September 18, 2003

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special workshop session on September 18, 2003, at 2:00 p.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairperson Jackie Colon, Commissioners Ron Pritchard, Nancy Higgs, and Susan Carlson, County Manager Tom Jenkins and Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson. Commissioner Truman Scarborough’s presence was by teleconference. Absent was: County Attorney Scott Knox.

Chairperson Colon advised the workshop is to get some questions answered before the final public hearing on the budget; Commissioner Scarborough is on the phone; and inquired if he can hear the discussion; with Commissioner Scarborough responding there is a buzz and it is not coming in very clear. Chairperson Colon stated she will have staff make the adjustments needed; and after adjustments Commissioner Scarborough stated it was a little better.

PUBLIC COMMENTS, RE: FY 2003-04 BUDGETS

Chairperson Colon advised there are speaker cards from Charlie Morris, Kelly Brown, Joe Steckler, and Mike Slayton, and she will allow them to speak first.

Charlie Morris, President of U.S. Space Walk of Fame Foundation in Titusville, advised the grant they asked for is to continue their effort to provide bronze panels for the Apollo monument. He stated the monuments they have in place in Titusville are at Space View Park next to Veterans Park on the river facing Kennedy Space Center; and presented pictures to the Board, but not the Clerk, of the Apollo monument. He stated around the base of the monument are 12 large bronze panels; those panels are being done by artist Sandy Storm of Cocoa; they have a contract with her for 12 panels; and they also have work being done with Able Monument for the installations on their monuments. He noted the engravings on those of people who send them money are also done by Able Monument. Mr. Morris stated the Space View Park has Mercury and Gemini monuments that have been put in over the past five or six years; the crows that come there vary in numbers; but for major launches like the return flight that is upcoming, there will be 10,000 to 15,000 people very close to those monuments, along the river, along the overpass, and on the other side in Parrish Park. He stated what they get out of it are revisits; folks who come in take the word back to their hometowns; up to recently they had grants from the State for $180,000, $40,000 of which is still pending; they were turned down last year because of budget constraints; and that is one of the reasons they applied for a grant of $40,000 that the Committee agreed to. He stated that would get them a panel and a half; they still have $40,000 coming from the State and $10,000 from a gift; so they can end up with five panels to go around the Apollo monument. He stated the brochure they will pass out to the Board shows where Space View Park is located in Titusville, pictures of the existing Mercury and Gemini monuments, and the artist’s concept for the Apollo monument; the monies will go to the panels to complete the monument; those panels are large in size from 7 to 5 feet by 4 feet; they will be put in clay then sent to be bronzed; and that is their main feature for Space View Park. He stated it had originally intended to go on property just north of the Gemini monument, but that property was sold; a gated community was approved by the City of Titusville; however, a new location that use to be McCotter Ford property adjacent to the Gemini monument across Indian River Avenue is now available for that monument. He stated they still have Space View Park continuing along the way it was intended, but not straight up north across the river; and the pamphlet the Board sees has a map of where the Apollo monument is due west of the Gemini monument just across the street.

Kelly Brown of Titusville advised she is raising her three children in a home that her grandparents purchased and moved into in the 1960’s; her history and that of her large extended family goes back 40 years in Brevard County; and while the County has been a late bloomer over the past few decades as far as economic and retail development, it has always been a quiet, peaceful, un-congested place to live a simple life, raise a family, and enjoy the unspoiled beauty of its generous natural environment. She stated its beaches, rivers, wildlife refuges, and natural communities rival any in the nation, which may eventually be to its detriment; Brevard County has been discovered; the current housing boom will soon be followed by a large influx of retailers and other service providers; and soon natural areas will be parking lots, roads, and infrastructure where there were once woods and wildlife. She stated the Board has been heading in the right direction by implementing a Comprehensive Plan that had a strong conservation element by adopting strategic goals for protecting the environment and preserving the ecosystem that would make any resident proud, and by establishing a natural Resources Management Office, which employs a staff of passionate and dedicated environmental professionals to provide for the long-term management of the County’s significant environmental resources. Ms. Brown stated Brevard County is no longer the wallflower and is becoming known as one of the last remaining areas in the State to offer natural communities, unspoiled beaches, uncrowded roads, and a place to get away and enjoy easy access to a vast array of natural resources at a nominal cost. She stated when the Board approved the Comprehensive Plan in 1988, it identified through numerous public meetings and workshops the path Brevard County must take to achieve a high quality of life for its citizens; by disarraying the Natural Resources Management Office management section it will effectively send a message that the Board no longer cares for its citizens; and requested the Board hold steady to a course that was set 15 years ago by its own citizens to achieve a quality of life beyond the urban sprawl seen in South Florida and other parts of the country. Ms. Brown stated within the Comprehensive Plan, the conservation element contains a number of policies that target conservation of natural resources, implementation of energy saving strategies, and protection of air, water, and groundwater resources; some of those programs have been successfully completed or nearing completion, such as beach restoration; and there are ongoing programs such as the artesian wells program and stormwater utilities. She stated they have seen original policy timeframes extended several times or not completed because of public debate over implementation; and to help prevent further erosion of Brevard County’s quality of life, the Natural Resources Management Office needs to complete its role in turning this community into something they could all be proud of. She requested the Board not stray from the right course for Brevard County and instead of cutting into the meat of its staff, it should enhance their abilities and direct them to continue their efforts for meeting the goals and objectives listed in the Comprehensive Plan. She noted Brevard’s future is in the hands of the Board.

Joe Steckler, Director of the Alzheimer’s Foundation, advised the reason he came here today is because he read the comments of Commissioner Pritchard about getting out of the charity business and he is very concerned and hopes that he understands, as well as the rest of the Board and County staff, that it is because they have nonprofit organizations that they are able to help a lot of people that would not receive help if those organizations were not available. He stated when he started out as the Director of the Alzheimer’s Foundation, they received $37,000 from the County, and he told the Board he hoped one day they would not have to ask the County for any more money; he did not plan that they would grow from $400,000 to a $2 million organization serving over 500 people a month; nor did he think there would be a lack of information coming from the State on program availability. He stated an example of that is in 1998 there was a pilot program where $38 million were put in six counties; all the counties were adjacent to Brevard County; and there was only one county that had more elderly people in it than Brevard County did, and Brevard County was the only county excluded from the funding. He stated he worked for four years to try and get that program here, and finally was able to get so close that they got a contract signed, then they were informed there was no more money. Mr. Steckler stated in this current year $30 million more was placed in that program; there is $68 million for nine counties; and only one of those counties had more elderly people than Brevard County. He stated he wishes the nonprofit organizations would find out those things and go to the Board, Legislators, and County staff to provide information and bring those programs here. He stated the $95,000 the Brevard Alzheimer’s Foundation is fortunate to get from the County out of the $500,000 CBP funds helps to leverage $1.19 million of care in Brevard County; that is a lot of dollars magnified by the amount of money brought in by other nonprofit organizations. He stated right now they are working with the Commissioners Offices, Legislators Offices, and County staff to bring in a dementia deficit program that is supposed to come out in certain counties to be selected for $5.6 million; that is almost as much as the Statewide Alzheimer’s Disease Program gets; and to help people they need programs like that. He stated they have been working since last March on the United Health Care program for the diversion project; they finally got their provider number last week; but they still have not been able to bill for clients they have been serving for two months. Mr. Steckler stated nonprofit organizations cannot pay people to provide those services unless they have a way to do it; and that is why they need a partnership among the County, State, and a lot of people pulling together to make it work. He stated reducing Health and Human Services’ budget would greatly delete the $500,000 in CBO funds; that is only 600ths of one percent of the total budget, a very insignificant amount; it may sound like a lot of money, but whatever the Board cuts, it should be careful because the overall impact could be very harmful to a lot of people who need care.

Mike Slayton with St. Johns River Water Management District advised he has two projects to discuss with the Board; both are valuable water resources projects; and both of them are cooperative efforts among multiple agencies, including St. Johns River Water Management District and the County. He stated the first is the dredging of Lake Sawgrass and Lake Hell ‘N Blazes; they are seeking $200,000 in cooperative funding from the County to implement it; and challenged the Board to find a place in its budget where $200,000 investment is going to result in about $14 million worth of work being done from other funding sources. He stated it has beneficial impacts in terms of fisheries, recreational fisheries, and a multiplier that has been estimated in terms of tens of millions of dollars to beneficial impacts to the local economy. Mr. Slayton stated in addition, there is a water supply benefit; the City of Melbourne receives its primary drinking water supply from Lake Washington; the City is a significant contributor to his project as well; and the Board can measure the $200,000 out over this coming fiscal year and the following to have that be tempered as far as impact on its budget. He stated the second project is a long-standing cooperative effort that the District and the County has enjoyed; it is the abandoned artesian well-plugging program; it has been traditionally about $35,000 each for the District and the County; and that work is going to be slowed down a little bit next year. He stated they are looking for $15,000 from the County; and the source of those funds could come from the Water Resources Department Enterprise Fund because it is a direct connection to water supply. He stated hundreds of millions of gallons of water a day have been saved through this program; and they ask the Board’s favorable consideration of the $15,000.

Chairperson Colon inquired if staff has been in contact with the City of Melbourne; with County Manager Tom Jenkins responding yes; he contacted the City Manager and told him this item was up today for discussion, and that the Board wanted to at least consider or discuss the feasibility of an additional users charge for the water customers of the City Water System. He stated the response he received by email basically said they felt they were already assuming a very significant portion of the local contribution of about $800,000 if he is not mistaken, and they did not propose to further consider a user’s fee.

Commissioner Carlson stated she got a copy of the email where Mr. Schluckebier basically stated that even though the City is the responsible party for providing water to a very large portion of the population both in the City and the County, he did not feel the City should have to take on the entire amount of the shortfall; and he made a very good statement that the problem was not created by the City. She stated obviously they needed a water source when the City was growing and they turned to Lake Washington, but much of the impact came from agricultural interests many years ago; and it built up with everything else that goes with it. She stated the apparent advantages to leveraging the federal dollars and all those things that come from that in terms of cleanup of the St. Johns River, the headwaters, and all the work the District has done, this was just the next important step to make sure that they keep their particular water source, Lake Washington, as pristine as possible for future users; and she was trying to come up with a number that would qualify how much the County should put in and basically did a simple division of how many users are in the unincorporated area. She stated if they had two million of two twenty-five or whatever the number was at the beginning, it was about a half a million from the County side because that is how many unincorporated users they had; and the remainder would be on the City’s side. She stated the City has chosen to go out to its users and try to collect money; and they have had some success to the point where Mr. Slayton has stated that they now are about $200,000 short. Commissioner Carlson stated she believes it is a very important project; and in deliberations on the budget today, she hopes the Board can find some money; there are no guarantees; and inquired of Mr. Slayton, if the County cannot come up with the money, potentially $100,000 this year and $100,000 next year, but it has signed an agreement that says it will look to have the money available to the project, what is the date for that; with Mr. Slayton responding they would look to sign an agreement with the County next summer, probably next June; they would look to have funds available in September or October 2004; and that would be on the cusp of the two fiscal years to accommodate the County’s situation because it is a tough situation. Mr. Slayton stated they also spoke with the Corps of Engineers, which is willing to entertain the concept of in-kind services if that is an alternative strategy that the County can provide funding or equivalent match to. Commissioner Carlson stated the Commissioners seated here today have been given a lot of information; it is up to the Board to decide whether it is going to find money or if it can find money; right now the Board has in front of it a cut of between $7 and $10 million; so it is going to be very difficult to accept a budget that is going to cut services and still find money that they need. She stated it is going to be a challenge; and hopefully Mr. Slayton can stick around for a little while until the Board gets into that discussion in case he needs to be brought up to discuss further on that.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board wants to discuss it now; with Commissioner Carlson responding it is fine with her, but there is a lot of other stuff that has to be discussed. Commissioner Higgs stated she sits on the TDC and there were capital projects that were brought up for the TDC to consider; the TDC looked at about a $500,000 amount in capital facilities budget; and they have not allocated all of that in terms of projects. She stated she believes there is about $200,000 there. County Manager Tom Jenkins indicated there is $332,000 left and the Board earmarked $200,000 of that $332,000 according to the memo he received from Commissioner Higgs. Commissioner Higgs stated that may be the right numbers; but she does not see any reason why that is not an appropriate capital project for TDC funds. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not think that is the problem; it does fit the TDC requirement in terms of capital projects; she does not know what their expectations are for using that money; but if there is $300,000 available and the Board can take a hundred thousand dollars this time and a hundred thousand dollars next time, that is going to be less damaging to whatever their interests are in terms of any capital projects. Commissioner Higgs stated there are no plans for particular capital projects at this point; the Capital Facilities Committee and the TDC opened up four projects; she sent a list of those projects that were considered and recommended to the Commissioners; and in her mind that is a very significant project with significant federal funds and community partners coming in. She stated if the Board makes a commitment today on the $200,000 to go to Lake Hell ‘N Blazes it does not impact the projects; and she will be happy to make a motion to commit from the capital facilities budget unless the Board chooses to do some other thing or find another way to do sharing of resources and some in-kind services. She stated the Board can make a commitment today to proceed using those funds and if there are other opportunities that come up, it does not have to make a final commitment until 2004, but it will know that fund can be used. Commissioner Carlson stated she has no problem with that.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded for discussion by Commissioner Carlson, to commit $200,000 from the TDC Capital Facilities Fund for the dredging of Lake Sawgrass and Lake Hell ‘N Blazes project.

Mr. Jenkins inquired if it is legal to use those funds; with Assistant County Attorney Shannon Wilson responding yes, under the TDC statute, it would be a permitted use as long as it is open to the public. Commissioner Higgs stated it is absolutely open; and the lakes are a major opportunity for tourists to use, so it is totally appropriate.

Chairperson Colon inquired when will the TDC Board meet again; with Commissioner Higgs responding Wednesday. Chairperson Colon suggested bringing the issue to the TDC’s attention. She stated she does not have problems supporting something like that, but it would be better to at least discuss it with the folks and let them know that the Board is interested in taking $200,000 and giving it to the project.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Mr. Slayton said the County could provide some in-kind services; and inquired what type of service might that be; with Mr. Slayton responding earth-moving equipment, construction of levees, perimeter dikes to contain the spoil material, etc. absent the cash contribution. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Road and Bridge discussed this; with Mr. Jenkins responding Mr. Slayton discussed it with him. Mr. Jenkins stated the maintenance part of Road and Bridge is funded through gas tax so that would not work; there is a construction crew that basically operates based on the revenues it generates or creates; historically they have been able to generate more money than it costs to operate the construction crew; and that money has been utilized to supplement Road and Bridge over the past several years. He stated depending upon the time and length of work, if Road and Bridge construction crew does it, it will reduce the revenues they bring in; but it is possible on some limited basis that they could provide some assistance. He stated they have not gotten to the detail level of looking at the construction work itself and seeing how much time it would take; but on a limited basis, it is possible that the construction crew could do some work. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board would have to offset that cost. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the District needs the $200,000 by October 2004 or just $100,000 then; with Mr. Slayton responding they would need $200,000 in October 2004. Commissioner Carlson stated they need a signed commitment by October 30, 2003 according to Kirby Green, Executive Director of St. Johns River Water Management District. Mr. Slayton stated they would be looking for a letter from the County by October 30, 2003 indicating its desire to participate and willingness to participate.

Commissioner Higgs stated there is no problem having the TDC look at it; the Board could go ahead and make a commitment today using that as its resource and continue through the County Manager to work on in-kind services and other opportunities; but it can make the commitment, take it to the TDC on Wednesday, and they can make a recommendation back to the Board. She stated the TDC is an advisory group and the Board has the ultimate responsibility for the funds; the Board has been extremely deferential in dealing with the TDC; and this is an important project. She stated she would be happy to take it to the TDC next week with the Board’s recommendation; and if something else transpires, the Board can find other ways between now and June to work it out.

Chairperson Colon stated she would not support a motion today and would be more than willing to make that motion in October. She stated the Board has at least three meetings before October 30; and she believes it is a worthwhile project for the County, but she is uncomfortable and would like to give the respect to the TDC Board that she feels it should get. She stated she does not foresee a problem, but that is the way to do it.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered; Commissioners Scarborough, Higgs, and Carlson voted aye; and Commissioners Pritchard and Colon voted nay.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it was not something that had to be done right now; he recognizes the avenue is available; but he does want to hear from the TDC before making a decision.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the motion covered $200,000 or $100,000 each year; with Chairperson Colon responding $200,000. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board is making a commitment that it will provide that amount as required. Mr. Jenkins stated it is due October of next year, so it gives the Board two fiscal years. Commissioner Carlson stated even though she agrees that the TDC ought to be recognized in the process, it spans further than just the TDC and tourism side of things; it spans water quality issues and a lot of other issues that the Board is ultimately responsible for; so taking the action now and not waiting is justified, but the Board still needs the input from the TDC.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board is going to direct staff to take it to the TDC or does it want her to take it. Commissioner Carlson suggested Commissioner Higgs take it. Chairperson Colon inquired how would Commissioner Higgs want to handle it; with Commissioner Higgs responding she could get it on the agenda for their consideration. Chairperson Colon inquired if there is anything wrong with staff doing it; with Commissioner Higgs responding no, that would be better and they can do the agenda item. Chairperson Colon instructed Mr. Jenkins to have staff take the issue to the TDC.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chairperson Colon advised in the City of Palm Bay, Generation Chosen House of Prayer is having a community carnival at Riviera Park with puppet shows, games, moon walk, etc. and it is free to the public.

Chairperson Colon advised on Sunday at 2:00 p.m. at the Senior Center on Culver Avenue there is going to be a fashion show for under-privileged children; they will be the ones doing the fashion show; and all proceeds will go to help those children.

BOARD DISCUSSION, RE: FY 2003-04 COUNTY BUDGET

Commissioner Pritchard stated since it was already brought up, he would like to talk about the Housing and Human Services Department and his suggestion for reducing the amount of money; he knows there are a lot of good programs, with Alzheimer’s being a particular one; there are Meals on Wheels and many others; however, his concern is duplicity and different agencies not giving as much to recipients because of high overhead and other costs. He stated give.org is an on-line web service that lists the amount of money that certain social organizations receive and the amount that actually goes to their participants; the threshold they use to determine whether it is considered a well-managed operation is the 85% rule; and that means 85 cents of every dollar they receive is given to the program directly and not overhead, salaries, travel, cars, etc. He stated that is why he is proposing that the entire Housing and Human Services element, not only what was listed in his memo, but all the social services, need to be looked at and evaluated based on return and what they are providing to constituents. He stated if there is duplication, then they should merge. Commissioner Pritchard stated recently some folks came to his office because they want to start another community center and compete for the same dollars that are now going elsewhere; there is just too much duplication; provably one of the easiest ways to look at whether it is effective is to determine who is providing the most bang for the buck, where the duplication lies, and see what they can streamline; and if that means merging agencies, then that is what they should do. He stated that is why he brought up the issue about Housing and Human Services.

Chairperson Colon stated she would like to give staff an opportunity to answer that because it is a good question, something the Board tackled about three years ago, not just in Housing and Human Services, but CBO, CDBG, and all those different organizations. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to qualify it one step further; when he toured many of the facilities with Irene Burdett, she mentioned that there used to be some sort of coordinating council that would review programs and other applications for new programs to make sure that they did not have duplication, and that each one would tend to stand alone on its own merit; and there was so much cross purposes yet everybody had their own building and staff, so perhaps constituents were not as well served as they could have been.

Housing and Human Services Director Gay Williams advised she is very pleased to say that for the most part, through the Housing and Human Services Department, they have eradicated a lot of the services provided in the community like what Commissioner Pritchard has found; in the past that might have been something that was an object of concern or replication and duplication; but through the planning process they have instituted, they have worked very hard to get collaboration and partnerships within the community working together to provide services and to assure that there are not any duplication of services. She stated any funding received from the Board through her Office to the organizations are by requests for proposals; they review those proposals and provide recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners and ask those agencies to do some hard things; and if those agencies are not performing, those funds have been returned and they are held accountable. Ms. Williams stated that has developed a very good cohesiveness throughout the community and a good partnership among all those organizations working together. She stated they have planning sessions together; they know what services are available, where the gaps are, what is needed, and insure there are no replications and duplications; and they work together to meet the needs that have been identified within the community.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired if any of those agencies are returning less than 85% to the program. He stated by that he means for each dollar 85 cents would go directly to the program; and that is why he asked for a survey to be filled out to look at the best return on investment and having a standard of a certain percent going to the constituents. Ms. Williams stated she cannot break it down in that perspective, but can show where the money is going. She stated they have to provide her a budget and she has to approve the budget; that budget shows where the dollars are going to be spent, how they are going to be spent, whether it is in case management, making sure there is someone to oversee clients, beds, actual inventory provided to clients, appeals, etc.; so there is a high level of accountability with all the organizations. Commissioner Pritchard stated one of the organizations he ran across had a tenant and the tenant had a different service; he cannot recall the total dollars it had, but it had four clients; and his point is can something like that be merged into something else and why have such a budget that was pushing $100,000 to manage four clients. Ms. Williams stated she cannot speak to that particular agency and does not know which one that is or whether it receives any money from the Board of County Commissioners. She stated not all of the agencies within the County receive funding from the Board; there are other sources they utilize; and if she knew which agency it is, she might be able to address that. Commissioner Pritchard stated his concern is that the programs that are responsible and viable are the ones that receive the funding; and the programs that are providing more benefit to the people who run the program are the ones that should not receive any funding. He stated he wants to make sure that everything they spend is being spent responsibly. He stated one of the standards the Board could use is a measure of how effectively the money is being spent in return on investment; the organization he mentioned give.org. is a website that has a way of measuring the amount that comes in and the amount that goes out; and its standard is 85%. He inquired if the agencies Ms. Williams deals with fill out IRS 990 forms; with Ms. Williams responding yes they do. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if Ms. Williams has a handle as to what percent of a dollar goes to the program and specifically to the individuals, excluding overhead, salaries, cars, perks, etc.; with Ms. Williams responding no, the only oversight that she provides is of the money that the Board allocates to them; and she asks for information concerning the business and operation, but does not monitor anything outside of the money that is provided by the Board; so if it is just $10,000, she monitors that $10,000. Commissioner Pritchard stated his concern is the Board may be only giving $10,000, but with whatever else they are getting, the $10,000 might give them the ability to misspend $10,000 somehow, some way; and if that is multiplied out, then the County could have that becoming a line item in its budget as it has been doing with different arts, etc. He stated each year they know they are going to get that $10,000 and they can manipulate the budget; so he wants to know what each one of those agencies have and how they are spending their money so he knows that his contribution, which may be only a small part of their operation dollars, is being spent wisely and is not being used to fund perks.

Chairperson Colon stated she has concerns about any monies that are being given, not just to Housing and Human Services, but any programs, whether it is through TDC or whatever, to the point where she even wants to see their books and be able to do some audits. She inquired if that is something the Board is legally able to do or can it just monitor that money that is given to individual agencies. Ms. Wilson stated if the Board wants the condition for receipt of County monies, it can tie in that they must be willing to disclose that information.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board wants performance contracts that have particular measurable outcomes that it can monitor for all organizations that receive money through Housing and Human Services or does it want to monitor their financial condition as well; with Ms. Williams responding they have specific measurements that they must perform for the dollars they have asked the County to give them; and her staff does monitor that. She stated they do their own audit of the programs and the funding, but they also make those organizations, as a condition of receiving the money, provide them with audits of their programs. Commissioner Higgs stated so staff is doing it.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not think they are doing what he is asking to be done; what they are doing is an audit of sorts, but he would like to see where the organizations that County contributions go to are spending the money, all the money; and he does not want them to say they are going to take the $10,000 from the County and put it into something that absolutely works for them. He stated he wants to know where all the money is going because he does not want the County’s $10,000 contribution to allow them to misuse some other money some place else; and one of the ways to do it would be through the 990 forms, and looking at what they have. Commissioner Pritchard stated there was a recent indictment in Miami with the Teachers Union President stealing $500,000 or so; the Red Cross with 9/11 after it received a certain limit, got tired of giving it to the people so they started buying computers for themselves; and in the 1980’s the president of United Way was indicted for millions of dollars that he took. He stated there are people calling for save the firefighters and 92% of that money is going to the guy on the end of the phone; and there is too much money that is being given out and not enough accountability. Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board needs to look at every program it contributes to, make sure that the money is spent effectively, make sure the threshold of the money being spent is what the Board considers to be appropriate, whether it is 85% or 75% or 80%, and that it is going directly to the persons who need the meals on wheels and not to perks, or glorified office buildings, or padded expense accounts. He stated if there is a way to co-mingle activities of different services in one building it would be a good example of co-mingling assets so that money is better spent; whether they hit 85% or not, he does not know, but he really wants to know where the money is going, and a lot of people in the community feel the same way. Chairperson Colon stated there is nothing wrong with that kind of accountability.

Commissioner Higgs stated she agrees totally on accountability; what she has tried to do and the Board has supported over the years is that the Board have each contract provide specified objectives and outcomes that can be measured; so what the Board is measuring in a sense is the service it is buying, a particular program from a particular entity; and that is what has been audited for most of the programs. She stated it is like going to Home Depot and buying a particular product; the contracts proposed with those groups and to the CBO or any of the other agencies or committees are for proposed programs, or services, or products that they are selling to the County; and the various citizen groups look at and evaluate those programs to determine if they are worthwhile, if the County needs them, and if the cost is what they want to spend and make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Higgs stated that is what is monitored and what is measured; the Board may be able to go beyond that to what Commissioner Pritchard is talking about with the whole organization, but up to this point what has been the struggle is getting people to do it and be able to measure the service that the County is buying; and that is what it has done with the contracts, which has been very effective in getting services.

Chairperson Colon stated the Assistant County Attorney has stated that the Board is able to go there and can specify in the contract to meet certain criteria; that is something she would be interested in trying to get back in a report and how feasible and management it is. She stated if it is something that will create huge paperwork or require hiring someone to monitor, she wants to know that; but it is something that definitely needs to be looked at. She suggested staff return with a report to see whether it is something the Board can do.

Commissioner Carlson stated the County gets dollars from the State and federal governments with its matching dollars, and provides that to the community; and inquired if there are specific requirements in those contracts that say the Board could not do anything like that or specific accountability measures that the Board has to abide by when it signs up for those dollars that it matches. Ms. Williams stated she is not aware of anything that would prohibit looking into it further than what they are presently doing.

Commissioner Pritchard stated what would help is the 990 forms from all the organizations; that gives a fairly accurate summary in block form; and it would give the Board some idea as to how much is coming in and how much is going out and in what direction. He stated he does not think it is going to happen this year. Chairperson Colon stated but it is time to discuss it. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is what he is doing; it is something that will be part of next year’s budget process; and that is why he is advocating so many meetings with every department throughout the year so that the Board can get a good grasp of where the money is being spent. He stated he wants to ensure that programs like Alzheimer’s, Meals on Wheels, and others are well funded; the constituency deserves that; and he wants to make sure that is where it is going and it is not going to bloated overhead.

County Manager Tom Jenkins advised the Board has not done the contracts for the next fiscal year, so it still has the opportunity to include certain things it wants; and inquired if the 990 form is one and the ratio of administration to service. He noted there is no reason why that cannot be factored in.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to include in contracts with agencies the requirement of a 990 form and a ratio of administration to service. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Pritchard stated his other item is Natural Resources Management; he said the head count should be reduced from 22 to 18 and the County needs to prioritize and put emphasis on those functions that relate directly to quality of life and reduce those that are purely regulatory in nature in response to State and federal unfunded mandates. He stated it is his recommendation and would like to have it researched and a report brought back. He stated same for Planning and Zoning and Tourist Development; if the Board is taking $200,000 from TDC, maybe another 15% might work too; and his recommendation is to reduce by 15% activities of low priority than most of the government functions. He stated Parks and Recreation was a 3% reduction; the reason for that is that is as far as he got; he could go through and just keep going and going and going; but the whole purpose for setting up next year’s budget and the schedule therein is to go through and take out a percent here and add a percent there. He stated what he is looking at is based on his assumptions that are things, which possibly be done; he has a draft of a proposed budget development calendar; and it does not give dates, it gives months. Chairperson Colon inquired if Commissioner Pritchard wants the Board to start now; with Commissioner Pritchard responding if there is any way that the Board can take the recommendations and some of what is proposed, that would be wonderful; but he is not going to make a knee-jerk reaction and simply say take this and take that until he is fully informed as to how programs are being operated, how many people really need to run a program, the money is being used effectively, there is no duplication, and it is the right people, right place, right size. He stated he has proposed some areas he thought Mr. Jenkins could look at, and if it is possible to make reductions in this eleventh hour, that would be great. He stated next year’s proposal starts October with the County Manager and Departments meeting and critiquing the prior budget process; November the Board becomes involved; December it sets a calendar year; and January, February, March, April, and all the way through there are things to do. He stated it is a proposed draft budget development calendar for the Commissioners to review; and what it is going to do is give the Board ample opportunity to become much more informed with the operation of the various Departments as well as the development of the budget process.

Commissioner Carlson stated Commissioner Pritchard brought it up at the last meeting and she thought there was a motion to bring it to the next Board meeting for full discussion; and inquired if it is the same document; with Commissioner Pritchard responding it should be the same document. Chairperson Colon inquired if it is possible to have it for the second meeting in October; with Mr. Jenkins responding certainly. Mr. Jenkins advised staff was also asked to do some comparisons with other counties to see how they do it and get some additional ideas; they are doing that; and identified half a dozen or so comparable counties. He stated they will add the report with the proposal from Commissioner Pritchard for the Board’s discussion. Commissioner Carlson stated the only issue she thought was Commissioner Pritchard suggested the County Manager and Department heads meet in October to critique the prior budget process; and if the Board starts pushing into October, pushing it into November, and December, that is when it ends up finding that it is in the position it is in now; so she would want to jump out of the box as soon as possible if the Board is going to actually do something with the calendar. Commissioner Pritchard stated October is next month, and that is when the County Manager and office directors meet to critique this year’s process. He stated at the second meeting in November, the Board, County Finance Director, and Citizens Budget Review Committee can critique the prior budget process based on their discussions in October.

Chairperson Colon stated she likes the idea of meeting with the Citizens Budget Review Committee and be able to have those discussions; and there is nothing wrong with the Board starting to look at things so that it does not have the same things happen at the eleventh hour of cuts and things like that. She stated those are the things that need to be discussed way ahead of time; and inquired if there is anything Commissioner Pritchard wishes to add to this year’s budget or is this a plan of attack for the beginning of the year. Commissioner Pritchard stated what he has submitted is what he would like to have reviewed; Mr. Jenkins has provided a response to that which he would like to discuss on Tuesday; and maybe there will be some revisions to this based on discussions today. He stated Commissioner Higgs has a memo with some very good items listed; and if the Board can combine some of that it should be able to do something. Chairperson Colon stated to be more specific, she wants to know where she stands as far as things that are being asked; one of them she saw as in regards to the Natural Resources Management Department; and others were Parks and Recreation, Planning and Zoning, and Tourist Development. Commissioner Carlson stated she is not sure where Tourist Development comes in because that is not something that impacts property tax revenues or CAPIT calculations.

Commissioner Higgs stated she thinks it does; one of the things the Board ought to consider is that there are a number of general fund dollars that go into Parks and Recreation; there are parks that are significantly used by tourists; and there are significant dollars coming to the County to the Tourism Council, but the Board has not offset any of the parks costs, primarily beach parks and river parks used by tourists. She stated if anyone looks at the tags at boat launching facilities, they are significant; so it is not improper for the Board to more aggressively look at dollars that are coming in from the tourism tax and use those to offset some of the general fund cost for recreation. She stated it is a concept the Board has never embraced; it is appropriate to look at that now and the Board give some direction; she does not know if the Board can do that; but a critical factor that she has seen in discussing this year’s budget and cash flow issues and what they ought to be doing in terms of reserves, maybe in the post budget process the Board needs to look at offsetting some of those general fund costs in parks and those facilities that are being largely used by tourists. She stated it should look at those tourist development dollars and make some decisions about using them even in this budget year. She stated it does not mean the Board is going to be able to drop the millage today; it would simply mean that it then could create some reserves that are then going to help the Board next year in September when it is faced with cash flow issues; and that is how she would see the effect. She stated she would like the Board today to say philosophically that it does not think it is improper to use some of those monies where it is lawfully available to the Board and is in the Florida Statutes to offset some of the tourist-related costs that the general fund is having to carry at this point. Chairperson Colon noted agreement with that suggestion. Commissioner Higgs requested staff review the budget of the tourist development dollars and bring back to the Board in October opportunities where it would be appropriate that some of the funds generated in tourism can offset the costs so that the Board could consider increasing its reserves. Chairperson Colon inquired if Commissioner Higgs is suggesting starting now for the next fiscal year; with Commissioner Higgs responding no, she is not talking about offsetting the millage this year or changing it, she is saying to look at it this year for the 2003-04 budget and get a recommendation of what is appropriately available to the Board and how it may offset some of the general fund costs in this year. She stated Commissioner Pritchard had a 15% number, and the Board can look at how tourism is spending its money and what it might be able to do. Chairperson Colon inquired if that is the Board’s philosophy and what it is aiming for; with Commissioner Higgs responding it is appropriate that some general fund costs be offset by those tourism dollars and the Board needs to look at that. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that offset could be used for reserves and would not change the millage rate; with Commissioner Higgs responding no, she is not asking to do that.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to direct staff to look at the budget of the tourist development tax and bring a report back to the Board in October of opportunities where it would be appropriate that some of the funds generated in tourism development can be used to offset costs of the general fund. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated in regard to health care costs, Mr. Jenkins sent a memo in regard to what health insurance has increased in the last few years, which is significant; and every day they are bombarded in the media with health care issues. She stated there are a number of problems that can be addressed by personal choices; as she said in the memo, she taught a university level course in personal health; and one of the things she has known for years and did some graduate study on is that so many things that health care is paying for can be minimized by some personal decisions. She stated if the Board continues to pay for health insurance and make it easy for everyone to get health care that is costing the County more than if they chose to go to an HMO; and unless they realize there are costs associated with health care and begin to see some immediate costs that could trigger or motivate some personal choices of the health care system, the cost the County pays is going to continue to grow. She suggested the Board take a position, in looking at the enrollment period, and a $5.00 per employee per month, to begin to give a token cost that those who choose to go into the more expensive plans pay proportionately more. She stated Mr. Jenkins had a figure in his memo of monies that would be generated if the Board makes some decisions; the County pays more per employee for those who go into the PPO; since the County pays more, the employee should pay more; and she thinks that is appropriate. She noted the Board has to begin to move people into the more economical programs; she is totally in agreement of offering those plans; but the Board has seen a huge increase in costs. Commissioner Higgs advised in 2000, the Board spent $18.8 million for health insurance; in 2003, it is spending $27.85 million; and that is $8 million and some change increase from 2000. She stated the Board needs to be a little more realistic and help people understand and be motivated for their own health care; and it is a philosophical issue with her as much as financing, to get people motivated to do something.

Chairperson Colon inquired if the $5.00 is just a number Commissioner Higgs picked or is that a number Mr. Abbate and she identified; with Commissioner Higgs responding no, she did not ask staff to come to the table and recommend to her some changes; she thought $5.00 is a minimal cost and she knows what it will generate; and $10.00 on the PPO side or whatever the Board deems to be appropriate. She stated the Board has to say to people health care costs a lot of money; health insurance costs a lot of money; it is not free; and it should initiate some costs in that regard. Chairperson Colon inquired how would the Board go about doing that as far as this fiscal year; with Commissioner Higgs responding the enrollment period begins in October. Mr. Jenkins stated the insurance takes effect January 1, 2004.

Commissioner Carlson stated she supports the fact that the Board ought to make sure people take responsibility for their own health; that is not an argument with her; the only question she has from previous conversations they have had on the Board, is if increasing the cost to some of the HMO members could push out those who should be covered by insurance but are not covered because that can make or break a particular employee’s pocketbook as far as where their priorities are. She stated she understands five dollars is not a lot, but going to McDonald’s could cost five dollars; she can support $10 or $20 for PPO because she thinks they can pay more; and she does not know what the cost is, but the School Board forces its employees to take their health care into consideration as far as the cost to them. Commissioner Higgs indicated she thinks it is over $500 a family.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he heard that the health costs reduce some employees’ take home pay and that concerns him; he can support equal distribution between PPO and HMO, but he hates to see employees impacted at the end of the spectrum. Commissioner Carlson stated that is what she was basically talking about, and maybe Mr. Abbate can add to the conversation. She inquired what is the impact, if the Board increases the contribution by $5 or $10, to those employees who have a hard time making ends meet. Mr. Jenkins inquired what would be the salary increases they would be getting versus the increase in the current program if it was increased by $5 or $10; with Human Resources Director Frank Abbate responding they did some calculations in that area; and depending on the nature of the plan the employee participates in, an entry level employee at the clerical support position, which is among the lower paid positions, the projected annualized increase would be about $476 for salaries; and as it stands now the project cost increase for HMO would be zero for employees only and up to $91 if it is for the employee with dependents. Mr. Abbate stated for PPO, which is the more expensive plan, that cost would vary between an additional $38 up to an additional $261; and that would be the annualized impact compared to the salary increase they would be receiving of $476 at the lower entry level position.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the distribution between HMO and PPO in terms of employees who might be impacted by an increase; with Mr. Abbate responding the membership in the HMO’s, Aetna and HealthFirst, is approximately 2,700 members in those two plans. He stated the EPO is about 670 members and the PPO has the highest contingency of retirees in it. He stated with retirees and employees and their dependents, there is a total of 965; and over half of those are retirees.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what was the zero to $91; with Mr. Abbate responding that was for those participating in the HMO plans; zero would be the current increase the employee would contribute and $91 would be the increase for those who have three or more dependents. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much is the County’s increase; with Mr. Abbate responding the rate will be going from $555 to $590 across the board for every employee no matter what plan they are on; and it is a consistent number for all employees. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if PPO is $38 for the individual and $261 for the family; with Mr. Abbate responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if deductibles and co-pay increased; with Mr. Abbate responding yes, it has increased over the years; they started at $2 on prescriptions and it went to $5; currently they have a three-tier plan where it is $10 for generic and $20 per prescription for brand drugs; and if it is not in the formulary, it would be $35 per prescription. Commissioner Pritchard inquired about an office visit; with Mr. Abbate responding it varies; they started once again several years ago at $5 and he believes it is now at $20 and $25. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if last year it was the same; with Mr. Abbate responding he believes it has been two years.

Commissioner Higgs stated the County has a wonderful health insurance plan; it provides for employees in the HMO at no cost for the employee and $38 for PPO. Commissioner Carlson inquired what do they pay if they have dependents; with Mr. Abbate responding the numbers he gave previously were annualized. Commissioner Higgs inquired what does an employee in PPO pay; with Mr. Abbate responding $34.99 is the projected proposed premium from the current $31.81. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is with dependents; with Mr. Abbate responding no, that is just the employee; and with dependents it would be going from $175.95 to $193.55. Commissioner Pritchard inquired about HMO monthly for individual and family; with Mr. Abbate responding for the individual employee it is zero for HMO; and if the employee has a family, there are two rate structures; the first is one or two dependents, child and/or spouse, the current rate is $36.69 and the proposed rate will be $40.36. Mr. Abbate advised if they have three or more dependents in HMO, it would go from $76 per month to $83.60 per month; and they apply the same rate across both HMO plans. Commissioner Pritchard inquired about PPO; with Mr. Abbate responding PPO current rate for employee only is $31.81 and it would go to $34.99; for employees who have dependent care coverage for one or two dependents, it would go from $175.95 to $193.55; and for three or more dependents, it would go from $217.88 to $239.67. Commissioner Pritchard inquired about EPO; with Mr. Abbate responding the employee contribution is $25.26 and would go to $27.78; for one or two dependents the rate would change from $67.19 monthly to $73.91; and for three or more dependents, it would go from $113.05 to $124.36 per month.

Mr. Jenkins advised Mr. Abbate made a point previously of some of the changes that are happening and that the Board needs to keep a separation between a couple of those otherwise everybody is going to take the more expensive program. Mr. Abbate advised the EPO plan was based on the Brevard Partnership plan; that plan will cease to exist on January 1 because of the RFP process they went through to try and reduce costs further in health care plans; the EPO is actually going to become Cigna; and they anticipate to have a $900,000 reduction overall in projected expenses, which has already been budgeted. He stated the Board needs to be careful in creating an additional gap between HMO and EPO because the EPO is actually becoming much closer to the HMO. He stated people who typically are in EPO and looking for additional freedom of choice will switch to PPO if they see less and less gap between EPO and PPO because those are the individuals whose freedom of choice is an important issue. He stated if they do that, it would actually increase the County’s cost. He stated the only reason that becomes an issue for the first time this year is because the EPO next year is projected to be much more similar to Aetna and Health First HMO plans; he would be able to give the Board more accurate numbers once they have a year experience under their belts; but they fully anticipate that is what is going to happen, that it will be closer to a third HMO alternative rather than a more expensive freedom of choice alternative.

Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board goes to $5 a month HMO contribution, what range would Mr. Abbate recommend it look at for the other plans; with Mr. Abbate responding he would suggest not increasing EPO any more than it increases HMO and that is because there is already a very wide gap; and the difference currently between PPO and EPO is $25.26 and $31.81 for employee only; so that is only $5 or $6 difference. He stated if the Board raises both PPO and HMO rates, the EPO rate should be at the lower end of any increase; and that is because of the changing of the plan. Commissioner Higgs inquired if $5, $5, and $10 would be consistent; with Mr. Abbate responding yes.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board could increase the rates for the single employee and not those with dependents; with Mr. Abbate responding however the Board decides to do it. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it would affect the calculation of costs; with Mr. Abbate responding no, it would reduce the amount of money the Board would be able to reduce the employee contribution by; but it will balance both ways.

Chairperson Colon inquired what does the Board want to do; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he still has a few questions; and inquired which is the least expensive for the County to fund, HMO, PPO, or EPO; with Mr. Abbate responding HMO.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he always had PPO and thought that was the way to go; he goes to one doctor all the time and he sends him to somebody else, so he is using his doctor as a gatekeeper as if he had an HMO and was paying PPO prices; so he switched. He stated nothing has changed except that he went down from several hundred dollars to thirty something dollars a month. He stated he wonders if employees really realize the benefit of going to HMO. Mr. Abbate stated the Board has done a very good job over the years with the steerage, because the vast majority of employees and their dependents that have coverage are in one of the HMO plans, probably about 70 to 80%. Commissioner Pritchard stated a lot of people have problems with HMO’s for whatever reasons; he also knows that a lot of physicians are packing up and leaving; a couple he knows of on Merritt Island are leaving because they cannot take the malpractice and all the tests they have to do to make sure they are not sued by friendly folks on television; so they are abandoning their practices and moving elsewhere. He stated one is going into the Army, others are traveling some place else; they want to continue with medicine, but they are not going to do it here any longer; so there is going to be a big effect on the community with what is happening to the medical profession. He stated he is wondering what the Board can do with the three plans that are going to be (a) in the best interest of the employee; (b) what is going to be good for the County; and (c) what the Board can do to try and maintain a medical community here that is going to provide choices. He inquired if Mr. Abbate had any suggestions; with Mr. Abbate responding the best suggestion he can give is the one they presented to the Board, which is to offer a competitive model that has several different vendors involved. Mr. Abbate stated the Board has a local HMO, which is Health First; and now it has two large national players, Cigna and Aetna, and is keeping the rates competitive among those three plans. He stated where they have experienced problems in the past with negotiating tactics with a particular vendor, is when there is a single source provider; they have much more leverage in negotiations; and the County gets the kind of turmoil that Commissioner Pritchard is describing; so his suggestion would be for the Board to continue to practice offering multiple competitive plans. Commissioner Pritchard stated Commissioner Higgs suggested $5, $5, and $10 monthly increases; and inquired what would that do and how much money will it be; with Mr. Abbate responding it would be approximately $200,000 ad valorem impact.

Mr. Jenkins inquired what is the $5, $5, $10; with Commissioner Higgs responding her intention was that employees in the HMO would contribute $5 per month, with no change for dependents. Commissioner Pritchard stated if there is no change in certain categories, there is going to be very little effect. Commissioner Carlson stated $5 a month is $2.50 a pay period, and if the Board is going to do something, it ought to be across-the-board increases. Mr. Abbate stated he understands that the $5 increase is for employee only; and every employee, whether they have dependents or not, would fact the $5 increase, but each dependent would not pay the extra $5. Commissioner Pritchard stated originally Commissioner Higgs was saying an employee would pay $5; Commissioner Carlson mentioned families; and what he suggested is across-the-board $5 increase, $5 increase, and $10 increase. He inquired if the $5 and $10 is after tax or pre-tax; with Mr. Abbate responding pre-tax because in Section 125 program, all premiums come in pre-tax. Commissioner Pritchard stated if they are to pay an extra $10 in pre-tax, it would really be about $7 or $8; and that is a way of sticking it to the feds a little bit. Mr. Jenkins inquired if the pre-tax is voluntary or across-the-board; with Mr. Abbate responding premiums are all pre-tax.

Chairperson Colon inquired what would the Board like to do; with Commissioner Pritchard responding it needs to explore it further or if the Board is ready to go with the $5, $5, and $10, it is a nominal amount. He stated the Board is facing some serious problems; he does not see where $5 in pre-tax, which could relate to $4 is going to have a devastating effect on anyone.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if there is any advantage of having an across-the-board number versus $5, $5, and $10; with Mr. Abbate responding he understands $5 is across-the-board for everyone in the two HMO plans and the EPO, and the $10 is across-the-board for employees, dependents, and retirees in the PPO. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Abbate thinks that is the best way to go in terms of the percentages and how the Board determines its costs versus just dealing with the single employee across-the-board; with Mr. Abbate responding that is the reasonable way to go.

Commissioner Pritchard stated the Board has a very inexpensive medical plan; he is sure there are many people who wish, even the teaching community, they could be in this plan; he is not attempting to jeopardize it in any way; and that is why $5, $5, and $10 is reasonable and creates $200,000. He stated on a personal note, prior to him coming into the County’s plan, his insurance was going to be over $1,000 a month as a retiree; so he went from $1,000 to $37 a month.

Chairperson Colon stated there is a motion and a second, and called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board is to be ready to deal with the problem of the overcrowded jail, whether the referendum passes or not, it needs to begin to get staff to put together recommendations for the Board to deal with; they are looking at 1,500 plus people in the jail; and staff could start now to develop alternatives. She stated the Board also needs to look at the recommendations of the citizens committee; it needs to begin to talk about that real soon and have a plan there; and by mid-November, the Board needs to be ready to talk about that and staff needs to have an agenda item so that it moves the issue along. She stated that would be her motion.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to get recommendations to the Board to deal with the overcrowding conditions at the jail for mid-November.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is based on the fact that after the November election, if the Board gets the sales tax or does not get the sales tax, there would be a plan in place to deal with it; with Commissioner Higgs responding it is going to take staff a while to get those alternatives in place; they would begin to have that developed and the Board would have it in mid-November; and the Board could act on it and get it going because there are issues to deal with there.

Chairperson Colon called for a second to the motion.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it has been said over and over again that the Board has too many people housed at the jail who should not be there, including those who require mental services; and the Board needs to look into creating a facility that would be much less costly to house the people who need mental care. Commissioner Carlson stated she thinks that is what the sales tax is for. Commissioner Higgs stated that is absolutely part of her assumption; the plan is the right housing for the right people; and she assumes they would do that.

Chairperson Colon stated at one point there were about 125 inmates identified that should not be there and should be in an institution with proper medication. Commissioner Pritchard stated they also have a problem with housing certain types of people, such as if they have a young female, they have to isolate her. Chairperson Colon stated that puts everything else out of order. Commissioner Pritchard stated if they have a young male, they have to isolate him, and that creates a burden on the rest of the population. He stated recently they had a situation, but were able to contain it; with that many people crammed into small quarters, they get a little anxious; and there are too many people in the jail, which is going to cause a serious problem. He stated the Board needs to do what it can to insure the jail is (a) enlarged, and (b) only the people who should be incarcerated are there, and others that need other types of help are helped.

Chairperson Colon advised one of the model jails that are ahead of themselves is in Palm Beach; and she went with the NAMI group to see the facilities and get some kind of feedback that they wanted. She recommended staff speak with the folks from the Mental Health and Community Solutions Commission who went to Palm Beach and get feedback from them, which would be appreciated.

Chairperson Colon called for a second to the motion. Commissioner Pritchard seconded the motion. Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs advised #4 on her memo of September 17 is her continued concern about the valuations of commercial property and the basic category keeping pace with the values of land because it has tremendous impact on residential taxes and the issues the Board faces there. She stated the Board needs to seek a review from the Department of Revenue on the issues there and some sort of audit on those so that the Board can get comfortable with it. Chairperson Colon inquired how would the Board go about doing it.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he thought it was something the Property Appraiser is supposed to be reevaluating every three years; he knows it is way off the valuations; it is seen all the time that properties assessed at $85,000 sell for $450,000; so perhaps a letter to Mr. Ford would be in order. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board tried that and he does not agree with the Board, so she is not sure what the avenue is to deal with it other than going to Department of Revenue. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the Board would mind if he spoke to Mr. Ford and came back to the Board with a response, because he would like to do that instead of taking a more formal action. Chairperson Colon stated that would be okay. Commissioner Higgs stated she appreciates what Commissioner Pritchard is talking about, but the Board talked about it before and continues to see it; and it has discussed it on numerous occasions and does not seem to be getting movement on those particular categories. She stated she has been hearing from many people recently that residential seems to be reevaluated this year; a lot of people saw increases in their values; the newspapers indicate average values of re-sales going up 18%, and some 14%; but the Board does not see that movement on the commercial side.

Commissioner Carlson stated the time they do reassessments on commercials is when they are sold or change hands, just like residential properties, and the assessment goes up; the same practice should happen, but she does not know what the movement of commercial is compared to residential; and if it is actually happening, she is not seeing it. She stated there is a huge gap; and the gap gets bigger and bigger if it does not change hands. Commissioner Higgs stated the only thing she knows to do is go to Department of Revenue. Chairperson Colon suggested before doing that the Board allow Commissioner Pritchard to bring those concerns to Mr. Ford and come back to the Board with a report. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to bring it to him in a more informal way, find out what is going on, and then bring it back to the Board when it can make a decision based on the input. Commissioner Higgs requested Commissioner Pritchard review Mr. Ford’s response to the Board on the question, because the Board did ask that question, and he did respond. Commissioner Carlson stated County staff can get all the responses that the Board has had in the past, which might save a question or two. Commissioner Higgs stated if the Board is willing to deal with this issue again, she will ask that it push it some more.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he noticed under travel in the budget there is an enormous amount of money set aside; he has identified some of them; they could all be extremely well validated; but maybe there is some areas the Board could address. He stated Emergency Management has over $13,000 in travel; Support and Internal Services has $17,000; Information Systems is almost $12,000; E-911 is $23,000; Libraries is $23,000; Building Code Compliance is $13,000; Solid Waste Management Disposal Program is $30,000; Tourist Development is $135,000; Transportation Planning MPO is almost $19,000; the Sheriff is $181,000; Law Enforcement MSTU is $11,000; Detention Center is $27,000; Judicial is $26,000; and that is a lot of money for travel. He stated while he realizes there are a lot of programs that require continuing educational units, there are a lot of things that could be done by what is available on the internet instead of flying off to some place to see what is going on for a couple of days. He stated it might be appropriate if all the travel budgets were reviewed and critiqued to make sure the money is being spent wisely.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the figures represent in-County as well as out-of-County travel; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he assumes they do. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that includes employees going from their place of work out to do an offsite job; with Commissioner Pritchard responding no, he is talking about whatever the fees would be and not mileage. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is all Class C travel; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he got it as A and B. Mr. Jenkins stated it is A and B. Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not have a problem with mileage and does not want anyone to run their car into the ground. Chairperson Colon inquired what would Commissioner Pritchard want to do; with Commissioner Pritchard responding have it reviewed to see if there is anything that can be taken out. He stated the Sheriff’s amount of $181,000 plus seems a bit high; and there are other costs in there also. Chairperson Colon inquired if it can be part of the Citizens Budget Review Committee’s meeting; with Commissioner Pritchard stated it can be part of the Board’s meeting on Tuesday. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like staff to review the travel budgets and see if there is anything that can be cut from the FY 2003-04 budget; he assumes it can be done by Tuesday and be part of that meeting; and if not, it can come back on Thursday or Friday before the 30th.

Commissioner Carlson stated she is curious what A, B, and C are; with Mr. Jenkins responding C is mobile mileage. Commissioner Carlson inquired how much is budgeted for local mileage; with Mr. Jenkins responding he does not know off the top of his head. Commissioner Carlson stated maybe it could be included in the discussion. Mr. Jenkins stated it is for driving personal vehicles for County business. Commissioner Carlson stated so the Board is accountable for those individuals who do charge mileage that use their own vehicles versus County vehicles.

Chairperson Colon stated she is pretty set on what her stand is and it has not changed; she wants to get a clear vision if Commissioners Pritchard and Higgs feel that the main issues of their concerns in regards to the budget have been answered today and if they feel comfortable with the vote taken on Tuesday. She stated the reason why she is asking that question is to see if there is more that staff needs to bring back to Commissioners Pritchard and Higgs; and inquired if they feel that today they are comfortable with the kind of answers that were given and the kind of research that needs to be done.

Commissioner Pritchard stated based on what he has said and what he has turned in, Mr. Jenkins has responded to go back and review some of his areas of concern, to see what can be done. He stated he is not interested in layoffs, but is interested in focusing on programs that may or may not be effective; and if they are not effective, then the Board needs to either get out of the business or merge them into something else. He stated he is interested in how well money is being spent; and if there is opportunity through attrition not to hire someone, then those things need to be reviewed. He stated there are numerous parts to the budget; and it is hard to just identify one part and focus on it until he becomes much more involved with the budget process, which is his intent with next year’s process. He stated it would be good for the entire Board to be there and pepper the Departments with questions as well as the Citizens Budget Review Committee and the Finance Director; then he will have a better comfort level as to how money is being spent. Commissioner Pritchard stated some good ideas were brought up today; the increases proposed for health insurance are extremely nominal; it is a fantastic health plan; and the travel issue, Human Services issue, and other issues are all areas the Board can address as they are all part of the composite budget. He stated the Board made some good progress; he is having great difficulty locating the proposed one cent sales tax referendum; there are very few annualized operating costs for any of the projects; and those costs are going to become part of the budget at some point. He stated somewhere along the way the Board is going to have to pay for that mile of road or community center or botanical gardens, or whatever; there is going to be a cost associated with that; and that cost has to be borne somehow. He stated it is going to be something the citizens are going to have to face if not next year then the year after or five years down the road; those projects do tend to require maintenance; they do tend to require staffing; and the Board needs to start focusing on the amount of money it is talking about so it can be included in the budget, otherwise it is going to be wondering where it is going to get that $30,000,000 per year to pay for the projects should the sales tax referendum be passed.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has made some progress on some issues; she appreciates the Board working with her on those; there is a commitment the Board made on a couple of issues; and one is that it will move further on using tourism dollars to offset some operational costs of Parks and the other things. She stated unless there is some big surprise that comes to her in the next day or two, she thinks the Board will move forward on Tuesday night; but she will leave a caveat if there is some big surprise, which she does not see at this point.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it has been a good meeting; people were concerned whether the Board could come together; and it has shown it has the capacity to come together, so he feels good about it.

Chairperson Colon stated she does not want to be a nay sayer, but one of the things that she had made perfectly clear last year is that there were a lot of expenditures that took place throughout the year that she did not feel comfortable with; but for whatever reasons the rest of the Board felt they were necessary; and it was quite clear by the four to one votes. She noted she feels they are comfortable right now; they are really looking at different ways of reserving some of the money, start cutting back, and hopefully next year it will be at a better level. Chairperson Colon stated if the Board starts October 1 putting a lot of things in place, it will be at a better level. She stated it is not just about trimming the fat, but it is also the responsibility of the Board; it does not hurt once in a while to say no to whoever comes before it; and that is something she feels very uncomfortable about. She reiterated she does not want to be negative and does not want to sound like she does not have an open mind, but it is her philosophy that she has been trying to state throughout the year. She stated she feels comfortable with the meeting that has taken place today because she feels now that she is going to get to that comfort level that she has been talking about getting to.

Commissioner Carlson advised at the last meeting the Board requested priorities from the Sheriff’s Office; she has not seen any of those yet; and she would like to get to a comfort level with funding the Sheriff’s Office at whatever level they would like to be funded at, so prior to Tuesday it would be nice to see that priority list. Mr. Jenkins inquired if Commissioner Carlson can clarify what she means by priorities; with Commissioner Carlson responding the Sheriff’s priorities. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board has the Sheriff’s budget and unfunded requests; and inquired what does Commissioner Carlson want prioritized, and is it what he currently has in his budget; with Commissioner Carlson responding the discussion last week was the fact that the Board was getting mixed signals as far as where the priorities were, i.e. whether to get $240,000 to provide meals to the folks in the jail versus $275,000 to buy cars; she would tend to go for the new guys on the road and making sure they keep the guys out of the jail; but she does not know where those priorities are and would like the Sheriff to come out and say what is most important to keep operations at the highest quality they can provide so that it would make the Board’s job a bit easier and it is not cutting off its nose to spite other things.

Sheriff’s Finance Director Deborah Barker advised the only things that are funded in their budget that are any different than any other County or Constitutional Officer are the 12 deputies and the food service contract. She stated they have the same health plan and same raises projected, so there is no difference than any other office. She inquired how does Commissioner Carlson want her to prioritize those two things. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not think she is alone saying they need to prioritize. Commissioner Pritchard stated a lot of the discussion on prioritizing dealt with the unfunded programs; and that was over the course of next year. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not think the Board expects to fund the unfunded projects currently, but in terms of looking for dollars to put money back in reserves and things of that nature. Commissioner Pritchard stated as Ms. Barker said, there are only a couple of items, but when the Board talked about unfunded prioritizing items that had to deal with giving the Board an idea of what he would consider to be most important in that huge list of about 135 items. Ms. Barker stated that is an exercise that everyone will do next year. Commissioner Pritchard stated that was his understanding, but what Commissioner Carlson is saying is if the Sheriff has three items that he knows is going to be coming up, such as food for the jail, cars, people, etc., then he could give the Board a prioritized list so that when it comes the Board will know where it is on the list and would not be scrambling trying to figure out where it plugs into the Sheriff’s program. Ms. Barker inquired if the priorities are for funded or unfunded projects; with Commissioner Carlson responding for everything. Commissioner Pritchard stated whatever Ms. Barker thinks they will come back with.

Chairperson Colon stated the comfort level would be, speaking for herself, if the Sheriff is requesting $240,000 from the Board, he identify if it is for food service or $275,000 for vehicles; but it is too late now because the discussion took place last week. She stated after she brought up the fact that the food service issue was still out there, that would have been one thing she would have felt was a priority to the Sheriff; but that is just her opinion. Ms. Barker stated those were unfunded issues; and when she spoke at the first public hearing on the budget, she brought up the detention center food contract and catastrophic insurance because they were significant and unfunded. She stated the food contract is $248,000 and the catastrophic insurance is $79,000; those are still unfunded; so she came to the Board to make it aware that those were still significant issues that have not been funded and are going to affect service levels at the jail next year. Ms. Barker stated she does not understand the question; and inquired if Commissioner Carlson wants her to identify and prioritize things that are funded. She stated the only thing that is funded is the 12 deputies at $25,000; and everything else is the same as any other agency; and inquired what does Commissioner Carlson want her to prioritize.

Mr. Jenkins stated the point the Board is trying to make is that Ms. Barker came up with additional unanticipated miscellaneous revenues and chose to come in and ask for additional cars; what Commissioner Carlson and others are saying is the Sheriff had several choices and could have used that $275,000 for cars, the food contract, etc.; and what the Board is saying is it would like some sense of what the Sheriff’s priorities are. He noted he presumes it was cars over the food contract. Ms. Barker inquired if this issue is only directed to the $275,000; with Commissioner Carlson responding it should be everything.

Chairperson Colon stated those two issues were the only ones identified and the Board is wondering if there are more it should know about. Commissioner Carlson stated it should be a fairly easy exercise in a budgetary process to prioritize; and the Board has tried to prioritize although it has not had much success. Ms. Barker inquired if the Board wants her to prioritize over deputies, over raises, and over cars; with Commissioner Carlson responding yes. Ms. Barker inquired if that is what the Board is asking; with Commissioner Carlson responding yes. Commissioner Carlson stated if the Sheriff needs more deputies out there and cannot afford it in the budget, does he need more deputies to help reduce crime or whatever he wants to reduce; or does he need to increase wages to bring them up to speed; and there are choices he has to make because the trough of money gets smaller and smaller. Ms. Barker stated the answer is because of the growth they have had in Brevard County, they need all three, deputies, raises, and cars. Commissioner Higgs noted Ms. Barker is not going to prioritize, so the Board should move on.

Chairperson Colon advised on Tuesday they will bring up the 4-H issue again. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board wants to deal with it now. Chairperson Colon inquired how much was it; with Commissioner Pritchard responding $24,000. Chairperson Colon stated the Board can deal with it on Tuesday so everyone can be present. Commissioner Pritchard stated Commissioner Scarborough wanted the feral cat people present because the suggestion was to use that money to fund 4-H. Commissioner Higgs stated she thought the Board was waiting for the report from staff on the feral cat issue and would deal with that and hold the funding until then. She stated that money is in the budget. Commissioner Carlson inquired if the Board will get the report before Tuesday; with Commissioner Higgs responding yes, that is her understanding. Chairperson Colon inquired if Commissioner Higgs is saying the money is there; the Board will get a report; and the Board will take action in the future; with Commissioner Higgs responding that is what she thinks the Board should do. Commissioners Pritchard and Carlson stated it was not their understanding. Commissioner Pritchard stated his understanding was that Commissioner Scarborough wanted to have representation from the feral cat organization present so they could be heard. Commissioner Carlson stated that is right, and the issue that came up was a legal issue of what the State or federal government had done. Mr. Jenkins stated the question is whether the Board wants to do that at a budget hearing or a regular meeting; with Commissioner Carlson responding the 4-H is interested in having it done now because it will mess up their program completely. Mr. Jenkins inquired if the Board needed the report first; with Commissioners Higgs and Carlson responding affirmatively.

Chairperson Colon recommended the items be separated; and advised Mr. Jenkins to have the feral cats issue at a regular meeting if that is okay with Commissioner Scarborough; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that will work. Chairperson Colon stated the Board needs to focus on the budget; and inquired if the Board identified $20,000 for the 4-H today; with Commissioner Higgs responding the Board saved $20,000 with the well-capping item allocated at $35,000; and St. Johns River Water Management District said they only have $15,000, so the County’s match is $15,000, leaving $20,000. Chairperson Colon inquired if the Board feels comfortable allocating that money for 4-H.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Pritchard, to allocate $20,000 from the savings of the well-capping program for the 4-H Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairperson Colon advised the feral cat issue will be at a regular meeting. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to take care of that because their funding is dependent on the Board solving the issue. Mr. Jenkins stated he will freeze that money pending the Board’s decision. Commissioner Higgs stated Chairperson Colon expressed concern about going through the year making budget changes; there were a couple of offices where the salaries were not included in the budget figures; and she wants to see everybody’s budget treated the same and that salaries be predicted in each budget, including the Property Appraiser’s budget. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that includes all constitutionals; with Commissioner Higgs responding yes, all those budgets should reflect the full anticipated costs. Mr. Jenkins stated staff can show the Board the total cost; the Property Appraiser and Tax Collector’s budgets are approved by the Florida Department of Revenue and not the Board; but staff can quantify it for the Board and tell it what the amounts are. Commissioner Higgs stated she wants the budgets to include the figures in them. Mr. Jenkins stated he does not know if the Board can demand that; with Commissioner Higgs responding it can because it is the Board’s budget; and inquired what is the big deal of including the real costs. Chairperson Colon inquired if the Board is going to request those figures.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he has a note that was sent to Dennis Rogero by Steve Burdett; he is encouraging Mr. Burdett, the Citizens Budget Review Committee, and the Board meet in a budget process because he wants him to be fully informed; and Mr. Burdett is requesting that the proposed 2004 budget be entered into the SAP controlling module. He stated he would like to see that happen and inquired if there are any problems doing that; with Mr. Jenkins responding they normally do that once the Board approves the final budget, which will be next Tuesday. Commissioner Pritchard inquired why not enter it now so Mr. Burdett can be part of the process; with Mr. Jenkins responding he can be part of the process and has a copy of the County’s budget. Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten advised all the line item information is contained in the budget development module; so there is no need to load a budget that the Board has not approved into its financial system. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to hear from Mr. Ellis or Mr. Burdett. Chairperson Colon inquired why is it important to do it now versus after approval; and stated the Board should stay focused.

Mr. Burdett stated the information he sent to the Board had historical information going back to fiscal year 2000 as to what each of the respective offices, primarily those funded by the General Fund, actually spent; his point in having the proposed budget for next year in there would allow for that historical information to be compared to what the presentation or proposals are for next year if that would be of information to the Board.

Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis stated the point was after the last budget hearing on Tuesday, it sounded like there was a possibility that the Board was going to make some cuts and the number $4 million was being thrown around; and it would seem logical that when it goes to make cuts it not only look at the historical increases for four years, but the planned increases for next year so it would have a five-year total. He stated that was the point of the request; if it is not uploading SAP, that is all right, they wanted to put it on that column; and they waited until yesterday to send the package out with the information because they wanted to have the 2004 information in there. He stated they thought it would make more sense for the Board if it was going to take a look at historical numbers to have next year’s historical numbers in there as well. He stated the information on the back with Mr. Jenkins memo is out of SAP; that is not a creation of Mr. Burdett or himself; there are a lot of integrity issues on the memo; that is straight out of the SAP system; and that is where it comes from.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if Mr. Ellis is talking about the attachment of September 16 to Mr. Rogero; with Mr. Ellis responding right, and his staff did not create the strange abbreviations. Mr. Ellis stated they sent more detail out yesterday because they wanted to get the detail for 2004 and evidently could not get them based on the answer they got from Mr. Jenkins yesterday afternoon; so they went ahead and sent the detail out that they had on the four-year history. Commissioner Carlson inquired if what was sent out with Mr. Rogero’s memo are all the actuals from 2000 to 2002 and then projected for 2003. She stated if the Board passes the budget on Tuesday, Mr. Ellis will have the actuals then for 2004; so she is confused as to why they would want to put it in right now when they do not have a budget yet. Mr. Ellis stated if the Board is going to cut $4 million to reach CAPIT, which seemed to be part of the discussion last Tuesday, he thought it might be handy to know who was getting what in the budget so the Board would know.

Mr. Jenkins advised since Commissioner Pritchard raised the question, they were not exactly sure what was in those numbers, but it is their understanding that they include all revenues, grants, permit fees, user fees, and a variety of things that would have no bearing on the calculating of millage; and most of the discussion in the past several days has been on calculating millage. He stated in order for somebody to sit down and enter that data, it is going to take personnel several days to do it; it is time consuming; so for the last several years, they have always done it after the budget was adopted by the Board. He stated the financial accounting records are not set up until they have the budget approved; so what the Budget Office works off is the budget system; and once the budget is approved, then that information goes into the accounting system and they set up the records for the coming year. Mr. Jenkins stated based on cutting the budget by $4 million, it does the Board no good to know how many millions of dollars in grants it got or what voter referendums were passed two years ago that added $70 million to the budget, as that has no bearing on cutting millage in terms of trying to come into compliance with CAPIT or any other limitations the Board might want to consider. Mr. Ellis noted the Board seemed to be unhappy with the way the data was presented the first time.

Chairperson Colon stated once it is all said and done, the Board is going to have that data. Mr. Whitten stated loading the data into the financial system takes two days off line; they cannot do it eight to five because other folks are on the system then; and it takes the Budget staff approximately two days to actually check the data for errors; so it is not a matter of flipping the switch. Chairperson Colon stated the Board can use that data when it has discussions with the Citizens Budget Review Committee. Mr. Whitten advised it is a line item budget data that is on the budget development system.

Mr. Ellis inquired if the line items come to totals; with Mr. Whitten responding everybody has the totals now. Commissioner Ellis inquired if the totals can be put into Excel spreadsheet and merged with what they were putting together; with Commissioner Carlson responding no. Mr. Jenkins inquired what purpose would that serve; with Mr. Ellis responding the Commissioners could look at what each Department’s budget increased. Mr. Jenkins stated they cannot because it does not show only ad valorem; property tax is not broken out; it shows grants, building permit fees, and everything; and inquired what does that do to CAPIT. Mr. Burdett stated if that is the information staff wants, they can pull that down also on the revenue side. Mr. Jenkins inquired why the Clerk’s Office did not show ad valorem revenues; with Mr. Burdett responding the County staff could have asked for it. Mr. Jenkins stated that would have been more meaningful. Mr. Ellis stated for example, if the Board is going to cut a $6 million budget expenditure by $400,000 in ad valorem revenue, it would have to cut that amount somewhere else to make up the money. Chairperson Colon stated those kinds of cuts were basically trying to prepare the Board because there was so much discussion they did not know exactly what was going to happen. Mr. Ellis stated the numbers were for the Board not for his office; with Commissioner Carlson responding the Board does not need them. Mr. Ellis stated it will need it before Tuesday if it is going to try and cut $4,000,000; with Chairperson Colon responding that is exactly right.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he tends to disagree with what he is hearing; when the County Finance Director wants to become part of the loop and provide him with more information, he is for it; he does not have a problem with that; so he is not going to get into a contest of what is apparently going on here. He stated he is proposing that the Finance Director be part of the budget loop with every Board meeting next year; and if he wants to provide him with more information, he should be able to do that, but it will require the Budget Office to provide him with information so he can provide the spreadsheet that he is going to lay out. He stated he does not see where the problem lies, personalities notwithstanding; he would like to have that information; and inquired how does the rest of the Board feel; with Chairperson Colon responding she does not have a problem with having that information. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board does not need the information, but that is okay.

REPORT, RE: ONE-CENT SALES TAX REFERENDUM SURVEY

Commissioner Pritchard advised he sent out a one-cent sales tax referendum survey, and would like to read the comment he received from a person who does not support it: “Please don’t take this as a harsh rebuke, but I’m maxed out on taxes. Please use what you have already better.”

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.

ATTEST: _________________________________
JACKIE COLON, CHAIRPERSON
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)