much does Mr. Burdett think the County should have in cash reserve.

Mr. Burdett responded today based on the Board spending about $200 million a year there should be somewhere between $15 million and $20 million; there is somewhere around $10 million at this point; and the recommendation he made in the letter was assuming that the Board’s General Fund appropriations would continue to increase based on what has been happening during the last five years, if it added $2.5 million each year, then by the end of the fifth year there would be a reasonable level. Chairman Pritchard inquired what can cash reserves be used for. Mr. Burdett responded cash reserves are very similar to having a contingency. Chairman Pritchard inquired is it like an opportunity fund. Mr. Burdett responded usually what happens if it is used for an opportunity, such as adding another 20 personnel, then at some point the County is going to have to come up with an annual revenue source to pay for such personnel because the cash reserves are going to run out; in the discussion he heard, some view it as a revenue source; it is not a revenue source, but an ending bank account; and if the County keeps $20 million in the bank, not only can it be used for unforeseen events when they happen, but they can also accommodate the Board’s cash needs when it gets to the end of the fiscal year between September 30 and November when the tax dollars come in. Chairman Pritchard stated instead of the Board borrowing from itself it can take from cash reserve. Mr. Burdett responded that is correct. Chairman Pritchard inquired what is the opportunity fund. Ms. Busacca responded the concern has been that the Contingency Fund is something that the County has been utilizing for recurring costs; sometimes the Sheriff’s Office will say it has a grant and needs the chance to move forward with such grant; it is an unforeseen opportunity; and the Board asked staff to think about perhaps looking at a different name for contingency, a different function for some set aside, that could be utilized in an unnamed fund. She noted it would be the Board’s opportunity to utilize those funds; it understands those funds are going to be spent over the year; and it simply does not know what good idea will come along.

Commissioner Scarborough stated with an opportunity fund he can see everybody in Brevard County thinking of opportunities; the Board would spend probably one-half hour to an hour every meeting listening to the wonderful opportunities; as soon as it spent it down then there would be a grant that would be good; and he does not know if there is a simple answer to it.

Mr. Rogero stated as the County reviews the opportunity fund and what should come into existence, as it allocates that funding and if it is not a one-time expense, it would be wise to identify a recurring revenue source to subsequently fund whatever opportunity it has. Chairman Pritchard stated the County needs to tighten up personnel and set aside expenditures for personnel; if it has 25 positions that are budgeted, then it needs to budget for that; if it finds at the end of a year it only has 24 positions and is getting by, then it should budget for 24 positions; and the cost of increased personnel every year will be absorbed by the loss of that one position. He noted Ms. Sobrino is budgeted for 25 positions; she is currently at 23 positions and is looking for three more positions, to take it to 28 positions; and inquired if the Planning and Zoning Office has gotten by without the two positions for this long, then why does it need to increase by three positions instead of one position. He noted perhaps it would not have to increase at all if it ends up with a GIS component.

Commissioner Carlson inquired can staff put it in terms of level of service. Ms. Sobrino responded it depends on what one considers to be getting by; getting by is management by crisis; it is attending to that which has to be done immediately and everything else falls off the table until another time; and her Office has a number of assignments that the Board feels are important to get to, and staff understands and feels compelled to be able to complete those assignments. She noted it has not had the manpower to get to them; the only things it deals with right now are things of the most urgent nature that require immediate Board attention on a week-to-week or day-to-day basis; planning is about not taking care of current emergency and urgent needs, but looking long term; and anything long term ends up being postponed because the Office does not have the manpower.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the City of Titusville was doing a major annexation on the other side of Fox Lake Road; the County is going to be responsible for building a new overpass over I-95; at the same time this massive thing was coming back in Cocoa; and John Denninghoff went to Titusville and Steve Swanke went to Cocoa. He inquired if there would have been something in Palm Bay the same night, who would be sent; stated the point is that the County is going to drop the ball and it may regret it; just because a position is vacant does not mean the County can do without it; and it gets to a point where it may not be able to function. Chairman Pritchard stated he is asking the questions to get the answers. Commissioner Scarborough noted he is trying to give his answer to it and it is heck no. Ms. Busacca inquired how much time is the EAR going to take. Ms. Sobrino responded the last time staff did it, which was seven years ago, it had four staff planners in the Comprehensive Planning Section who spent probably 90% of their time getting the EAR completed; it became the primary function; fortunately back at that time annexations were not an issue that required staff’s attention; and joint planning agreements were something to be considered in the future, so it did not worry about that. She noted staff was involved in getting the EAR completed, followed by updating the Comprehensive Plan; now there are many other critical assignments that also take the four planners time, including small area studies, joint planning agreements, and annexations; and at almost every Board meeting or two there is some sort of report or evaluation that needs to be done concerning impact fees. She stated where her Office used to have a lot of manpower that could focus on the EAR, it sees the EAR coming upon it quickly now; and not only is the Office understaffed, but also the other assignments are going to vie for the time staff has.

Ms. Busacca stated there is an opportunity to put a one-time cost for the EAR; there are consulting firms that do that; but it would be one year or whatever that length of time is and then the time it takes to get through the update; and the Board may find it is much more economical to hire its own planners rather than to have the consultants, but it is an option.

Chairman Pritchard inquired how many services are mandated and how many of them are things that the County has picked up over the years. Ms. Sobrino responded comprehensive planning, zoning implementation, and concurrency review are State mandated; impact fees are a local mandate; and graphics support and demographics support are local preferences.

Ms. Busacca stated the County could look at levels of service; it currently says it will take every zoning application that comes in by a certain time and will know what the result of it is; it could instead say it will take the first ten zoning applications that occur every month and staff would be available to do that; and anything after that would be heard the month after that, etc. She noted it would extend the time for a zoning application from 90 days until whatever; the County could say it is no longer going to take staff from zoning to go to a building permit; it would take longer to get a building permit; and those are options the Board has. Chairman Pritchard stated they are not good options; he understands where Ms. Busacca is coming from, but it is what the County does not want to do; if the County had a drive-in window, it would be the way to go, but it will never get to that point; and it needs to produce the end product as quickly as possible. Chairman Pritchard inquired about technology and is it going to provide the County with less staff or is it going to keep the same amount of staff and just added costs of technology. Ms. Sobrino inquired is Chairman Pritchard talking about the GIS product; with Chairman Pritchard responding GIS or any other type of technology that might be able to enhance the operation. Chairman Pritchard inquired does it always mean that a person comes with it or sometimes can the technology come and can the County subtract a person because of it. Ms. Sobrino responded it is hard to speak in generalities, but generally with technology the County is going to need at least somebody who has the expertise; typically a person with that type of expertise can handle a lot of different types of computer-related technology; it is not like for each technology that comes along the County needs another specialist in that area; and technology enables it to remove manpower and let the computers crunch the numbers. She noted one of the problems now is that the data her Office has is not in a format that best suits the retrieval it needs to do to have it meaningful; it ends up using technology, but then it also has to invest the manpower and try to tweak it and interpret it in order to make it a better fit; if her Office was able to get the technology to serve the Planning and Zoning function to its best capacity, then it would probably have less manpower associated with trying to work with that data to make it more meaningful.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if the County was to create a GIS component, does the potential exist with the four people that are doing it now in various departments to be reduced to three, and is it something that can be reviewed and evaluated. Ms. Busacca responded she will review the issue. Chairman Pritchard stated one of the things Ms. Busacca was working on was duplication of services; and he will be interested in hearing her review as the County gets into different things and finding out where in certain areas there is duplication. He inquired does there need to be a sunset review of Zoning Ordinances and are there Ordinances that are running on and on, yet the County is finding it is taking positions that are contra to maybe the intent of the Ordinance when it came up. Chairman Pritchard stated he is looking to reduce workload; and there might be an item on the checksheet that is meaningless. Ms. Sobrino stated zoning is a dynamic process; unfortunately, a good portion of the Zoning Code was probably created back in the 70’s; development is a different animal than it was back then; and as a result her Office is constantly in a position where it recognizes that some standards or some language in the Zoning Regulations does not address today’s very common place recurring theme, and that is when the County ends up doing a zoning amendment. She noted it would be a beneficial, but exhaustive exercise to go through the Zoning Regulations and start to identify those areas that are antiquated or no longer necessary; a good example is probably back in the 80’s; if the County did not have a regulation about Vietnamese pot-bellied pigs, it was in a terrible mess because they were the rage then; but there has not been a request for a pot-bellied pig in the last 10 years, and the regulation is on the books. She stated zoning becomes knee-jerk and things have a sudden urgency to them, and other ones no longer are important anymore.

Commissioner Carlson stated there seem to be a lot of efficiencies that Ms. Sobrino has included; items on page 4 seem to lend themselves to some GIS-based scenarios; perhaps the Board could receive additional information on how there may be a savings and who has GIS capability; they can see if it is something the County wants to put under Information Technology Department or whatever to get the manpower and efficiencies that Ms. Sobrino has rightly put here; and research can be done on it and bring the information back. Commissioner Carlson stated Ms. Sobrino’s information includes mobility of zoning records if a disaster impacts the Government Center; and inquired after the four hurricanes and the potential of that occurring, what would the County do today if that sort of thing happened and destroyed Building A. Ms. Sobrino responded staff is working on the continuity of operations plan; and it is in the process of identifying what it has to do to be able to be mobile. She stated right now it is all unfunded because there are a lot of things associated with it; but one of the things that is essential is if her Office has the server and hardware, it should be able to put it all in a box and carry it away in a passenger vehicle and be able to set up shop someplace else if there was electricity; and staff recognizes it is going to be an important thing and cannot be taken for granted that it will always operate out of its existing offices. Commissioner Carlson inquired is there any idea as to what goes into something like that. Ms. Sobrino stated once staff flushes out all of the needs, she will come back with that price. Commissioner Carlson stated it is not just for Ms. Sobrino’s Office, it is for any department. Ms. Sobrino noted it was specific to her Office being able to function under emergency circumstances.

Commissioner Colon stated one of the things that is critical is that the Board has to be careful what kind of busy work it gives staff because it is responsible for it; it does not have the manpower; the Department Directors are going to delegate the work; and the Board needs to be sensitive. She noted staff needs to say it is not appropriate and may take two months; the Board has to be conscious of what it is doing; she calls it busy work with the reports and studies; and the Department Directors need to keep track of all the items the Board has given them, and the status of same. She stated the Board has asked for reports that are taking three, four, or five months to come back and it also gets frustrated; it is a matter of priority too; the Board needs to be conscious of it as it affects every Department; and there are many issues with zoning, small area studies, annexations, etc.

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board does not realize how much it puts on staff when it asks for something it thinks is very simple, but it does not end up to be simple; and it needs to be cognizant of that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board asked for the S.R. 524 study; the City of Cocoa moved from 30 units to 550 units; S.R. 524 has a commercial component; he was talking to Councilman Charlie Love and asked him if the City understood what it was doing with the dynamics of putting all of this residential; and it is eliminating a tax base for commercial. He noted Councilman Love indicated he understood, but nobody is able to catch on; the Board asked Mr. Denninghoff to prepare a report on the impact of S.R. 524; because he cannot hire somebody, he cannot get that to Councilman Love, which could be critical to Councilman Love influencing the Council to look again at some of the actions it is taking. He stated it is not just for the basis of what it means to the County, but it means a long-term basis for Cocoa’s tax base. He stated he is not going to say that the Board is ill-advised in raising the issues; but it is ill-advised if it does not have the funding to have somebody for Mr. Denninghoff to produce the product that could bring the County into accord with Cocoa and avoid litigation; and he does not concur with the assumption that he is asking for something that is erroneous and not needed.

Commissioner Voltz stated page 2 says private preparation of plans may cost between $5,000 to $25,000 per plan; it may be that the County goes along and does not need anything, but all of a sudden it needs something; it would be cheaper for it to pay for somebody to do a study if the County wants it done immediately; and it is far better than to have somebody waiting to see if the County needs something done. Chairman Pritchard stated everything he asks for is critical.

Commissioner Colon stated Commissioner Pritchard mentioned he wanted to potentially look at a flight school at Valkaria Airport; she is not going to support it as the County has already gone down that road; it would be busy work for staff if the Board knows it is not going to go down that path; and it has been there and done that, and needs to say it is not going to do that. She noted if one Commissioner wants something and the rest of the Board feels it is busy work, and it has already been down that road, then it needs to speak up; it is part of the problem; and she is only giving one example.

Chairman Pritchard stated he does not see the Board doing that; he sees it saying it is not going to do that or not go that way; it has good communication that way; and it needs to raise the question because times, attitudes, and people change. He noted the County does not know whether something is good now that was not good five years ago; he asks a lot of questions; and it is his job.

Commissioner Voltz stated page 2 includes discontinue payment of professional memberships; so much information can be obtained from the computer and Internet; and inquired are professional memberships needed. Ms. Sobrino responded professional memberships benefit somebody in a professional career; the decision that she is looking to the Board for is whether it is appropriate for the County to be carrying the cost of that membership or should it be borne by the employee; and it is something that is viewed as a benefit and enticement to an employee to maintain interest in current issues through a membership in a professional organization.

Ms. Busacca stated if County staff goes to court and can say it is AICP as a planner, then he or she is given more credibility in court; the County has worked hard in many instances, including Code Enforcement, to make sure they have Florida Association of Code Enforcement certification; it helps support the case the County would make in various instances, such as a court case; and there is some advantage to the public for staff to have such certification. Chairman Pritchard noted the membership provides journals, magazines, and other information; he does not have a real problem with it; if anything is superfluous, then it should be looked at; and if the County wants to belong to something that does not make a whole lot of sense, then it should be reviewed and go through the channels. He stated he sent to Ms. Busacca a management plan with different levels of management and benefits that would be derived therein; the Board may want to review it and see that a management level IV might be entitled to $200 worth of memberships or something; it may not be appropriate, but may or may not fit the criteria; and he will be interested in hearing the results of the evaluation of creating this component. He noted the County cannot afford to be a training ground or staff poor; and it cannot afford to have so many people that it cannot afford to have certain benefits that would be attached to certain aspects of the organization.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is the County’s total General Fund budget; with Mr. Rogero responding approximately $180 million or maybe $200 million. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to see a discontinuation of any further discussion by staff on items that do not generate much savings; if it wants to talk about money, it would be putting more money in reserves of $2.5 million; how many $3,000 items the County has to save to get there is going to be a lot of conversation; and if the Board spends one hour on each $3,000 item, it is going to cost the County more to save the money by putting the information together to effect it than it is going to be cost effective. He noted it would be advisable for the Board to concentrate on the larger items, which could effect some savings; some of the conversations have been that way, such as GIS, which has been creative; it would be advisable in the future if the Board had a limit, such as something less than $10,000 should not be shown to it; and staff can do things to economize, but the Board does not have to bless everything within the County. He inquired how much authority does Ms. Busacca have to do things without Board approval. Ms. Busacca responded if something is up to $35,000, she can approve it. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board does not need to consider anything less than $35,000; and inquired if Ms. Busacca can approve something up to $35,000 without the Board’s approval, then why is it itemizing things to cut from a budget. He stated if the Board spends its time on the $3,000 items, it will never get to the big items that will impact the budget; and it will run out of time and opportunity costs to make a good budget. Chairman Pritchard stated the Board can always have more meetings. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board will be meeting without him.

Commissioner Voltz stated the County needs to look at how each department can save money. Commissioner Carlson stated it recently started the Sterling award process; the departments are going through an efficiency process; and staff has spent a lot of time on this and the efficiency opportunities because the Board told staff to bring those things back. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is seeing something that is scaring him; if Ms. Busacca can say yes to $35,000, then any cost savings over that amount staff can bring to the Board; and the Board is going to miss some big items if it spends time on the small items.

Chairman Pritchard inquired about the revenue side on page 5. Commissioner Scarborough responded sometimes the items can add up and sometimes they require Board approval; in particular cases where Board approval is needed, then the items need to come before it; and if items require Board action, it should be talking about it.

Chairman Pritchard stated the first action item on page 5 is to increase zoning use permit fee in connection with occupational licenses from $19.00 to $25.00; it would raise another $12,000; and it is a $6.00 increase and would not break anyone. Commissioner Carlson inquired would the funds be used to administer the permit fees; with Chairman Pritchard responding yes or such funds could go into reserves. Ms. Busacca stated all of the fees would be returned to the General Fund. Chairman Pritchard stated the second action item is to establish a zoning review fee for special events permits; the County does not charge anything at this time; and it requires staff time. Commissioner Scarborough stated special events permits come through the Parks and Recreation Department. Ms. Sobrino advised the special events that staff is referring to are such things as the fireworks tents, Christmas tree tents, etc.; and they are generally commercial. Chairman Pritchard stated the last action item on page 5 is to establish a zoning review fee for alcoholic beverage license applications. Ms. Sobrino advised the State requires that the alcoholic beverage applicant come to the Zoning Office for zoning signoffs stating he or she has the proper zoning in order to serve alcohol; and usually it requires a review of the zoning on the property to insure he or she has proper zoning approvals for alcohol sales. Chairman Pritchard noted the proposed fee is $25.00. Ms. Sobrino stated the County is doing it for free right now.

Commissioner Voltz inquired how much time does it take; with Ms. Sobrino responding it can take anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve increase of zoning use permit fee (zoning review in connection with occupational licenses), from $19.00 to $25.00, which would generate $12,000 in additional revenue. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Voltz voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to establish a zoning review fee for special events permits of $25.00, which would generate $5,000 in additional revenue. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Voltz voted nay.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to establish a zoning review fee for alcoholic beverage license applications (pre-requisite to State licensure) of $25.00, which would generate $1,250 in additional revenue. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Voltz voted nay.

Commissioner Voltz stated she is not supporting the increases in fees as they are too high.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to direct staff to do an analysis concerning the Geographic Information System (GIS). Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Callinan stated he likes the savings that are included in the information for the Planning and Zoning Office; cautioned the Board it now has a group of people that are all trying to save money; and suggested Ms. Busacca give it an itemized list of what she accomplishes during the course of the year or every three months, whatever period it feels is reasonable. He noted planning measurable goals and achieving cost efficiencies are a good approach; the County needs to clearly define what it wants to accomplish and determine what the resources are; a timeline needs to be established; and the County needs to determine what the savings are going to be. He stated Ms. Sobrino addresses all of those somewhat in the information, but it does not come out as a clear picture; the objective is not clearly laid out; the resource has not been established; and the timeline and savings are not included. He noted if those issues are not included, there is not a plan for implementation and the job is not going to get done; and recommended covering those elements, which is the basis for a good plan.

The meeting recessed at 3:05 p.m. and reconvened at 3:20 p.m.

Library Services Department

Library Services Director Cathy Schweinsberg stated Brevard County libraries is a $20 million budget; it has 158 fulltime employees and 202 part-time employees spread over 17 libraries, and an administration office; it is a special taxing district; $18.5 million of the $20 million is for direct public service, which are the folks that check out books, answer reference questions, perform story hours, and assist parents; and the books and operating costs go along with it. She noted Library Services Department cannot do what it does without support services, computer services, and cataloging; without cataloging a book, no one on staff would know where to find it, nor would a patron coming in; all support services are necessary to support public services; and the rest of the budget is made up of service to the homebound and visually impaired, adult literacy, literary grant, and records management. She stated records management is not funded in the budget, but the Department has been deemed the best agency to perform that.

Chairman Pritchard inquired what would it cost; with Ms. Schweinsberg responding $58,000 for one person. Ms. Schweinsberg stated staff looked long and hard for budget savings and efficiency opportunities; reference librarians have been trained to participate in a Statewide “Ask a Librarian” service; it is online Real Time; and the patrons have access to online reference services for many hours a day, including when the libraries are not open. She noted the libraries use volunteers extensively; in 2003-2004 there were 3,500 library volunteers who worked over 72,000 hours; staff is happy it can use volunteers in this manner; she put forward some budget savings for the County; and they are not necessarily things she wants to do, but has provided them for the Board’s review.

Commissioner Voltz stated she read through the whole book and Ms. Schweinsberg’s section is probably the best in providing the Board information as to how it can cut and where it can cut; it is not going to be good for everybody; this is what she wanted to see out of each department; and Ms. Schweinsberg did a great job. Ms. Schweinsberg noted trends and issues are included; the population growth in Suntree/Viera area resulted in a 17% increase in circulation over the previous year; her Department would like to increase the hours the library is open to the public, but it would mean more staffing; and books are at the heart of the Department’s service and it would like to improve the availability of materials. She stated the Department would like to improve availability of materials to have one book for every five requests of the popular best-seller materials; it is now at about one for every seven requests; the Department does a study every year where it surveys the patrons as they come in; and when they leave they tell the Department if they found the book they wanted, the subject area they were looking for, or anything they wanted in terms of browsing. She noted 96% of the people that come into the libraries find something; when getting to the level of a specific book it goes down to under 60%; they do not always get the particular book they want, but they find something; and it is difficult for the libraries to keep up with the demand for the technical books. Ms. Schweinsberg stated medical things change rapidly, including computer information; nobody wants an old book; she tried to give the Board some level of service standards that are consistent throughout the State, like volumes per capita; and it is something that all libraries keep track of. She noted the County is now at 2.26 volumes per capita; and the Florida standard for excellent service is four volumes per capita.

Ms. Busacca inquired can impact fees be utilized to increase books; with Ms. Schweinsberg responding yes, capital for libraries is books in addition to buildings.

Chairman Pritchard stated the Board made a motion at its last meeting to increase the library impact fee to 100%; it will give the Department $728,000 more than it has been getting; he noticed some of the things included, such as eliminate Community Relations Section, would save $95,000; and also included is reducing staff time on routine checkouts by 10% by purchasing 15 machines at a cost of $17,000 each and annual maintenance of $2,400. He inquired is $2,400 for all the machines or each machine; with Ms. Schweinsberg responding each machine. He inquired considering the additional $728,000 in impact fee money, how can it be distributed through some of the Department’s wants and needs. Ms. Schweinsberg responded impact fee monies can only be used for capital, including books. Chairman Pritchard inquired what about the checkout machines; with Ms. Busacca responding they could be included as capital. Chairman Pritchard inquired does Records Management require any sort of capital outlay or is it just a person; with Ms. Schweinsberg responding it is just a person. Chairman Pritchard inquired about archives currently at the third floor of the Cocoa main library; and stated he heard that space has been outgrown and staff is looking for additional space. Ms. Schweinsberg responded a couple of years ago Hugh Muller and staff reviewed the issue; she does not know what happened with it; there probably was not money to get another place; and the Cocoa Library is out of archives space. Chairman Pritchard inquired has staff considered buying an old building, such as an old K-mart or Wal-Mart instead of leasing space at Byrd Plaza.

Mr. Whitten responded Mr. Muller and the Facilities Department have reviewed how they could utilize the space they are leasing at Byrd Plaza; and staff has never explored the possibility of purchasing a building for archives. Ms. Busacca stated another option is to make the records electronic; the Building Department spends a significant amount of time putting paper records onto electronic media; it is probably much more economical than purchasing a building; and it requires scanners and servers. Chairman Pritchard inquired would it give the public the same opportunity it currently has with the Property Appraiser in reviewing the records; with Ms. Busacca responding yes. Ms. Busacca stated in some cases the documents are relatively difficult to find today; and staff gives people a couple of days notice sometimes if it has to look in archives. Chairman Pritchard stated Library Services Department has $728,000 more than it had last year in terms of the library impact fee if the Board passes it; and this might be the opportune time to be looking at these things and going from paper to other forms of media.

Commissioner Voltz stated page 2 says, “Investigate contracting out for library maintenance in order to save administrative cost of 10%”; and inquired is it because of indirect costs the County charges the Department; and noted it would be cheaper for the Department. Ms. Schweinsberg stated maybe, but she does not know that; and the Department gets the 10%. Mr. Whitten stated it is not a part of indirect costs, it is a 10% administrative fee that is placed on top of Ms. Schweinsberg’s service request by Facilities Department. Ms. Schweinsberg stated she pays how much Facilities Department charges her to fix whatever needs to be fixed; and she pays an additional 10% administrative fee. Commissioner Voltz stated Ms. Schweinsberg could probably get it cheaper someplace else; and that should not be. Commissioner Scarborough stated at the Titusville Library there was somebody cleaning up the place prior to the alterations; it was an awful mess; there were also people maintaining the outside and it was awful too; and going outside privately sounds fine, but he wasted more staff time on Fay Boulevard. He noted the highest level fired one contractor after another contractor; firing people is not fun; he is dubious about hiring people because they will come in and say they are going to do something, but do not; and then Ms. Schweinsberg gets involved. He stated rather than at a lower level, it all of a sudden escalates. Commissioner Voltz stated it does not have to be that way. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has wasted a lot of time with a lot of awful people. Commissioner Voltz inquired how is it that the City of Melbourne maintains the libraries and the landscaping around them. Ms. Schweinsberg responded there was an Agreement written a long time ago; it has never changed; the libraries are on City property, so it says it will maintain the property for the County. Commissioner Voltz inquired if the County pays the City anything; with Ms. Schweinsberg responding no.

Mr. Whitten inquired is it 10% of $238,000; with Ms. Schweinsberg responding yes. Mr. Whitten noted the 10% did not equal $238,000. Commissioner Carlson stated concerning cataloging, currently the outsourced cost is $4.98 per book and the cost to process one item in 2003-2004 was $8.52 per book; and inquired what does it encompass. Ms. Schweinsberg responded last year in an effort to be efficient, staff indicated it would look at outsourcing the cost of cataloging a book; it had its own in-house people; it shifted seven people to libraries that were understaffed; and it contracted out with its biggest book vendor, Baker and Taylor, at a cost of $4.98 per book. She noted the book is cataloged by the Company; the Dewey number is assigned, etc. and put in the computer by such Company as opposed to the County’s $8.50 per book; it is a savings that staff has instituted; and staff is looking at expanding that to other book vendors to see if it can do that as well. Commissioner Carlson inquired is it a higher priority to have more books to improve the 1:7 ratio whenever a book request comes in or is it better to have the library open longer. Ms. Schweinsberg responded all three things on the list are needed. Commissioner Carlson stated efficiency opportunities include reducing hours open to the public on Fridays at noon, the least busy time of the week; the savings is $155,000; and inquired if staff was looking to increase the number of books and availability, would it be better to have the doors open or the quantity of books so the public can get the books they want. Ms. Schweinsberg responded it is more important for the library to be open. Ms. Busacca inquired is it more specific for certain libraries to be open more hours and other libraries to have more materials; with Ms. Schweinsberg responding yes. Ms. Schweinsberg stated some libraries want more materials and they do not need to be open any more hours than they already are; the County is at a good level at a lot of its libraries; Melbourne Beach and Suntree Libraries would like to be open more; but staff did not ask the Board for all of that. Commissioner Carlson inquired is the 1:7 ratio in terms of requests per what the Suntree Library can get and something that is okay at Suntree, even though it wants more hours open; and are the patrons getting what they want when they come. Ms. Schweinsberg responded Suntree Library does not have a big collection because it is not an old Library; the books get checked out constantly; they have the biggest turnover rate of all the libraries; and the same books are going out all the time. Commissioner Carlson inquired does it reduce the 1:7 ratio; with Ms. Schweinsberg responding no. Commissioner Scarborough stated the libraries are not going to be the Wal-Marts of the world; inquired when closing a library, is there a dynamic there; stated rather than saying everybody across-the-board needs more hours, maybe Suntree Library needs more books and more hours; and other libraries may need more books. He requested Ms. Schweinsberg provide that type of data to the Board; stated if it passes the impact fee, it is going to be able to look at Ms. Schweinsberg’s budget totally differently; and there will be a lot more latitude.

Ms. Schweinsberg stated she listed all the libraries, their budgets, fulltime equivalents, circulations, statistics, and attendance; and she does not want to open all the libraries across-the-board with more hours. Commissioner Scarborough inquired are the librarians reporting to Ms. Schweinsberg where there is that extra effort needing to close the library. Ms. Schweinsberg responded she has the attendance figures; and it is automatically counted at the door. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is not talking about the attendance figure, but the dynamics of the departure and closing the library; if library staff is kicking 20 people out of the library, that is totally different than if there is one person left in the library; that is the dynamic moment staff ascertains whether the library needs to be open or not; and it is not by the total volume because there may be people that have already left. He inquired what type of traffic do the libraries have and how much effort is it to close the library; and stated that is what he would like to know if he went to library specific. Ms. Schweinsberg stated she does not want to close any library. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about extending hours in certain libraries rather than across-the-board. Ms. Schweinsberg responded when a librarian closes early on a certain day there can be a ton of people hanging around because they do not want to leave. Commissioner Scarborough inquired is it a painful closing or is everybody almost out of there; with Ms. Schweinsberg responded yes, and that is why the patrons come forward and say the libraries need to be open more hours. Ms. Schweinsberg stated she can provide a report to the Board.

Chairman Pritchard stated if 9:00 p.m. is the closing time and there are 30 people in the library, perhaps 9:30 p.m. should be the closing time. Commissioner Scarborough stated there could be an earlier opening. Commissioner Carlson inquired was the library impact fee reassessed or is the County doing another study on it. Ms. Busacca responded it was not reassessed. Commissioner Carlson inquired when was the last time it was assessed and was it back when the Board looked at transportation; with Ms. Busacca responding yes. Ms. Busacca responded the fee at 100% will be $224.00. Ms. Schweinsberg noted it is now $63.00. Commissioner Carlson inquired how old is the study that backs that up; with Ms. Busacca responding three or four years. Commissioner Carlson inquired is it still okay to stay within the study and has there been a big adjustment or anything. Chairman Pritchard stated another item under revenue enhancement opportunities includes increasing overdue library fines from 20 cents per day to 25 cents per day; and inquired is 25 cents per day a standard. Ms. Schweinsberg responded no, she just brought forward another opportunity; staff did a study of other counties and the County is the highest in the area at 20 cents; staff estimated $106,000; and at a nickel more, some people are not going to take out books because they do not want to pay the additional amount. Commissioner Carlson stated the patrons are not going to go to other libraries in other counties to get books. Ms. Schweinsberg stated Blockbuster got rid of its fines and fees. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is habitually bad in returning books and probably subsidizes the libraries more than others; he does not think the five cents is going to drive him to take the book back; but he is denying somebody else the access to that book by letting it sit at the house. Chairman Pritchard stated he does not have a problem raising it an extra nickel if it would encourage people to bring the books back; there are only so many books; people are waiting for the books; and Commissioners Scarborough and Carlson are sitting on their books at home. He noted the least they can do if they are not going to return the books is pay the extra nickel; if they are five days late, it is only an extra 25 cents; and if that motivates them to bring their books in, then he is all for it. Chairman Pritchard stated he will have to stop buying books as that is what he tends to do. Commissioner Carlson noted she goes to the library and contributes to a good cause.

Commissioner Colon requested the Board not increase the overdue library fines from 20 cents per day to 25 cents per day since the County is the highest.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired is Ms. Schweinsberg saying that people will not check books out because of the fine. Ms. Schweinsberg responded it is extremely true at Martin Luther King Library. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want to do that; and he would hate to discourage somebody. Chairman Pritchard stated when somebody checks out a book he or she gets three weeks. Ms. Schweinsberg noted it can be seven days or three weeks, depending on what kind of book it is. Chairman Pritchard inquired what is the seven-day book; with Ms. Schweinsberg responding the latest book out, and the rest are three weeks. Chairman Pritchard stated adding a nickel a day would raise $106,000 but it might discourage people from checking out the books; and inquired is it the seven-day book that tends to run over more so than the three-week book. Ms. Schweinsberg responding she does not know and will have to check into it. Chairman Pritchard stated the Board can leave the overdue library fines at 20 cents per day for now and figure out where it is; he does not want to discourage people from reading, but they are supposed to return the books on time, including Commissioner Scarborough.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is interested if the County gets the impact fee; there are some opportunities, including books; staff may be able to come back with a totally different projection; and it would be in time for the Board to have further discussions with Ms. Schweinsberg. Chairman Pritchard stated if there could be checkout machines for libraries that could reduce staff time by 10%, it may give Ms. Schweinsberg the person she needs for Records Management. Ms. Schweinsberg stated she has a Records Management person. Chairman Pritchard inquired what is the $58,000 for Records Management. Ms. Schweinsberg responded the person is in her Department; and it is not coming out of her budget, but the General Fund. Chairman Pritchard stated he thought it was a position Ms. Schweinsberg wanted to create. Ms. Schweinsberg noted on the first page of the matrix is the existing; and the positions she would like are on page 3. Chairman Pritchard inquired is the $57,000 a person on page 3; with Ms. Schweinsberg responding it is making two part-time people fulltime, and two new people for Suntree Library; and the mobile library that is being donated would require a driver and an employee. Chairman Pritchard stated the matrix does not say that; and it says the population growth in Suntree/Viera resulted in 17% increase, and increasing the hours of the library open to the public on Tuesdays from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. has an estimated budget impact of $57,000. Ms. Schweinsberg stated she failed to include it in the information; and it is the cost for staffing. Chairman Pritchard noted it is not adding a person and is increasing the hours. Ms. Schweinsberg stated it is increasing the hours of two part-time people and adding two new positions. Chairman Pritchard inquired about the mobile library; with Ms. Schweinsberg responding it would include a driver and librarian. Ms. Schweinsberg stated the mobile library is going to be here this summer; and it is being built for the County right now.

Ms. Busacca inquired what will happen if the County does not have anybody to drive the van. Ms. Schweinsberg stated it has to make that work somehow because it has been donated; a couple in the community gave $50,000 and the Foundation raised the other $60,000 in order to do it; they want to see the mobile library on the road; and somehow she has to make it work. She noted she will take the person who will be driving the van from somewhere else within the operation.

Chairman Pritchard stated the potential increase in impact fee is going to be “x”; and suggested Ms. Schweinsberg look at “x” and see how it fits into here and not come back asking for more. Commissioner Voltz stated she agrees.

Central Services Office

Central Services Director Steve Stultz stated the programs under Central Services Office include Asset Management, Purchasing Services, and Fleet Services; both the Asset Management and Purchasing Services Programs are mandated by Florida Statute; Asset Management is additionally directed under the rules of the Auditor General; and local Ordinance directs that Central Services Office be responsible for those three functions. He noted all the level of service standards and performance measures for Asset Management include conducting an annual fiscal inventory of all tangible property and establish records and accountability of such property; Purchasing Services establishes standards through benchmarking other similar operations, particularly through professional associations; and one of the primary ones is National Institute of Governmental Purchasing, which is a Nationwide organization. Mr. Stultz stated with Fleet Services staff tries to benchmark against other similar type operations; and the cost saving opportunities that are presented in the worksheet encompass the gamut through elimination of services, reduction in services, or the addition of value added services at no cost, and increasing services that would require additions to current resources. He stated budget savings and efficiency opportunities include implementation of an eProcurement service to provide 24/7 automated vendor registration, bid notification, and document downloading; utilization of these services could reduce the cost of in-house document duplication and postage, not only in Purchasing but in reference to construction documents, etc.; the departments that are conducting construction projects normally estimate anywhere from $300 to $500 budgeted for their document duplication for plans and bid documents; and one of the other recommendations for efficiency opportunities is to increase small purchase authority from $250 to $500, and increase County Manager authorization threshold for bid award from $35,000 to $100,000. He noted the departments do not have to solicit competitive quotations for the small purchases; through surveys of similar county operations, Brevard County is at the lower end of the median scale on those thresholds; by increasing the thresholds, particularly on award authorization, the County can reduce the startup time on a lot of small projects, which he would consider under $100,000. Mr. Stultz stated one of the other cost saving opportunities is consideration of the Fleet Maintenance Program; Fleet Maintenance not only provides the repair and maintenance of vehicles and some heavy equipment, but also emergency generators; it maintains the County’s nine fuel sites; and consideration of outsourcing the vehicle and equipment maintenance and repair would provide a cost reduction; however, those revenues would also be reduced as Fleet Services revenue source is charges for services, including costs of fuel, and parts and labor. He noted he also recommends that the County retain the fuel site operations and maintenance of emergency generators; and particularly with Hurricane Frances and the logistics and shutdown of all fuel terminals in the State and transport services providing delivery services for the fuel shutting down, had the County not had its own fuel supply it would have experienced failures in emergency power systems on essential equipment, such as emergency communications, lift stations, and first responder units. He stated with all of the retail outlets shutting down due to Hurricane Frances, Fleet Services also provided a source of fuel for a lot of the outside agencies that were coming into the area to provide assistance and aid; Florida Highway Patrol had to depend upon the County’s fuel services; American Red Cross, National Guard, and Civil Air Patrol also provided assistance; the maintaining of emergency generators became critical also during the hurricanes; and the mechanic that provides the maintenance on such generators was out at all times during all three events. Mr. Stultz stated the mechanic was out during a lot of the rough weather during some of the hurricane events, maintaining the operation of some of those critical generators; another budget savings and efficiency opportunity includes implementation of the SAP upgrade; one of the opportunities to further automate the procurement function area is the creation of an electronic catalog; and it would be a catalog of all of the contracted items and services the County has awarded through various competitive bids and solicitations. He noted such catalog would include a description of the item or service, the awarded costs, and the vendor; it would simplify the requisitioning through the various departments and insure that not only is the pricing correct for the item being requisitioned, but also that it is being charged by the vendor, and the appropriate vendor is being utilized; one of the facets of that implementation is that Purchasing staff would be required to perform daily maintenance of that database or catalog; and it would create some additional workload to the existing Purchasing staff. Mr. Stultz stated the basic trends in fuel prices still seem to be rather volatile; he reviews the Department of Energy’s fuel projections monthly; he also looks at the AAA Auto Club’s average fuel costs for the State of Florida; and the trend in fuel costs is that they will remain high. He noted retail regular gasoline prices are projected to average over $2.00 by Spring; the County is there right now, considering last week’s price increase locally; such costs are projected to average in the high $1.90’s through mid 2005; and the basic impact is that there will have to be additional revenues allocated through the various departments and Fleet Services toward increased fuel costs. Mr. Stultz stated with implementation of the SAP feature and a need to address additional staff to maintain the integrity and updating of the information, Asset Management Program drastically needs an accountant staff person due to additional responsibilities that are a result of GASB 34 requirements and procedural changes that transferred responsibilities from Finance Department to Asset Management as a result of internal audit recommendations; such person would insure that compliance with those regulations and recommendations are maintained to the highest degree of accuracy; revenue enhancement opportunities include increasing fuel service user costs at five cents per gallon, which would result in $56,300 in additional revenue; and a 4% increase in the labor rate that is charged through Fleet Services would provide $18,822 in additional revenue. He noted he hesitates to recommend increasing the rates too much as the customers are internal departments; there are Agreements with various municipalities and not-for-profit agencies to provide services and fuel; the impact would be more internal than external; and he recommends implementation of vendor payment guidelines to take advantage of vendor payment discounts offered for early payments. He stated it would require a Countywide effort; various vendors offer discounts for early payment of invoices; staff has done some research on it; and based upon those vendors that offer discounts that the County regularly conducts business with, it could be an additional impact on a cost reduction and not necessarily a revenue source.

Chairman Pritchard stated page 3 suggests eliminating the Clerk to the Special Master, but he does not think the County should implement it; and the Board was adamant about having an independent person handling Contractor Licensing.

Commissioner Voltz inquired who pays for it, is it Code Enforcement related, and why is it not a user fee type thing. Mr. Stultz responded Code Enforcement has a method of calculating administrative costs; and he is not sure whether the Clerk’s fees are added in because the funding source for the Clerk is split 71% General Fund and 29% out of Contractor Licensing fees. Commissioner Voltz inquired why can it not be strictly user, and if somebody is coming before the special master, what would be some of the reasons.

Ms. Busacca responded the County has typically charged the costs for staff time to investigate and then any prosecution costs; once it gets to the special master that cost has not been passed on; and she does not know if there is any legal reason for that.

Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson stated staff needs to review it; part of the judge’s or court reporter’s salaries, etc. in the court system cannot be charged; in civil proceedings there are certain costs that litigants can recapture from the opposing side if they are the prevailing party; and her recollection is some years ago the County proposed to bill to the Legislature about recapturing investigative costs. Attorney Wilson noted staff can review the Code Enforcement and Contractors Licensing Statutes; and it may specifically allow the County to capture certain things and not others as it is part of the due process, and if it tries to charge someone for the due process, it might be chilling his or her due process rights. Commissioner Voltz stated the issue needs to be reviewed.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if there is a Code action the person does not pay anything to go to the special master; the special master may say the individual needs to come into compliance, but he or she may still not do so; the special master has a fine that begins to accrue; sometimes the person has an unusual circumstance and thinks he or she should have everything forgiven; and if the individual prevails, he or she does not pay anything. He noted it is only if there is a fine that the County says the person should pay something; and sometimes it is a minimal amount. Commissioner Voltz stated the County needs to look at how often it ends up losing and if it is spending a lot of time doing things that are not necessary. Commissioner Scarborough noted there are many cases where there are good reasons, such as the person is bringing the property into compliance, it is being sold, and other things; in assessing the fees, the County cannot capture as much as the Board wants to; it could say it is not going to go to what the fees are, but have the fee plus 50%; and it is a reduction down in each given case when someone is able to have it lifted for the payment of.

Chairman Pritchard stated the second budget savings/efficiency opportunity is implementation of an eProcurement service to provide 24/7 automated vendor registration, bid notification, and document downloading; and it makes sense to him.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what is the cost; with Chairman Pritchard responding it is a savings. Commissioner Carlson stated there has to be a cost associated with the savings. Mr. Stultz stated there are various and sundry different systems out there; there are some systems where one is basically buying the software application, code, etc. and there is a cost; and there are other services that will do it at no cost to the agency and will charge a percentage on the awarded bid.

Mr. Whitten stated it has been staff’s hesitation in presenting this because there is basically a subscription cost to the vendors; some of the vendors will charge folks who want to access information out of purchasing; and he is not sure the Board wants to go with that particular option, if it goes anywhere.

Chairman Pritchard inquired why does the impact only list the savings. Mr. Stultz responded there is a direct cost because the County is buying the application; the second would be the vendor or service would assess a one percent fee on the awarded bid; how that is collected and whose responsibility that is to collect he does not know; and he would not recommend the County get into trying to collect that fee for the service. He noted the third service and the one that is actually being used by several other agencies within Brevard County is on a subscription fee; that service they can subscribe on various different levels; they can subscribe and be notified of anything within the County; and they can subscribe at a higher subscription fee and get it for a state, region, or nationwide. He stated the charge to the vendor to subscribe at a County level, unless it has changed, was $30 a year; currently the Sheriff’s Office, School Board, and Cities of Melbourne, Titusville, and Palm Bay utilize that service; there is already a strong vendor base in Brevard County that may already be subscribing to that service; and for those that are already subscribing on a County basis, it does not make any difference how many users as they can get notice to any of the users within a county.

Chairman Pritchard inquired if the Board implements the e-Procurement service, is it a savings or not. Mr. Stultz responded it is a savings in internal costs as far as the distribution of bidding documents, the notification process, and time it takes to do those activities and direct those efforts to other things. Chairman Pritchard stated staff lists $12,500 in savings. Mr. Whitten stated staff attempted to list the internal savings; one option for the service is the vendor of such service passing a subscription fee onto whomever would want to take advantage of that service; it is not necessarily an impact to the County, but an impact to those folks who feel like they are already paying for free information or getting free information now as a result of their taxes; and it is going from the information is available for any vendor who wants to participate in any procurement activity the County has to possibly having a third party charge them a subscription to access that information in a certain form. He noted he does not know if the Agreements are exclusive; the County would still provide it in its traditional format; and it is a packaged product from some vendor at a subscription fee. Mr. Stultz stated that is correct; if the vendor chose not to subscribe and still requested a bidding document through Purchasing Services, he or she would still be provided that and would be placed on the vendor list on the online system; and the subscription is to provide a service to the vendors as a convenience. Mr. Whitten stated it may not be an issue for them because they are participating in Titusville, Melbourne, and the School Board; they may be used to having that convenience; and there is a charge for convenience by whatever vendor the County would go with. Chairman Pritchard inquired is it a savings to the County; with Mr. Stultz responding the savings he indicated in the documentation would be reduction in Purchasing copying and duplication costs. Chairman Pritchard stated he is talking about an overall savings; and inquired is the County going to save by implementing this. Mr. Stultz responded yes, the County will save in redirecting staff efforts into other things, and this service could potentially provide other savings in increasing the competitive response level.

Commissioner Carlson stated staff can qualify it by bringing back information on how the School Board or City of Melbourne have saved. Chairman Pritchard stated if there is a savings, there is a savings; and the Board can approve the item.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve implementation of e-Procurement service to provide 24/7 automated vendor registration, bid notification, and document downloading, with General Revenue savings from reductions in Purchasing copying and duplication costs of $3,500 and estimated additional savings from reductions in construction document duplication of $9,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated increasing small purchase authority makes perfect sense to him; he does not know about $100,000; and inquired about $50,000 or $75,000 for County Manager authorization threshold.

Commissioner Carlson stated the information under impact says it reduces times for bid award by approximately 21 days for pre-authorized bids up to $100,000; and inquired is it some sort of set thing. Mr. Stultz responded currently the way the thresholds are included in the policy is anything over $35,000; if the Board has not previously approved the award, it has to go back to it for award; and the savings in time would be for those currently over $35,000 to whatever threshold the Board wants to entertain and the time it takes from the recommended award to putting it on the agenda. Mr. Stultz stated the $100,000 is based upon a survey staff took of surrounding similar size counties. Chairman Pritchard inquired is $100,000 a reasonable figure based on surrounding counties; with Mr. Stultz responding he would consider it to be the median.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the only time the County gets into these things is when there is a disgruntled bidder; otherwise it goes on the consent agenda; if it is taking 21 days, it is the capacity of the County to move forward; and he would trust staff if something needs to be put before the Board as there may be some rough edges. He noted at the County Manager’s discretion, anything can go on the Board’s agenda under consent with that thought in mind; and he would move increasing the County Manager’s authorization threshold for bid award from $35,000 to $100,000.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to increase the County Manager’s authorization threshold for bid award from $35,000 to $100,000.

Chairman Pritchard inquired about small purchase authority from $250.00 to $500.00, and should it be $1,000. Mr. Stultz responded currently the threshold for capital outlay items is $750.00; to insure the County captures all of those purchases, the purchases of capital items need to be completed through a purchase order so the County can identify those at the time they are purchased; it cannot capture those on a purchasing card transaction; and if the Board wishes to go to $750.00, it would be fine.

Attorney Wilson stated a motion would authorize staff to change any appropriate policies and procedures that reflect.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve increase of small purchase authority from $250.00 to $750.00, and increase County Manager authorization threshold for bid award from $35,000 to $100,000. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated he does not feel any need to micromanage any more than the budget workshop than asking questions; page 4 includes elimination of all A and B travel; and the General Revenue savings is $2,000.

Commissioner Voltz inquired what is A and B travel; with Mr. Stultz responding overnight travel. Mr. Stultz stated the only travel in the budget is for Purchasing Services; it would be for the Annual Florida Association of Public Purchasing Officers Conference; he had one of his staff attend for two days last year; and it is a four-day conference. He noted that is the only travel his Office has as far as A and B travel. Chairman Pritchard stated it is a General Revenue savings of $2,000; the Board decided it does not want to talk about things under $10,000; the next item is outsource all vehicle repair and maintenance; and inquired is the reduction in revenues in-house revenue. Mr. Stultz responded it is revenues received from the departments, contracted municipalities, and not-for-profit agencies that his Office provides services to for fuel and maintenance. Chairman Pritchard inquired when was the last time staff looked at an outside vendor, such as architectural/engineering services. Mr. Stultz responded it was before his life with Brevard County government; in 1997, Central Fleet Services was decentralized; Fleet Services, as it falls under Central Services right now, maintains vehicles and equipment for most of the County agencies; there is separate fleet maintenance operations in Public Safety, Solid Waste, Roadways and Landscaping, Mosquito Control, and Transit Services; Transit Services has an outsource Contract; and the others provide their services in-house. He stated at that time it was decentralized. Mr. Whitten stated when it was decentralized, Central Fleet was taking care of the fire vehicles; Fire Rescue now has its own mechanics and is taking care of its specialized vehicles; and staff looked three or four years ago in terms of what charges the County assesses, including hourly rate and other charges, to see if it was comparable with other municipalities and private vendors in terms of labor charges.

Ms. Busacca stated there is an issue that SCAT found when it went to privatize; it costs more money, but was done a little more quickly and efficiently, and had the buses back on the road faster, although the cost was a little higher; and it is a tradeoff between the service received and costs being charged. Mr. Whitten stated it was the thrust when staff went to decentralization of the fire services because now those fire vehicles do not have to get in line behind the regular passenger vehicles; and they are processed through with some priority.

Chairman Pritchard stated if the County had Fleet Services privatized, it would still have to prioritize fire vehicles, police vehicles, emergency vehicles, etc.; and inquired when the County purchases vehicles, is it looking now to purchase vehicles that have 10-year, 100,000-mile warranties. Mr. Stultz stated the Board asked for a vehicle acquisition plan last year; staff has such a plan in place for this budget cycle; it developed a matrix for rating each vehicle, that being based upon maintenance costs, age of the vehicle, and mileage; and the highest priority is based upon the maintenance costs of the vehicle and not necessarily the age or mileage. Mr. Whitten stated the County takes the standard warranty; and he is not sure it purchases extended warranties. Chairman Pritchard noted it is a travesty having to buy an extended warranty. Mr. Whitten stated the County takes the basic warranty and whatever the factory provides. Chairman Pritchard stated the next issue is additional requirements for accountability of assets and procurement actions; and Mr. Stultz wants to hire an Accountant I at $37,159.

Commissioner Carlson stated an additional Purchasing Agent is also $37,159; and inquired is it a coincidence. Mr. Stultz responded they are the same pay grade. Chairman Pritchard inquired where is the revenue source to pay for them; with Mr. Stultz responding the General Fund. Chairman Pritchard inquired is it critical to Mr. Stultz’s operation; with Mr. Stultz responding yes. Mr. Stultz stated currently there are four Purchasing Agents, which include the Program Manager; Asset Management currently has four Property Control Agents and the Program Manager; there is one Accountant; and it was a result of transferring one of the Office Support positions out of Purchasing last year and reclassifying them. Mr. Stultz noted one position was basically moved; it was taken out of one pocket and move to another; all of the additional responsibilities on Asset Management have created a need for the monitoring of the assets and accounting side of the assets; and Property Control Agents are out in the field predominately all day, either conducting inventories or transferring and moving surplus property. Commissioner Carlson inquired is there any way to consolidate the SAP person and the other person that oversees the Asset Management part. Mr. Stultz responded the method to his madness on the Purchasing person is to take an existing Purchase Agent who is one of the staff members that is actively involved in the SAP upgrade right now; he is gaining a lot of expert knowledge on the system; he could be assigned the responsibility of the management or maintenance of the system, while still conducting Purchasing activities; and the additional position would not only fill that void, but Purchasing is operating in a reactive mode a lot of times because it does not have the time to do a lot of the research on purchasing trends and find other opportunities. He stated there is a cost avoidance that was documented for last fiscal year of about $13 million; and Purchasing can do better on that if it has the resources. Commissioner Carlson inquired will the e-Procurement lift some of the time from other people in the Department, would there be time to disperse some amongst the two, and in terms of insuring the database maintenance, is it something that Information Systems would be doing. Mr. Stultz responded the way SAP is set up, each module or functional area is responsible for the maintenance of its own system.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Stultz indicated by having this person being more proactive it could save the County money. Mr. Stultz stated staff can identify more items and spending patterns for other items that maybe the County does not have current term contracts under; and it can establish more term contracts and get more competitive pricing. Commissioner Scarborough inquired would it pay for the salary; with Mr. Stultz responding he believes so.

Ms. Busacca inquired if Mr. Stultz was given additional time, could he bring a better estimate back to the Board; with Mr. Stultz responding yes.

Chairman Pritchard stated at this point he is not interested in adding positions; he is interested in evaluating and listening to what staff has to say; Mr. Stultz can come back and say if the Accountant I and Purchasing Agent are added, it means this, that, and the other, and the revenue source has been identified, other than General Fund, by offsetting something else; and that is going to sell much easier. He advised he is not interested in increasing taxes this year; 3% over rollback is all he is going to support; less than that would be more palatable; and there is a $860 million budget that includes everything. He noted it is only going to go up from there; and the Board needs to be sure what it is spending is being spent appropriately. Chairman Pritchard stated increasing Fleet Services user fees is taking from within and adding here, so nothing is being saved; he supports implementing vendor payment guidelines to take advantage of vendor payment discounts offered for early payments; estimated savings is almost $32,000; and it is not offset by some sort of cost that has not been discussed.

Mr. Stultz stated the payment process would have to be further established to insure that the posting for payment by the departments is done within certain parameters, and that the Finance Department also buys in on taking and processing payment to insure they meet those early payment timelines for those discounts; it takes a Countywide effort; and the Finance Department would have to have an involvement. Chairman Pritchard stated it is going to be a savings; and it may not be $32,000, but there is going to be a savings by implementing vendor payment guidelines. Commissioner Carlson inquired is the Board going anywhere with outsourcing all vehicle repair and maintenance; with Chairman Pritchard responding not at this point, but it is something it needs to keep looking at.

Commissioner Carlson stated page 1 includes the cost avoidance from formal solicitations; and requested Mr. Stultz explain the $13 million. Mr. Stultz responded it would be the difference when there are competitive solicitations, formal quotes, bids, and proposals conducted through Purchasing Services; staff tracks the actual awarded amount versus the spread between the awarded amount and the highest amount that is received; and it would be considered a cost avoidance. Commissioner Carlson inquired is it competitive or is it just taking the low bid; with Mr. Stultz responding it is not necessarily always the low bid and on the proposals the County is taking the best proposal. Commissioner Carlson noted the cost avoidance per $1.00 spent is $51.15 on the return on investment based on staff’s analysis. Mr. Stultz stated that is correct; and it is the comparison between the $13 million and Purchasing Services budget.

Ms. Busacca inquired has this format been useful and should the other County departments do the same; with Chairman Pritchard responding yes. Commissioner Voltz stated she would like to see more of a dollar figure on the savings the County could potentially get or the increase, whatever it is the departments need more; and she wants to see more dollars. Commissioner Carlson stated the format is good, but sometimes maybe the hidden costs might not be available. Chairman Pritchard stated he would like to know about when it says savings and then there is a discussion, but it is not really savings; he is reading what it says here; if it says savings, it is a savings; and if instead of it being a $30,000 savings, it is a $5,000 savings because of all the other interactions, he would rather staff put $5,000.

Commissioner Colon stated sometimes staff is at a point where it cannot figure out anything else so it is just putting what kind of level of service; it does not dictate that but the Board does; staff is trying to get the Board to grasp on something; and the final say comes back to the Board. She noted it is spelled out here; and it is not exactly some of the things the Board would want to do, but it is there.

Animal Services and Enforcement Department

Animal Services and Enforcement Director Craig Engelson stated currently the Department has a $3.4 million budget, with 58.25 FTE’s, otherwise 54 fulltime, six part-time employees; staff has broken it out in several different aspects of what it does for a living; Administrative and Support Services has 12 FTE’s and North Animal Care and Adoption Center has 6.5 FTE’s; and the current statistics and guidelines tell him he should have one kennel worker for 1,000 animals handled per year. He noted North Animal Care and Adoption Center relates to about 5.5 FTE’s; there are currently 4.5 FTE’s, which means one worker per 1,222 animals; South Animal Care and Adoption Center has 14.25 FTE’s; there are 10.6 FTE’s required; and the current kennel staffing level is 8.25 FTE’s. He stated it seems low based on 14.25 FTE’s; it also includes his management and veterinarian staff; enforcement staff is currently at 25.5 FTE’s; and the recommended staffing by Florida Animal Control Association is one officer per 18,000 citizens, which is the high end. He noted the Association gave a range between 15,000 and 18,000 citizens; he went to the 18,000 citizens, which means he needs 29 officers; and currently there are 19.5 officers and supervisors that could actually cover field work.

Commissioner Carlson inquired is it an increase in 9.5 officers or is it 29 more officers; with Mr. Engelson responding it would be 29 officers total, which is an increase of 9.5 officers. He stated the Community Partnerships has no employees; it is the feral cat and spay/neuter funds; some of the budget savings and efficiencies include eliminating Community Partnership, which is an estimated savings of $32,750; and there are different options of privatizing or contracting the Animal Care Centers, whether it is one or the other or both. He noted the savings is purely an estimate; about two years ago one of the agencies within the County approached him and said for around $750,000 it would be more than happy to take up this business again; that was a few years ago; he is not sure it will still be the same price; and taking care of animals is a very expensive business. He stated one option would be to entirely close the North Animal Care Center; there are a lot of impacts in it, including travel time; some citizens may not even reclaim their animals; and any savings based on privatizing or closing are based on the option the Board would choose if it asked staff to go that way. He noted staff would have to go out for a Request For Proposals (RFP) to find out what is out there and how much someone wants to charge the County; there may be a cost to it, understanding it would be a General Fund cost; there is revenue his Department generates; and such revenue would automatically go away and it would go to whatever agency took over that operation.

Commissioner Carlson inquired why does privatizing North and South Animal Care and Adoption Centers separately equate to about $90,000; and privatizing both of them it is $750,000. Mr. Engelson responded the estimated cost for North Animal Care and Adoption Center is $250,000; estimated cost for South Animal Care and Adoption Center is $500,000; combined it is $750,000; and South Animal Care and Adoption Center does twice the business of North Animal Care and Adoption Center. Ms. Busacca stated on privatization of North Animal Care and Adoption Center, it assumes that there is going to be transport to the South area; and the $750,000 says the County is getting out of the business all together, and that is why those two numbers do not equal $750,000.

Commissioner Voltz inquired are there other counties that privatize; with Mr. Engelson responding yes. Mr. Engelson stated most counties are now running their own facilities; Volusia County Animal Services only covers unincorporated Volusia County and it was easier for it to contract with Halifax Humane Society; larger counties do their own operations; and in the old days the County saved a lot of money as the SPCA ran the North Animal Care Center, which was $46,000. He noted it was spending $250,000 to run it; and the County was offsetting it with $46,000. Commissioner Voltz inquired do the cities pay anything or contribute, or is it just the General Fund; with Mr. Engelson responding the cities do not pay, but the citizens do and it is an ad valorem assessment. Mr. Engelson stated staff took an estimate; 2.26% of the whole General Fund is what goes to Animal Services; on a house with a taxable value of $50,000, one pays about $4.66 to the service; if it is $80,000, it increases to $7.46; and $100,000 is $9.33.

Mr. Engelson noted everybody pays a portion of the General Fund contribution; it is minimal, but the citizens do pay; the cities technically do not pay as Palm Bay says it is going to pay “x” number of dollars to do it; and the citizens of Palm Bay do through the ad valorem assessment. Commissioner Voltz noted it is not separated or itemized, and it is in the General Fund within their taxes. Mr. Engelson stated that is correct. Commissioner Voltz stated the people who have the animals pay the yearly fee for their animals. Mr. Engelson noted they pay for the animal license tags or if they get in trouble.

Mr. Engelson stated the Department does a lot of wildlife traps; the only way he can reduce the service is to eliminate an employee and basically say if he does not do this service, he can save money by reducing an employee; currently his Department does about 2,400 wildlife trap calls annually, which are the animals that are trapped by people who have rented a trap, have a County trap, or bought a trap; and by eliminating one officer position, the County could save $41,000 based on salary and benefits. He noted the problem is the citizen would have to go to a fee-based removal service; the current cost is $50.00 per animal; it also could result now with citizens interacting more with the wildlife they have trapped because they do not know what to do with the animal at that point; and State guidelines say someone can trap anything they want, but to transport the animal a person has to be permitted. He stated some service would have to be hired to do that.

Commissioner Carlson stated there is various service information by dialing 2-1-1; and inquired is Animal Control part of that system. Mr. Engelson responded no, but it is found on the Department’s website. Commissioner Carlson inquired would it be a good thing to put on the list; with Mr. Engelson responding yes. Mr. Engelson stated an efficiency opportunity would include laptops in vehicles; the law enforcement officers have laptops; the Department does not have to increase its licensing fees as it is an unlimited license; and adding these to the trucks is a live feed to the officers in the field. He noted they will be able to check license tags and anything they need to do in the field to include completing their calls and entering the data of an animal that was picked up in the field; when they get to the Animal Care Centers all of the data will be printed for them; and everything will be taken care of right then and there. He stated the only thing that would have to be done is to take the photograph of the animal once it gets to the Animal Care Center; and it would increase efficiency by more calls per day because the officers would be doing everything in the field rather than doing a report in the field, bringing it back, and transferring such report to the database.

Commissioner Voltz stated it is hard to believe the enforcement officers do not have cell phones. Mr. Engelson stated there are cell phones for on-call officers and those officers that work at night, including the supervisors; but not every officer has a cell phone; and they currently have paging and 800 megahertz radio systems. Commissioner Voltz stated when an officer gets a page, he or she has to stop and find a phone somewhere; and it is hard to find a payphone anymore because they are not worth any money so they are being removed. She inquired where do the officers stop to make phone calls; with Mr. Engelson responding normally they go to the field sites, the North or South Animal Care Centers, or come back to the Department if they need to based on what a particular call is about.

Chairman Pritchard inquired why does the Department have radios; with Mr. Engelson responding for getting the calls and whatever dispatch there is currently, and if the officers need assistance. Mr. Engelson stated it is nice to know that officers have a radio that they can call; the Department can go Countywide with law enforcement if need be; it can call Dispatch and Fire Rescue; and the radios are used like law enforcement or any other person uses their radios. He noted the cell phones are a safety backup; the officers could call the citizens and go direct with other officers, using direct net capabilities that most of the new Nextel systems have; and with the laptops, the officers could get the initial call in a certain area, pull up the particulars of the call on the computer, and radio traffic would be limited dramatically. Chairman Pritchard inquired if Mr. Engelson wants laptops, then why not eliminate the radios and use cell phones. Mr. Engelson responded it would be fine if everybody, including Fire Rescue, went to that system; it is nice to have that emergency system available in case it is needed; the officers do public health and safety issues everyday; and his officers deal with the same people that police officers deal with, to include animals that go along with that. He stated the radio system is a great backup system for emergencies; and it is also a great primary system to get the call.

Commissioner Voltz stated nothing would preclude an officer from dialing 9-1-1 from a cell phone if he or she desperately needed some help.

Attorney Wilson stated an officer may not have the option of dialing seven buttons versus one; and there have been several situations where Animal Control officers have had difficulty reaching their radios.

Mr. Engelson stated his officers have been shot at and had stones thrown at them as well.

Commissioner Colon stated adding the $1,500 plus the $4,800 to provide cellular phones for all officers is $6,300; $2,425 would be subtracted, which would eliminate pager expenses; and all that would be needed is $3,875. Ms. Busacca stated the $1,500 is a one-time cost. Mr. Engelson stated the new systems are text message capable, so staff does not need the pager system and can text message on the cell phone if needed. Commissioner Colon stated her concern is during hurricanes and the communication as the officers are sent out throughout the entire County.

Commissioner Carlson stated the current staffing level of field officers is 19.5 officers and supervisors; and inquired how many are on the road during the day, and are there two shifts or one shift. Mr. Engelson responded there are two shifts; one shift is 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and the other shift is 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; the Saturday shift is 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and the rest is emergency standby and on-call type situations. He stated out of the 19.5 officers every one of those could go on the road; and on a daily basis, 12 officers are probably the max for both shifts, allowing for training, sick leave, etc. Commissioner Carlson inquired how many calls on average are received per day. Mr. Engelson responded since January 1, 2005 the Department has responded to 7,400 calls; and it has also completed 672 animal bite reports on top of the 7,400 calls.

Chairman Pritchard inquired what are the total responses per year. Mr. Engelson responded his Department is averaging around 33,000 a year; Melbourne is at the top of the list for 1,644 calls, Palm Bay is close behind with 1,458; and everybody else falls in behind, with Titusville and Cocoa being fairly close in the 800’s. He stated an officer can do anywhere from four calls a day to 20 calls a day, depending on the type of calls; a trap is a fairly quick call; and an animal cruelty with 30 animals will probably take the remainder of the day to handle.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve cellular phones for all Animal Services and Enforcement Officers. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve inclusion of Animal Services and Enforcement Department to the 211 list.

Commissioner Carlson stated on a weekend someone can call 211 if there is a health, safety, welfare, or whatever concern; and it could be an easy question to answer if the County could have it tied into either Animal Control or one of the wildlife organizations that are out there.

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

Commissioner Voltz inquired will the increase in adoption fees by $10.00 be per adoption. Mr. Engelson responded with everything someone gets from the Center for an adoption to include a spay/neuter, rabies vaccination, full medical work up, and any preventative medicines that may need to be provided, it is a great value; and he hopes it is not a deterrent. He stated it would be a $50.00 adoption fee for a cat and $70.00 for a dog; it is still a great value; and he does not believe it will deter someone that much.

Commissioner Carlson inquired what are the adoption rates currently; stated there was a long discussion on euthanasia, adoption rates, and trying to improve all of that; and inquired how has it improved since such discussion a few years back and were the costs lower than $60.00 and $40.00 then. Mr. Engelson responded no. Commissioner Carlson inquired when is the last time the rates were increased; with Mr. Engelson responding when the County took over the Animal Care Centers in January 2002, and it went up to $40.00 and $60.00 to cover the costs. Mr. Engelson stated the Board discussed the need to insure that any animal at the Centers had to be spay/neutered; the County added a veterinarian on board and vet tags; and it caused the costs to increase.

Chairman Pritchard inquired what would it cost if he were to purchase a pet somewhere and take it to have it spay/neutered; with Mr. Engelson responding anywhere from $30.00 to $100.00.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to increase adoption fees by $10.00 per animal, which would provide an additional $50,000 in revenue and allow the care centers to maintain the same or higher level of care and keep animals longer, which will help reduce the number of euthanized animals. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if the County finds that its adoption rates are decreasing, he would like the adoption fee increase to be reconsidered. Mr. Engelson noted that is not a problem and he agrees with it; the goal is to increase adoptions; and the County has done very well with it.

Chairman Pritchard stated there have been a lot of requests from folks that would like to see the sites open on Sundays; and they claim it would increase adoptions if the Centers were open on Sunday and closed on Monday.

Commissioner Carlson stated with the additional $50,000 in revenue maybe staff could open the Centers on Sunday. Mr. Engelson stated the optimal way to do that would be to open seven days a week. Commissioner Colon inquired could the Centers be closed one day; stated people are better going on Saturday and Sunday versus a Monday; and the Centers could be closed on Monday instead of Sunday. Mr. Engelson stated staff can review it; the option looks good in theory, but the busiest day on the road for officers is Monday. He stated everybody traps the animals on Sunday; and all of the animals are transferred to the Animal Care Centers on Monday. He noted he has looked at options; last year he provided the Board several options; he can bring back more options to it on how to do this; seven days a week would be the best operation, but then it would have to be staffed, which would be very expensive; and staff is trying to avoid that. Chairman Pritchard stated maybe Monday is the busy day because the Centers are closed on Sunday; and perhaps if they were closed on Monday, then Tuesday would be the busy day. Commissioner Voltz inquired what are the Centers’ hours. Mr. Engelson responded Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays are open to the public from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Tuesdays and Thursdays the Centers are open from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; but it is for adoptions; and if someone has a lost animal the Centers are open at 8:00 a.m. and the person can knock on the door, and it is the same on Saturday all day. He stated when staff is at the Centers on Sunday to feed the animals, someone can ring the bell and there is service for them if he or she knows their animal is there and wants to get it back.

Commissioner Colon stated staff should try to figure out how the Centers can be open on Sunday; she does not agree with the Centers being open seven days; and being open on Sunday might increase the adoption rate.

Ms. Busacca stated staff will bring back information to the Board.

Commissioner Voltz stated increasing boarding fees by $1.00 per day does not seem like it is hardly anything; the County is paying for the animals’ food and care; and $5.00 a day versus $6.00 a day is nothing and maybe it should be $10.00 a day.

Mr. Engelson stated he agrees and thought about it; but it is not all the person pays when he or she picks up the animal; the individual is going to pay an impound fee, which is $35.00; if his officers picked up the animal, then the person is going to pay a $25.00 transport fee and maybe $30.00 if the County gets to that point today; so the individual has paid quite a bit of money. He noted he does not want to charge too much money to where folks leave the animals at the Centers because of the costs; he wants to make sure it is reasonable; $6.00 is certainly reasonable on top of the other fees; and he is hoping to get the transport fees increased from $25.00 to $30.00 per animal. He stated if a dog is running loose and one of his officers picks it up and takes it to the Animal Care Center, the owner gets charged the transport fee on top of an impound fee.

Commissioner Colon inquired is the microchip free now. Mr. Engelson responded the County only does it during the specialized adoption events; he thought it was a great way to start; if someone adopts an animal from the County, he or she can microchip their animal for $20.00; and it is optional.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve a microchip program to create permanent identifications placed under the skin for animals adopted at the Animal Care Centers, which is optional; and establish a $20.00 fee for same, which would provide an additional $15,000 in revenue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to increase boarding fees by $1.00 per day, which would provide an additional $5,000 in revenue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to increase transport fees by $5.00, from $25.00 to $30.00 per animal, which would provide an additional $4,820 in revenue. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Pritchard stated page 2 includes elimination of Community Partnership; the estimated savings is $33,000; it says it would impact feral cat TNR, wildlife transport reimbursement, and rabies pre-exposure vaccinations for volunteers; and inquired is that all the feral cat program. Mr. Engelson responded no; the TNR is the feral cat program; it is $25,000; and that is what is paid for TNR. He noted there are some wildlife transporters that go to the beaches and pick up injured birds, etc.; the County pays them a mileage fee; it was brought on before he took over as Director; and it has been ongoing. He stated rabies pre-exposure vaccinations are something the County helps with for wildlife rehabilitators and such it uses; and it helps them cover costs of a pre-exposure, which is a three-shot series of pre-exposure rabies vaccinations. Chairman Pritchard stated he has a problem with the feral cat issue because cats are domestic pets and not wild animals; no more than he would tolerate a pack of dogs living in the woods, he has problems tolerating a pack of cats living in the woods; it is inappropriate; and while he understands some people have made a hobby out of maintaining the feral cat population, the County needs to get out of the business. He noted he has a letter that Mr. Engelson wrote to the Space Coast Feline Network saying it does not want to provide the public records information as requested by people, so the County cannot use it any longer as the designated agency; and the County has a problem on that end and the other end by paying $25,000 for this. Chairman Pritchard stated if the Board is not interested in stopping the program right now, then it needs to at least have a phase-out to where this does not continue; and cats have kittens, then the kittens become part of the population, and it continues and never ends.

Commissioner Carlson inquired is there a suit out right now to get that information. Ms. Busacca responded one day this week she signed a letter, sent it to the Network, and told it that based on its unwillingness to provide the information that the County was terminating its relationship with it; she understands the County Attorney’s Office was going to contact Dr. Storts’ Attorney and explain that the County was terminating its relationship; it has not actually been named as part of a party to a lawsuit yet, although it may happen; but the County has done what it can.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired is the $25,000 to the party that the County terminated the relationship with. Mr. Engelson responded no; the County does not give the party the $25,000; the party will use the South Animal Care Center and coordinate 100 cats to be spay/neutered; and a veterinarian will come in with a vet tech and do each animal. He advised the vet will charge a certain fee; based on the fee charged to do that, the County is billed for it; and the $25,000 is used to pay for the veterinarian services, etc. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the County does not have the relationship with the Network, it will not be bringing the cats in and there will not be a vet, so the County will not be spending the $25,000. Mr. Engelson responded the County would not be spending it for that particular function; now that the relationship is severed, his Department will now be the designated agency until it can find someone else to take over that role; it will work with individual caregivers; and it may have to start a voucher program. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Engelson is talking about next year’s budget; he is trying to redesign what is going on as far as with this year’s budget; as he redesigns this year’s budget and rather than taking an action this afternoon, he would like to know where Mr. Engelson is going with it; and it is like shooting at a moving target when he does not have to fire the gun until September for something that does not start for six months.

Chairman Pritchard stated the County needs to get out of the feral cat business and he bases it on a cat being a domestic pet and not a wild animal; and he would not tolerate a pack of cats anymore than he would a pack of dogs. Commissioner Scarborough stated he has heard if there is a group out there, then there are citizens that will assist in capturing the cats if they know they are not going to be terminated as opposed to being neutered; there is the capacity to get volunteers to help; and people will not necessarily want to capture the cats if they know they are being euthanized. Chairman Pritchard stated they want the cats to live in the wild; and cats are predators. Commissioner Scarborough stated what would be lost is the capacity to bring the animal in. Chairman Pritchard noted what would be lost is the amount of animals the County would have living in the wild. Commissioner Scarborough stated if that occurs the Board can talk about it; he is not saying Chairman Pritchard is wrong; and he has heard a different perspective from other people.

DISCUSSION, RE: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Interim County Manager Peggy Busacca stated there are a significant number of unfunded capital improvements that are causing Bond Counsel to be concerned every time they look; and staff is looking for Board direction to go through and cull those requests so they are more appropriate and reflect the funding that is in the foreseeable future.

Commissioner Scarborough stated before he starts culling he would like to know what is being culled. Ms. Busacca noted staff will be happy to provide that separately because the Board has to adopt this; and requested direction from the Board to move forward on the process.

Chairman Pritchard stated staff can do that and bring the issue back at the next budget workshop. Ms. Busacca noted she does not know how long it will take, but it is adopted by the Board, so it will require Board review. Chairman Pritchard advised staff will provide the requests to be culled to the Board for its review and approval; there are more projects here than the County is ever going to have money for; and it needs to be more reasonable about that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem is when the County says all it is going to look at is so much in needs, based upon the dollar amount to make somebody that is buying bonds happy, it is basically limiting the foresight of the departments to do imaginative capital improvements; he may have a whole litany of things that he may want to do; but as he begins to say he is not going to even put them on a list to review, he has a whole list of things and he never knows how far he is going to go and how far he is not. He noted if he said he is only going three things down the list, he may get the three done and all might be fine, and then he does not have himself prepared to go to step two and move around in a creative manner if an opportunity arises; he understands why Bond Counsel does not want the County to have all these things as it looks like it is way underfunded; but one needs to drive the roads of Brevard County, then drive the roads of other counties, and go to the libraries also; and that is how one finds where the needs are. He stated it is not expressed in the capacity to do proper planning; a good county may have a longer unfunded list than a bad County; and Bond Counsel is looking at it in a very limited way.

Chairman Pritchard stated what the Bond Counsel is telling the County is that when there is too much imagination and not enough fiscal to back it up, then it is strictly wishful thinking; he does not think that is where the Board wants to be; he also does not think that an exercise of creating a list is a good exercise; and the exercise has to be reasonable and fiscally accountable. He noted he also believes the County has the vehicle replacement plan, which is a large part of capital; when he reviews the vehicle replacement plan he does not look at it as capital that is imaginary; he looks at it as 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 are the years when the County is going to be replacing these vehicles; and he does not consider vehicles to be in the imaginary role, as they have a life and they are going to fall out. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not have any problem with vehicles.

Ms. Busacca stated staff will present its ideas to the Board.

Commissioner Carlson stated what is imaginary is that all of this is in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) with no idea of how to fund it; if staff is going to bring back a culled list, which she is not sure she agrees with, she wants to see some sort of a multi-year plan to improve the revenue stream for those things the County has; even if staff culls it down to something in transportation and it is not $300 million but $200 million, the County still cannot pay for it because it is not willing to put the money where it needs to go; but there are other streams of revenue that the Board can review; and staff had it in the write-up to Chairman Pritchard in terms of bringing in the ninth-cent motor vehicle and local option gas tax five cents, and looking at the commercial paper capability there. She stated if the Board takes advantage of all of this, it will need to see it and not just roads in writing; it needs the big ticket items; and in looking through the CIP, transportation is huge, parks and recreation is going to hit the County next year, and it does not know what it is going to look like. She stated stormwater is huge, but in some cases in transportation they put that money up front in the five-year plan and put stormwater in the fifth year. She noted the County has to do it one way or another; if it is going to cull it down, then the Board needs to decide what it is actually doing if it culls it down; and stormwater is to help decrease pollution in the Indian River Lagoon.

Chairman Pritchard stated if there is going to be a list, then there needs to be a funding source; when there are 100 projects that will be $100 million, but there is no funding mechanism, and they say year after year because they have been on the list for the last five years then it is time to redefine the list. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not disagree and just because it is on the list does not justify it being on the list.

Commissioner Colon stated the issue will come back to the Board in about a month or so. Ms. Busacca stated it will take some time and staff will bring it back. Commissioner Carlson stated she appreciates staff’s comments and knows it is understatement here because he only picks out transportation and says the costs of acquiring right-of-way, resurfacing, or rebuilding roads increase annually by more than 2%; when she did the seven-year for seven-cents, it is 15%; so it is definitely more than 2%; and the County is only getting dollars in from gas tax revenues of 2%, so somewhere therein lies the problem and it needs to be addressed. She noted it is going to cost money no matter how one looks at it; if the County can do it by means of the gas tax, commercial paper, ad valorem tax, or whatever, it needs to look at those and make sure the CIP and budget are linked together somehow; the County has been fighting this for as long as she has been here; and it has not succeeded in linking the two because the rubber does not hit the road period, and the money is not there. She stated the Board has not agreed to pass a budget that increases any sort of revenue stream, pass the local option gas tax, or do something else; but there are a couple of folks on various growth management boards saying they need to push this down to the counties; and they have to bite the bullet and figure out what to do because they do not have a lot of control and there is not much accountability at stake.

Chairman Pritchard stated the taxpayers have said that they do not mind any taxes as long as they do not have to pay them, so that means impact fees are great as long as they do not have to pay them; all of these things need to be factored in; and the Board can increase all kinds of fees as long as it does not increase ad valorem taxes, which seems to be the guideline.

Commissioner Carlson stated the County can certainly exhaust the tools it has; it has not exhausted them yet; and if the people come back and says the one-cent sales tax is not going to do it and they are not paying for it, then they are going to have to realize that ad valorem taxes are the next thing unless the State gives the County other opportunities.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are limitations on how much they may increase ad valorem taxes.

Commissioner Carlson inquired will the strategic planning part of this be brought back; with Chairman Pritchard responding yes. Chairman Pritchard inquired when is the next meeting; with Ms. Busacca responding April 14, 2005 at 1:00 p.m.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

ATTEST:
__________________________________
RON PRITCHARD, D.P.A., CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
_____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)