July 26, 2001

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special workshop session on July 26, 2001, at 9:01 a.m. in the Government Center Building C Florida Room, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Susan Carlson, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, and Nancy Higgs, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox. Absent was: *Commissioner Jackie Colon.

REPORT, RE: BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT

Commissioner Higgs advised her office and staff received a number of calls about the beach renourishment project; she does not think it was the intention of the Board not to allow staff to give clarification to people or even a summary sheet, in particular to inform the beachfront property owners who are directly affected; and unless a Commissioner had a different intention when the Board said it did not want to have a big newspaper ad or major mailing, she would assume it is acceptable to inform directly-affected property owners and have a summary sheet to give to people who request it.

Chairman Carlson advised she asked Virginia Barker to put something like that together for her section of the beach, which includes the worm rocks. Commissioner Higgs inquired if mailing to those directly affected property owners is okay. All Commissioners agreed.

Commissioner O'Brien advised that should be done with addresses of the Congressman and Senators so they can send letters to them. He noted often people want to send letters to elected officials, but do not have the addresses; therefore, the letters are not sent; and if they are given the addresses, it may incite more to respond.

DISCUSSION, RE: PROPOSED FY 2001-02 BUDGET REVENUES

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised what is left to be done today are two items; and the Board needs to have additional discussion on revenues, and talk about unfunded program changes.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he would like to discuss revenues; and on the chalkboard, explained a pie chart used by a County Commission out West of the amount of general fund revenue per year and how it increased with growth. He explained a scenario of $100 million budget in 1995, showed how they worked it out with percentages for various functions, and with growth the revenue increased each year to $160 million, but the percentages remained the same. He stated if an agency wanted an increase, the Board would have to decrease all the other percentages to make up for that increase; and that is their decision-making process. He stated every year the total revenue increased due to growth; and if the Board did the same thing for Brevard County, every year that number would get larger because of increased property values, new home construction, and other events that take place; so that is a solution in the thought process rather than increasing taxes.

Commissioner Higgs stated if the gross domestic product of Brevard County is multiplied with the millage, it will show that the millage over the years has actually gone down; so the pie that government has used to provide services has gone down even though the growth number has gone up.

Mr. Jenkins advised the pie chart does not consider inflation; staff has a bar chart that shows the per capita spending by population; and that has gone down and/or remained level. He stated inflation has been between 2 and 4% over the last six to eight years; so it would give the $160 million a present value of about $115 million. He stated staff can prepare those charts for the Board to show what they would be; but to look at it accurately, the Board needs to consider the cost of inflation. He stated every year employees get a salary increase, and cost of materials goes up, and the Board absorbs those prices; so theoretically, the Board would not get the $160 million because of cost increases it does not control.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the objective is to ensure parts of the budget get their percentage of the revenues; and if the revenues shrink, they would have to cut back; and if the percentage changes for one agency, they would have to cut other percentages. Commissioner Higgs stated the total pie is not relevant, but the aggregate millage per capita is the relevant number. She stated how much the County government is spending per capita is relevant as opposed to the gross pie. Mr. Jenkins advised another factor in addition to inflation are the issues approved by the voters, which will increase revenues but are for specific purposes and cannot be used for other services. Commissioner O'Brien stated those are excluded from the general fund pie; the pie shows how the general fund is divided; and inflation may be covered by the increase in revenues from new construction, increased property values, etc.

Animal Services and Enforcement Department

Mr. Jenkins advised Items 8 and 12 in the handout deal with revenues; Animal Services is the first item; and they offered options to increase their revenues to improve services to the public.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the increases were based on the full cost of doing business; with Interim Animal Services and Enforcement Director Randy Jackson responding no, but it will increase their level of service to the community and upgrade some things to make them more efficient. Mr. Jenkins advised they are incremental changes and would cover some of the costs.

Commissioner Scarborough stated every time the Board touches the license fee, everybody comes out against it; it is a net benefit of $86,000; and inquired if it was coordinated with the veterinarians; with Mr. Jackson responding yes, and they were not opposed to a small incremental change, but did have a problem when it was $10. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff thinks the veterinarians will accept the proposed increase; with Mr. Jenkins responding $2.00 is already in the budget, and this is to take it to $3.00.

Chairman Carlson recommended requests for increases relate back to the priority list. She stated Animal Services and Enforcement has two items; one is two additional animal enforcement officers at $80,000 and a data entry specialist at $26,000; and by raising the fees, they would be able to pay for the two additional officers. Mr. Jenkins inquired if those are Animal Control's priorities; with Mr. Jackson responding yes. Mr. Jenkins advised if the Board is willing to do it, staff would have to come back with a rate resolution at another meeting.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired how did staff communicate with the veterinarians; with Mr. Jackson responding at various meetings and communications with them on a weekly basis in most cases. He stated a recent meeting was held to discuss the low cost/no cost issue; and they did not seem to have a problem with a very small increase. Commissioner Scarborough stated if the veterinarians drop out of the process, there will be a decrease in revenues; and noted there was a reversal in the revenue stream when the County increased the tag fees; so their cooperation is important to the process. Mr. Jackson stated staff needs their cooperation, and the mail reminder system is working well. Mr. Jenkins advised the mail reminder is new and so are the retail outlets; so while the partnership with the veterinarians is important to collect those fees, gradually staff would like to diversify and use the mail notices and retail outlets to take some of the burden off the veterinarians. Commissioner Scarborough advised a lot of people like it for the convenience.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to authorize advertising a resolution to increase fees for Animal Services and Enforcement; and direct staff to provide a copy of the resolution to all veterinarians licensed in Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the biggest complaint he receives is the exorbitant cost if an animal is caught running loose and taken to the shelter or bites someone; the fine is $300 or $500; and many people cannot afford to pay it. Commissioner Scarborough stated the animal could be dangerous to public health and safety.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the motion included other fee increases; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that was his intent.

Library Services Department

Mr. Jenkins advised in the preliminary budget for Library Services is an increase in the overdue fine from 10¢ to 20¢; and that money stays at each library and is used primarily for media. Library Services Director Cathy Schweinsberg responded it is also used for maintenance of the facility.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if it will fund increased books; with Ms. Schweinsberg responding no, the increase was put in the budget to balance it; and what is in the budget for additional books is on top of the fine increase. Commissioner Scarborough stated 20¢ is not exorbitant.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve increase in overdue library books fine from 10¢ to 20¢. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Office of Natural Resources Management

Assistant County Manager Stephen Peffer advised staff tried to make corrections to the fees based on the cost-of-living analysis or true cost accounting of what it takes to process the information in order to review the materials necessary to issue various permits; so it is a combination of two different approaches. He stated the increases in fees being proposed affect fees collected by other agencies; and they focused on what they need in Natural Resources to balance their budget for Debbie Cole's Section of Permit Review. He noted there may be other agencies proposing similar increases in the same fee; and some fees they share are collected through the Land Development process. Chairman Carlson inquired if the increases are in the proposed budget; with Permit Review Supervisor Debbie Coles responding they are reflected in the budget the Board has now.

Mr. Peffer stated several years ago, when the Board decided to go with program budgeting, staff had to balance revenue and expenditures for each program; this year they have requested an additional position to assist in permit reviews; and to obtain that additional position, they used the fee increases to fund it. He stated it will also avoid needing a General Fund subsidy for the Permit Review Section to pay for various built-in expenditures such as salary increases, liability and health insurance, etc. He noted until the fee resolution is adopted by the Board, it is not funded, but it is included in the proposed budget.

Mr. Jenkins advised the increase will fund an additional position and remove the General Fund subsidy for the Permit Review Section; and inquired if Ms. Coles eliminated the subsidy; with Ms. Coles responding the Budget Office did it.

Commissioner Higgs advised the line item for rezoning review goes from $25 to $44; Ms. Coles has sat at zoning meetings for hours; and inquired how did staff arrive at that figure; with Ms. Coles responding she took a portion of her and her staff's salaries and applied it to the number of permits they review, and came up with $44.00. Commissioner Higgs advised the Board is considering review of wetland issues in regard to rezonings; $44 seems very low and may need to be looked at again because the Board has changed the way it does rezoning. Chairman Carlson recommended staff find out what other communities charge. Ms. Coles stated that is difficult because the fees are lumped together.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve increasing fees for Office of Natural Resources Management by resolution; and direct staff to provide additional information to the Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Permitting and Enforcement Department

Development Engineer Bruce Moia advised staff broke out each program that Land Development participates in; there are some programs that currently have revenues that meet the costs, and some that definitely do not; but there is only one fee proposed for FY 2001-02, and that is the residential lot drainage. He noted that fee is included in the proposed budget.

Mr. Jenkins inquired if Mr. Moia had any recommendations; with Mr. Moia responding due to the amount of increase in some of the programs, the Board may want to consider increasing the fees on a step basis.

Chairman Carlson stated there is nothing on the prioritization list for Land Development; with Permitting and Enforcement Director Billy Osborne responding there are two replacement vehicles for the Permitting and Enforcement Department.

Commissioner O'Brien advised the company that does debt collection for the County mentioned he collected "x" millions of dollars for Brevard County and a lot of it was for Code Enforcement; with Mr. Osborne responding it was a little over $60,000. Mr. Jenkins advised it was a little over $80,000 this year, which included a lot of delinquent fines; and for next year they expect that number to be lower because a lot of delinquent liens and fines will be caught up, so there will not be a large base to work from. Mr. Jenkins stated the revenue projection in the budget for next year is a little over $30,000. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how much does staff expect to fine for violations; with Mr. Osborne responding staff has not projected that. Mr. Jenkins stated it depends on the violations, facts, and what the special master does; they do not know what kind of violations will be cited next year; it is not like a traffic ticket that has a set amount; and this is on a case-by-case basis and is based on the complexity of the violation. He noted there are a lot of variables. Commissioner O'Brien stated the question was how much in way of fines is supposed to be generated. He stated three years ago, it was $1.3 million; last year it was $82,000; and this year it is $61,000; and inquired how much is not collected; with Mr. Osborne responding staff projected for next year $32,000; they collected over $60,000 this year; and prior to having a collection agency, they collected between $16,000 and $18,000 a year.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the different percentages reflected in the last column are the costs to provide services; with Mr. Jenkins responding it is what would be required to cover the cost of providing the service, such as a 391% increase for subdivisions. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the information from other counties and cities is on a different form because they break it down differently; with Mr. Moia responding yes, but if the Board increases the fees by 50% overall, it could see where that would put the County. Mr. Moia noted if the subdivision fee goes from $13,000 to $20,000, it would still fall within the range of surrounding municipalities.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired why is Rockledge's fee for inspections $3,000 and Brevard County's fee is $1,500; with Mr. Moia responding the City charges 2% and the County charges 1%. Commissioner O'Brien stated Volusia County charges $2,800 and Seminole County charges $2,500 to perform inspections; and inquired if that is close to what Brevard County charges; with Mr. Moia responding staff believes the 1% fee covers the cost of providing that service. Commissioner O'Brien stated Orange County charges $1,445 for full site plan review and Brevard County charges $649; and inquired if that is the cost to the County; with Mr. Moia responding to cover the cost they would have to double the fee, and maybe that can be justified to be in the range of other government agencies. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Mr. Moia feels the fee should be doubled to cover the full site plan review cost; with Mr. Moia responding yes, if the Board wants to cover the cost of that service. Commissioner O'Brien stated a fee is a user's cost; if somebody is doing something that costs the government on their behalf, the general taxpayer should not have to pay for it; the developer who makes a profit from the service should pay; so those types of fees he has no problem saying increase it to lower the cost of government operations. Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board wants to do it in increments or at 100% of the cost; with Commissioner O'Brien responding 100%. He stated the County's fees are extremely low; and if it has to increase 300% to be comparable with surrounding counties, then that is what it has to do. Chairman Carlson inquired if any of the fees are included in the budget; with Mr. Moia responding only the residential lot drainage fee that staff proposes to double to cover the cost of that service. Mr. Jenkins noted it will send shock waves through the community if the Board increases the fees dramatically. Commissioner O'Brien stated it will send shock waves through the development community; however, if that is the cost to the County, there is no good reason why a homeowner in Mims or Merritt Island has to pay more taxes because developers are putting in more homes.

Mr. Moia advised the last program is unpaved roads; and to cover the actual cost would require a 2,835% increase, so the County has to subsidize that program. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board wants to increase fees more than 300%, and where there is a measure above that, have it come in incrementally until they catch up. He stated the problem will be that the cost may move up incrementally as well; so the final impact may be greater because the Board would have built in the cost increase in the increments. He stated once the program starts incrementally, it would not stop until it has full coverage; so the resolution should read not more than 200% and incrementally until full cost is covered.

Chairman Carlson advised 100% increase may cover the cost at today's dollars, but every year there have to be adjustments for the cost of doing business. Commissioner Scarborough stated if people in the community knew they were subsidizing development, there could be outrage. Mr. Jenkins advised a point to consider is if someone is building a subdivision next to Villa De Palmas, the County requires safeguards to make sure those residents do not get flooded or impacted; so there is an argument that it also benefits the residents of Villa De Palmas. Commissioner O'Brien stated the reason for full site plan review is to have that kind of activity that watches development closely; the developer is in the business to make money, and there is nothing wrong with that; but there is something wrong when the taxpayer subsidizes the developer's profits by having to pay for a direct cost attributable to development. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how far does Commissioner O'Brien want to go in a year; with Commissioner O'Brien responding to be fair and reasonable, but 300% is not reasonable. Commissioner Scarborough stated some of the fees have not changed in a decade. Chairman Carlson stated it is a wake-up call to make the budget right.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the development community is encouraging the Board to go out for the sales tax; if the Board does that, it will be scrutinized on all things by the community; and if it appears to any extent that it is subsidizing development or the development community is benefiting from the sales tax, there will be a different perspective by the people. He stated this discussion is prerequisite in preparation for sales tax discussion. Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Jenkins' point regarding protection of abutting properties should not be lost; and in the development review process and monitoring of development the County frequently responds to abutting property owners who ask for issues to be looked at. She stated because the fees have not been revised in several years, it may make sense to give it a few years to catch up as opposed to recouping it all in one year; and suggested 50% increase this year and 50% next year, so by the third year the fees would cover the cost of the service. Commissioner Scarborough stated one is 2,835%; and inquired if Commissioner Higgs is suggesting going 50% a year on that; with Commissioner Higgs responding there is a deficit in the Land Development Section between full funding from fees and cost of service; if the first year they can get 50% of the cost back and the next year the other 50%, that should be reasonable; however, she would need to have more details on the unpaved road program. She stated it would be a mistake to try and recoup it all this year.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve increasing fees for Land Development by 50% of the costs by resolution for Fiscal Year 2001-02, and another 50% in the next fiscal year to reflect full funding of the services.

Chairman Carlson inquired if that would reflect the additional costs due to increases in the cost of doing business; with Commissioner Higgs responding absolutely.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board should be shown how staff arrived at its figures, such as how did it get to $13,000 because someone wants to put in a dirt road. Commissioner Scarborough stated there will be people in the community who will ask the hard questions; with Commissioner O'Brien responding they should be answered up front, what it costs the County to perform certain tasks to protect neighbors from projects or whatever. Chairman Carlson stated there should be clear justification.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the motion is to do 50% this year and the same amount next year on all development fees for Land Development and Permitting and Enforcement; with Commissioner Higgs responding next year's budget should reflect that development review is paying for itself. Commissioner Higgs stated she did not see indirect costs associated with the budget; with Mr. Jenkins responding it is not an Enterprise Fund and has been General Fund subsidized. Commissioner Higgs stated so it is not recovering the full cost. Mr. Moia advised payroll, office supplies, and whatever it takes to support the Department are in the budget; and the only other indirect cost may be something that could come up that would be unique to their budget. Mr. Jenkins stated they are not charged indirect costs because they have never been self-sufficient and have been considered a General Fund entity. Chairman Carlson noted maybe the Board could move it towards that end; with Mr. Jenkins responding the Board is about to do that in two years. Mr. Jenkins suggested Mr. Moia explain the unpaved road program to the Board so it can decide whether to include it or not.

Mr. Moia advised if someone wants to build an unpaved road, that person comes to their office; they create Board agenda reports for accepting the agreement, deeds, bonds, etc.; and they do plan review, that includes engineering, plan coordinators, and office staff services; and the percentage of what everybody puts into the application is how they came up with the cost to provide that service.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if she has a public right-of-way in Grant and wants to build an unpaved road to it, would the fee be $400. Mr. Jenkins inquired if he is a single lot owner on an unpaved road and wants to get 100 feet of the road to his lot, would his permit fee be $400 and be proposed to go up to $600; with Mr. Moia responding if the Board wants to go to 50% increase of the cost to provide that service, it would be $6,000. Commissioner Higgs stated she wants to see the build up of that fee; and inquired how many unpaved road permits are issued a year; with Mr. Moia responding about five. Commissioner Higgs stated there were three on the last Agenda; with Mr. Moia responding they bring the Agenda Report to the Board for someone to construct a home on a dirt road that already exists, but they actually only get about five that are constructed in a year. He stated most of the requests are to accept the agreement so they can pull a building permit. Commissioner Higgs stated she wants to see how that breaks down. Commissioner Scarborough recommended unpaved roads be left out of the fee increases.

Chairman Carlson noted the motion is for all the fees except the unpaved road fee; and called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Jenkins instructed Mr. Moia to calculate how much money that will bring to the budget and provide those figures to Mr. Whitten.

Planning and Zoning Office

Planning and Zoning Director Mel Scott advised the sheet that has been provided shows incremental increases of 10% up to 100% of the existing fees; staff used classic examples of the 43 zoning classifications, typical commercial and residential rezonings, and Comprehensive Plan amendment breakdown; and those fees and calculations are based on a narrow view of staff resources necessary to process a rezoning application. Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the narrow view; with Mr. Scott responding the budget would be $1.4 million for Planning and Zoning functions; they generate $300,000 in fees a year; so the increase of that $300,000 a year is still a long way from eliminating the General Fund subsidy.

Mr. Jenkins advised Planning and Zoning does a lot of things that are not fee driven in comparison to Land Development, which is a review agency; and it does a lot of planning activities that are not germane to development. Mr. Scott stated a great example of that is the power plant; it was one application and one fee, but the community discussion generated from that was tremendous. Mr. Jenkins stated they also spent a lot of time on performance based zoning. Mr. Scott stated they overhauled portions of the Code. Commissioner Higgs stated they write a lot of ordinances at the Board's request. Mr. Jenkins stated those are General Fund supported activities the Board feels are appropriate for them to do.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the sheet shows a Comprehensive Plan amendment at $1,000 and the need is $9,700 to cover the cost. Mr. Jenkins inquired if that $9,700 is taking the total budget and dividing it or is it time spent; with Mr. Scott responding it is only time spent.

Commissioner Scarborough stated reviewing the comparables of cities and other counties, there is an average of $1,200; and he has a problem if there is too large of a disparity between those two numbers and does not know how to reconcile it. Mr. Scott advised the $1,030 figure for Comprehensive Plan amendment is the large-scale variety for someone wanting to amend more than ten acres of property or to change the text; there are also small scale Comprehensive Plan amendments that are less than ten acres; and that fee is $530. Mr. Scott stated many locales do not have that degree of specificity in their fee schedules; Rockledge has a $2,500 fee that applies regardless of the acreage; and many locales do it that way.

Chairman Carlson inquired how much additional work is generated from one to the other that justifies the same fee for both; with Mr. Scott responding the fees were intended to cover advertising costs; a large scale amendment has a tremendous advertising cost because Florida Statutes dictate a quarter page ad; and two public hearings are mandated on a large-scale amendment, so the $1,000 fee was intended to cover the cost of advertising. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it includes staff time; with Mr. Scott responding not at all.

The meeting recessed at 9:58 a.m., and reconvened at 10:12 a.m.

*Commissioner Colon's presence was noted at this time.

Mr. Scott reiterated previous statements on the proposed fee schedule; and stated it represents a narrow view of the costs and does not contain the indirect costs or capture Code changes and planning activities that come about.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the fees do not represent capital cost, facility cost, legal cost, overhead cost, and just represent a few people who are directly delivering those services; with Mr. Scott responding that is correct. Commissioner Higgs stated so even if the Board went to 100% of recovering the cost, it would not fully represent 100% of the actual cost.

Chairman Carlson advised the list says, "Tasks not included in the example fees: site plan review, demographic research, graphics, concurrency analysis, neighborhood planning activities, impact fee administration, maintaining and updating Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan, and other Board identified planning activities."

Commissioner Higgs inquired if health insurance is included in the personnel cost; with Mr. Scott responding they did look at those and included them, but it is a narrow application of a few planners time to process the application. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it includes the Budget Office cost; with Mr. Scott responding no. Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Scott give the Board a memo on what it does not include so when they get calls they can say it does not cover those costs. Chairman Carlson requested the Board get the cost of the additional services that are part of the fee schedule as well; with Commissioner Higgs responding the Budget Office should do that.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board wants to take action or wait until the information comes back. She stated the fee required to eliminate General Fund subsidy for commercial rezoning, which is at $683, would be $1,380; and it would be interesting to get a breakdown of exactly what that fee is for, the breakdown of all the other fees that are indirectly associated with that, and the potential cost for those to get a feel for what the full cost of it might be.

Commissioner O'Brien stated staff is saying the fee required to eliminate General Fund transfer is $1,380; and it is the same for residential rezoning; with Mr. Scott responding it just worked out that way because the annual transactions were very close. Commissioner O'Brien stated the cost for a Comprehensive Plan amendment is close to $10,000, which seems exorbitant; and there must be a better way to accomplish that task to lower the cost. Chairman Carlson stated the Board needs a breakout of those fees.

Mr. Jenkins advised there are some unfunded program changes relating to GIS and Planning and Zoning; the only thing not directly included that could be included is the indirect costs because the rest of it is primarily outside the realm of the tasks; and if the Board is looking at exclusions, those things are not directly related to the particular tasks. He inquired if the Board wants to generate additional revenue for next year, particularly to fund some of the GIS unfunded program changes, and does it want to consider it today.

Chairman Carlson inquired if adjustments have been put in the budget; with Mr. Scott responding there is approximately $100,000 in program changes. Mr. Scott stated two years ago the Board looked at fees and gave staff a program to increase them incrementally over four years; the program change would jump to the last year of that incremental change; and for the past two years they have increased fees slightly. Mr. Jenkins inquired where would that take the budget on the chart; with Mr. Scott responding about a 13% increase from the number shown as the current fee; and that is included in the budget as a program change. Chairman Carlson inquired if it went four years, what percentage would it be at; with Mr. Scott responding they are in the second year of the four-year period, and it would be 13%, which is the program change staff is proposing. Mr. Jenkins stated the four-year plan would not take it to 100% of the cost. Mr. Scott stated this year's fee is $683 for commercial rezoning; and in the preliminary budget, as a program change, staff has taken the changes to the fee schedule that were to occur in 2001 and 2002 and proposed them in this year's budget for additional revenue. Mr. Jenkins inquired if there is no fee increase in next year's budget; with Budget Director Dennis Rogero responding there is $110,000. Mr. Scott stated that is the 13%. Mr. Jenkins stated what the Board would consider would be anything above the 13%. Chairman Carlson inquired if the commercial rezoning at $683 includes the 13.5% increase; with Mr. Scott responding no.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the cost of rezoning is the people who are doing the work and not the total Department cost, and if Mr. Scott was directed to write an ordinance, that would not be built into the rezoning cost; with Mr. Scott responding that is correct. Commissioner Higgs stated the concept applied to the development review fees in getting to 100% in a couple of years is a concept the Board would want to be consistent with. Chairman Carlson inquired if the indirect costs will be incorporated; with Commissioner Higgs responding the Board did not do that with the development review costs.

Commissioner Scarborough stated that needs to be looked at, since the County is in a crunch right now. Mr. Jenkins advised 13% of the revenue would be half of what is needed to eliminate the General Fund transfer; currently the General Fund transfer is $133,000; 25% would be $82,000; so 13% would be half of $133,000. Mr. Scott stated the General Fund subsidy identified is a narrow view. Mr. Jenkins stated it is the actual cost; with Mr. Scott advising it does not include indirect costs. Commissioner Higgs stated Mr. Scott said it was based on advertising costs. Commissioner Scarborough stated commercial rezoning is $683; to eliminate the General Fund subsidy, it would go to $1,380; and that is more than 100% increase. He stated the Board would have to consider 100% to eliminate the General Fund subsidy.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if the Board raises the fee for rezoning, it will make the cost for certain people out of reach; for example, the property owners in West Canaveral Groves who want to change the ARR zoning classification can barely afford to do that. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if residential rezoning applications are generally for single or multiple lots; with Mr. Scott responding they are generally single lots. Commissioner Higgs inquired if someone rezoned 20 lots and another person rezoned one lot, would they pay the same fee; with Mr. Scott responding only if they are contiguous and owned by one person. He stated it would be the same base fee, but there is a $14.00 per acre charge. Commissioner Higgs stated in addition to looking at the base charge, the Board should look at how incrementally they do those things and reevaluate those fees. Commissioner Scarborough stated commercial has a greater impact than residential and is always more difficult to review.

Chairman Carlson stated the details on other counties show they are in the same range until it gets to Seminole County, which has a $1,500 fee; and inquired if that is a per unit basis or large tracts; with Mr. Scott responding he thinks it is a flat fee for any residential rezoning. Mr. Scott noted cities have enjoyed a low fee over the years because they represent a small percentage of what the County does; West Melbourne may have one rezoning a year after annexation; and there is not a lot of effort involved by the cities, so they have not been forced to look at those fees. Commissioner Higgs stated those who are requesting service need to pay the appropriate amount, but the Board needs to do some reevaluation of the size relationship to rezoning and capture most of the costs. She noted there is a difference between one lot and a subdivision. Mr. Jenkins advised the Board approved 50% for Land Development the first year; and dividing the $1,380 in half would get the number he talked about earlier. Commissioner O'Brien stated the objective of the fee is to cover the cost of performing the task; and whether a person has 20 lots or one lot is irrelevant if it costs the County $700 to process the rezoning application.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the figures are averages; some applications pass immediately and others are tabled for six months to a year and the Board directs staff to do additional work; and if the Board wanted to do cost accounting, it could bill so much an hour. He stated some applications are simple and some more difficult; so it ends up being an average of the cost. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board could reduce the cost by reducing regulations, which cause the Board to table items again and again and people having to wait six months. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what regulations Commissioner O'Brien would like to abolish; with Commissioner O'Brien responding the Board could go over the Codes paragraph by paragraph. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board is not going to abolish zoning; with Commissioner O'Brien responding he did not say zoning, but regulations that create problems and do not allow people to build on their own properties. Commissioner Higgs noted one single-family lot may create some controversy, particularly in an area where there have been a lot of changes; but in general, the greater the size of the parcel, the greater the controversy. Commissioner Scarborough stated it would have a greater impact, so he agrees size is an issue; and perhaps $14 is low. Commissioner O'Brien stated if that is the cost, it is not low.

Mr. Jenkins inquired if the Board is interested in doing the fees in an incremental stage of 50% of the cost for two years, Mr. Scott can rework the size on residential property and calculate the total revenue increase, so when the Board gets the program changes, it will be able to determine if it can afford the GIS request. Chairman Carlson stated it also goes along with the issue of indirect costs being included; with Mr. Jenkins responding that is a different issue; staff has not done that for General Fund agencies; so it is something new that will take time to implement. Chairman Carlson stated it may not happen this year, but staff needs to be looking at that for next year.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve increasing fees for Planning and Zoning by 50% of the costs, and another 50% in the next fiscal year by resolution.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he cannot vote on that until he sees what the fees are going to be used for. Commissioner Higgs stated a revenue goal this year and next year is to cover 100% of the cost for the service; and the Board will see the fee resolution with individual fees, but with the premise it will go into this budget. Mr. Jenkins stated all the fees will come back on resolutions at separate meetings. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board will have an assumption on revenues when it looks at the tentative millage on Tuesday so it can make a reasonable decision. Commissioner Colon stated she is uncomfortable not knowing the figures, but since the Board will have an opportunity to review the fees that would be fair.

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

Commissioner O'Brien stated he will not oppose it at this time, but wants to see the fees before going any further. Commissioner Scarborough suggested Mr. Scott average the County's fees separately; and indicated staff may want to do that on the prior set of site plan reviews, etc.

Chairman Carlson inquired if interdepartmental charging of costs is done; with Mr. Jenkins responding more than one agency has a site plan review fee; and Mr. Scott could propose a fee to cover his cost of site plan review. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why is more than one Department doing site plan review; with Mr. Jenkins responding one Department coordinates it, but about ten agencies look at it, such as Planning and Zoning, Natural Resources, Surface Water, Road and Bridge, Fire Safety, and a number of others at the one-stop center.

Public Works Department

Public Works Finance Manager Greg Pelham advised there are four fees listed; one is an inspection fee that Road and Bridge charges, which currently generates $250,000 a year; and if the fee is increased, it would generate an additional $150,000 a year.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired why does it cost $120 to inspect a residential driveway; with Assistant Public Works Director Ed Washburn responding they do three inspections--review the proposal, inspect the pre-pour, and inspect the final product. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why staff cannot look at it through site plan review; with Mr. Washburn responding they look at the site plan and also look at it in the field. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why the building inspector cannot inspect driveways while he is inspecting the structure; with Mr. Washburn responding building inspectors do not inspect driveways. Mr. Washburn advised there are a lot of driveways with culvert pipes; and staff has to size the pipe and do all the other things that are substantially different than what a building inspector does. Commissioner O'Brien stated if an employee is a qualified inspector of an entire house, and Public Works, during site plan review, determines the size of the pipe, that inspector should be able to take a tape measure and measure the pipe. Public Works Director Henry Minneboo advised only the section of driveway that is in the public right-of-way is inspected, because the County maintains that from time to time. Chairman Carlson advised there may be structural issues with the driveway; and if a building inspector is used to inspect driveways, there will be a need for more building inspectors. Mr. Minneboo stated there are pipe sizings and headwall structure work on the engineering side that take place with driveway inspections. Commissioner O'Brien reiterated the building inspector is a knowledgeable person who could look at the driveway and understand the dynamics and the plan Public Works approved. He stated if he can read a blueprint for a house, he surely can read a blueprint for a pipe under a street; and that would reduce the cost for performing an inspection. Ms. Busacca advised currently they have difficulty filling the building inspector positions; they require State certification; they do not have enough inspectors to do that; so if the Board wants those inspectors to begin inspecting driveways, it would have to increase their salaries in order to keep them. She noted the Board may have to increase the number of building inspectors; and that may ultimately increase the cost because certification for a building inspector is greater than the certification for an engineering inspector.

Commissioner Colon inquired how do cities do it; with Ms. Busacca responding she does not know. Commissioner Colon stated it is frustrating for citizens to wait for different inspectors to come out; and inquired how do the cities do it. Mr. Minneboo advised all the work is done through the one-stop process; people do not have to run around getting permits; the semantics associated with that are done inside; so the citizen who comes in for a building permit does not have to go all over town. Commissioner Higgs stated they would have to call for a driveway inspection and for a building inspection; with Mr. Minneboo responding it is done very quickly. Ms. Busacca stated staff could develop the cost of doing that and see if her guess is correct that it would cost more to have the building inspectors inspect driveways; however, at the current time they do not have enough building inspectors to do the jobs for the buildings only.

Chairman Carlson inquired how many structures do building inspectors go out on compared to driveways; with Ms. Busacca responding the building inspectors inspect buildings several more times than driveway inspectors do driveways. Mr. Jenkins stated the engineering inspectors do other things as well, not just driveways. Mr. Minneboo advised they do all the Florida Power & Light Company punches on the road, and everything that Southern Bell, cable companies, etc. do within the right-of-way; so there are a multitude of things to inspect. Chairman Carlson inquired how often is a driveway not part of a structure, such as replacement of a culvert, etc.; with Mr. Washburn responding the majority of driveway inspections are for new construction.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the engineering review is done in Viera when the prints are submitted; they do not have to send an engineer into the field to look at the culvert; it is one thing to say increase the fees to break even on costs; but at the same time, the County is doing redundant work because it already has an employee out there who can perform that task and reduce the cost. He stated increasing fees increases the cost of a new home, and eventually a home will be out of reach for a lot of young people. Commissioner Higgs stated the County can pay it by subsidizing the development review process through taxes, or it can let it be paid up front when it occurs; and that is what increasing the fees is trying to take care of. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is still looking at an inspection cost for driveways at $150; and inquired if there is a way to reduce that cost.

Commissioner Colon stated she is concerned about efficiency and how government operates; if staff is doing double the work, she would want to get feedback; she does not know what kind of inspections are done; and suggested someone put together that information on a house that is being built so the Board can see that when it considers increasing impact fees. She stated she needs to justify the increases and compare them with cities to make a better case because she has to explain why she is doing it.

Chairman Carlson stated increasing the salary for building inspectors may be the right way to go if it is difficult to keep them and ensure they are well educated so the County has quality inspections. Mr. Jenkins stated staff will balance all that, look at the entire issue, and provide the pros and cons on both sides.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if there are not enough building inspectors and something goes wrong, it will take up a tremendous amount of high level staff time to make it right; so it is cheaper and easier to spend the money upfront and do things right. Mr. Jenkins advised for the sake of efficiency the County had building inspectors doing landscaping inspections, and that had mediocre success and placed a greater burden on Natural Resources Management staff; so staff needs to look at the entire issue and give the Board a report.

Mr. Pelham advised the next proposal is a new fee for the County Surveyor to review site plans and subdivision plans that are submitted; and currently she is reviewing those at no charge.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if anyone else reviews the plans as a surveyor; with Mr. Jenkins responding they do a cursory review of the private surveyor's work. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if any other County Department does it; with Mr. Washburn responding the State law requires the County surveyor to sign the plats, so she has to review it and check the lot corners and monuments in the field.

Commissioner Higgs inquired why has the County not charged for that service; and Mr. Washburn responded the State law was passed about three years ago and staff never included a fee for that service. Commissioner O'Brien gave a scenario of what a surveyor would do; and Mr. Washburn advised it is for subdivisions and not for existing lots in subdivisions that have surveys to get title insurance. Commissioner Higgs noted there were errors made years ago. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want to cut something that is critical and then encounter problems with astronomical costs because things were not done correctly. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why is the County doing that; with Commissioner Scarborough responding so it does not have disasters.

Mr. Jenkins stated instead of the General Fund paying for it, the developer would pay for it; and that is what the Board is trying to do. Mr. Washburn stated the City of Melbourne does not have a surveyor on staff and farms it out to its consultant; and the consultant's fee is substantially more than the proposed salary of the County surveyor. Mr. Jenkins inquired if the fee will cover the cost of that service; with Mr. Pelham responding it will entail funding a new position. Mr. Pelham stated County Surveyor Ms. Jackson requested a position to do preliminary reviews of subdivision plans because she has been working on weekends and nights to perform those reviews. Commissioner Higgs stated the position is a separate issue from the fee. Commissioner Scarborough indicated he would like to look at an option to privatize the surveying service.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve the surveying fee. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Pelham advised other fees are for map reproduction, flood zone review, and vacatings; the sheet shows what the current charges are and different fee scenarios based on different percentages; and staff provided a comparison of surrounding counties and cities within the County.

Chairman Carlson inquired if cities that have "not applicable" listed, incorporate those fees in another fee structure; with Mr. Pelham responding under map reproduction, the cities refer all requests for maps and other reproductions to the County, except Palm Bay. Mr. Jenkins stated there are three services that are not fully paid for to eliminate the General Fund transfer. Mr. Pelham noted the three fees are not fully supporting the cost of the operation.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what is a typical vacating; with Mr. Washburn responding a lot with a public utility and drainage easement. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the County charges the property owner to remove his/her rights which he/she gave to the County; with Mr. Washburn responding it is required when a subdivision is platted, so it is done by a developer and not the lot owner; and it is not only the public's rights, but also the utility companies' rights.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the value of the property, when it moves from landlocked undevelopable to expensive lot is because those easements were platted that allowed a person in the interior of a subdivision to have the amenities that increase the value of his/her property. He stated although the person petitioning for a vacating may not have an interest in the easement or right-of-way, someone further down the road may have a tremendous interest because it could adversely affect his/her property. He stated the County does not take property; it enters into arrangements that enhance the value of property with capacity to bring in infrastructure; if that is extracted, it impacts the whole community; and that is why staff makes sure there are no problems. He noted many times vacatings have discussions and continuations; so it is more than not wanting the easement or right-of-way any more. Commissioner O'Brien stated when the Board approves a vacating of its rights to use the property, it is saying it does not need it; with Commissioner Scarborough responding Florida Power & Light Company or other utility companies may need it, as well as the neighbors who want to have power in their homes. Mr. Jenkins advised in the beginning it was private property that government set aside as an easement or right-of-way for a public purpose; and at some point the government does not need it and an adjacent property owner petitions for vacating it. Commissioner Scarborough stated the County does not decide; people request it; and Public Works has to go out and investigate whether there is a need for it. He stated an easement or right-of-way is not a gift; it is given to enhance the value of property; and it is privately motivated for profit-enhancing purposes to the developer, which also accrues to all the people who buy from the developer. He stated for the Board to say it is the County's property and it can give it away is totally irresponsible; and it is the County's responsibility to do a thorough analysis so someone does not get flooded, has the capacity to get power, and can do what they have the right to do. He stated the Board has a responsibility to the greater community that entrusted it with that easement. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is not saying the Board does not have a responsibility, but he is saying it is charging $400 for someone who wants the rights that he probably already had. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has to protect the neighbors; the petitioner may want the property to expand a pool or use it for something, but when the person bought the property and had it surveyed, the easement was on there; that individual did not give it to the County and would not be living out there unless it was there; so he does not have sympathy to that argument.

Mr. Jenkins advised the map reproduction fee is $3.00 a page, and to recover the cost is $7.00 a page. He inquired what are the $5, $5, and $8 figures for, and how do they relate; with Mr. Pelham responding they are individual costs that make up the average of $3.00; and those costs are going into collecting $30,000 in fees of the $82,000 in total cost. Mr. Jenkins inquired if raising it from $3.00 to $7.00 will make up the entire cost; with Mr. Pelham responding the average cost is from $3.00 to $7.00; the $3.00 is an average of the $5, $5, and $8; and he did not have the information to break down each different map. Mr. Jenkins inquired how can $3.00 be an average of $5, $5, and $8; with Mr. Pelham responding they would have to adjust each one of them on average to get that; and he would have to meet with the map reproduction staff to find out what the exact number is that they need.

Chairman Carlson inquired if map reproduction, aerials, plats, tax maps, etc. are lumped in at $7.00 a page; with Mr. Jenkins responding the $7.00 is distributed among all those services.

Mr. Pelham noted it could be $7.00 for each document, but he would have to get with the map reproduction staff to make sure.

Mr. Jenkins advised the next issue is the flood zone review letter; and he understands they primarily go to individuals who buy homes and want to know if they are in a flood zone and need insurance. He stated individuals require the letter to submit to FEMA for approval; so the fee is paid by individual homeowners. Chairman Carlson stated the fee includes a proposed increase of $10; with Mr. Pelham responding staff charges $15 a letter and proposes to increase it to $25 next year; and that has been included in the budget. Commissioner Higgs stated that still does not recover the full cost; with Mr. Pelham responding that is correct. Commissioner Higgs inquired why would it cost $80 to get that letter.

John Denninghoff advised they have a fulltime staff person who provides coordination for the base flood elevation determination letters; that is the fee being discussed; it is a portion of what that person does; in addition, they have two staff members who provide substantial support services when the individual is on vacation, gone to lunch, out sick, or the workload increases to more than can reasonably be handled. He stated they do not charge a fee for phone calls when people call and ask questions about flood zones and flood-related matters; and they provide a lot of information to the community, Library Services, and for the cities, all coordinating FEMA information with respect to flood zones. He stated that is required as part of the community rating system that maintains good rating for Brevard County; and all that is lumped into the cost associated with the program, with flood zone letters being a small part of it.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Denninghoff is saying there are other services and not just the letter that build up to the $80 fee, so the cost of the services is being carried by the letter. Mr. Denninghoff noted that is one way to look at it. He stated many individuals who want to build a house and have property in a flood zone, as indicated by their survey, are referred to them by the Building Department to get a base flood elevation determination; staff provides the research and performs the duties to determine the best historical information as to what elevation it is; and it is reviewed by two people to confirm there is not a mistake before the letter is issued. He noted that is the simple process; others are subdivisions or portions of subdivisions; if it is a large subdivision, the Engineer has the responsibility to do that; and staff ends up reviewing that as well. He noted some are simple and others are complex; and staff has not differentiated between the simple and complicated ones.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff can do that; with Mr. Denninghoff responding it is not a reasonable thing to do. Commissioner Scarborough stated a subdivision is one thing, and a single person coming in with one lot is another; and inquired if that can be considered; with Mr. Jenkins responding the complexity of the subdivision is looking at more than a single lot. Commissioner Scarborough stated perhaps staff can look at a differentiation because $80.00 for a letter sounds like a lot. Chairman Carlson stated it takes a lot to put that information into the letter. Mr. Denninghoff stated one way to differentiate would be to charge a fee for the letter and support information provided to FEMA; and currently there is no fee charged for that service. He stated for a subdivision, typically staff coordinates modifications of the flood map for areas where a house is going to be or a lot is filled, based on placement of the fill and drainage calculations by an engineer, then remove that portion of the subdivision and eliminate the requirement for those individuals to have flood insurance. He noted currently they do not charge a fee for that service. Commissioner Higgs stated that is a significant task; with Mr. Denninghoff responding they could look into that. Chairman Carlson stated the Board needs information back on that issue.

Commissioner Scarborough noted it could make the other letter less expensive; with Mr. Denninghoff responding the effect of collecting a fee on subdivisions would have little impact on the cost for individual letters; and the individual letters typically are for single-family lots or for someone who owns a parcel with a portion of it in the flood zone. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how many man-hours does it take to perform the task; with Mr. Denninghoff responding for a simple letter it takes about four to five hours to do the research; but if they have three or four at the same time in the same area, they would only have to pull the map one time and find the lots, which provides a little efficiency; however, if they have a single lot in an area they have not researched previously, there is more work to do. Mr. Denninghoff advised they maintain a database of letters they issue, and do not charge a fee for a copy of the same letter; however, he has implemented a policy that they not rely on a letter that is more than five years old. He stated their findings have to be based on best available information; and if it is more than five years old, it is probably not the best available information; and at that point they will charge for a new letter.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if this service relates to the Ordinance on flood elevations; with Mr. Denninghoff responding the Ordinance was a definition of what constitutes a structural component in the V-zones on the beaches only where waves beat against the buildings; and there was a problem with the definition in the Code, as it did not comply with NFIP regulations, and needed to be modified. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if that is only on the beachside; with Mr. Denninghoff responding it is limited to the beach area only, which is about 2% of the County; and V is for velocity associated with the water like wave action.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board would like to make a motion to increase the fees. Mr. Jenkins suggested 50% of the cost; and noted he is sensitive to the flood zone letter because it affects individual residents and not just a development.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired when are flood letters requested; with Mr. Denninghoff responding when someone is about to build, applies for a building permit, and the survey reflects that the property is in a flood zone. Mr. Jenkins stated people call and ask for information when they do refinancing also. Mr. Denninghoff stated if an individual wants to remove his property from the flood zone so it does not require flood insurance, a letter is needed. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how much savings would an individual have if his property is removed from the flood zone; with Mr. Denninghoff responding about $450 to $500 on a $100,000 home. Commissioner Scarborough stated the letter is worth $80.

Mr. Jenkins stated another issue is whether or not it is in the homeowner's best interest to have flood insurance because in the event of a hurricane or severe storm a home can still flood even if it is not in a flood zone. Mr. Denninghoff noted some people remove their homes from the flood zone and still carry the insurance. Commissioner O'Brien inquired in what locations; with Mr. Jenkins responding some parts of Suntree. Mr. Denninghoff stated flood zones are located throughout the County; they are not specific geographic areas, but any property in or below the 100-year floodplain or in a special flood hazard area that is an unstudied area FEMA evaluated as having high risk of flood; and those are the ones most difficult to deal with.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board wants to do the same scenario as Land Development. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what type of number would staff suggest. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board could consider incremental increases; in most cases, except for subdivisions, it is a service to the taxpayers in general; and he would hesitate to make it too expensive for them. Mr. Denninghoff stated he agrees with Mr. Jenkins; it should not go up too high because it may discourage people from availing themselves of the service; but on the other hand, the fee has not been increased since the service was instituted in 1986 or 1989. Mr. Jenkins inquired if staff proposed increasing it from $15 to $25 and is it in the budget; with Mr. Denninghoff responding $25 sounds good. Mr. Jenkins inquired if the Board is interested in raising the other two fees; with Chairman Carlson responding yes, but she needs a motion.

Commissioner Higgs stated the first one is engineering services which is recommended to increase to $7.00. Chairman Carlson inquired if it will eliminate the General Fund transfer. Mr. Pelham stated $7.00 will be spread across the four areas, depending on the map that is used.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve increasing fee to $7.00 a page for map reproduction. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Carlson inquired about the vacating fee, and if the Board wants to do it incrementally at 50% of the cost this year and 50% next year.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve vacating fee increase at 50% of the cost this year and 50% of the cost next year. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

Commissioner Higgs suggested the Board go forward with all the fees except the driveway fee, and get a report back summarizing what staff does for driveway inspections.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve increases in fees proposed for Public Works Department, except the driveway permit fee. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Nos. 6 and 7 are review fee for residential drainage and inspection fee for residential lot drainage; and the cost is "not applicable"; with Mr. Washburn responding it is contained in Mr. Moia's portion of the fees.

Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts

Mr. Jenkins advised at the Board's request, the Clerk provided a report that showed where the filing fees could go; the Board asked the County Attorney to review whether or not the Clerk's legal review was correct; and the County Attorney concurred with the Clerk. He stated Jack Parker and Shauna Hefferman from Public Safety and Criminal Justice were asked to review the fees so the Board could adjust them accordingly.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired why is the comparison with the top ten largest counties by population in the State; with Public Safety Director Jack Parker responding because Brevard County is 7th or 8th largest, so they used the top ten. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff knows what Osceola and Seminole have as well; with Mr. Parker responding Seminole County has a population of about 328,000, so it is close but not in the top ten. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about Seminole County's rates and Osceola County's rates; with Mr. Parker responding he does not have those rates. Commissioner Scarborough requested that information be provided to him.

Mr. Jenkins requested Ms. Hefferman give the Board an overview of which fees were changed from what the Clerk showed as the maximum allowable.

Shauna Hefferman advised staff looked at the top ten counties that have the maximum fees, such as the $200 mark; that comparison shows Brevard County is close to the mark; and they took the top four averages and determined the maximum fee that could be allowed in those cases. She stated staff recommended circuit civil filing fee at $200 due to four other counties with that recommendation; and they did that across-the-board all the way down the line. She stated they did not change the majority of County court fees, because staff had concerns that indigent persons would stay away from the court system, and that it did not make sense to file a small claims suit for $100 or less and pay a filing fee of $200. She stated in other fees, Brevard County was actually higher than the average, so those fees were kept the same.

Mr. Parker advised they tried to create a reasonable recommendation based on averages; in some cases the actual fees may be a little bit more than the average; and in those cases there are no recommendations for increase.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the calculations; with Mr. Parker advising the average is of the ten top counties divided by ten; the left-hand side shows the actual recommended number and what it would generate in additional revenue; and the next column is the statutory maximum and what that would generate in additional revenue. Mr. Jenkins noted the Board's intent, in looking at the fee increases, was to try and identify additional funding for the Clerk's costs.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Clerk needs $790,000 more; with Budget Manager Dennis Rogero responding the latest figure is $707,000. Commissioner Higgs inquired what would it generate; with Mr. Jenkins responding some of it is the circuit court. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board goes with staff's recommendation, would that be to take $131,000 and add the $247,000. Mr. Parker responded their recommendation would generate a maximum of $378,529. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that is half of what is needed; with Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten responding no, the number Mr. Rogero gave the Board is only the County-funded side of the Clerk's budget. Mr. Rogero stated the $700,000 plus is the amount the Clerk is requesting over what is contained in the preliminary budget for the General Fund. Commissioner Higgs inquired what is needed on the circuit side; with Mr. Rogero responding he cannot speak to that. Mr. Jenkins advised the Clerk funds the circuit court from his budget through fees. Commissioner Higgs stated so on the County side the Clerk needs $700,000 plus; and the fees would generate $131,000. Mr. Jenkins stated typically yes, but the Board incurs court expenses it could justify on the circuit side as well, as it provides the facilities, bailiffs, court reporters, and pays for witnesses and experts. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board could take staff's recommendation and add $474,000 to the General Fund budget to offset the $22,000,000 it spends on courts. Commissioner Higgs inquired how far short will the Board be with the Clerk's budget.

Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts Scott Ellis advised the $474,000 would not be added to the General Fund; and the County court fees go to the General Fund because the County court is a budget office, but the circuit court fees revert to the Clerk. He stated if there are excess fees during the year, they would go to the Board as part of its General Fund; but it is not something the Board would actually want to budget for. Mr. Rogero stated the $247,000 increase in revenue on the circuit side would not necessarily mitigate any General Fund requirement. Mr. Ellis stated the Board would continue shifting more costs from County court to circuit court and recording fees. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Clerk can use some of the fees to pay for an Information System Director. Mr. Ellis stated there is a certain amount of cost for County court; whatever the Board spends, that is not budgeted, it has to make up the difference from either circuit filing fees or recording fees; therefore, it could use the money to make up the shortfall of funding the County court. He inquired if that makes sense; with Commissioner Higgs responding not totally. Mr. Ellis stated if the projected County court costs are $7.5 million and the Board funded $6 million, and by the end of the year $7.5 million was spent for County court, the $1.5 million would have to be made up on the fee side; and it would be from recording fees or circuit court fees. He cautioned the Board that some of the smaller fees may not generate extra money if they reduce the number of cases filed.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the theory of civilization is the need to have access to the courts; it is more than having less filings and less money; the question is will the increased fees deny certain people access to the court system; and inquired if that has been discussed with people; with Mr. Parker responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff feels comfortable that no one is going to be deterred from filing legitimate actions to protect their rights; with Mr. Parker responding that was their whole criteria in recommending what is a reasonable upper limit that could be enacted without imposing upon most people. Commissioner Scarborough inquired who did Mr. Parker discuss those issues with; with Mr. Parker responding County staff, which is familiar with it and members of the Clerk's Office.

Commissioner Higgs noted the fees do not look exorbitant or unreasonable. Mr. Ellis stated many times it is not an owner of a large apartment complex who goes through evictions; it may be the owner of a four-unit complex who has already taken a loss by going through the courts; and expressed concern about raising the cost on filing evictions. Commissioner Higgs inquired how long have the fees been in place at the current level; with Mr. Ellis responding it would be since the last time the Board took action to set the fees. Mr. Jenkins noted he would guess six or seven years. Commissioner Scarborough stated the increase in evictions is minimal; it is a business transaction and the cost of doing business; but it is the other little things he wants to make sure do not hurt someone. He suggested Mr. Ellis and staff look at those to see if there is something that could preclude someone from accessing the courts. Commissioner Colon stated in other counties it has not stopped them; the fees seem to be up there; and they are facing the same dilemmas that Brevard County is. She stated the fee for a foreign judgment is $143.50, and is recommended to be lowered to $105; but she would feel more comfortable leaving it alone. Mr. Ellis advised that is something that happens very rarely and will probably not make a difference. Commissioner Higgs inquired what was the date on the fee Resolution; with Mr. Ellis responding 1990.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the $50 injunction fee for protection bothers him; he knows if a person cannot afford it, the fee can be waived by the Clerk or law enforcement; but it is a request by a citizen to get an injunction against someone who could physically harm that person; and he cannot see charging anyone who has to go to court to protect his/her physical wellbeing. He stated there are a lot of people walking around with fear of persons who can do them bodily harm, yet the County charges them to come to court so a judge can say okay, here is an injunction. He stated affordability is questionable of itself; it could be anyone in that situation who is termed to have sufficient funds to afford it, but something happens where that person can no longer afford it and cannot prove it; that is a determination the Clerk has to make; and at the same time, that person is being abused or physically endangered.

Commissioner Scarborough stated that issue concerns him; Broward, Palm Beach, and Hillsborough Counties are at $30; and $50 is the highest. Commissioner Colon inquired if the Board can do something about that; with Commissioner Scarborough stating it can reduce it.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to accept staff's recommendation on the fee increases for the Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts Office with a reduction in the injunction fee from $50 to $30. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough recommended a copy of the fees be sent to the Brevard County Bar Association, requesting comments on whether the fees would adversely affect some people from accessing the court system.

Chairman Carlson inquired if Mr. Ellis found that the 1990 Resolution was the last time the fees were adjusted; with Mr. Ellis responding there are some base rates involved, but right now it does not match the current fees. Ms. Hefferman advised the fees they have listed include the statutory fees in addition to the Ordinances adding fees for Legal Aid, Law Library, and other surcharges authorized by Florida Statutes. She noted the Ordinances do not specifically include statutory fees. Mr. Ellis stated the Ordinances adds to the statutory fees. Mr. Jenkins instructed Ms. Hefferman to recalculate the revenue based on what the Board has done and give the new calculations to Mr. Whitten.

Mr. Ellis stated he cannot say for sure if the Resolution contains the most recent fees because some of them have been increased. Chairman Carlson stated those are surcharges; with Mr. Ellis responding he understands that, and surcharges are what gets the County to the statutory limit. He stated the $168 civil filing fee is comprised of the statutory fee plus all the various add-ons the Board put there. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the fee gets to the $200 cap, would the add-ons have to be removed; with Mr. Ellis responding the total fee cannot exceed $200. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the add-ons cannot go above the cap; with Mr. Ellis responding that is correct. Commissioner Scarborough stated staff needs to make sure the fees do not exceed the cap when projecting the numbers because they may not have the numbers they think. Commissioner Higgs stated they should get together and be sure they have the right numbers so the Board will know when it gets to the final dollar. Mr. Parker indicated the surcharges are included in the current fee amounts. Mr. Ellis stated he is not sure if the numbers for the surcharges are the most recent, and may be greater; with Commissioner Higgs reiterating they should get together and ensure the numbers are correct.

Mr. Jenkins advised that basically takes care of the revenues, and they will move to unfunded program changes, which were prioritized and given to the Board.

DISCUSSION, RE: UNFUNDED PROGRAM CHANGES

Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the calculation for salary increases; with Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten responding the memo from Budget Manager Dennis Rogero tries to clarify that after meeting with Mr. Ellis.

Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts Scott Ellis advised the latest spreadsheet that was sent to him last night has precise numbers for last year's pay raises, health insurance, and additional positions.

Budget Manager Dennis Rogero advised the Clerk submitted a revised General Fund request for next year at little over $9.1 million; in the preliminary budget, staff funded $8.4 million or almost $8.5 million; and there is a discrepancy of a little over $700,000. He stated based on input from the last budget workshop, the Budget Office has one scenario where it increased projected collections of delinquent fines by $130,000, and utilized that to offset the $700,000 discrepancy, which brings the unfunded programs to about $580,000. He stated that is the funding required to meet the Clerk's revised request for General Fund transfer to fund temporary employees or students, reallocation of overhead or internal service distribution, and his software licenses.

Mr. Jenkins inquired how much has been picked up in the General Fund; with Mr. Whitten responding $131,000. Mr. Rogero stated the $131,000 depends on what the final revenue calculations are from the last motion.

Commissioner Scarborough advised last week the Board had a July 18, 2001 Memo from Mr. Ellis to Chairman Carlson; and requested a brief summary of the Memo. Mr. Ellis stated his Office sent the memo to the Budget Office and did the breakdown on the items that are Board funded and fee funded. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the issues were resolved; with Mr. Ellis responding the issue regarding last year's pay increases, health insurance, four additional positions for County court, and insurance liability are resolved, but the software licenses are not resolved.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board and Clerk are still $550,000 to $580,000 apart; with Mr. Jenkins responding, yes, minus $131,000 picked up in increased fees. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if temporary positions were resolved; with Mr. Ellis responding they are unresolved. Mr. Whitten advised they are on the sheet as unfunded. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about new positions for judges; with Mr. Ellis responding resolved, and upgrade of wiring was removed. Mr. Ellis advised they took out $250,000 in capital outlay from the budget, which included the wiring; and when the fee books clear and there is money available to the County, those are items he would like to have purchased for the Clerk's Office. He stated a question that came up at the last meeting was a funding source for various items; and whatever comes out of the fee books clearing should be unbudgeted funds going to the Board probably as a mid-year budget supplement. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board knows it is coming and can do it, and if the employees are not working up to speed because of technical problems, can the Board go in advance to do it knowing at mid-budget it will pick up those funds. Mr. Ellis stated the wiring can be done by the County with Facilities funds and strike it from the Clerk's budget because the Board has a surcharge on tickets for court facilities. Mr. Jenkins advised staff has given the Clerk money to do the wiring through increasing delinquent fines, so the $131,000 to do the wiring is in his budget. Mr. Ellis stated the money is not there. Mr. Jenkins stated he thought that is what the $130,000 was to be used for. Mr. Rogero stated he was not aware of the potential use for the $130,000. Mr. Jenkins inquired if the $130,000 was put in the budget but not given to the Clerk for wiring; with Mr. Rogero responding that is correct. Mr. Jenkins apologized to the Clerk.

Mr. Ellis inquired if it is an increase in delinquent fines or in fees; with Mr. Rogero responding delinquent fines. Mr. Ellis noted he wanted to make sure because they were both $130,000. Mr. Jenkins stated if the $130,000 was used to balance the budget and not for rewiring, the Board needs to fund the wiring. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board knows the money is going to be available in mid-year, so it can advance the money to take care of the wiring.

Mr. Jenkins inquired if the projected revenues from fines increased by 3%; with Mr. Rogero responding that is correct. Mr. Jenkins inquired if that is based on 1999 data. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the increase is only 3%; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes. Commissioner Higgs stated that is conservative and perhaps should be more realistic.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board always has money at mid-year. Mr. Jenkins stated they could increase the revenues by another $131,000 to fund the wiring. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it would be allocated to the Clerk; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to allocate additional fines projected at $130,000 to the Clerk as a line item for payment of the wiring. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the software licenses are a big expense the Board has to pick up, so the Board has to put another $300,000 into the Clerk's budget. Mr. Whitten advised it is $121,000. Mr. Jenkins inquired if that is the County court's portion and not the circuit court; with Mr. Ellis responding the entire cost of the licenses was $343,000.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve funding $343,000 for the Clerk's software licenses.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board does not know where it is going to find those funds; with Commissioner Scarborough responding they must have a license; there is no choice; there are a lot of things the Board does not need, but it needs those licenses if it wants the Clerk's Office to operate.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired how were the licenses paid for last year; with Mr. Ellis responding whatever they paid initially was a five-year deal; they did not have to pay for it in years 2, 3, 4 and 5; and 2001 is the first year it has come up. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it is the company that folded and the County had to hire a person who had the key to the program; with Mr. Ellis responding the second company picked up the assets of the first company, so his Office has a license with Tiburon for the FACTS System and a license with Informix for the database that underlines the FACTS System. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the County is going to pay a license fee for a program that is not working; with Mr. Ellis responding the Board will be paying the second company that bought the defunct assets of the first company; that was a way to get assets without liability; and in the software business, that has become commonplace. Mr. Ellis stated the company the Clerk had a contract with is essentially gone. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if they can be back billed for the cost; with Mr. Ellis responding they have no money to pay it. Mr. Ellis stated if the Board bought a building out of foreclosure, all the persons the previous owner owed debts to would not come to the County for money; Tiburon bought a company out of foreclosure, so all the obligations went away; and the County is paying for the intellectual assets for the software. Chairman Carlson stated they are charging the County for the license; with Mr. Ellis responding the County has their license and Informix's license for the database system.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has crunched additional revenues, but it also needs to crunch additional expenses; however, this is an expense it cannot walk away from if it wants the Clerk to operate, so he will renew his motion that staff come up with $212,000 from additional revenues or adjusting the millage so the Clerk can continue to operate.

Commissioner Colon seconded the motion.

Commissioner O'Brien stated he cannot approve that solely because of adjusting the millage; and inquired how about cutting someone else's budget. Commissioner Scarborough stated that can happen later, but this is an expense, and the Board may have to cut something to make the Clerk's Office operate. Commissioner O'Brien stated if that is the motion he can support it, but not to include increasing the millage. Commissioner Scarborough stated this motion is just to make the Clerk's Office operate.

Chairman Carlson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

Commissioner Colon inquired if the temporary positions are all that is left; with Mr. Ellis responding also the overhead issue. Mr. Ellis advised the way the former Clerk allocated overhead, which is Information Systems, Telephone Room, and File Room, was basically 50/50; if traffic is removed, it is still a preponderance of County court cases over civil court cases by 60/40; and his position is that County court generates more of the cost than circuit court by about $900,000 difference. Commissioner Scarborough stated County court action has generally less pleadings for a short period of time; if the size of the action increases, the legal activity increases proportionately; the number of filings does not speak to the complexity of what is happening; so that is not a complete answer. Mr. Ellis stated it is more than complexity; every County case still generates a file; that file is still moved through the system; the paperwork is there; and the file has to be destroyed. He stated a group of seven people do nothing but destroy files; 90% of the files they destroy are County court files; and the vast majority of calls to the Phone Room are for traffic and County court. Commissioner Scarborough stated a circuit court file may be very thick; every time something happens it goes through the Clerk's Office; so perhaps they should look at the number of papers filed rather than the actions filed. Mr. Jenkins advised they just picked up $240,000 in filing fee revenues for Circuit Court; and inquired if that can be used to fund the licenses. Mr. Ellis stated if there is a shortfall on the County Court side, they will make up the difference with circuit court fees and recording fees. Mr. Jenkins stated the County court is raising $131,000 and circuit court $240,000; so the $130,000 that they were subtracting from the $580,000 could go towards that reallocation cost. He stated the County court money that was raised could go toward the County court share of the reallocation of overhead internal service from the filing fee increase, which can be covered with the $130,000. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that gets them there; with Mr. Jenkins responding it does for that item. Mr. Ellis stated on the fee side there is a revenue estimate, and they will increase that by $240,000. He noted that is a pretty good estimate, because even if filing fees drop, it will still be about $200,000. Mr. Jenkins stated there is also $130,000 on the County court side to offset the allocation increase. Mr. Jenkins stated circuit court fees are $240,000; County court is $130,000; Mr. Ellis needs $131,000 for reallocation of overhead, so the $130,000 for higher filing fees can go to pay the cost allocation, and he will still get $240,000 for circuit court. Mr. Ellis stated to get to the $580,000 total, he now has $240,000 from circuit court and $130,000 from County court. Mr. Whitten advised the Board also made a motion on the $212,000; they picked up $131,000 for internal services; and what is left unfunded is temporary employees. Mr. Jenkins stated on the revenue side they picked up $131,000 and $140,000 of the $580,000, so they need $210,000. Mr. Ellis noted that would be the total unfunded program changes.

Chairman Carlson stated the Board did the software licensing from the General Fund. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board said it is going to do it. Commissioner Higgs stated it did not put a revenue source with it; and inquired what is left; with Mr. Jenkins responding $210,000. Chief Deputy Clerk Jim Giles inquired if the Board talked about the $212,000, which is close to the $210,000; with Chairman Carlson responding it did, but did not have a revenue source. Mr. Jenkins stated the bottom line is the Board needs to get another $210,000 to the Clerk's budget. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what would it be used for; with Mr. Jenkins responding temporary FTE's, reallocation of overhead expenses, and software licensing. Commissioner Scarborough stated he made a motion that software licensing is going to be in the budget one way or another. Mr. Jenkins stated that is $212,000 the Board has to fund, and everything else is covered.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board knows it needs to get around $210,000 somewhere to fund all the things the Clerk has, which includes temporary employees who are really regular employees, the software licenses, the wiring, and the overhead; and inquired what happens if the Board does not do the $210,000; with Mr. Ellis responding he would have to make $210,000 in cuts. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what would be the impact of that; with Mr. Ellis responding there are currently approximately 30 employees who declined to take health insurance, but the Clerk is being billed $5,500 per employee; so he could not pay that. Mr. Jenkins stated the health insurance program is built on a group concept; it anticipates a certain number of dollars from premiums coming in; and if they opt out, they get a modest cash payment in lieu of that. Human Resources Director Frank Abbate advised there is a $30 payment per month given to employees who opt out; however, the premiums paid are the basis for the funding of the program. Mr. Ellis stated if 30 people do not accept the insurance, they also do not file claims; with Mr. Jenkins responding that is correct, but if those 30 people were taken out, the premium would be $600 instead of $500 a month because they would not be paying into the program. Mr. Ellis stated no one buys insurance for a car he does not own. Mr. Abbate advised the program is self-insured and there has to be x amount of claim dollars; one way or another, the Board is going to fund those claims; and he has an actuarial analysis that was done recently on that issue. Mr. Ellis stated it is not like the County goes out and buys a policy from Blue Cross/Blue Shield, it is a self-insured fund.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the question is if Mr. Ellis does not get the $210,000, what would happen; if he did not stop payments to the insurance program, but reduced his operations, what operations would be impacted; with Mr. Ellis responding he would probably eliminate Monday and Friday overtime, not replace people as they leave, and move people around. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how would that impact the County; with Mr. Ellis responding if people worked overtime Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, they would not be at work on Friday afternoons; and if there is court on Friday afternoon, there would not be a court clerk. Chairman Carlson inquired if overtime on Tuesday and Wednesday versus somebody there on Friday is Mr. Ellis' call; with Chief Deputy Clerk Jim Giles responding the judges work the clerks into the evening and by Friday they have worked 40 hours, so Friday afternoon the judge may not have a court clerk. Mr. Ellis stated they are not sitting behind the desk doing paper on overtime; they are generally in court; so he would have to reduce the overtime budget and give serious consideration to the insurance issue. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if those are the type of cuts Mr. Ellis would have to do, and impact the courts operating on Friday afternoon; with Mr. Ellis responding $210,000 out of $12 or $13 million is not fatal; and whatever they come away with, they will spend that level every month of the fiscal year and not go full- bore for 11 months then be broke in the final month. He stated every two weeks after each payroll, they review how much money is spent year to date and where they project to finish at the end of the fiscal year; and they do that with the fees, revenues, and costs.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Clerk has cash carry forward this year that can be applied to the $210,000; with Mr. Ellis responding after the last period, the Office was headed to $17,000 in the red; and that is not good, but it is a manageable number. He stated if they were short $200,000, they would look at it as $15,000 or $20,000 per month and adjust accordingly. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Clerk can estimate the monthly overtime budget; with Mr. Ellis responding that sheet was sent to the Board, and they reduced the overtime significantly in the last year. Mr. Ellis stated they brought the overtime number down to project out on a biweekly basis at approximately $5,000 to $6,000. He stated a lot of overtime to catch up on civil docketing has been eliminated; court clerks are still on overtime as necessary; and people who work the jail on weekends are on overtime, and there is no way around that. He stated the goal is $300,000 overtime level; the first year the Clerk's office went to FACTS it was a million dollars in overtime; last year it was between $500,000 and $600,000; so he is working hard to bring that number down, not just for the cost, but because there are burn-out issues with employees who work too much overtime.

Mr. Jenkins inquired if the Board is done with the Clerk's budget; with Commissioner Higgs responding yes, the Board knows what it has to do. Mr. Ellis inquired if staff wants his office to resubmit a budget; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Board just needs to find $209,000. Mr. Whitten stated it is unfunded on the sheet. Mr. Jenkins stated the Clerk does not have to resubmit a budget; staff will adjust the budget and documents and will show it to him. Mr. Ellis stated he wants to ensure what he had for $580,000 unfunded is now funded through fee increases in County and circuit courts, and $210,00 General Fund appropriation for licensing. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board also gave the Clerk $131,000 for wiring from the fine revenues. Mr. Ellis stated the funding for wiring can be done in his or the Board's budget; and it is a court facilities issue, so it is appropriate to be in either budget. He stated they will rework the numbers to show a decrease in General Fund revenue and increase in projected revenues from fees; and inquired if the Board is in agreement on that.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Messrs. Jenkins and Whitten will work on trying to figure out how the Board can fund that $209,000; with Mr. Jenkins responding he thinks it is $212,000. Mr. Ellis noted the insurance issue is still there. Chairman Carlson noted staff has it sorted out.

The meeting recessed at 12:10 p.m. and reconvened at 1:18 p.m.

Sheriff's Budget

Mr. Jenkins advised there are eight deputies funded, not nine, because the $100,000 MIRA payment has never been put as a charge to the budget; and under the preliminary budget the Sheriff was given eight MSTU deputies, five court deputies, and grant funding.

Sheriff's Finance Director Deborah Barker advised the documents she received from the County state $100,000 payment towards MIRA; the memo to the Board from Dennis Rogero states she allocated funding towards MIRA, and she did not; and she is at a lost with that situation. Mr. Jenkins stated it was on Ms. Barker's list that she produced but it was not a factor in the calculation of their budget. Ms. Barker stated it was not on any document she produced. Budget Manager Dennis Rogero stated at the workshop where the Sheriff's office staff brought up the $100,000 MIRA payment, they were using an outdated budget document; the $100,000 payment was never funded or included in the preliminary budget; and it remains outside of it at this time. Mr. Barker inquired why was it listed on the spreadsheet as funded; with Mr. Rogero responding it is an old spreadsheet.

Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Knox respond to the problem; with County Attorney Scott Knox responding the Board directed someone to approach MIRA on recoupment of funds that it was supposed to be collecting for the Law Enforcement MSTU. Commissioner Scarborough stated it is a budgetary issue, but also an Interlocal Agreement, which has not been resolved. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board approves MIRA's budget; with Commissioner Scarborough responding Mr. Knox said the Board has to approve MIRA's budget with the $100,000 in it because MIRA is entitled to it. Mr. Knox advised MIRA can also give it back to the Board in the form of an interlocal agreement.

Ms. Barker inquired if they have funding for the ninth deputy; with Mr. Knox responding someone has to talk to MIRA to find out. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board has to increase MIRA's budget by $100,000 to fund the payment; if MIRA gives the $100,000 back to the Board, they will add it to the Sheriff's preliminary budget so MIRA can get the rebate; and after that is done, the Sheriff can get the ninth deputy. Ms. Barker inquired if they can do that with the available $100,000; with Mr. Jenkins responding the Board has to increase the Sheriff's budget by $100,000; it said at the last workshop once that occurs, the Sheriff could take that money and use it for a ninth deputy; but the Board has not voted on that yet.

Commissioner Higgs stated assuming that is technically worked out, it would cover the cost of the ninth deputy; that would be nine out of the 16 deputies requested; and suggested finding a way to fund the other seven deputies at mid-year to move forward with the full 16, but beginning the second set at mid-year. Mr. Jenkins inquired if Commissioner Higgs is suggesting funding seven deputies now for half a year; with Commissioner Higgs responding yes, putting it in the budget for them to start in March, 2002. Commissioner Higgs stated unfunded in the budget are also additional corrections officers at the jail; that number has been kept almost flat for about eight years; and the Board will find itself in a difficult position if it does not fund additional corrections officers. Chairman Carlson inquired if it was five or six additional officers; with Commissioner Higgs responding in her most recent discussions with the Sheriff's office, they would be willing to go with five. Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board took $100,000 from the overtime budget for corrections officers, it would have a shortfall of $164,000, but it is important for public safety to fund the deputies, corrections officers, and domestic violence unit.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to fund seven deputies for half a year at $507,531, fund correctional officers and delete $100,000 from their overtime budget, and fund the domestic violence unit.

Chairman Carlson inquired about the six telecommunicator positions being transferred to the General Fund; and are they necessary for communications to continue; with Ms. Barker responding it is still an open request from the Sheriff's office. Ms. Barker advised they focused on the road patrol and domestic violence; and the six telecommunicators are still an issue. Chairman Carlson stated the telecommunicators are still in the priority side of the equations; and requested Ms. Barker explain what they are used for. Ms. Barker advised six telecommunicator positions had previously been funded by dispatch fees earmarked from Contracts with the Sheriff's office; through the course of trying to reduce the aggregate total amount of the budget they request from the County, they have taken part of those fees, because it supports other things than just dispatch, and put that in the Sheriff's General Fund; and that reduced the amount of the aggregate request of their total budget to the Board. She stated the County has been receiving the benefit of some of the Contracts indirect cost services for three years; and the Sheriff's Office has been bearing the full cost of the telecommunicators from the Dispatch Trust Fund, which is funded through two remaining Contracts that are strictly dispatch service, in addition to cash carry forward from the remaining funds each year. Ms. Barker stated the available balance they have been carrying forward is not going to be available to continue to fund those positions; the revenues have been going into the General Fund while the expenses have been borne by the Trust Fund; and now they are in a situation where they do not have a funding mechanism for the six telecommunicators. She stated those are priority positions because without the telecommunicators to handle the calls, the Sheriff's office cannot get the information to the deputies.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he will second Commissioner Higgs' motion.

Chairman Carlson inquired what does the motion include; with Commissioner Higgs responding the Sheriff's office gave the Board some estimates; and Ms. Barker can explain those items. Ms. Barker advised for salaries, compensation, benefits, and everything for seven deputies for half a year, the total would be $507,531. Mr. Jenkins inquired if that is from the MSTU; with Ms. Barker responding yes.

Commissioner Colon asked Mr. Fitzgerald if everything is covered regarding domestic violence; with Contracts Administrator Mike Fitzgerald responding he heard that the Board is going to fund four positions and the Domestic Violence Task Force, which he is happy to hear; and it will be a great benefit to the County. Chairman Carlson stated the Board has not voted on that yet. Commissioner Higgs stated what the Board is doing today is preliminary to determining exactly what the millage will be; then it will go to the millage hearing on Tuesday to set a tentative millage. She stated there will be a period of time for the public to comment, and there will be two public hearings on the budget. Mr. Fitzgerald commented there will be a lot of people at the public hearings, but the Board is going in the right direction.

Mr. Jenkins recapped that staff has to insert $100,000 for the ninth deputy that MIRA hopefully will rebate, seven deputies for half a year at $507,531 from the MSTU, total correctional officers at $264,000 reduced by $100,000 for overtime reduction, and $427,137 for four domestic violence deputies.

Commissioner Colon read an excerpt from State Attorney Norman Wolfinger's correspondence as follows: "Every month my office receives over 300 near domestic violence complaints." She stated that happens every month; and that is why the Board is trying to take care of the issue, which seems to be growing in the community.

Chairman Carlson advised the motion is on the floor; and inquired if there is any other discussion.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired how much millage increase will that cause to the MSTU; with Mr. Jenkins responding approximately $600,000 including MIRA's payment. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if lowering another MSTU to compensate for it has been contemplated, or is the Board just going to raise the taxes; with Chairman Carlson responding the Board is not there yet and has to see what the impact is. Commissioner O'Brien stated the motion right now is to raise it; with Chairman Carlson responding the Board is looking at priorities right now, then it has to take the next step, which could be reducing somewhere else, but it does not know that at this time. Commissioner O'Brien stated right now would be a good time to discuss it; and if the Board is going to discuss raising taxes, it should also discuss its intentions about lowering them. Commissioner Scarborough suggested Commissioner O'Brien make a suggestion of what he wants to do; with Commissioner O'Brien responding it is easy to sit here and say it is going to raise the MSTU for seven more deputies or nine more deputies, or whatever; and the new deputies will affect the General Fund. Commissioner Higgs stated they do not affect the General Fund. Commissioner O'Brien stated the citizens want good law enforcement; but does the Board have to say everything else is still a priority or does it have anything in mind that should be cut to help make up that money.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what fund are the 16 MSTU deputies funded from; with Ms. Barker responding the MSTU tax levied on the unincorporated citizens specifically only for law enforcement services. Commissioner Higgs inquired if their salaries and equipment are funded from the MSTU; with Ms. Barker responding yes, the full cost. Commissioner Higgs stated nothing else can come out of that fund other than law enforcement. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the MSTU deputies, even the ones for domestic violence, would not be utilized for any municipalities; with Ms. Barker responding the domestic violence deputies are not going to be funded from the MSTU and are going to be funded from the General Fund. Commissioner O'Brien stated he asked how it would affect the General Fund, and Commissioner Higgs said it does not; but there are four deputies to be funded from the General fund; with Commissioner Higgs responding she was talking about MSTU deputies. Commissioner Higgs stated MSTU deputies are funded by the MSTU in the uincorporated area and used in the unincorporated area only; and their salaries and equipment come from that fund; so if the Board adds 16 MSTU deputies, the only place to decrease is in that fund. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board could decrease all their funds, including the General Fund. He stated the Sheriff's Office is funded by General Fund and the MSTU; he is not against funding the deputies; but in so doing, the Board should compensate for the increased funding to the Sheriff; and inquired if anyone has any ideas. Commissioner Scarborough stated that needs to be a separate motion.

Commissioner Colon stated she is used to working with a budget where they put everything they want to do on one side and at the bottom see how much money they have, then they have to balance it at the end; and that is how she was used to working a budget in the last six years.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board discussed the revenue side significantly when it talked about different fees it is willing to raise to properly compensate the General Fund without impacting millages; so it has spent considerable time today talking about the issues. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is not saying the Board did not do that; he is saying it is saying raise the millage for MSTU and fund four additional deputies from the General Fund; and inquired if any Commissioner has any place where he or she can reduce costs by half a million dollars or reduce millages in other MSTU's to compensate for the millage increase in the law enforcement MSTU. Commissioner Higgs stated previous actions of the Board have reduced the demand on the General Fund revenue significantly this morning.

Chairman Carlson stated the Board will not have the big picture until it checks out all the numbers; once it gets through the wish list and what it thinks are priorities, then it will come back from the Budget Office, and the Board will have to look at the revenue stream that it just improved upon to see where that is going to balance out. She stated if it does not balance out, that is when the Board has to discuss where it wants to compensate the increases and make decisions; and that is how she sees it at this point.

Chairman Carlson stated the motion on the floor is for the domestic violence deputy agents, seven additional deputies, and what else; with Mr. Jenkins responding five correctional officers, $100,000 to MIRA as reimbursement, reduction of jail overtime, and four domestic violence officers. Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board wants to entertain a motion for the telecommunicator positions; and hearing no response, stated the motion will stay as is.

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

Property Appraiser's Budget

Mr. Jenkins advised staff needs to correct something they reported to the Board at the last budget workshop, which was erroneous. He stated they indicated there was $700,000 for unfunded program changes; and the correct number is $105,000 unfunded from the preliminary budget submitted. He stated staff checked with the Department of Revenue; it has approved the Property Appraiser's budget, including the $105,000; and the Board has until August 15, 2001 to provide testimony to Department of Revenue if it does not want to fund the budget the Department approved. Mr. Jenkins advised they talked to the individual responsible for budgeting; he said they look at the Property Appraiser's budget in terms of need and justification and according to Florida Statutes; they do not consider how the County funds it, they compare the budget to the workload, demand, and need; and that is how they fund it. He stated the Property Appraiser's budget represents a 9% increase if fully funded; in terms of cost involved in trying to object to it and the outcome, he is confident the Department will be consistent in approving the budget as requested; so the Board needs to look at adding $105,000 into the Property Appraiser's budget.

Chairman Carlson inquired what does the $105,000 represent; with Mr. Jenkins responding Mr. Ford has the prerogative of applying his budget to whatever programs he chooses; and the Board may not be in a position to say which programs would not get funded. He stated the $105,000 is a cumulative number, so staff cannot say where it will be used. Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board does not get the justification even though it is stuck with the bill; with Mr. Jenkins responding Mr. Ford does fill out the forms, but with a General Fund budget of approximately $6 million, in perspective, $105,000 is a very small portion.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he discussed with Fred Galey about using Jim Ford's operation to complement his operation as the County gets into redistricting, but he does not think they were successful. He stated it could reduce some costs if Mr. Ford could contribute more services rather than less; but it would waste time and may be for naught to fight his budget; and there may also be residual effects in reducing cost with redistricting.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded for discussion by Commissioner Colon, to approve an additional $105,000 for the Property Appraiser's budget for FY 2001-02.

Commissioner Colon apologized to Mr. Ford; and noted the Board was under the impression it would be forced to come up with $700,000, so she is glad with the outcome. Mr. Jenkins stated they wrote the Property Appraiser and apologized for making the mathematical error.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there is something in Home Rule that the County is controlled by cap-it and cannot raise taxes more than 3% across the board; and stated the Property Appraiser is asking for 9.85% increase in his budget. He stated if everyone did that, how would the Board fund them when it is forced to cap-it. He inquired what would happen if the Board had a policy that said no one could have more than a 3% increase. Mr. Jenkins advised the Property Appraiser and Tax Collector's budgets are approved by the Department of Revenue, and the Board's approval is limited; the criteria the State uses, which is superior to the local Charter, is statutorily based on perceived workload and not whether the County has a 3% cap; and unfortunately the State makes that decision, not the County. Commissioner O'Brien stated if the Board is bound by law not to exceed 3% increase in taxes in any given year, and it is funding anyone who wants 9.85% increase in his budget, does the Department of Revenue have full power over the Board to say okay. Mr. Jenkins reiterated they do not look at revenue and look at the need for the budget based on the workload. Mr. Knox stated as far as the Property Appraiser is concerned, the Department of Revenue finalizes his budget; the Board has no control over the Department of Revenue; and the only recourse is the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Administrative Commission to see if it will reduce the budget.

Discussion ensued on appealing to the Governor saying 9.85% is excessive in Brevard County because it has a cap-it law and is a Charter County, $105,000 spread across all the Property Appraiser's programs and services as operating expenses, accountability assigned to budget increases, the process for appealing the Property Appraiser's budget, cap-it, built-in costs for salaries and insurance increases, all Constitutional Officers budget requests exceeding 3%, cooperation with the Property Appraiser, pursuing those questions to fix it before next year's budget, and Property Appraiser's cooperation with Budget staff.

Commissioner Higgs advised the numbers from the Property Appraiser on market value of homes are not the same as those given in testimony the other day; and requested a report to resolve the difference between the figures because appraised values affect the revenues of the County. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Property Appraiser's value is 85% of the market value because of the cost of transactions.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Property Appraiser's GIS operation is a tremendous benefit to the County, and will be a big help in the redistricting process; there is a difference between redistricting and precincts; and if Mr. Galey can rely on Mr. Ford rather than create his own system, there will be more cooperation. He stated it will save a lot of money rather than hiring a consultant at full cost for the redistricting; and it will provide a better product using people who have better data.

Commissioner O'Brien stated not trying to trim the budget now means the Board is going to pay Mr. Ford's price this year, and the next year, and the year after that; and he will increase his budget again and again, so it will not be paying for it once. Commissioner Scarborough stated rather than hiring someone to work with Mr. Galey on redistricting, the Board could use Mr. Ford's people; he will win in Tallahassee and win locally; the Board can fight it if it just wants to fight, but it is going to lose; so if it wants to win, it should let this budget go.

Mr. Jenkins stated it is not his position to advocate on behalf of the Property Appraiser, but all the Charter Officers have increases from 7% to 11%; Mr. Ford's budget is in the middle and not standing out; and all but $105,000 is built-in costs identified by staff and put in his budget, i.e. insurance and salary increases that all employees got. Commissioner Higgs stated all the Charter Officers have not followed the Board's lead in regard to salary increase and have frequently taken their own policies and applied them to their offices. Mr. Jenkins noted the majority of them have followed the Board's lead in the last several years. Commissioner Higgs recommended leaving the $105,000 and see where the Board ends up at the end of the day.

Commissioner O'Brien advised about five years ago the Board asked the County Manager to right-size staff, and he did; sometimes other people who have their own offices may have lost insight as to what right-sizing really means; this kind of growth in budget can be fixed if someone determines that he does not need 75 employees and can operate well with 65 employees; and by right-sizing, the budget could be the same or lower.

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

Supervisor of Elections' Budget

Mr. Jenkins advised the Supervisor of Elections asked for additional pay increases of $98,000 above what the Board is giving; and he asked for a GIS computer operator at $49,000, education coordinator, and replacement of a van for $22,000 for a total of $214,000 which is not funded. He stated the budget increase is 5.57% for what is funded so far.

Chairman Carlson advised from the last discussion, $49,176 for the GIS person, which the Board was going to work with the Property Appraiser's office on, and $44,647 was for the education coordinator; and those were the two Mr. Galey picked as his priorities.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Galey said when the Board purchased the new voting machines, he would have a savings of x amount of dollars per year; and the County received $350,000 from the State for voting machines reimbursement, which should be applied to the loan to purchase those machines. He stated he may need a GIS coordinator, but Mr. Ford should cooperate since the Board is not going after him. He stated Mr. Galey gave the Board a chart two years ago; and inquired if he reduced his budget by that much before he started adding on for the redistricting; with Mr. Jenkins responding he will ask Mr. Galey. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board has it in writing that it would be $84,000 less.

Commissioner Scarborough stated his problem with hiring a GIS coordinator is he will do the redistricting once and will stay on as a new employee; and the Board should ask Mr. Ford for more help instead of adding to the cost of redistricting and redoing precinct boundaries.

Tax Collector's Budget

Mr. Jenkins advised the Tax Collector does not have to give the Board his budget until August 1st because it is based on the amount of taxes he collects; and staff increased his budget by 7.9% for salary and insurance costs, and $200,000 to replace his software.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired why does the Tax Collector provide his budget after the Board sets a tentative millage; with Mr. Jenkins responding he typically returns $1.5 million to the Board. Commissioner O'Brien suggested going to the Legislative Delegation to change the date. Chairman Carlson stated the Florida Association of Counties has grappled with that for years and never got support because of lobbying efforts. Mr. Jenkins stated the Tax Collector has been fairly frugal and returned anywhere from $1.5 to $2 million to the General Fund at the end of each year. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is not saying the Tax Collector is a bad guy; the law, as written, is not right; and perhaps the Board could get its lobbyist to make it better.

Commissioner Higgs stated some charters are written in such a way that the Tax Collector and Property Appraiser are not under the Board. Commissioner O'Brien recommended it be put on the agenda in the future to see if the Board and public want them to go on the ballot. Chairman Carlson stated there are other counties in Florida where the Supervisor of Elections is under the County Commission. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has a chance to change the law here. Mr. Jenkins advised before he can formulate his budget, he needs to know how much tax revenue is coming in because the way it is calculated is based on a formula of the amount of taxes he collects. Commissioner O'Brien stated he is taking over drivers' licenses as well.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board could ask that the TRIM be changed so the Board can do its budget on the 1st; the Board needs as much data as it can get to set a millage; and to exclude the Tax Collector's budget from accurate information seems ironic. Mr. Jenkins stated the Tax Collector does not affect the TRIM; he does not get ad valorem millage; and he gets his budget based on a percentage of how much he collects. Mr. Jenkins stated the way the State law is written, he gets a budget based on a formula; and at this time staff is doing an estimate based on what they think his revenues are going to be; but they also anticipate each year getting back $1.5 million dollars in revenues from the Tax Collector.

Public Defender's Budget

Mr. Jenkins advised the Public Defender's budget is up 10.17%; and he had $9,000 increase in books and publications that was not funded.

Chairman Carlson stated the Board could afford that $9,000.

State Attorney's Budget

Mr. Jenkins advised staff did not fund $20,000 worth of books and $20,000 in additional equipment the State Attorney requested; and he wanted $9,700 to take a part-time child victim advocate position from part-time to full-time, which staff did not fund. He stated the budget increase is 7.41% without the three items that were not funded.

Chairman Carlson inquired why staff did not fund the advocate; with Mr. Jenkins responding it is part-time and he wanted it to go full-time at a cost of $9,700.

A representative of the State Attorney's Office advised they have a child sexual abuse advocate who works 75% of the time or 35 hours a week, and they want to increase it to 40 hours a week because of the case load.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what does the Department of Children and Family Services do; with the representative responding this advocate gets them through the court system. Commissioner O'Brien stated there is the Guardian Ad Litem program; with the representative responding they work dependency cases, and child abuses are criminal cases.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve $9,700 for the State Attorney to fund the child sexual abuse advocate full time.

Commissioner O'Brien recommended the funding be taken from the CBO. The representative stated it is a joint program that the State Attorney and the Board of County Commissioners fund together; it is a rape crisis program; they fund one child victim advocate and the County funds the second one at 75%; the case load has increased over the years; they have not asked for an increase in years; and the five hours a week will be helpful.

Chairman Carlson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; with Commissioner Colon being absent from the room.

*Commissioner Colon's presence was noted at this time.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what does the advocate do; with the representative responding when there is a deposition by a defense attorney or State attorney they are present to be with the children and answer questions, give them emotional and physical support, help them prepare for their testimony and trial, be in the courtroom with them, work with the families to know what the children may be going through as a result of their sexual assault; and try to get them back to new lives because their lives have changed forever. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if they are psychologists; with the representative responding they are master's level, but are not psychologists; they do not have licensed therapists; they refer out through crimes compensation and get money for therapy, which is necessary with most of the child cases; and they are educated in social work, criminal justice, and get a lot of advocacy training. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there is anyone who coordinates the emergency rooms with the ambulance paramedics, deputies on the scene, the victims, and the court system; with the representative inquiring if Commissioner O'Brien is referring to the rape exam of the victim. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if all parties are trained in rape crisis from start to finish so that the victim is not victimized again along the way, but is helped and nurtured, not only a child but also an adult. The representative stated there is a lot of secondary victimization that goes on; she was at the police academy training law enforcement on those issues; and they train law enforcement, advocates, attorneys in their offices, and work with EMT's, firefighters, and emergency room personnel.

Commissioner Scarborough called for a point of order; stated the item has been voted on; and suggested the information be provided outside.

The representative inquired if the law library and computers will be considered for the State Attorney's office. She stated the County has not funded their law library; and they are trying to get it funded because Florida Statutes 27.34 says the Board shall provide it. She stated they estimate it will be $90,000; and are requesting $20,000 from Brevard County and $15,000 from Seminole County.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Brevard County has a law library in Viera. The representative stated there is a courthouse in Melbourne where they have a library; and they have a library in Titusville and in Viera also. Commissioner O'Brien inquired why would the State Attorney have a library in Viera when the County already has one there; with the representative responding there are a lot of different types of periodicals that Assistant State Attorneys need; those are kept in their law library; and it is also for convenience sake because they have to be able to go in there and make snap decisions while working with a client or on a case. Commissioner O'Brien stated the State Attorney's office is in Viera, and the law library is across the street. The representative stated their law library is not as large or involved as the County's law library; and they do utilize the County's law library, but there are things that come in weekly like Florida Law Weekly that are in their library; and it is not as convenient for attorneys in Melbourne and Titusville. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there are people assigned to do research, or does each attorney conduct his/her own research, and if there are offices in Melbourne; with the representative responding yes, and they must have law library books.

Discussion ensued on the process followed by the State Attorney, how inmates from the jail are brought to trial, misdemeanor cases in Melbourne, and interest in funding the law library. Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board is interested in funding the law library and computers; and no response was heard.

Court Reporting Services

Mr. Jenkins advised there is an official court reporting service used by the courts; Brevard County has been getting a very low rate from the service; however, they contacted the County and said they needed a rate adjustment; so a negotiating team consisting of a representative from his office and representatives from the Court Administration Office negotiated with the firm. He stated the net impact to Brevard County for next fiscal year is $183,000; and the Board has to fund the service.

Commissioner Higgs stated if that is the additional cost for court reporting services, it should go out to bid. Mr. Jenkins indicated it is the only firm in Brevard County that provides the service; with Commissioner Higgs responding there may be someone out of County who may want to do it. Mr. Whitten advised the actuals for 1998-99 are $368,584, and for 1999-00 they are $346,484. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if $183,000 is on top of those figures. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the contract will come back to the Board; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes, if the rates are changed. Commissioner Higgs inquired why it has not gone out to bid; with Mr. Jenkins responding he does not know because Court Administration is handling it; however, the County's rate is significantly lower than the market rate; and Brevard County has been fortunate to get that price for a number of years. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there was discussion about hiring court reporters as opposed to using an outside firm; with Mr. Jenkins responding he asked that question of Court Administration, and their conclusion is it would not save any money, and it is probably more cost effective to contract it out rather than take on that many court reporters. Mr. Jenkins stated it takes a large number of court reporters at any given time to cover the courts; and they may have down time when they are not working; so Mr. VanBever and Susan Phillips concluded it was more cost effective to continue the contract. He noted the County paid $20 for standard reporting while other Counties paid $25, $30 and $35. Commissioner Higgs inquired who has the Contract; with Mr. Jenkins responding he is not sure.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there are two subjects--one is what the budget reads, and the other is whether the contract should be put out to bid; and he is inclined to put it out to bid.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to put $183,000 in the budget, and put the contract for court reporting out to bid.

Commissioner Higgs suggested putting half the amount in the budget rather than $183,000.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to put $90,000 in the budget, and put the contract for court reporting services out to bid. Commissioner Higgs seconded the motion. Chairman Carlson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: COUNTY DEPARTMENTS' PRIORITY LISTS

*Commissioner Colon's absence was noted at this time.

Housing and Human Services Department

Commissioner Higgs suggested including the $13,694 in the budget for staff at Country Acres.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve $13,694 for a staff person at Country Acres Children's Home. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Carlson advised the Board discussed the Commission on Aging and Juvenile Justice conversion from part-time to full-time secretary, but she does not see it in the updated version. Mr. Whitten stated those are the top two or three priorities.

Housing and Human Services Director Gay Williams advised those were priorities in the program changes; with the revision, it may have been removed because there were three priorities as opposed to two priorities; however, the conversion of the part-time to full-time secretary will ensure the continued success of the Juvenile Justice and Commission on Aging planning and implementation process.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve $9,244 for conversion of a part-time secretary to a full-time secretary for the Juvenile Justice and Commission on Aging.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is important because the Board is doing a lot of things, and it needs to ensure they move forward. He noted things do not happen without staff.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board wants to postpone this item until Commissioner Colon returns. Consensus of the Board was to postpone the item.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Ms. Williams wished to address the service level enhancement by the two additional social workers; with Ms. Williams responding the addition of two social workers would focus on improving self-sufficiency planning and follow up on residents who are requesting or are in need of the services; but more importantly, it will enable her Department to expand the hours of operation to allow access to services especially by the working poor. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they will be located at Viera; with Ms. Williams responding they will be located in Palm Bay and Cocoa and will allow for additional outreach.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what does the State fund for social services; with Ms. Williams responding they get different grants for about $888,000 and a CAA for $88,000. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the State has its own Family and Children Services; with Ms. Williams responding it does, but it does not fund the emergency welfare services the County provides. Ms. Williams advised when people go to the State for assistance, it is usually for food stamps or Medicaid; and through the County's program, they see people in need of rent assistance, mortgage payments, lights, gas, food, transportation, bus service, and other services the State does not provide.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the County provides short-term assistance, as opposed to the State, that will keep someone's lights on, provide gas for their vehicle, or buy their medication; with Ms. Williams responding that is correct; and the additional workers are essential to their efforts of making people more self-sufficient. Ms. Williams stated doing that during crises requires more direct intervention so they do not come back and continue to need services through emergency welfare.

*Commissioner Colon's presence was noted at this time.

Commissioner O'Brien stated last year the Board increased funding for emergency medicine dispensed by a volunteer group; with Ms. Williams responding the Board increased $100,000 in the Social Services programs, but that went to direct services and not to staff.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board funded one of the positions, would there be proportional help, or are the two positions absolutely necessary; with Ms. Williams responding they would utilize those persons to the maximum.

Commissioner Colon inquired if those positions would go to two different areas; with Ms. Williams responding they will be in different locations. She stated one will be in Palm Bay and the other in Cocoa; with additional staff they can provide more expansive outreach and expand the hours of operation; and they also envisioned utilizing those positions on a part-time basis in different areas. Ms. Williams stated with the configuration of the County, there is a transportation issue and people cannot get to the services; there are also homebound people who are unable to get to the services; and social workers need to go to the homes of those clients. She stated it would allow them to extend further in the north end; and instead of just Palm Bay they could co-locate in Melbourne. Commissioner Colon stated it is critical to have two social workers to service Titusville, Cocoa, Rockledge, and South Brevard. Ms. Williams stated they only have four social workers now, and the numbers of people who need services are staggering. Ms. Williams stated they had 87 people in Cocoa last week; with two people, they were only able to see 40 clients; and those who took off from work and were already in a crisis situation did not find relief.

Discussion ensued on the number of people who request services from the County, the lack of staff to meet all their needs, and the most and least served in a day.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to approve one social worker position.

Commissioner Scarborough withdrew his prior motion, and seconded Commissioner Higgs motion.

Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board should look at what County social workers do in contrast to State and federal employees to see if they are overlapping responsibilities; and if so, the Board should back down and let the State take over. He noted too often the County does someone else's job. Mr. Jenkins recommended staff provide the Board with a report showing the differences between what the State does and what the County does. Commissioner O'Brien stated he also wants to see the similarities not just the differences.

Commissioner Colon inquired if Commissioner Higgs only wants one social worker; with Commissioner Higgs responding she would like to have two because the need is there, but the difficulty is this is the first page of six pages of priorities; and if the Board does all the priorities now, it will not be able to do the rest. Commissioner Colon stated out of all the priorities, this is important to her based on the need that is there; and she would hate to tell people in Cocoa they cannot have service because Palm Bay has it or those in Palm Bay that they cannot have service because Cocoa has it. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can do as much as it can then come back and adjust because there is no way it will be able to calculate the numbers without saying those are the things it wants to reach for. Chairman Carlson stated the Board has minimized to a great extent to get to this point. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board wants to put the whole thing on the table; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he agrees with Commissioner Colon that they need the two positions. Commissioner O'Brien advised the Board authorized fees at 50% this year and 50% next year; this may be one of those priorities where it could add one position this year and one next year; and it cannot continue to spend without going back and cutting. Chairman Carlson stated she does not have a problem doing it now and cutting it back later, or approving one position now and the other next year; there is a tremendous need; and one person cannot be spread around the County because it will not work that way. Commissioner Higgs noted there are different levels in different areas.

Commissioner Colon moved to amend the motion. Commissioner Higgs withdrew the motion.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve two additional social workers to enhance programs of Family and Children Services. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there is going to be a tax increase; the Board is going to increase fees; those things will be better understood by the community if the services touch them in a multitude of ways and in a positive sense, from law enforcement to social services and mosquito control; and to have a better County, the Board has to expect to pay more.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve $9,200 to change a part-time secretarial position to full-time for the Commission on Aging. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner Higgs voted nay.

211 Helpline

Mr. Jenkins advised the County is proposing to fund a portion of that; and inquired how much will that be; with Ms. Williams responding it is $27,500 reduced from the original request of $48,000. Ms. Williams stated at the time they put that in, the recommendations had not been received by CBO in the amount of $10,500 or CDBG in the amount of $10,000; so that reduced the $48,000. Mr. Jenkins inquired what is the Board funding now; with Ms. Williams responding $20,500 from CBO and CDBG.

Chairman Carlson inquired if they need an additional $27,500; with Mr. Jenkins responding that is what they asked for; and if the Board does not fund it, somebody else will have to. Commissioner Scarborough inquired who would; with Mr. Jenkins responding potentially United Way. Chairman Carlson inquired if there is any interest from the Board to provide more funding; and no response was heard.

Mosquito Control Department

Commissioner Higgs inquired if expansion of aerial spraying assumes the purchase of the additional helicopter; with Mosquito Control Director Scott Linkenhoker responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is based on funds already in the capital plan and money borrowed from commercial paper; with Mr. Linkenhoker responding that is the plan.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve purchase of a helicopter for Mosquito Control at $1.4 million.

Commissioner Colon requested staff give the Board a status report on what is happening with the encephalitis issue. Chairman Carlson advised the Health Department requested additional spraying; and inquired if this item takes into consideration additional spraying because of the encephalitis issue; with Mr. Linkenhoker responding the helicopter is needed to keep up and expand the level of service. Mr. Jenkins stated this does not relate to Dr. Heshmati's request in the newspaper for a higher level of service immediately. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board funded six additional trucks, and if it has a third aircraft, assuming they are all flying, the County can expand its service; and inquired how long will it take to get the aircraft; with Mr. Linkenhoker responding it takes three to six months to build because it is not a stock item, but he is taking delivery of several trucks tomorrow.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what would the effect of $1.4 million be on the budget; with Mr. Jenkins responding they have some money saved and the remainder will have to be borrowed under the commercial paper program.

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

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the motion includes authorization to go out for commercial paper loan; with Chairman Carlson responding the motion includes that authorization.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if getting the six trucks will reduce the frequency of spraying from 10 to 6 days; with Mr. Linkenhoker responding yes, but it depends on the weather also. Commissioner Scarborough inquired when will there be more frequent spraying; with Mr. Linkenhoker responding they are hoping in two weeks. Mr. Linkenhoker advised they are now working 14 to 16 hours a day, and have temporary people working at night. Mr. Jenkins stated they are hitting it hard already, and will be expanding what they are doing.

Mr. Peffer advised Mr. Linkenhoker has several vehicles that have over 100,000 miles, and the new trucks will get them ahead for the time being, but eventually the older vehicles will need to be replaced to keep that level of service up. He stated they can only spray in the evening; no matter how much equipment they have, there is no use in spraying when the mosquitoes are not out because it does not work; so they hired temporary employees who work after hours and get every truck on the road. He stated the additional trucks will spray at night; and with the helicopter, they will have aerial potential to get to those areas where trucks do not get.

Chairman Carlson inquired if spraying too much is an issue the Board would have to deal with; with Mr. Linkenhoker responding the biggest risk for spraying too much is that the mosquitoes build resistance to that pesticide; however, they cannot get around fast enough to spray too much. Chairman Carlson requested Mr. Linkenhoker embellish the encephalitis issue. Mr. Peffer advised they have sentinel chickens distributed throughout the County, which are used to monitor whether there is virus activity; it takes two confirmed tests before there is an indication; they have not gotten to the second confirmed test; although there are some positive readings from the first test, they will not know until Friday whether they have confirmation. He stated for people who were impacted by the recent flooding, staff has been trying to get information on their drinking water and the water in their area; Mr. Lay and he discussed posting something on the Emergency Management Website on how to make sure the water is safe so that the information is available to the public; and they will provide copies of the information to each Commissioner to be given out at their offices.

Commissioner Colon stated she was told there are different types of encephalitis and some will not affect humans; with Chairman Carlson responding there is equine encephalitis that affects horses; and there is a vaccination for that. Mr. Peffer advised they are concerned about the St. Louis encephalitis, and the West Nile virus is showing up in Florida, but there are no signs it is in Brevard County; however, they are monitoring it continuously. Chairman Carlson inquired when was the last time there were incidences in Brevard County; and advised in 1977 there were three cases. Mr. Peffer advised that was the last one he can recall. Chairman Carlson advised she contracted St. Louis encephalitis, and was one of three in the County; the individual who died was a senior citizen; so those in the senior category need to take proper precautions as do children, when mosquitoes are out. She stated she was in the hospital for two weeks; and there was nothing they could do but give her Tylenol and hope she would pull through.

Mr. Peffer advised Mosquito Control is working as hard as it can; citizens have to take responsibility to protect themselves as well; and there are things published in the paper, such as do not be outside when mosquitoes are active, wear repellent, and wear long-sleeves and long pants. He stated they are at maximum effort and will continue that way to keep it under control; the weather has conspired against them this year, and it has been a tough year; and right now everybody is suffering, but they hope next year will not be quite as cruel.

Chairman Carlson advised the number of sentinel chickens found with encephalitis in 1977 was much less than what has been reported recently. Mr. Linkenhoker advised a lot of those reported were the eastern equestrian; and those were not confirmed. He stated there could be lab test errors and other things; that is why they reconfirm findings; there was one in June, 2001; and when it was reconfirmed, it was negative. Mr. Peffer stated there is nothing to panic about; people with healthy immune systems generally do not have to worry; but those who have depressed immune systems should be very cautious and recognize there could be a problem.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired what is done with the chickens in the winter; with Mr. Linkenhoker responding people who volunteer to let them have the chickens on the property are given back the chickens.

The meeting recessed at 2:50 p.m., and reconvened at 3:03 p.m.

Emergency Management Services

Emergency Management Director Robert Lay advised he has three priorities, but the top priority is the financial coordinator. He stated the sheet shows it at $42,268, but he will only need 50% of that because four Departments agreed to help with the cost. He stated there is no financial coordinator in Emergency Management; they use staff from Public Safety and the Budget Office to work with them following disasters to keep up with the funds coming in and track public assistance grants; and if they had a financial person, it would be easier to keep up with the funding. He stated his concern is that sometimes they may not be handling grant funds the way they should or may not be writing grants properly to get additional money; and the financial coordinator would keep on top of the funding that ultimately ends up supporting the services everybody receives in the County.

Chairman Carlson inquired if there is a potential to bring in additional dollars with a financial coordinator; with Mr. Lay responding it would keep from losing dollars they currently have, because with some grants whatever is not spent is lost; and a coordinator would track and monitor those funds. Chairman Carlson inquired if Mr. Lay has lost any dollars; with Mr. Lay responding no, but they probably could have gained more dollars following disasters. Mr. Jenkins inquired how many millions of dollars has Emergency Management received in grants; with Mr. Lay responding $4.5 million from multiple grantors.

Mr. Jenkins advised Emergency Management's financial controls are picked up partly by Public Safety and the Budget Office as a courtesy; Mr. Lay would like to have control over those funds in his office so he does not lose any funds; and FEMA reimbursement after a disaster is a time-consuming financial process. He stated there is potential to increase money from FEMA reimbursement based on keeping of records. Mr. Lay stated that is correct, and they would have a central area to monitor and control the funds and the possibility of increasing them.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired how many grants were not granted this year; with Mr. Lay responding four or five that they wrote were not granted this year. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how many grants were granted besides the hurricane shutters for the schools; with Mr. Lay responding over $300,000 to ensure housing for moderate income families is hurricane proof, $75,000 as part of Project Impact for the same project, and another $75,000. Mr. Jenkins inquired how much was reimbursed for the last hurricane; with Mr. Lay responding $9.5 million. Commissioner O'Brien stated it sounds like $450,000 in grants; with Mr. Lay responding that is in addition to the shutters and generator grants which were over $2 million; and he just received about $1.7 million on that grant. Mr. Lay stated the point is they have different agencies in the County trying to help him control all the financial issues; and Public Works is also involved.

Chairman Carlson advised her interest is in the financial coordinator; and she would like to see that go forward, and if it comes off at the end, so be it. Commissioner Higgs stated Budget asked for 3/4th of a person; and inquired if Mr. Lay could share a financial coordinator with the Budget Office; with Budget Manager Dennis Rogero responding that is an increase in internal service distribution and not a person.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve funding for 50% of a financial coordinator position for the Office of Emergency Management Services. Motion did not carry; Commissioners Colon and Carlson voted aye; and Commissioners Scarborough, O'Brien, and Higgs voted nay.

Office of Natural Resources Management

Commissioner Higgs advised the Board has heard the presentations previously; and inquired if the Board needs to have a presentation or just ask questions. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board heard Natural Resources' request for positions and the problems because of the cutbacks; and inquired if a Commissioner wants to make a motion or ask questions. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the revenues discussed earlier will cover the positions; with Mr. Peffer responding no, those revenues were to support the Development Review Section; Conrad White's section is mostly funded through General Fund; and the basis of this request is to obtain an appropriation from the General Fund for additional people. Commissioner Higgs inquired what would those people do.

Mr. Peffer advised there is a long list of activities they would like to address with additional staff; they are involved in a variety of programs, most of which are direct implementation of the Comprehensive Plan; and a number of them are assignments from the Board to staff. He stated when the Board asked for best practices, they showed a list of ten or eleven items, which they would like to address but are unable to because of staffing shortage; every one of those come from the Comprehensive Plan; and those are things they feel would be important to improve the quality of life in Brevard County, but are only attended in a small way or not at all. He stated rather than add a best practice and staff that would be necessary for that, it would be more useful to bring in two additional people to address as many or all of the projects that are underway and accelerate completion of them. Mr. Peffer advised the Board asked Mr. White to do an analysis; he did an extensive analysis of staff resources and demand based only on what is in the Comprehensive Plan; and he came up with 26-man years of work that need to be done and which they cannot address because they are backlogged. He stated over the last year, the Board asked Natural Resources to do four workshops, two on manatees and two on scrub; that affected three people; right now Brian, who should be working on the critical habitat ordinance, is working in Valkaria because there are management issues he is attending to; and he is working on grants the Board suggested two meetings ago. He stated when those things happen, the workload is impacted and things get shifted, delayed, and rolled back; and they are hoping, with additional staffing, to do a better job of providing information the Board requests and serve the citizens better to improve their quality of life. He stated looking at what is happening in Brevard County, the growth impacts, what it is costing the County, and what impacts there are to the natural environment, staff is falling behind in management plans and other ways of addressing those impacts; and the request is to try and plug some of those holes.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if there was a dynamic effect by transferring EEL's to Parks and Recreation; with Mr. Peffer responding they worked together, supplied GIS services for EEL's, and EEL's funded some of the GIS activities; but other than oversight from the Director, there was less direction given and little human resources activity because they were self-contained. Commissioner O'Brien stated sometimes Departments are asked to share resources; EEL's personnel are well qualified for the work being done by Natural Resources; and inquired if that can be done; with Mr. Jenkins responding no because they are funded from the EEL's referendum to work on the EEL's program, and it would be an act of bad faith to use them for something other than EEL's activities.

Mr. Jenkins advised Ms. Coles raised her fees to fund another position and eliminate the General Fund subsidy; and inquired how much was that subsidy; with Mr. Peffer responding they would need about $33,000 if they did not raise the fees. Mr. Jenkins noted Development Review Section is generating $33,000 benefit to the General Fund by raising fees.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how Mr. Peffer's salary is covered; with Mr. Jenkins responding it is spread among the Departments. Mr. Peffer advised he works with five agencies and each shares some portion of his salary.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is frustrating because the Board tells people it is doing things; it puts all those directives out; it gets enormous amounts of materials; but if it does not get the right information to act and implement, it would be acting in vain.

Chairman Carlson advised all the things the Board puts forth that have anything to do with environmental concerns, such as the critical habitat, have to do with the Comprehensive Plan; and that is what staff is focusing on. She stated they are trying to get a little piece of everything the Board required of them, but do not have enough human resource to get the job done, and have not for years; the Board is looking to have it done more quickly; and in order to get it done, they have to have the human resource behind it. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if they are 26 years behind; with Chairman Carlson responding 26-man years. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it would take one man 26 years to get what the Board has put on the table already; with Mr. Peffer responding yes, if the Board did not give them anything else to do in the new few years.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve two additional staff positions for Office of Natural Resources Management. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

Public Works Department

Mr. Jenkins advised the Board asked staff to look into gas taxes funding incandescent bulbs and traffic signal timing, and they can come from gas tax if the Board desires.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve funding incandescent lamps and traffic signal timing from gas tax.

Commissioner Higgs inquired about the Traffic Systems Tech I position; with Traffic Engineer Dick Thompson responding that person would be dedicated fulltime to going to every signal the County maintains, and going through the controllers and intricacies of the signal to optimize the function. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that is different from the signal timing; with Mr. Thompson responding yes, the signal timing is done by a professional engineering consultant who would go out and do new studies based on the changes in traffic conditions.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the County has somebody who does that; with Mr. Thompson responding no. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what is the truck he sees driving around; with Mr. Thompson responding they do not have a timing person, but they have Traffic Systems Techs; however, with the number of signals and the workload of rebuilding and maintaining them, a Tech only gets to a signal about once a year or every 11 months. He stated the additional Tech would allow his staff to get there at least twice a year to optimize the function of the signals. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how many people are doing that right now; with Mr. Thompson responding he has five Techs right now, but they are not all skilled to do controller maintenance, which is a higher level of skill.

Commissioner Higgs amended the motion to add the third Traffic Systems Tech I position funded by the gas tax; and Commissioner Colon accepted the amendment.

Chairman Carlson called for a vote on the motion as amended. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Parks and Recreation Department

Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson advised he wants to address three issues; one is the North Area Operations costs; when the Port St. John referendum passed, once construction was done, North Brevard District MSTU paid for that; and that is Districtwide not only Port St. John. He requested the Board include the beginning of the referendum projects into that Districtwide MSTU, which would increase the millage from .5134 mill to .5740 mill just in North Brevard, including Port St. John and the referendum area. He stated that would generate a maximum of $154,122, which would net out at 95%; and $146,000 is what they need for operation of the referendum projects for next year.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to grant tentative approval to increase the District 1 Parks and Recreation MSTU millage from .5134 to .5740 mill for operation of the referendum projects. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Nelson advised the Board asked about the South Mainland gym operation; and the cost for operation was reduced to $75,308 by removing a vehicle and not cutting service. He stated they will bring a fee structure to the Board, but did not bring it today because there are over a hundred rates and charges. He stated they have not had an increase in rates since 1998 and some since 1996; and they believe they will net a 5% increase in revenues even with some rates being less. He noted their Summer Playground Program is $35.00 a week; Melbourne charges $90 and Palm Bay charges $105; so the County is significantly below the average on that program and should not have a problem with modest increases, which should net greater than 5% increase. Mr. Nelson requested the Board allow him to project a 5% revenue increase based on a new proposed rate structure to cover the operation of the South Mainland gym and replace some dollars cut previously in other Districts as part of the budget process.

Motion by Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize Parks and Recreation staff to project a 5% revenue increase based on proposed changes to the rate structure. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Carlson requested Mr. Nelson elaborate on the Central Area Mainland and Nature Program at Riverwalk at $109,000; with Mr. Nelson responding prioritizing park projects Countywide is a career limiting opportunity because of the nature of the Commission Districts and advisory groups; however, if there is a top priority, it is probably Riverwalk Park. He stated it is the old Hoo Hoo Park, which was renamed; they have not been able to find a tenant to move in and provide necessary supervision of the site; and it is a site that still remains closed at this time. Mr. Nelson advised some improvements were made in terms of removing vegetation that made it attractive to illegal activities that were occurring at the park; but staff does not believe it can open unless they have a tenant. He stated one way they propose doing that is by placing a modular trailer on the property and beginning a nature program; they used the site historically for nature programming, but never on a fulltime basis; and they would take a nature person and make trips to the site. He stated a tenant will give the ability to have a presence at the park during the day and make it more attractive for people to drop in and use it, as well as keep an eye on the site. He stated failing that, they do not recommend re-opening the park until they find a tenant. Chairman Carlson stated they have come a long way with the park, and it is a shame that it has to sit there closed for so long. Mr. Nelson noted it has been closed for over a year. Chairman Carlson stated people are wondering why the Board bothered in the first place, but there were severe problems at the park. Mr. Nelson stated they have removed vegetation along the roadside, which will improve it, but he will not commit that they will not have that circumstance revisited without some additional uses. He stated the problem is that right now it is a boardwalk without other activities; and they need other activities to make it successful. Chairman Carlson stated it is a beautiful park; and inquired if some of the money from the 5% increase would go there; with Mr. Nelson responding it could reduce the number by about $30,000 of the amount needed; and that number could be higher, based on the final rate structure, but at this point, he is not sure what that number will be.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it is a District 4 MSTU funding issue; with Mr. Nelson responding it could be part of that, but right now District 4 is at rollback. Commissioner Scarborough stated if it is just a District 4 issue, it should be whatever Chairman Carlson is comfortable with. Chairman Carlson inquired if the park was developed through the Beach and Riverfront Program; and if any Commissioners have funds in their Beach and Riverfront Accounts that they do not need that could help augment the project.

Commissioner Higgs stated that cannot be done because when the referendum was done, it was set up to be used by District. Chairman Carlson stated there was an issue when Helen Voltz was on the Board and gave $120,000 Beach and Riverfront money to Satellite Beach; with Commissioner Higgs responding that was in Districts 3/5. Chairman Carlson recommended staff look at that possibility. Commissioner Higgs stated Beach and Riverfront is capital money and not operational money, so she does not think it can be used for operation of the park. Chairman Carlson stated putting a modular out there is a capital expense; with Mr. Nelson responding it is a combination of capital one time and operations on an annual basis. Chairman Carlson stated she would like to see that project move forward because it is a waste having a park sitting there with a gate on it and the community not being able to use it. She stated they have not looked at District 4 MSTU in terms of doing anything with it; but they can look at that. Mr. Nelson noted at this point that millage is at rollback. Chairman Carlson inquired what would it provide if it does not go to rollback; with Mr. Nelson responding the Budget staff could answer that. Chairman Carlson recommended staff look at that, and the Board address it later.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what would the $24,000 for management of undeveloped lands do; with Mr. Nelson responding some contracting to do burns and selective cleaning and clearing. He stated for example, they pay $700 an acre for the Marine Resources Council to treat the pepper trees at Paradise Beach Park, and use prisoners to clean it up. Commissioner Higgs inquired how many acres is Paradise Beach Park; with Mr. Nelson responding about ten acres.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff is taking the proposed millage for North Area Operation MSTU to the Parks and Recreation Board before the Board sets the final millage; with Mr. Nelson responding yes, they meet next Thursday. Commissioner Higgs stated the tentative millage has to be set Tuesday; with Commissioner Scarborough responding he will go with the tentative millage, but wants the Parks and Recreation Board to get involved. He noted they would probably pose the question that the parks are not built yet so why increase operations.

Chairman Carlson requested Board approval to increase the Central MSTU preliminary millage, minus $30,000 or whatever works with the 5% calculated difference, see what that would do to the MSTU, and put it in as tentative millage; with Mr. Nelson responding he will do that.

Commissioner Higgs advised she wants to see the undeveloped lands treated, particularly at Paradise Beach Park because it is infested with exotics; but she does not know where the Board is with the budget discussions. Chairman Carlson stated if Commissioner Higgs wants it, she needs to put it out there; and if it is a real issue, it is there, and if not, it can be taken off. Commissioner Higgs stated if the County does not treat some of the lands soon, it will lose the native vegetation.

Mr. Jenkins inquired what funding was used to acquire the property; with Mr. Nelson responding Beach and Riverfront funds. Mr. Jenkins inquired if there are any funds left in that program; with Mr. Nelson responding there is some left, but the project may not qualify as capital and would have to come from the millage.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve $24,000 for undeveloped lands management.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what fund will it come from; with Commissioner Higgs responding the General Fund. Mr. Nelson stated there is a portion of the Beach and Riverfront funds that is not for capital; and each District has a small amount left for operation and maintenance. He stated they can give the Board that option as a calculation also. Mr. Jenkins stated staff needs to know where to put it; and inquired if the Board wants staff to come back at the end of the day. Commissioner Scarborough stated the question came up whether it could be Beach and Riverfront Funds; but Commissioner Higgs said it cannot be, and Mr. Jenkins said it may be. Mr. Nelson stated he is not sure that can be considered a capital item; there are two sources of Beach and Riverfront funds--construction or acquisition and operation and maintenance, which is the millage that exceeded debt retirement; and there may be room to generate those dollars. He stated it is not projected to be held to generate new dollars; so the other question is could it come out of the capital account or one of the District accounts. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board has hit the General Fund with a lot of things, and any time it can look elsewhere it should do it.

Commissioner Higgs stated Beach and Riverfront is a Countywide fund; she is not sure it is appropriate for the maintenance activity; but whether it goes with the General Fund or Beach and Riverfront funds it is still a Countywide millage, so she is not sure it makes any difference which fund is used. Mr. Nelson noted that park may be in District 5. Mr. Jenkins stated Beach and Riverfront is not part of the aggregate millage; and inquired how long has the County owned the land; with Mr. Nelson responding about 14 or 15 years. Mr. Jenkins stated it is a maintenance function that may be different if the land was acquired for preservation and has never been cleaned; so that may be associated with the acquisition and development for use. County Attorney Scott Knox advised there is a concept of capital maintenance, and it may include something that the Board is discussing, but he would have to look at it to be sure.

Commissioner Scarborough suggested it be done as Beach and Riverfront if possible because the Board has been impacting the General Fund. Commissioner Higgs stated if it can be funded that way, that would be fine.

Chairman Carlson stated on the priority list is Joe Lee Smith land acquisition, Veterans Memorial Park expansion, and Paradise Beach Park, which are all capital projects; and inquired if the Beach and Riverfront millage could be brought up to the .25 mill the voters approved; with Mr. Nelson responding no, the Clerk took the County to court on the issue that it bonded a certain amount of money and the difference between debt retirement and millage cap was being put towards additional acquisitions; and as a result of that, the Board lost the ability to use all but 10% of that program for maintenance. Chairman Carlson stated those are capital projects; with Mr. Nelson responding they cannot generate additional money for capital; that is what they were doing and keeping it at .25 mill; and now they are prevented from doing that; but there may be room in the 10% that staff could look at with the Budget Office.

Chairman Carlson called for a vote on the motion to fund management of undeveloped lands. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Human Resources Department

Chairman Carlson advised there was an attachment to the latest version of the prioritization list for Human Resources, which was a partially funded position; and requested an explanation of employee benefits of $75,000. Mr. Rogero advised that program change indicates that $75,000 of the $150,000 needed is being funded from the employees benefits; and the $75,000 that is still needed is not identified. Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board had any comments; and no response was heard.

Planning and Zoning Office

Mr. Jenkins advised Planning and Zoning is generating $174,000 in additional revenues through permit fee increases discussed earlier today.

Chairman Carlson inquired if that leaves $61,000 for GIS if they wanted to do that; with Mr. Jenkins responding Mr. Scott has two items he felt would be highly advantageous. Mel Scott advised one is the GIS analyst with startup computer costs at $122,000 the first year and recurring cost of $69,000 annually. Mr. Jenkins inquired if $50,000 is for capital outlay. Commissioner Higgs inquired what will that GIS person do; with Mr. Scott responding in order to come up with a map identifying areas in the County that did not have various environmental constraints for the floodplain workshop last week, they had to speak to the Natural Resources Office or Property Appraiser's Office and make that request then wait for them to produce it; and not having that expertise prevents them from becoming versed in the technology and planning of the "what-if" scenarios.

Commissioner Scarborough stated when the Board got into redistricting, Gary Ridenour of the Property Appraiser's office came to see him and said there are two ways they can help--(1) they could do it, or (2) they could train County staff to do it; and the same holds true for Fred Galey. He stated everybody wants GIS, but he would like to see it centralized.

Commissioner Higgs stated if staff cannot coordinate through the Property Appraiser and make that work, then the Board should pull it back to the General Fund and serve everybody. Chairman Carlson inquired about relocating an individual from the Property Appraiser's office to Zoning office and making the work more specialized. Commissioner Scarborough stated if Mr. Ford cannot facilitate the needs of the County, then the Board needs to restructure GIS, but if he can, then that is fine. He stated his concern is everybody doing the same thing. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to determine an adequate level of service for other County agencies; and if that cannot be accomplished, then the Board needs to figure out a new way of doing it. Mr. Scott stated there are ways to duplicate and plans that envision duplicating GIS; there are a number of services with the same database in different Departments; however, there is also a way to buy very powerful PC's so that GIS remains the place where the overlays are deposited with the Property Appraiser, but through a GIS analyst and powerful PC's staff can manipulate the data, export them, and bring them into their PC's and run those programs and formulas. Chairman Carlson inquired if that reduces what Mr. Ford has in his office; with Mr. Scott responding it does not, but it represents a sharing of resources Mr. Ford has and continuing to strengthen the database they can all use.

Commissioner Scarborough recommended Mr. Jenkins look into the GIS operational situation rather than take it piecemeal, and determine where the County is going and how it is going to best utilize the system. He stated maybe what Mr. Scott described is where the Board needs to go rather than considering individual requests from every Department.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to direct the County Manager to assess GIS interests in all County Departments.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want Mr. Scott or Mr. Galey not to fully utilize GIS, but the County does not need to have five GIS operations.

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

Library Services Department

Chairman Carlson inquired if the increased fine will cover the Library Services priorities; with Mr. Jenkins responding no. Chairman Carlson inquired how much would be generated; with Library Services Director Cathy Schweinsberg responding $230,000. Commissioner Scarborough stated those funds stay with the individual libraries. Mr. Jenkins stated rather than having a central budget, they have a distributed budget based on how much fees they bring in. Ms. Schweinsberg advised they do not know if they will collect what they projected because they have not raised the fees in years.

Commissioner Higgs advised the Board talked about impact fees, but did not talk about the libraries impact fees; the goal is two plus books per capita; and the impact fee could easily be measured even if it only went to 27% of the goal. She stated instead of going to the Library MSTU, the Board has a report on the library impact fee and the figure presented in that study; and suggested advertising an additional consideration of library impact fees when the Board does the other impact fees.

Ms. Schweinsberg advised they have less money for books in this year's budget because they had to reduce it. Budget Analyst I Frank Vestal advised their base budget, not counting new books for Melbourne Beach Library, is flat and not increasing. Commissioner O'Brien stated it increased before because new libraries were built and existing libraries were expanded; those books are now on the shelves; and they do not have to buy all new books for every library to replace every book they have. Ms. Schweinsberg advised they weed the collection as they put in new books to keep it current, so the volumes per capita does not increase unless the Board infuses the budget with funding. Commissioner Colon inquired if the Board is going to use money from the fines for library media.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize advertising a public hearing to consider an ordinance increasing the Library Services impact fees, and include it on the agenda for the impact fee workshop. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioner O'Brien voted nay.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Ms. Schweinsberg studied how impact fees can be used; with Commissioner Higgs responding they have to be used to fund the need created by the additional residents. Commissioner Scarborough stated Ms. Schweinsberg told him books are considered capital expenditures; with Mr. Vestal responding under the State's Uniform Accounting System, library books are considered capital items. Commissioner O'Brien stated they can also use accelerated depreciation as well. Commissioner Scarborough stated impact fees cannot be used for operations, but can be used for capital.

Commissioner Colon requested feedback from Ms. Schweinsberg on teaching citizens how to use the computers and training all employees who work at the libraries, and the cultural and educational events. She stated she attended one event and it was very successful; people came from all over the County; and inquired if the Board has to fund those from General Fund or would the $250,000 cover it; with Ms. Schweinsberg responding the $250,000 increase was used to balance the budget for everything they had as unfunded. Mr. Jenkins stated those funds will be distributed among the libraries; and inquired how can that be done; with Mr. Vestal responding they did it indirectly by increasing the fines and fees budgets for each library and reducing their regular budgets. Commissioner Colon inquired out of the three unfunded items, which one is the top priority; with Ms. Schweinsberg responding increase of the media budget. Ms. Schweinsberg advised surveys of patrons show they do extremely well in all areas except the fill rate where people come to the library to find a particular book; and they need the books to keep giving people what they want. She stated the expanded computer and internet training is extremely important as well, because they have a lot of computers in the libraries but people do not know how to use them to get to the information they need; so staff is constantly training them, but it is done in a haphazard manner. She stated with a training person, they could have computer classes in the different libraries where the people are.

Mr. Jenkins inquired if Ms. Schweinsberg talked to the School System's vocational education program about whether or not they can come on site and have computer classes; with Ms. Schweinsberg responding she has not. Chairman Carlson stated that is a good idea. Ms. Schweinsberg advised they use high school students who are great and know everything there is to know about computers; and a lot of them do it for scholarship hours.

Permitting and Enforcement Department

Chairman Carlson inquired if there are any comments on two replacement vehicles for Permitting and Enforcement Department. She noted the Board did increase their fees this morning; and inquired if there is any impact there. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they will generate enough funds to pay for two new vehicles; with Permitting and Enforcement Director Billy Osborne responding yes. Mr. Jenkins advised their revenues increased by $98,000 as a result of the Board's action this morning. Chairman Carlson inquired if that is enough to replace the vehicles; with Mr. Osborne responding yes.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve two replacement vehicles for Permitting and Enforcement Department. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Transit Services Department

Chairman Carlson requested Mr. Liesenfelt explain the Saturday bus service on three routes and the expanded daily hours of service as best practice requests.

Transit Services Director Jim Liesenfelt advised when they do customer surveys and public hearings, the two most requested services are expanding the hours during the day and Saturday service; most of the routes end at 4:00 or 5:00 p.m.; the thing they get hit on most is the limited hours; but customers are happy with the bus drivers and vehicles, and they can get to the stops reasonably well. He stated they prepared a transit development plan, which is their five-year plan; it has more than 50 recommendations; and the top two recommendations are Saturday service and expanded hours during the day. He stated they have maxed out their operational funds they receive from the State and federal governments; and it would take local funds to expand the hours.

Chairman Carlson inquired how much does Transit Services get from the General Fund; with Mr. Liesenfelt responding nothing, but they get $845,000 from the local option gas tax. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the expanded services can be funded from the local option gas tax; with Mr. Jenkins responding there is not a lot left in the gas tax to build roads anyway, so the Board could fund some of the request from gas tax after staff determines how much is left. He noted the Board gave a portion of it to Traffic Engineering; but staff can see how much they can get out of the gas tax if the Board wants them to do that. Chairman Carlson stated she supports Saturday service and extended daily hours. Mr. Liesenfelt advised the daily hours service is the cost for starting it the first year and does not include every route expanded to 14 hours a day; they would only expand three or four routes in the first year; and the next year would be another $150,000; and then $300,000, $450,000, and $600,000 for the remaining three years of the five-year plan.

Commissioner Higgs requested the consequence to the local option gas tax for funding the Saturday and expanded daily hours services for a full year or half a year by Tuesday. Mr. Jenkins stated unless the Board is going to raise ad valorem taxes, it does not need that information by Tuesday. Commissioner Higgs stated just in case, she wants to see it. Chairman Carlson stated if the Board knows by Tuesday, it would know whether it wants to include it. Commissioner Higgs also requested the estimated ridership be included in the report.

Mr. Jenkins inquired if $152,000 is for all parts of the County; with Mr. Liesenfelt responding it is for three routes; the first one is the Palm Bay/Melbourne area; and staff can come back with a proposal on the specific routes. Mr. Jenkins inquired about the three routes at $35,000; with Mr. Liesenfelt responding the $35,000 is for Saturday bus service in the Central area, Melbourne, and Palm Bay; and the $152,000 would expand daily service hours in Melbourne and Palm Bay. Mr. Jenkins advised there is Saturday bus service at $152,000, Saturday bus service at $35,000, and expanded daily hours at $152,000; with Mr. Liesenfelt responding the Saturday bus service at $152,000 is the best practice of expanding every route to provide Saturday service; but the budget proposal asks to add three Saturday bus routes.

Chairman Carlson recommended the three Saturday routes at $35,000 and the extended daily hours at $152,000.

Transportation Planning Office

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve $4 million for Transportation Planning Office.

Mr. Jenkins stated that is a sales tax issue. Commissioner O'Brien stated it could be a referendum question. Mr. Jenkins stated it is for greenways and trails. Chairman Carlson stated $4 million does not sound like enough to do that; and Commissioner Higgs stated the Board is not going to consider that today.

Information Systems/Communications Department

Chairman Carlson advised the Board talked about applying to the Clerk's hook up of computers at Melbourne Courthouse; and requested Mr. Butto give the Board his priorities.

Information Systems/Communications Director Gino Butto advised the Information/ Communications group has three fundamental program areas: (1) E911 coordination, which is entirely self-sufficient, (2) telecommunications, which is entirely General funded, and (3) information systems, the programming and computer side, which is predominantly funded by enterprise funds and some General Fund assistance.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if they have an SAP fail-over this year; with Mr. Butto responding with the new system and eventual demise of the old mainframe environment, they can now, in a cost-effective manner, mirror a lot of data they get in the financial system and replicate the hardware because it is not in the millions of dollars as was the mainframes. He stated they can give themselves an opportunity to recover should they have a major failure in the system or a disaster that would require moving to another site, and continue to provide pay checks without having to do it manually, and continue to do purchases in a disaster environment. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the SAP fail-over system is very important; with Mr. Butto responding yes.

Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Butto explain each priority and the advantages; with Mr. Butto responding in the telecommunications group, the wiring is critical because right now most of the users realize they will have systems failures, a lot of which are indirectly generated by wiring problems in this campus environment. He stated they have done a number of studies, and had experts in to evaluate it because it was very difficult to isolate the problems; and a lot of the experts could not find it, but the problems were isolated to wiring. Mr. Butto advised people are pushing more complicated data through than the buildings were originally designed for ten years ago; so without that, they would continue to experience outages, and probably more frequently, as people continue to push more and more data through. He stated they would be handcuffed from expanding services people are looking for through enhanced internet services, multimedia type applications, imaging, and such. Commissioner Scarborough stated wiring is more than an operating expense; it is not recurring and is a capital improvement that adds value to the system; and inquired if it could be done a little at a time and paid for over a couple of years. Mr. Whitten advised if they have funds to pay the debt service, it can be done as a commercial paper project. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it can be done as a four-year project, or does it have to be done all at once; with Mr. Butto responding the actual implementation would have to be done all at once because the most expensive part is labor; and once they are mobilized, it would be more cost effective to complete it.

Mr. Butto advised the enterprise back-up, the amount of information that is being retained by everybody using the system, is growing; they cannot keep up with that; and each individual user and Department is not able to keep up with that either without spending a lot of money each year for bits and pieces of storage devices. He stated it is not only cost avoidance but also a more fail-safe environment for data storage, especially with a lot of retention requirements they have through the Sunshine Law, legally, and otherwise.

Mr. Butto advised right now they have one network administrator that is supporting about 1,600 online users under the Board; and if they take into consideration a lot of the Charter Officers who use their backbone infrastructure, it is close to 2,500 users; that is a staggering amount of support by one person; and they have been sharing the immediate supervisor and other managers within the group. He stated whether it is voice, video, or pure data, it is all data; there is a lot of planning from a tactical and design infrastructure level that is required to keep up with what they are doing; and the network is everything people are asking for every day, whether it is e-government internet access or allowing constituents to start viewing financials.

Chairman Carlson inquired how close is the County to standardizing hardware and software; with Mr. Butto responding they have stopped proliferating all the non-standard systems and now are ready to start consolidating and standardizing those; and some of the different agencies put in their unfunded and best practices to get that done because it is a user-by-user situation. Chairman Carlson inquired if there is a plan to standardize hardware and software; with Mr. Butto responding yes, as much as is reasonable.

Mr. Butto advised telecommunications is a General Fund group; in Information Systems they have user fees and receive contributions from the General Fund; and the SAP fail-over was a major investment, but it was a reasonable amount of money to buy the insurance needed to be able to operate no matter what type of system failure they may experience. He stated the document imaging is something that they initially wanted for agenda automation; and they are approaching that, but not completely. He stated the County Attorney's Office has been trying for a couple of years to start electronically storing, massaging, and disseminating its information; and with the document imaging, they can get a standard infrastructure in and perhaps look at other Departments that have been desperately waiting for this type of service.

Chairman Carlson inquired if they generate user fees on the information system side; with Mr. Butto responding yes. Chairman Carlson inquired when was it updated; with Mr. Butto responding this year they have increased it across-the-board; and for certain agencies they foresee having major endeavors this year, they increased their fees a little more. He stated they have been working from a fee structure that is a few years old, which was excellent at the time it was done; however, in the last year and a half they have changed the way they do business, whether it is enterprise resource planning like SAP or internet support that everybody wants to enable. He stated they developed in-house software to start tracking the type of work they do and who they do it for, so next year they can restructure their fee schedule; and they have been working with Mr. Whitten on that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if some of the priorities are basically improving the plant, they could be handled through commercial paper; it is important to have a good operation; and it does not make sense to have systems that do not operate well. He inquired which of the items can they do under the commercial paper program; with Mr. Whitten responding if he were to choose, he would do the telecommunications wiring project and combine it with the SAP fail-over system into one commercial paper project. Commissioner Scarborough stated the back-up system was missed; with Mr. Whitten responding he picked the top two items, but actually the Board can do the wiring, enterprise back-up system, SAP fail-over, and document imaging under the commercial paper program. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what type of terms would they be under the commercial paper program; with Mr. Jenkins responding 5%. Commissioner Scarborough inquired for what length of time; with Commissioner Higgs responding on any type of electronic things, it should not be more than four years. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what would it cost for the four items; with Mr. Jenkins responding approximately $550,000, or about $200,000 a year for three years.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve proceeding with rewiring, SAP fail-over system, enterprise back-up system, and document imaging system for the Information Systems/Communications Department under the commercial paper program for three years.

Chairman Carlson stated if it is an issue of productivity, the Board needs to address it; if SAP goes down and there is no fail-over system to help the County, it would have a big problem; and inquired if there is a second to the motion.

Commissioner Colon seconded the motion. Chairman Carlson called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners O'Brien and Higgs voted nay.

Public Safety Department

Commissioner Higgs advised staff is asking for an increase in the EMS assessment and not the Fire Control MSTU; and requested staff clarify the issue.

Public Safety Director Jack Parker advised the first item is the additional ambulance funded by the Countywide residential EMS assessment; the expansion and fire prevention would be funded by a recommendation to change and increase the fire prevention fees; and the first responder rate adjustment would be funded by a commercial EMS rate structure Countywide. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board is looking at an EMS assessment increase and not the MSTU; with Mr. Parker responding yes. Commissioner Higgs stated it is not an issue for Tuesday's meeting on the millage. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board can defer it; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes. Commissioner Scarborough recommended the items be deferred. Commissioner Higgs recommended the Board discuss it since staff has been here all day, and she wants to have clarification on the additional ambulance service and rescue units, how many, over what period of time, and how much is the cost. Mr. Parker stated the items originated as part of their best practices exercise; staff indicated in order to strive for that best practice, they would need an additional ambulance every year for the next five years; and there are five areas throughout the County designated for an ambulance. He stated the first ambulance, if it is approved, would require an increase in the Countywide EMS assessment by $2.55; some of the earlier documentation listed it as $2.67; however, they were able to adjust operating expenses and reduced it from $554,285 to $528,451, so it would require an additional $2.55 increase to the Countywide EMS assessment. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the rate adjustment for salary increases will be seen in the same package; with Mr. Parker responding they have an EMS ordinance that would have to go for a public hearing; and staff will put the paramedic incentives, which would be $3.58 funded by the MSTU, and salary increases in the package unless the Board directs otherwise. He noted they will hold the higher threshold for discussion at the public hearing; and it can always go down if needed. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board has to do the commercial rate today; with Mr. Parker responding no, that will be part of the EMS ordinance. Mr. Jenkins commented Public Safety just needs encouragement today.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to see it come back on the agenda, but a motion is not necessary at this time.

Mr. Parker advised they would like to do the same thing with the fire component as well; and that would require a change in the Fire Prevention Ordinance to increase the fees to support additional personnel needed to continue to provide that service. Mr. Jenkins stated that is workload and has no bearing on frequency of inspections or anything like that; and it is just manpower to keep up with the current demands for service.

Chairman Carlson inquired about the first responder; with Mr. Parker responding that will also come back with the EMS package. He stated under the General Fund, they have the safety and security system for the Medical Examiner's Office at $22,700 unfunded; there are concerns that the records they maintain on site are not protected from fire as per Florida Statutes; and they are also afraid of the building security and people breaking into the structure and tampering with evidence or bodies. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that has ever happened; with Mr. Parker responding not to his knowledge.

Commissioner O'Brien stated a fireproof file weighs 1,500 pounds and costs $800 per cabinet. Mr. Parker stated Florida Statutes indicate they have to have a fire suppression system, not the typical water suppression system, but more like a foam or halon-type; so that is part of the problem and something they do not have right now. Chairman Carlson stated if it is required by Florida Statutes, the Board needs to address it. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how many file cabinets does the Medical Examiner need; with Fire Chief Bill Farmer responding he does not know if staff can answer that because it would be the City of Rockledge's fire inspectors who would look at it. Commissioner O'Brien suggested staff find out; and consider putting a halon system over a file area and achieve security. He stated if they look, they could find some Department of Defense fire-proof file closets with tumblers on the front, which could be bought for about $75, and have a locksmith replace the tumblers, as he bought several for his business.

Mr. Parker advised the thrust of their concern is more than fires; they want to comply with Florida Statutes, that is why they are asking for it; and more than fires is the security of the facility. He stated it is not an alarmed facility; they believe keys may have been compromised in the past; and they want to re-key all the locks and make it a secure facility. He stated right now they are not comfortable having to testify to the quality of the evidence. Chairman Carlson stated the Board needs to move that item forward because the safety and security of the file cabinets are statutorily driven.

REPORT, RE: OVERALL BUDGET FOR FY 2001-02

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the rough total was $2,106,001; the additional revenue is $528,000; and the General Fund increase, based on what the Board has done so far, is roughly $1,578,001.89. He stated there is also a potential increase in Mosquito Control for the debt service on the helicopter, which he is not sure of at this time; District 1 Parks and Recreation MSTU increased by $146,000 to fund operation and maintenance of referendum projects; and District 4 Parks and Recreation MSTU increased by $79,000 for Riverwalk Park.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that is doable under the cap-it; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired how much additional revenue did the County get from new construction and improved property values; with Budget Manager Dennis Rogero responding just over $2.5 million.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how much are salary increases for employees; with Mr. Jenkins responding 4% COLA and 1 or 2% merit for employees, and 4% COLA for managers. Mr. Jenkins advised the LIU Contract employees will get 4%, 1% and 1%, so the Board is consistent with the LIU Contract. Commissioner Higgs inquired about increase in health insurance costs to employees; with Mr. Jenkins responding the rate increase is 17% which is about $5 or $6 per employee, but that is coming to the Board at a later meeting. Commissioner Higgs inquired when will salary increases be given; with Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten responding the first pay period in December as set in the Union Contract. Commissioner Higgs inquired how many employees are in the Union; with Mr. Jenkins responding it covers all blue collar workers whether they are in the Union or not; and he would guess between 400 and 500 employees. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the County has done one pay increase at one time and one at another time; with Mr. Jenkins responding he believe it has over the years; however, that compounds the problem for the following year because it would have to make it up. He stated they are paying increases with recurring revenues; and the more they are delayed, the bigger the gap it will have to make up the following year.

PERSONAL APPEARANCE - KAY BURK, BREVARD CULTURAL ALLIANCE, RE:
INCREASE IN GRANTS FUNDING AND UNIFORM REPORTING SYSTEM

Kay Burk, representing Brevard Cultural Alliance, presented a handbook to the Board; thanked it for its input two workshops ago concerning County Community Cultural Grants Program; and advised they have incorporated information provided to them at that workshop concerning accountability and certification guidelines. She stated they will be working with the TDC to see that the same accountability and certification guidelines come in the reporting part of the TDC grants, which have already been taken care of as far as the grants panel meeting for the coming year. She stated they will be tweaking it along with TDC throughout the coming year so they will have a uniform reporting and accountability system between the two grant programs. Ms. Burk advised BCA manages the Community Cultural Grants Program for Brevard County; it also receives input from the arts and cultural organizations; and through the community cultural planning process that took place over the last year, they asked that the grants program be increased to $1.00 per capita. She stated they submitted a budget request with a change justification asking that be addressed this year; but they appreciate the fact that it is still in the budget at its current level. She noted it would be $476,230 at $1.00 per capita; it is currently $125,000 from General revenue and $65,000 from TDC for a total of $190,000; and requested, on behalf of the cultural community, approval of $1.00 per capita or any additional increase the Board may make available to them.

Chairman Carlson stated the $476,000 at $1.00 per capita, minus the $190,000 would be a request for $286,000; BCA is looking at a strategy to implement the cultural community plan; and after the BCA gets into reviewing the plan, perhaps Ms. Burk could provide the Board with a list from the cultural community of anything that may be capital-related that could be considered for the sales tax. She stated she does not know if the Board is supportive of the request for additional dollars to increase the grants; she would support it with the idea it may be deleted in the end, depending on how things come out; and inquired if any Commissioner wants to put a motion forward to increase the cultural grants. No response was heard. She requested Ms. Burk and BCA come up with a strategy to find some of those dollars. Ms. Burk stated she needs to meet with Messrs. Jenkins, Ernestine and Lusk to address some of the issues around BCA's cost for services in the coming year.

REPORT, RE: CLARIFICATION OF SHERIFF'S BUDGET

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised he needs to correct something he said earlier; and that is that the $600,000 is from the law enforcement MSTU and not the General Fund.

REPORT, RE: CITIZENS' PERSPECTIVE OF THE BUDGET

Commissioner Scarborough advised he understands some of the things the budget will fund such as deputy sheriffs, but Information Systems priorities are esoteric, such as what does it mean if the system fails, and what does it do for Brevard County and its citizens, etc. He stated the Board needs to fully understand which ones it wants to continue and which ones it does not want to continue; and requested staff provide the Board with a citizens' perspective of what they are getting from each of those budget items. Commissioner Higgs stated it is important to translate the budget into real services to the people. Commissioner Scarborough stated that would be nice when they get into discussions of the budget.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 4:33 p.m.

ATTEST: _________________________________
SUSAN CARLSON, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)