July 24, 2003

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special/workshop session on July 24, 2003, at 9:02 a.m. in the Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairperson Jackie Colon, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Ron Pritchard, Nancy Higgs, and Susan Carlson, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and County Attorney Scott Knox.

REPORT, RE: DEATH OF COUNCILMAN JAMES DAVIS

Chairperson Colon stated a lot of people saw the news concerning New York City Councilman James Davis; a friend of hers graduated with Mr. Davis; and they looked at his yearbook, reflecting on Mr. Davis’ life. She stated they have a connection as public servants; and in light of the things Mr. Davis was fighting for, it is ironic that he died from someone shooting him. She commented on each Commissioner having a different philosophy, respecting the opinions of others, and the Board trying to do the best job it can. She requested a moment of silence in remembrance of Councilman James Davis.

*County Attorney Scott Knox’s absence and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley’s presence were noted at this time.

PRESENTATIONS, RE: AGENCIES’ BUDGETS

JUDICIARY

Chief Judge Kerry Evander introduced Court Administrator Mark Van Bever. Mr. Van Bever thanked the Board for working with them to save two service-oriented programs, Mental Health Court and Model Dependency Court; and stated they have been able to reallocate resources within their budget to maintain a lean budget and at the same time provide the services these programs offer. He stated Model Dependency Court will continue to place children in stable environments 21 months faster than could be done without the resources of Model Dependency Court; and there is a $1.4 million savings to foster care payments by placing these children in stable environments that much faster. He stated Mental Health Court will direct non-violent individuals with mental health issues into housing, monitoring, and counseling with the goal of creating a stable, law-abiding life and breaking the circle of minor crime that such individuals are sometimes involved in; and as a side benefit there will be savings in jail costs. He stated they estimate approximately $188,000 will be saved annually by keeping individuals who do not belong there out of jail; that assumes a constant population decrease in jail of thirteen individuals, which is the number in the program now; and it is approximately a fourfold increase in cost savings over the cost of the program. He stated there is an unfunded program change listed; the courts and County are in a window of uncertainty; legislation from last session for the first time addressed what would be a State responsibility and what would be a county responsibility next year due to implementation of Revision 7 of the State Constitution; but with another legislative session approaching, everything that was done in House Bill 113A is subject to change. He stated with that in mind, they have prepared a program change that shows continued funding for the courts for the fourth quarter of the next fiscal year, July through September; it is shown in the book under program change, Judicial Branch, number 2; and it is unfunded. He requested the Board consider funding the program change by putting money in reserves in case there are surprises in the next legislative session. He stated they do not know what changes may occur; they understand the Board does not want to leave those funds in their budget; but if it is placed in reserves, if the Legislature requires funding some things, there will be money to do so.

Judge Evander thanked the Board for its support of the dependency court; stated it is a good program that the County can be proud of; and it will continue to provide dramatic benefits for the children most in need.

Commissioner Pritchard inquired what is the alternative if the $471,000 is not funded; with Mr. Van Bever responding if that is not funded, and the State does not pick up those positions, there are a lot of people in case management, court administration, customer service, legal research, and guardian ad litem who will go away, and those services will not be provided. County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the budget is predicated on the premise that come July 1, the State will take the revenues from the courts and a portion of the expenditures; so the budget has been programmed in accordance with the current Florida Statutes. He stated the County will lose revenue and get rid of some expenditures; and what the Board is being asked to do is fund the fourth quarter in case the Legislature changes its mind. He stated he hopes if the Legislature changes its mind, it will return some of the revenues it is taking as well; but at this time, they are budgeted fully for nine months and for the last three months based on what the legal obligations are now. He stated through their own efforts Court Administration has come up with a way to fund dependency court and drug court, so they have been very creative in maximizing the dollars they have; but at this time there is no full fourth-quarter funding budgeted. Commissioner Pritchard stated he just wanted to make it clear that if it is not funded, it will not be here.

Commissioner Higgs stated the Florida Association of Counties has been adamant in asking the County not to budget it but stand firm and stand together in terms of the allocations so the Legislature will make a reasonable choice when the session occurs; but that would not preclude the County from having some additional reserves that could take care of the program should the Legislature not allocate the resources or shift it in the session. She stated the Board should be careful about allocating it, which is not a reflection of willingness to cooperate with Court Administration. Mr. Van Bever stated he understands the Board’s position and its need to cooperate with Florida Association of Counties; and this is a way to abide by the FAC position and still have the money available in case it is needed by putting it in a reserve.

Chairperson Colon stated she was impressed by the sacrifices each judge took to make sure they were able to put a budget together; while the State plays games, it is Brevard County citizens who will be hurt if the County does not plan ahead; and she would be in favor of putting the money in reserves, but not allocating it.

Mr. Jenkins noted State Attorney Norm Wolfinger and Public Defender James Russo are not present; and Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis indicated he does not wish to speak. He stated Debra Barker is present from the Sheriff’s Office.

SHERIFF

Debra Barker, representing Sheriff Williams, offered the Sheriff’s apologies for not attending; and stated he is in Tallahassee today. She stated the Sheriff is the Co-Chair of the Anti-terrorism of the Regional 5 Task Force; and distributed a progress report of the Task Force to the Commissioners, but not the Clerk.

Chairperson Colon stated the last workshop the Board had to discuss the budget referred to the Sheriff’s Department; the Board had a hard time at mid-year especially with the Sheriff’s Office coming before it to request money to be allocated toward matching grants and things like that; and this is a problem she wants to address. Ms. Barker stated she saw the July 17, 2003 meeting where there was comment about the Sheriff coming to the Board many times throughout the year asking for things that were assumed not to be in the budget; and she was going to ask the Board for direction. She stated there is also a grant match escrow account within the budget; the majority of things they have brought forward with grants have been in the budget, either in the five-year plan or within the current year; and she heard the Board did not want them to bring those forward. She stated there was also discussion about grant matches and letting the Sheriff have the ability to have some discretionary dollars to apply for the grants; and reiterated her request for direction to take back to the Sheriff’s office regarding the issues. Chairperson Colon stated it is not a little amount of money; it is in the millions; and some was requested at mid-year, catching the Board off guard. She stated she does not want an instant replay in 2004; that is a concern; and inquired what are the Sheriff’s plans to make sure this does not happen again. Ms. Barker responded there is a list of grants that the Sheriff asks for every year; and 98% of those things have been included in the budget. She stated when they find a grant opportunity for something that they have already asked for as a need in law enforcement, they bring it forward to discuss it together as a team with the Board to see if it is something they can go forward and apply for. She stated the Board and Sheriff have worked together before to match some of the grant opportunities with State forfeiture monies; and commented on the match for the FIND grant for additional boats. She stated they could do any number of things; they can reinstate the grant match account at $300,000; some grants like the UHP grants are higher than that and would have to be brought back; and requested the Board provide feedback. She suggested she could send an email to the Commissioners or a letter to the County Manager when they get grant opportunities; and the Board can advise if it is something it would like the Sheriff to bring before it. She stated she knows within limited resources, the Board gets tired of the Sheriff coming with grant opportunities; and inquired what would the Board like the Sheriff to do. Chairperson Colon inquired if Ms. Barker is saying that the $300,000 the Board would reinstate would be used by the Sheriff at his discretion for grants that he would like to match; and does that mean she will not see the Sheriff or Ms. Barker throughout the year again. She stated $300,000 sounds like a lot of money; with Ms. Barker advising it will not cover a lot of grants. Chairperson Colon stated if Ms. Barker is saying they would like the $300,000, but will still be coming in the middle of the year, that is not going to help; the budget process is to make sure everyone is on the same page; every department comes across grants throughout the year; and the Board has the budget process, so it does not have to be dealing with those issues throughout the year. She stated if $300,000 is exactly what the Sheriff is looking at and no more, that is something the Board could consider.

*County Attorney Scott Knox’s presence and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley’s absence were noted at this time.

Commissioner Carlson stated she and Commissioner Pritchard brought up the issue of having a reserve account so the Sheriff does not have to come back to the Board; and inquired if they have done some sort of trend analysis to show how much the Sheriff gets through the grant opportunities and how much he has to pay out in match. Ms. Barker stated she has that information and they are looking at much more than $300,000 on grant opportunities; and their projections for 2003-04 are well over a million dollars. She stated it is approximately three million dollars in federal funds which would require a million dollars in match for the number of grants they would have the opportunity to come forward with for important law enforcement items; $300,000 is not going to cover it; and that is why they need direction from the Board. She stated they can prioritize and use the $300,000 toward the most important things; but there are a lot of grants that they already know are out there that they could try for.

Chairperson Colon stated that is exactly what she is talking about, putting it back on the Sheriff to prioritize rather than having the Board be the one to decide what is a priority and what is not; there are millions of dollars that any organization or department could go after; but that does not mean they should go after them just because they are out there. She stated the Board wants to put it back on the Sheriff and on the departments to prioritize; this is a tight year; and this is getting old. Ms. Barker stated most grants need new dollars; and commented on inability to cut their budget to provide match for the anti-terrorism money. She stated the theory behind grants is to bring new seed money to start new projects; and reiterated her request for the Board to provide direction.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if that means the Board can give the Sheriff direction to set aside $2 million in his budget and put it in a reserve account, so the Board does not have to deal with this any more. She stated that is the kind of direction Ms. Barker is looking for; Chairperson Colon is trying to point out that within the Sheriff’s budget, if the grant dollars are really that important for critical equipment, then there should be a point where he prioritizes those dollars and sets them aside himself; and if it takes the Board having an account open to do that so the Sheriff does not have to come back, then so be it.

Chairperson Colon stated there is no way she would approve a million dollars for the Sheriff to do whatever he wanted with; that is not acceptable; and the Board has been more than generous throughout the year in terms of how much money was allocated because it knew about the national security issues and wanted to be sure the community was protected. She stated the Board is sensitive to the fact that there were a lot of expenses the Sheriff’s Department did not expect; it has given the Sheriff all the tools necessary to be able to protect the residents of Brevard County; but there is a limit; and that is what today’s discussion needs to be about.

Commissioner Pritchard stated it is not a surprise anymore for the Sheriff to come in and ask for this, that, and the other; and grants are like buying something that is on sale. He stated sometimes things come up that have not been there before and may be an opportunity to do something; but looking historically at what has been done, the Sheriff should know that “x” amount of money is going to be going toward “x” amount of grants because historically they keep coming up. He stated the Sheriff has quite a list of unfunded projects; one is for batteries for automatic electronic defibrillators at $9,450; the justification is that the initial purchase through grant funds is now three years old and the batteries need to be replaced; that should have been known and budgeted that three years from the date of purchase, it would be necessary to buy replacement batteries; and that should not be showing up as unfunded. He inquired what will happen if they do not have replacement batteries for the equipment. Ms. Barker responded there are always operational costs associated with every new project brought into government; at the time, they did not think about the batteries as being a replacement item after three years; they thought they were good for five years; and as new things come in, there are always recurring costs that come with them. Commissioner Pritchard encouraged the Sheriff to look ahead; with Ms. Barker responding they try. Commissioner Pritchard stated it also shows a program change for gasoline, additional funds necessary to cover the cost of fuel; the justification is insufficient funding due to the cost of gasoline; but it does not say that gas was 1.42 and now it is $1.56 and the department uses 5,000 gallons a year, therefore the cost is going to be “x”; and that is the kind of justification that he looks for. He stated justifying something by saying “we need more money” is not a justification; and he would like the specific details. Ms. Barker stated they may need to give more detail on the request; the Board has helped bring in new deputies over the past five years; they require more gas because there are more of them running around Brevard County; and that is an additional cost. She stated they budgeted $1,500 in fuel for the first year; but in the out years, the base budget has to increase because there are more road patrol deputies. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is what he is asking for, and what he does not have, the verbiage that justifies the request, so the Board can better understand the request. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would rather they were asking for $48,750.27 because that would make him think they really figured it out rather just rounding it to $50,000. Ms. Barker stated she will provide more detail.

Commissioner Higgs stated on page 48 of the unfunded requests, it shows $248,000 required for the food service contract; and inquired if that is the current contract or is it projecting a new contract. Ms. Barker stated $248,000 is the amount needed for the food contract increase for the detention center for 2003-04; they did not receive an increase to the contract or funding for 2002-2003; so there has been no funding for detention center food contract increases for 2002-03 and it is not proposed for 2003-04. Commissioner Higgs inquired does the $248,000 and the contract that is now in place cover fully October 1 through the fiscal year; with Ms. Barker responding yes. Commissioner Higgs inquired if mid-year, the Sheriff will have to renegotiate a contract; with Ms. Barker responding to the best of her knowledge that figure includes up to September 30, 2004. Ms. Barker stated there should be no mid-year surprises, but she will confirm that. Commissioner Higgs stated there is also a request for a large number of personnel at the detention center resulting in total expenditure of $3.2 million. Ms. Barker responded that is a request for 56 corrections officers and nine civilian inmate information clerks; it is a direct result of a recommendation from the Mental Health and Community Solutions Committee; the Committee did a staffing analysis; and the recommendation is an additional 56 corrections officers and an additional nine civilian inmate information clerks. Commissioner Higgs stated the 56 corrections officers are shown, but not the other nine; with Ms. Barker advising they must be under another unfunded program form. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is more than $3.2 million; with Ms. Barker responding the cost for the civilian personnel is $286,989; and the cost for the 56 officers is $3.244 million.

Commissioner Carlson stated she did not realize 56 more officers were being requested; the Sheriff has always had statistics and percentages of inmate populations and how many road deputies he wants on the road per population of citizens; and inquired where do the 56 officers come from. She noted she has a hard time believing there is a deficit of 56 officers. Ms. Barker responded it comes from the report. Commissioner Carlson inquired how is it justified and is it a reasonable number; with Ms. Barker responding she has not heard her organization disagree with the numbers; it was not the Sheriff’s subcommittee or staffing analysis; but she has not heard anyone from the jail or the Sheriff’s office say that they do not need that many or that more than 56 are needed. She stated she would have to validate, but believes there is concurrence with the numbers. Commissioner Carlson stated that means the Sheriff understands how the study and analysis were done. Ms. Barker stated the Commander of the jail and many other detention center personnel were involved with working with the Mental Health and Community Solutions Subcommittee.

Commissioner Pritchard stated on page 56, it says overtime, program change, increase in overtime; the justification is that additional overtime is necessary to meet the demands of the detention center; but it does not say how many hours, how many people, or why the overtime is necessary. Ms. Barker stated the budget for overtime for the detention center is less than $250,000. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is not his point; it should be in the justification; but something as important as overtime has no justification; with Ms. Barker responding she understands Commissioner Pritchard needs more detail. Commissioner Pritchard stated the item for Scott air bottles has pretty good justification for the $19,000; and there are more things that should be said that would better serve the Commissioners in terms of providing additional information because these are unfunded programs. He stated under medical contract services on page 49, it says it is a State mandated requirement; this is a funded program; contract price will be $3.4 million; and this increase in contract cost is due to increased psychiatric coverage provided by Circles of Care, but it does not say what the increase is. Commissioner Higgs advised the Board made specific requests in regard to this item; it made the program change during the year to include additional care from the psychiatrist; the related drug costs were a bit of a surprise; but if Commissioner Pritchard goes back, this was pretty much documented. Commissioner Pritchard stated he is just asking that the justification be included; if it is due to a mid-year increase in the number of psychiatric drugs being administered, it should give that information; and he is asking for enhanced information that will cover his questions. Ms. Barker stated she sends out the budget to all the agencies; she asks them to do their own budgets and new program forms; they come back to her for review and to see if there is enough detail; she sometimes adds more information; and she submits them in the budget package. She stated she will have to find a way to give more detail; with Commissioner Pritchard suggesting she ask the agencies to provide more detail. Ms. Barker stated the medical increase cost is for many of the reasons that were discussed at mid-year; it is for drugs, increase in care, increase in administrative costs, and increase in number of psychiatrists; and it is based on inmate population. Mr. Jenkins inquired if Ms. Barker has quantified that; stated he recalls they had to add approximately $175,000 for that; and inquired is it more than for the mental health; with Budget Director Dennis Rogero responding he thinks it was more than that, but does not know off the top of his head.

Chairperson Colon stated she wanted to get a round figure; and inquired in the last six years, how many more deputies have been hired by the Sheriff’s department including the ones that money was allocated for in the mid-year; with Commissioner Higgs responding there was promised funding for 12. Commissioner Carlson advised ten road deputies and two other ones. Chairperson Colon inquired what year would the Board pick up the full amount when the grant is finished; with Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten responding three years from now in the fourth year. Chairperson Colon inquired what would the Board be picking up; with Mr. Jenkins responding it is incremental; every year the Board pays more; and in the fourth year, it will pay 100%. Chairperson Colon stated the 100% is what she was interested in; with Mr. Jenkins responding they will get that for her. Commissioner Pritchard stated it will have to be 100% in that year’s dollars.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Chairperson Colon is hitting on something that is significant, historical perspectives of programs; it is not just how many deputies there are today but how many have been increased over a period of time, what the projection is with population of where the County needs to go in the future, and how that impacts cars, etc.; and it is difficult to balance the budget as opposed to seeing the programs evolving. He stated there are certain things that are needed to drive a certain program because they are critical and other ones that are needed to sustain; and there are different ways of looking at it. He stated the Board has said it wants to have a different kind of treatment for those people with mental illness in the jail; there has been a fundamental change in philosophy that has come not from the Sheriff’s office, but from the Board; and that is part of where the Board is going with some of these. He stated the desire is to get a perspective as a part of the discussion of where programs have come from and where they need to go in future years, so the Board is not just looking at a snapshot but a moving picture. He stated they may happen to be in this particular frame, but as planners, they need to say it is something they have to work at over a period of time because there are more things that have to happen.

Chairperson Colon inquired if Ms. Barker has the numbers; with Ms. Barker responding since 1997, 102 positions have been added, and 51 would be road patrol. Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the total on the road now; with Ms. Barker responding 165. Chairperson Colon stated she wanted to be perfectly clear so when the citizens are looking at the budget, they realize that the Board has allocated money and has given the manpower and tools to the Sheriff’s Department to make sure they are protected and make sure they see the history of where it is coming from. Ms. Barker stated the Sheriff’s office has always appreciated the proactiveness exhibited by the Board to help the citizens.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the 12 deputies being added next year are all road deputies; with Ms. Barker responding yes, but they have to have the homeland security component. Commissioner Higgs stated there is an assumption that is a function that everyone performs; and inquired if Commissioner Carlson’s understanding of the numbers was different. Commissioner Carlson stated she has been reading the strategic plan; it is different; and that number does not coincide with what is in the book. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the program change is accurate; and stated the proposal the Board funded was for 12 people who would all be road personnel. Ms. Barker advised they are all road personnel; and because of the money the Sheriff kicked in out of the existing base budget and the grant dollars, the Board only had to come up with $25,000 of new dollars to put 12 new road deputies on the road next year in the unincorporated Brevard.

Chairperson Colon inquired if one deputy gets the full package plus a car or do they rotate. Ms. Barker advised when the Sheriff hires a new deputy, it is with a full complement of equipment, including gun, vest, uniforms, insurance, and car that is fully equipped with a mobile data terminal for community policing and an AED. Chairperson Colon inquired how much does one deputy cost; with Ms. Barker responding one deputy costs approximately $104,000 the first year. Chairperson Colon inquired what would that be multiplied by 12; with Ms. Barker responding $1.2 million. Chairperson Colon stated the Board felt it was pay now or pay later, so she can understand where the Board was coming from; but once the Board approved the grant for 12 officers, that is $1.2 million; and sometimes the constituents do not realize the kind of costs the officers come with. She stated sometimes they think it is just hiring the individual, but it is a package deal. Ms. Barker stated that is for the first year; the figure drops to approximately $60,000 in the future years; the first year is the only year that it is necessary to buy the car and the full complement of equipment; and the second year only involves salary and benefits. Mr. Jenkins noted it is necessary to replace the car; with Ms. Barker advising that is done every five years or 100,000 miles. Chairperson Colon stated it would be $500,000 for the 12 then.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the deputy takes home the car in the first year; with Ms. Barker responding the new deputies do not get cars for the first two years; however, that does fluctuate. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the deputy gets a car at the beginning of the third year; with Ms. Barker advising it is at the end of the second year; but the plan fluctuates based on the number of cars available. Ms. Barker stated there are situations where, if there are enough cars working and available, the deputies may have them earlier; that is used as an incentive because of the marketability; they have initiated the practice of giving the cars before two years to try and keep the deputies in the County rather than losing them to Orange County after they are trained here; so the Sheriff does on occasion do that if cars are available; but the general operational organization philosophy is two years. She stated they ask for a car with the new position, and that is a way to replace the old vehicles. Commissioner Higgs stated her understanding was the old vehicles were replaced with a rotating car system.

Commissioner Carlson stated the gist of what all the Commissioners seem to be saying is they want justification for coming back to the Board; she knows Sheriff Williams has been adamant about the strategic aspect of his Department; he did that when he first came on board; and he approached the Board with his strategy for putting “x” number of deputies on the road every year for the next five years. She stated he threw out the number 1.7 deputies per 1,000 citizens; his goal was two deputies per 1,000, which has not been achieved yet because they have not achieved the five-year plan; and that is where it is always difficult to put the numbers into the budget because they are bigger than the number being discussed right now. She stated putting everything in the CIP every year requires a tax increase or something because the Sheriff does not have the money; and even though they prioritize, there is still not the money because there are other things that are potentially more important. She stated what might be helpful through the process is to see the changes that come through; if the Board knew the justification as it applies to the strategy over the five-year scenario, not just deputies, but everything, how it is planned, why it is so important, and why it might be a priority or not, it might help in terms of continuing to make those hard decisions; and allowing the Sheriff to prioritize based on his own strategy, will give the Board more basis to go on. She stated the Board has a strategic plan; based on the plan, there are some outcomes; and the Board does not always know where the dollars go that it gives the Sheriff because it does not see the outcomes, which could be part of the problem. Ms. Barker stated they have been working on a strategic plan for the last couple of years; they hope it is going to help answer some of the questions about future planning for the Board on long-term and visionary issues within the Sheriff’s office; but she understands what Commissioner Carlson means in terms of performance measurements, accountability, and return on investment. Commissioner Carlson stated she thought the Sheriff already went through that process, and that it was a flexible kind of process so when a terrorist attack occurred, it would change and the priorities would shift; dollars that were needed for one thing would be needed for something else; some things would fall back and others come to the forefront; and that is the kind of thing the Board would like to see to justify some of the requests. Ms. Barker inquired if Commissioner Carlson is asking for anything at this time, or is she just looking for more long-term strategic issues and accountability. Commissioner Carlson stated she is looking for more justification, accountability, and outcomes so the Board will know where the money is going and it can look at the trends that are occurring. Commissioner Carlson stated they can see they are applying ten deputies per year for the past five years; but the question is what has that gotten the County and has the crime rate gone down.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Sheriff has a lot more knowledge about a strategic plan; but the Board has almost 50 pages of itemized things that appear to be just singular things with their own justifications. He stated over the year the Board has talked about the complexity of having certain deputies specially trained for domestic relations issues; now the Board is getting into the complexities of dealing with mental illness and substance abuse at the jail; that is not a deviation from the numbers; and it is not a matter of just spending more money, but spending it wisely. He stated if they spend money wisely, they will spend less and it will be applied better; and he would like to have a smart strategy plan that looks to the past and the future so that rather than looking at 49 individual requests, he can see something keyed into a strategy where the County can better spend its resources. He stated maybe the Sheriff will spend more for some specialized deputy, but if that deputy can assist the road deputy in dealing with domestic relations and have him back on the road faster, that is wise. He stated if they can reduce recidivism by having people at the jail who can deal with mental illness to a better extent, that is wise; and even though it may initially cost more, those additional dollars are going to help in the long run. He stated rather than throwing money at problems, they should begin to analyze problems; that goes beyond the budget; and it is a dialogue the Board needs to have with the Sheriff long beforehand and proceed into the budget concept, so that when they get to the budget, they will have a sense of concurrence. Commissioner Scarborough stated the other thing Mr. Whitten and Mr. Rogero brought up is when there is a grant request, it is tempting not to turn it down; but every time the Board throws money at a grant, it throws money from some other program. He stated he does not want to misspend money just because it is on sale; and there needs to be a better understanding of needs and better communication.

Chairperson Colon stated with a community that is almost half a million people, the Board understands the needs; but the public needs to understand the Board has been trying to make sure it accomplishes that need; and in the last six years, the Board has put 102 officers on, which speaks for itself that the commitment is there. She stated she wants to make sure it is not echoed back that the Board is not doing its fair share; it dealt with terrorism and national security; and the Board had to deal with a lot of cutbacks from the State and some of the responsibilities that have been pushed back to local government. She stated everyone needs to be a part of the same team; they need to abide by the same rules; and everyone right now has a tight budget. She inquired is the Board going to reinstate the $300,000, making it perfectly clear that the Sheriff is not going to be coming back to the Board; and stated she wants to see what the direction of the Board is this morning so everyone knows where it stands.

Ms. Barker inquired if it would help to have a six-month presentation from the Sheriff’s office on accomplishments.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not want a list of what the Sheriff has done or what the Board has done; where they have gone is the history, which is always needed as a part of the discussion; and he does not want to play a numbers game with the public with the budget rather than generally creating a quality law enforcement entity. He stated there may be a more expensive deputy doing something else; they may not hit the two-deputy number; but what they are doing may be more effective.

Mr. Jenkins stated staff prepared the total budget with the understanding it would not increase the current tax rate; what they were able to fund in terms of the Sheriff’s total budget was a $4.5 million increase; but unfortunately most of that was consumed with salary increases, retirement cost increases, health insurance increases, and the second year of the medical contract, which has gone up approximately $2 million in two years; so there was very little money left for many of the other requests. He stated in fairness to the Sheriff’s office, they submitted a budget requesting funding for all of the items, including the unfunded items totaling approximately $13.5 million; his office and the Budget office were unable to find $13.5 million without raising the current millage; at the present time there is a balanced budget; all of the revenues that have been received have been consumed based on cost increases and other revenue adjustments; so there is no pot of money for new services or programs. He stated if the Board desires to increase spending in one area, it will have to look at reducing spending in another area or consider increasing the millage rate; and urged the Board not to spend more money without getting the revenues to go along because at the end of the year, they will end up with a smaller cash forward. He stated they noticed the Sheriff’s office is spending a higher percentage of its budget than it traditionally has spent; so if the Board is going to consider any increases in spending, it should do it from a holistic standpoint after hearing from everybody and seeing all the requests because it is going to have to address the budget in the total package, which means it will have to make other changes somewhere else in order to accommodate additional spending it may want to add at the present time.

Chairperson Colon stated she will not be supporting anything that would be added to the budget; the budget is already balanced; there are a lot of sacrifices that are taking place; there are times when it is necessary to tighten ones belt; and this is the year to do it. She stated if not, the millage would have to be increased; and she has no intention of supporting anything other than what was presented to the Board.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Chairperson Colon mentioned earlier about being on the same team; in Florida TODAY, there was a news story about homeland security that said because the Board did not provide “x” amount of money, they will not be able to provide an adequate level of protection at the Port; and he thought that was ironic because the Port pays the Sheriff for the protection it receives. Ms. Barker stated she does not know that the comment came from the Sheriff’s office or the merit behind the comment because the Port does pay for its own protection. Commissioner Pritchard stated when he was on the Citizens Budget Review Committee one of the things they were surprised to find was that there is no vehicle replacement plan that is a line item plan per vehicle; he sees there are 129 vehicles that meet the replacement criteria; and inquired how many total vehicles does the Sheriff have; with Ms. Barker responding the entire fleet is a little over 500. Ms. Barker distributed a packet to the Commissioners but not the Clerk containing the FDLE Task Force accomplishments, a list of vehicles that need to be replaced, and comparison on wages and benefits with other counties, which Commissioner Higgs requested last year. She noted the whole inventory is a little over 500 for all vehicles, including buses, wreckers, and trucks for Ag-Marine. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is only part of the question; he would find it helpful to have each vehicle identified by a number; and if they are identified that way, having a 100,000 mile or five-year criteria may not mean as much as the actual condition of the car. He stated even though a car is five years old or has 100,000 miles, it might still be a pretty good car and able to go a bit longer. He stated if the vehicle replacement plan were laid out so that 129 vehicles did not have to be replaced out of the 500-vehicle fleet in one year, there would not be the question where to get the $3.2 million, which is an unfunded program; and suggested the Sheriff have a vehicle replacement plan and set aside monthly a replacement reserve to include the operation and maintenance as well as replacement of the vehicle over a three-year, five-year, or seven-year cycle depending on the use of the vehicle, life expectancy of the vehicle, and greater return at auction on the vehicle. He stated that way for vehicle 1802, a deputy’s 1999 Ford LTD, $58 a month would be set aside; that would pay for the replacement as well as the monthly O&M; and it is a better way to lay out the budget and address annually what the costs are going to be. He stated the Sheriff and the Board would be better served by that type of plan for the fleet; and he would suggest doing it Countywide for everything. He stated if something happens during the tenure of the vehicle and it becomes a wreck, then it can be adjusted at that point; if for some reason it lasts longer, then it can be put into reserve capacity because there must be some vehicles in reserve. He stated if deputies who have a take-home car have a car that does not work, they get a car from somewhere and do not just stay home for the day; so some vehicles could become reserve vehicles. He stated it is a better way of laying out the budget; he has suggested it numerous times, but it has not gone anywhere; and he is hoping this year, it will go someplace. Ms. Barker inquired where would the money come from to start the program; with Commissioner Pritchard responding it has to start with a hit to the budget. Commissioner Pritchard stated the next item is $250,000 replacement parts for the aged fleet; it has to start at some point; and perhaps it can be phased in, but at the very least it can be identified, prorated, and the Sheriff may get a better handle on how many of the 129 cars might be able to go another year or two or fit into other levels of service, which could save a bit of money. Ms. Barker stated it would be basically like an escrow account to fix the cars on a monthly basis; right now they are running them until they will not run anymore; and the Sheriff may have to buy a couple of wreckers. Commissioner Pritchard noted he is sure the Sheriff has found that take-home vehicles last longer than hot seat vehicles; with Ms. Barker responding yes, and they bring other benefits.

Commissioner Higgs stated in the budget staff has provided a 6.7% increase, which is approximately $4.5 million; and those will appear in line items; but the Sheriff can readjust the budget to deal with any unfunded requests. She inquired if the 6.7% increase can be adjusted accordingly; with Mr. Jenkins responding yes.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Ms. Barker has run any number on the cost of repairs on a vehicle, and is that tracked. He stated the Sheriff has a lot of Crown Victorias; and inquired are some more of a lemon than others. Ms. Barker responded yes, there is a listing through fleet maintenance where they keep track of how much each vehicle costs; and one might cost $10,000 to keep running over five years but another might only cost $200. Commissioner Pritchard stated that is probably more of an issue than how many years old it is; and if there are no repairs on a car, he does not see why it should be traded. Ms. Barker stated she can get that information for the Board.

The meeting recessed at 10:10 a.m. and reconvened at 10:25 a.m.

Ms. Barker stated Commander Altman from the jail is here to provide an answer on the food contract. Commissioner Higgs inquired is the $248,000 the full amount to fund October 1 through September 30, 2004. Commander Altman responded that is driven 100% by the inmate population; he can estimate what the inmate population is going to be and believes $248,000 is going to suffice; however, as the inmate population increases on a daily basis as it has been, it increases his food costs. Commissioner Higgs stated the contract is a per person cost; and inquired is the contract in effect for the entire fiscal year being discussed today. Commander Altman responded yes, the contract is in effect; he pays a per meal cost; and as the number of meals goes up, the cost goes up. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the cost per meal per person is not going to change during the fiscal year. Commander Altman advised it does change; it goes down as the number of meals goes up; he has a graduated contract; and hypothetically if he serves 1,000 meals during a day, he will pay 99 cents per meal, but if he serves 1,500 meals, he will pay 92 cents per meal. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the contract that outlines that plan is in effect for the full fiscal year, October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004; with Commander Altman responding the contract is due to expire in May 2004. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there will be a new contract for more than one-third of this fiscal year; with Commander Altman responding it is a five-month contract. Commander Altman stated they are trying to negotiate something with the contract provider so each and every contract will be on a fiscal year basis, so when he comes forward, the contract will be for the entire fiscal year; and he does not see any reason why the current prices would not continue to stay the same or continue to reduce. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is an ability to renegotiate now to extend those additional months of the fiscal year; and stated there are “x” dollars that are going to cover this fiscal year for the Sheriff’s budget; and it might be helpful to have that contract on a fiscal year basis so the Sheriff will know how to allocate the resources. Commander Altman stated in August they will be discussing continuing out to the end of October; but the food service contract and the medical contract are inmate population driven, so when the inmate population goes up, the costs go up. Commissioner Higgs noted that is true unless the costs per meal go down; with Commander Altman responding it goes down, but not proportionately. Commissioner Higgs requested Commander Altman send a copy of the contract to the Board; with Commander Altman responding he would be happy to do so. Ms. Barker inquired if the $248,000 increase is only for five months; with Commander Altman responding that is not correct; the $248,000 is his projection of what it will take to run through September 2004, immaterial of the contract because he does not anticipate any significant increase in the contract. Commander Altman stated the contract with the provider allows them to have a 1% cost increase over the life of the contract, if there is any cost increase. Commissioner Higgs stated a new contract will go into effect; and Commander Altman does not know what is going to be asked for in the contract. Commander Altman stated he does not know what they are going to go in for; he knows what they have asked for in the previous years; they have asked for 1%; and he does not anticipate that there should be any reason why they would not be able to negotiate the extension prior to the finalization of the process. Ms. Barker inquired if Commander Altman expects to come to the Board in mid-year of next year and ask for a supplement to the food contract exclusive of inmate population; with Commander Altman responding no, but if the inmate population goes up, he is going to have to ask for additional money. Chairperson Colon stated that would be the only reason why; with Commander Altman responding that is the only reason he can anticipate that he would have to come back. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board needs to know in the budget process the cost of the full budgetary year of the food contract, with the caveat that as the inmate numbers fluctuate, there will be a change; and she will be most unsympathetic if the Board sees a change in the contract at the mid-year because they are understanding today what they have to deal with and they are not anticipating a mid-year change in the contract. Commander Altman stated he fully agrees; and he does not anticipate there is going to be anything additional concerning the food service contract other than what would be driven by the increase in inmate population. Commissioner Higgs stated this year the Board saw changes in the medical contract; and inquired if there is a medical contract that covers the full fiscal year. Commander Altman responded what they are working on right now is a medical contract on the $3.414 million budget that was presented for the year; that contract would carry them through September 30, 2004; and there are caveats in the contract that say if the inmate population exceeds 1,450 average daily population for a specific month, then he has to pay a per inmate per diem charge. He stated that would be outside the scope of the $3.414 million; he has a $400,000 cap on outside services; if he has a large number of inmates who are hospitalized for whatever reason and exceeds the $400,000 cap, the County becomes responsible for that; and he will have to come back to the Board and ask for that. He advised he could have asked for a $600,000 cap on outside service, which would have increased his contract by an additional $200,000; but they tried to be conservative and anticipate what he felt the outside services were going to be. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Commander Altman estimated conservatively; with Commander Altman responding yes, they tried to keep it within the realm. He stated they recognize that the medical contract budget has increased significantly over the last couple of years; so they looked at the prior year’s cost and tried to anticipate the future year’s cost. He advised of an inmate who was arrested on a Brevard County warrant but was hospitalized in New Jersey; the medical bill for that individual was $100,000, which is not covered; and he was not anticipating that when he put his budget together. He stated he has another individual who is requiring weekly dialysis treatments; he may have a couple of hundred thousand dollars in medical costs associated with that individual; but they cannot anticipate or plan for those instances without giving the appearance they may be trying to inflate the budget. He stated they are trying to give an honest estimate and evaluation of what they think it will take to run the jail.

Chairperson Colon inquired if there is anything else outside of food or medical services insurance that the Board is not aware of or any contracts other than those that have been discussed that are going to be happening at mid-year. Commander Altman stated there are none that he is aware of other than food service, medical, or the catastrophic insurance they talked about earlier. He stated the only midyear contracts he has expiring are catastrophic insurance, which is a separate issue, and the food service contract. Ms. Barker inquired about the one Commander Altman is working on through Hunt; with Commander Altman advising that is the catastrophic insurance, which pays in excess of $50,000 per inmate. He stated if he has an inmate who is hospitalized like the gentleman in New Jersey, his provider would pay the $100,000 and then they would file a claim with the insurance company for reimbursement of anything in excess of $50,000; that was the catastrophic insurance policy that was discussed for which they requested money; and if they are not funded for that, they may have to take a look at whether they can find other revenues to fund that particular insurance policy or whether they are going to drop that insurance policy. Chairperson Colon inquired if that is in the budget or when is it coming to the Board; with Commander Altman responding it was part of his budget request. Ms. Barker stated it is included, but it is one of the issues that they need to talk about. Commander Altman reiterated it was part of his budget request; and it was $79,000 for the catastrophic insurance policy. Ms. Barker stated it is not funded; that is one of the issues she was getting ready to talk to the Board about; and the catastrophic insurance of $79,000 is not part of the new program; with Commander Altman advising it is a separate program.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Commander Altman had mentioned an inmate requiring weekly dialysis; and inquired how would he receive treatment if he was not incarcerated. Commander Altman stated that would be up to him, the community, and his provider; but since he is incarcerated, that responsibility falls on the County to insure that he has proper medical treatment. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the individual has a provider, would the County bill his provider; with Commander Altman responding yes. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if inmates are charged for food, linen, medical, and clothing; with Commander Altman responding inmates at the present time are charged $2 a day on a subsistence fee for food; inmates also pay part of their medical cost; they pay $10 when they see a doctor, $5 when they see a nurse, and $10 when they see a dentist; and they do collect a medical co-pay, recognizing they can only collect from approximately 20% of the inmate population because that is all that have money. He advised he does not have the capability at the present time to do a negative balance for the inmates; if an individual ran up a $150 bill while incarcerated and is released, the bill is wiped out; but if he had an ability to carry a negative balance, when the inmate came back 60 days later with $500 in his pocket, he could immediately take the $150. Commissioner Pritchard inquired why does Commander Altman not have that capability; with Commander Altman responding it was on the agenda; they had set aside money to buy a new jail management system; but at the mid-year budget, the money was diverted to pay operational expenses. He stated that system would have given him the capability of doing that; and he would have been able to collect and require the inmate population to pay more of their own costs. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if the Board did that diversion of money; with Chairperson Colon responding yes. Mr. Whitten advised that was the money that was used for the medical services contract increase that was requested at mid-year. Commissioner Pritchard inquired why would it require a new management system; with Commander Altman responding in dealing with 1,400 inmates, there is a paper chase; the medical department deals with 2,000 to 3,000 patients per month; and doing it with a stubby pencil would not be cost effective for the amount of return they would get. He stated they would have to track when an inmate got out of jail and every time they got back, which would require database research to find if the individual had been incarcerated before and whether he left with a negative balance. He stated two weeks ago during a 12-hour period, they received 97 inmates into the jail; and to try and research doing a paper chase would not be cost effective. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if they were able to recoup the money owed by inmates released and returned, would that pay for the management information system; with Commander Altman responding he would anticipate that would be able to pay for the system within five years without any problem. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if this is the type of system that would be obsolete six months later; with Commander Altman responding no, it would carry on for years to come. Commander Altman stated he would anticipate being able to fully recoup the cost of the system within five years based on the availability because the State gives authorization to recoup the money and charge per diem fees; it specifically states that inmates should be required to pay a portion of their cost of incarceration to relieve the burden on the taxpayers; and they just increased the meal cost from $1.50 to $2 a day effective July 1. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much was the jail management system; with Commander Altman responding somewhere in the vicinity of $1 million to $1.5 million.

Ms. Barker stated at mid-year they came to the Board with $3 million in requests; the Board reallocated the money from the general management system; Sheriff Williams is working to try to cover those shortfalls from his wages to his operation; and they plan to come to the Board at mid-year for that transfer. She stated the Sheriff had to cut services, overtime, and a variety of different types of things such as security patrols to save wage costs to move to the operational side because he is still $500,000 short to cover the food and medical contracts for 2002-2003; and all overtime has to be directly approved by the Sheriff.

Chairperson Colon inquired when is the Sheriff planning on coming to the Board to request $500,000. Ms. Barker responded they came to the Board at mid-year with the $3 million request for a variety of things; the only money the Board reallocated to the Sheriff was from the jail management system, which was $1.17 million; and that still left the Sheriff’s office approximately $500,000 to $600,000 short in balancing and meeting the obligations toward mid-year. She stated they are still $500,000 to $600,000 short in being able to pay the bills for the food and medical contracts; and before the end of the year the Sheriff plans on bringing the budget change request before the Board to move the money from wages to operations to pay the cost for the food and medical. Chairperson Colon stated the Sheriff is going to handle that and bring it to the Board’s attention, but is not going to expect any money; with Ms. Barker advising as far as she knows, they are not asking for any money.

Ms. Barker stated her budget records and the County’s budget records show the medical contract as being the right figure fully-funded for next year; currently the medical contract is $2.2 million; and the new program is fully funded at the $1.180 million. She stated she shows bookkeeping allocations where some of those figures are in wages and some in operations; she does not believe the intent was to cut salary costs to try and pay for those; and that is something that she and Mr. Rogero need to work out. She stated as Commander Altman mentioned the new $1.180 million program is funded; however, the $79,000 catastrophic insurance is not included in the new program form; and she does not believe it is funded. She stated she is just making the Board aware that there might still be a $79,000 unfunded issue with regard to the catastrophic insurance at the detention center. Mr. Jenkins stated this was not funded in prior years; and inquired how was it funded in the current year. Ms. Barker responded it has always been taken out of the bottom line; but as costs have increased, they have not able to absorb it; and this year with the medical increase being so much, they are not able to cover it. She stated they talked about the food contract not being funded $248,000; and she will get the information Commissioner Higgs requested. She stated she has a note that compensation benefits are underfunded; but she crossed that out because she made a mistake, and that is not a problem. She stated the Budget office generally shows contract services at Cape Canaveral and the Port under money and the expenses on the contracted side with the City of Cape Canaveral and Port Canaveral shown as money coming in as transfers; now they have listed those as compensation, operating, and capital, which means all the contract expenses are going to roll forward and show on her summary sheet, which inflates her budget. She stated they usually carry Cape Canaveral as one line item that said transfer; but they have broken that down to wages, operation, and capital, so their expenses are showing in her budget, which over-inflates it.

Commissioner Higgs inquired what is the Sheriff doing about the Malabar situation; with Ms. Barker responding she does not know; and she thinks that is a County issue. Mr. Jenkins stated he wrote the Town a letter informing it had to pay; and inquired if the Sheriff has heard from the Town; with Ms. Barker responding not to her knowledge, but she will check. Mr. Jenkins stated he will follow-up with the Town Administrator; with Ms. Barker advising she will do the follow-up and report back.

Ms. Barker stated one new program that was not funded is under MSTU, and is called CDPD replacement wire service; and it is a change of approximately $185,000. She stated it is a cost associated with wireless communications with the mobile data terminals; ATT, Sprint, and Cellular One have a monopoly on the market; and they are increasing the cost of wireless service for next year. She stated regardless of who they deal with, they have been told they will be experiencing a $50 increase per month per deputy per user; that equates to $185,000; and if that is not paid, the wireless communication will stop in July 2004. She stated they have just been notified within the last two months; it is included in this budget year; and they did not know it was coming. She stated they can ask the attorney to look into it; there are a number of things they can do; and she just wanted to make the Board aware that it is something they do not have a choice in. Chairperson Colon inquired what is the number per deputy; with Ms. Barker responding the $185,000 is a pro-rated figure that is not for the whole year. Chairperson Colon inquired if it is from July to September 30; with Ms. Barker responding the $185,000 is going to start in January 2004; they have been told if they do not pay the bill, the communication will stop in July 2004; and she wanted to bring it to the Board’s attention. She stated Human Resources has done a study; regarding the 3% increase, they appreciate the consideration of any increase at all knowing how tight things are; they all have hard jobs and are excellent employees; and requested the Board’s consideration of something slightly more than 3% for the correction officers and deputies. She inquired if the Board wants to tackle the grant issue today; with Chairperson Colon and Mr. Jenkins responding no.

Mr. Whitten stated it says June 2004 and it is unfunded; and inquired how much of that is MSTU; with Ms. Barker responding all of it is under MSTU. Mr. Jenkins noted there is a cash forward there. Mr. Whitten inquired if it could be funded with cash forward; with Ms. Barker responding if the Board wants to. Mr. Whitten stated it can be addressed this year by doing that; with Ms. Barker advising it is not this year’s cost, but next year’s cost; but if the Board wants to manage the numbers so this could be covered by the cash forward, they can work on that together.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he does not see any mention of a FIND grant application for the 31-foot boat; FIND is looking for qualified projects; and it would probably enjoy having this submitted. Ms. Barker stated they applied a couple of weeks ago. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if they are looking at a 50% or 80% grant; with Ms. Barker responding it was not that much, possibly 25%. Commissioner Pritchard stated that can be boosted; and suggested calling Jerry Sansom, Commissioner of FIND for Brevard County, who is looking for qualified projects. He advised Mr. Sansom made a presentation last night; he does not believe FIND is spending enough as it tends to have a nest egg; he would like to find qualified projects; and this project falls into that category.

Commissioner Pritchard stated fugitive agent is listed for $104,000; he is hoping with the signature bond reduction program, that will not be needed; and it may be possible to take one or two of the fugitive agents and reassign them. He stated there are 55 unfunded program changes; and he would like to see a priority list from all the departments. Ms. Barker inquired if the whole County is going to do that; with Commissioner Pritchard responding he is going to ask everyone to do that; it would help the Board; and noted the AED batteries are listed as number 55. Ms. Barker advised the list may be alphabetical. Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to have those lists lined up with priority numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, etc; and that is a simpler way for the Board to address what are considered critical needs.

CLERK

Chairperson Colon stated it has been pretty simple throughout the Capital Improvement workshops; and if there is no money, the Board moves on. She stated the Board has still not heard from the State Attorney’s office or the Clerk of Courts; with Mr. Jenkins advising they do not have any issues. Chairperson Colon inquired if there are no additions to any of those budgets; with Mr. Jenkins responding there was one issue about subpoenas that they are aware of and they will take care of it. Chairperson Colon inquired about the Clerk of Courts; with Mr. Jenkins responding he is fine, and it will be taken care of. Commissioner Higgs inquired how much was the Clerk of Courts’ increase; with Mr. Jenkins responding with Article 5 the Clerk’s budget is going through a significant change; it is being funded for nine months; and then there is a much reduced funding for the fourth quarter, so it is actually going down. Mr. Rogero noted it is being reduced $2.5 million or approximately 25%. Mr. Jenkins advised that is because it is a reconfiguration of how it is funded. Mr. Rogero noted the EDC is present. Chairperson Colon inquired if that is the last one; with Mr. Jenkins responding no.

TICO AIRPORT AUTHORITY

David Edwards, representing Tico Airport Authority stated their requested millage rate was less than what was proposed as a tentative budget; they have worked that out through the Budget office; and they are seeing a reduction in the millage rate this year.

STATE ATTORNEY

Debbie Rehder, representing State Attorney Norm Wolfinger, stated Mr. Wolfinger had a medical appointment this morning and was hoping to make it to the meeting; there were a couple of things they wanted to address; but they appear to be staff issues that can be worked on. She stated the only other thing they were going to address had to do with witness management, which is a result of Article 5; they realize there are going to be some reductions; and that has already taken place in the budget that has been submitted. She stated there was one position where there was a resolution by the Board that it would fund one of those positions; there was an agreement that in lieu of collecting $250 for a felony and $50 for misdemeanor, a position would be supplied for witness management; and that would be the only position they would ask to maintain the 25% and not take a cut. She stated the total for the quarter is approximately $10,000. Mr. Jenkins inquired are they going to lose the revenues they previously received; with Ms. Rehder responding they do not know. Mr. Jenkins stated the way the law is written now, they are not going to get them. Ms. Rehder responded right now the way it is written, they do not see that it would be taken away; and it was the pretrial intervention costs. Mr. Jenkins stated if the revenues are there, it is something they could look at. Ms. Rehder stated right now it is one of those situations where they did not know enough because they did not have enough time; they did try to talk about the issue to determine that; so, at least they want it in some kind of cash reserve in the event it is everyone’s interpretation that the revenue is still there. She stated the remaining 25% for the last quarter is $10,123, which would remain in the budget. Mr. Jenkins stated if it is a specific fee for that purpose and they continue to get it, then it could be set aside for that purpose; but if they do not, they could not do that; and that is something they could explore further.

Chairperson Colon stated she appreciates Ms. Rehder bringing that to the Board’s attention; and anything else should be submitted through memo as soon as possible. Ms. Rehder stated they are all going to be holding hands together and working through Article 5.

GUARDIAN AD LITEM

Leonard Clark, representing the Guardian Ad Litem Program; stated he is present to renew his request for the Guardian Ad Litem funding of the three County positions, which the Board has funded over the last four years; the total cost of the funding for the last quarter, July to September 30, 2004 would be $30,954; Mr. Van Bever mentioned the Guardian Ad Litem Program because under Article 5, it has come out from the umbrella of the court; but the work has not changed any.

Chairperson Colon inquired if the Board has discussed this previously. Mr. Jenkins stated it came up at the last workshop, but Mr. Clark was not present; it is not funded; and he has a total of 12 positions now. Mr. Clark stated he had 12.5 positions; the State took all the positions that it funded, 9.5 positions, and funded them as they moved them; and he is asking the County to fund the three positions it has always funded under Court Administration, which he is not long under as of January 1, 2004. Commissioner Higgs stated $30,000 is needed; with Mr. Clark clarifying it is $30,954 for one quarter. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board has always funded it. Mr. Clark stated this is not an increase in the balanced budget because the Board has always funded the three positions through Court Administration; but now he needs a conduit to get to the County; and Mr. Van Bever normally spoke for him, but now he is required to speak for himself and be put somewhere else, if the Board intends to continue supporting the positions. Mr. Jenkins stated the question is where to fund them from; with Mr. Rogero responding it would have been funded under the Judicial branch. Mr. Jenkins inquired where did the money come from. Mr. Rogero responded a combination of General Fund and court fees, then corrected it was entirely General Fund. Chairperson Colon stated it was already in the budget for 2003. Mr. Clark advised the State referred none of the expenses it incurred over to the County. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board wants to be sure it knows what it is doing; it does not have to have everything finalized; and Mr. Jenkins, staff, and the Guardian Ad Litem can work on these things.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to look at the requested Guardian Ad Litem funding of $30,954, and advise how it can be continued.

LAW LIBRARY

Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Jenkins said he was trying to find what those dollars could be replaced with, and she has been looking through things that have been funded; the law library is funded at $53,000; and suggested looking at that for potential funding. Mr. Jenkins stated the County is statutorily required to fund that, although at what level is another question. Commissioner Carlson stated it is $53,210 for capital outlay; it says it will meet the law library performance measurements for providing legal materials and information services in a cost efficient manner; and she does not know if that is a necessary thing. Mr. Jenkins stated the bottom line is if the Board does not fund the law library to that extent, it will have to reduce its staffing and hours of service. Commissioner Carlson stated she was referring to the amount for capital outlay; and inquired if that is a necessary part because they are funded much more than $53,000. Mr. Jenkins advised that amount is for law books and computer software.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has questions about the law library because of the way it operates and some of the changes; the law library served the public to a greater extent than the legal community; and inquired what type law library best serves the people. Commissioner Carlson noted her idea was just a suggestion.

Chairperson Colon stated there are different avenues to look at. She stated there is a motion on the floor; and it sounds positive, but is not a commitment. Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

TICO AIRPORT AUTHORITY (CONTINUED)

Commissioner Pritchard stated under trends and issues in the Tico summary, it says Tico is a subordinate tax district; and he thought it was a dependent tax district. Mr. Edwards responded it is a dependent tax district; but he believes the Budget office uses the different term. Mr. Rogero stated it is used in a different context; and it is subordinate in that the Board sets the millage. Commissioner Pritchard stated it is a dependent tax district; and advised next year’s requested budget is $183,000 and the tentative budget is $198,000. Mr. Edwards stated they actually requested a lower millage rate than the Budget office put in place; the Budget office kept the rate at the same rate as this year; they have discussed that issue with staff; and it will be reduced in the final budget. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if it will drop $15,000; with Mr. Edwards responding that is correct. Commissioner Pritchard stated where does the $1.6 million come from; with Mr. Edwards responding the miscellaneous is all the fees and charges for T-hangars, and commercial leases, both aviation and non-aviation; and it is all of the rents and fees rolled up into one line item. Commissioner Pritchard inquired if that does not include any DOT grants that Tico would normally be getting; with Mr. Edwards responding affirmatively. Mr. Edwards stated they provided some capital information; there is a section that shows capital reserves of approximately $104,000; and those are the match dollars they are budgeting to match FAA and FDOT grants in the upcoming year. Commissioner Pritchard inquired how much revenue might be generated in grants this year; with Mr. Edwards responding based on the $104,000, they will generate approximately $2 million in grant funding. Commissioner Pritchard stated overall the budget would be roughly $2 million in grants, $1.8 million, and then $183,000 falls into that, so the total budget is almost $4 million; with Mr. Edwards advising that is correct, with the $2 million being the capital portion of the budget. Commissioner Pritchard stated non-operating expenditures increased 512% due to the debt payment being listed in debt service; and inquired where was it listed before. Mr. Edwards responded it was part of the expense item; operating expenses dropped from $817,000 to $631,000; and they are trying to properly reflect where those expenses are as they follow up with the budget. Commissioner Pritchard stated next year there will not be an increase of 512% in non-operating expenses.

Chairperson Colon stated she wants to be sure everyone received the information from the Citizens Budget Review Committee; the Committee has a lot of questions it submitted; and a lot are in regard to increase in positions, and why the County and Charter officers run separate Human Resources, payrolls, and accounting systems.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

Mason Blake, representing the Economic Development Commission, thanked the Board for the opportunity to make a presentation on behalf of the EDC’s budget request; stated the EDC is composed of people who believe in Brevard County and are committed to the County; and they are committed to bringing a strong economic quality of life to the County. He stated they have a Board of Directors of 80 members who represent business, government, education, and related sectors of the community; in an effort to rethink how to make the organization more effective over the past two years, they have restructured to operate through ten committees; and this has been successful and has enhanced the effectiveness of the organization and broadened the base of the volunteer support. He stated the EDC also works through its partners; its effectiveness is due in large part to the strength of the partners; and it acts as a catalyst focusing, energizing, and leading other community organizations, and marshaling community resources and economic development efforts. He stated in addition to leveraging its resources and partners, the EDC is also able to leverage County funding to obtain grants that allow it to enhance its efforts and effectiveness. He displayed a chart showing that over the past three years they have received $360,000 in grant funding; almost $350,000 of that was for advanced infrastructure support at Patrick Air Force Base, which is even more important as they enter the BRAC process; and they worked to create a dynamic economic environment. He stated last week he was asked who the EDC assists; and displayed a chart showing the existing businesses they serve. He stated 60% of their customers are in marketing, 17% in information technology, and 12% in the aerospace and defense industry; and approximately 73% of the businesses they serve in the existing business community are small businesses, 17% are medium, and 10% are large, which reflects the composition of the business community in the County. He stated in terms of recruiting businesses, those break down approximately 50% for manufacturing, 12% for aerospace and defense, and 22% for financial services; and those efforts in recruiting and helping existing businesses in the County have achieved results. He stated they have worked hard to diversify the Brevard County economy and give it strength to weather the storms that came about this year with the Columbia disaster; the last shuttle disaster fifteen years ago devastated the economy of the County; but in the past year, they have been able to grow the economy with a much more diverse base. He stated the EDC has been a prime mover in making that happen; it had tremendous successes such as Knight Enterprises; and recently there was the announcement that the new Washington Mutual Service Center would be coming to the County. He stated they want to continue that success, but to do that they need to have funds to promote the County; they need brochures; they need to attend trade shows; and they need to work with relocation consultants. He stated over the past several years, with no increases in the budget, that money has gone away; it is the first area to be cut because it is not possible to cut medical, rent, lights, etc; and as those expenses go up and there are no increases in the budget, the promotional expenses are the ones that are cut. He commented if there is no bait in the water, it is not going to be possible to bring fish in the boat; and that is where they are today and what the budget request is about. He stated they need funds to continue to do the job they have done and bring new economic investment to the County.

Lynda Weatherman, President and CEO of the EDC, stated what the Board has heard in the past are some of the successes and challenges that the EDC has faced in the last few years in diversifying the economy; they want to make sure those successes are the kind of business benchmarks they can be proud of; and the theme of her presentation will be: (1) they cannot be complacent, and (2), they have to broaden their horizons for economic development opportunity. She stated they are in a wonderful community, and are on the threshold of doing some wonderful economic development activities, if they work together; but they also face some challenges. She stated the EDC is facing global challenges that impact locally; it is increasingly competitive; and commented on getting Washington Mutual. She stated companies that are looking to expand locally are more demanding; it cannot be assumed they will expand where they are now because they are going to look at other sites and are going to be courted; companies are being sought after not only in the southeast like they used to be, but globally; and they are also looking at the community and slicing it a lot more than they ever have before because of the current economic times. She stated when a company makes a decision to relocate or expand into an area, it is a decision for the next 100 years, and has to be right; so they are going to slice every community they can to find more about the quantitative analysis of why their business should be there and what is the competitive advantage of doing business in the community; and the community needs to have answers and data. Ms. Weatherman stated in addition to the global competition, there has been decreased investment in marketing dollars; and displayed a chart showing where marketing dollars have been spent and the output in regard to prospect activity. She stated there is a direct correlation between money spent and site tours and prospects; it is as simple as companies coming to look at the area; it is necessary to have more companies come in to look at an area to get more hits; and it is like selling a house in that in a weekend, one would want 50 people walking through and not just two, because number 48 may be the one who will buy, so there is a direct correlation. She stated with increased investment in marketing dollars, that is what should be expected; and that is what the EDC should be held to. She advised in the 1930’s during the depression, all companies were pulling back and not making investments; but Tom Watson Sr. said it was the best economic time to make investments; so, in 1939 when the Social Security Administration and Census Bureau were ready to put out one of their historically largest RFP’s to date, the only company that was able to respond was IBM, which was founded by Tom Watson Sr., and had made an investment. She stated one cannot pull back when the economy is changing; now is the time to go out and plant the seed because the economy will rebound; and once it does, they will have already been there talking to the clients, whether the client is the U.S. Census Bureau or an arcade company looking to make an investment here. She stated the EDC vision is to build a smart successful Space Coast; it will do so by showcasing and maximizing capabilities, research, technology, and manufacturing; and it will not become complacent about Washington Mutual and Knight and the others that have come, but will continue the momentum and maximize the money. She stated the EDC wants to continue and maximize the momentum it has; it wants to broaden horizons for opportunities; and it has established five priorities. She stated the first priority is increasing lead; they want to increase the distribution channels, both traditional lead structure channels and new ones; and the traditional ones are the site relocation consultants, which are a prime source of Fortune 500 companies looking to relocate into an area. She stated Washington Mutual was able to locate here because the EDC had a team in place that was able to respond and project manage; everyone worked together in a cohesive manner to make the competitive argument that the company needed to relocate here; and that is a wonderful thing. She stated Washington Mutual would not be here if they had not been in the game; the only way to be in the game is to be out face-to-face talking to the consultants; this is a consultant-driven endeavor; and they want to keep the momentum on that and not pull back. She stated they want to continue and enhance the targeted industry approach into aerospace, defense, general aviation, high tech, and high wage; when everybody was going for Washington Mutual, one of her colleagues said they would never come to Brevard County because it was not known as a financial service center; but they proved them wrong because the County had the skill mix that the company was looking for. She stated it is not just the traditional industries the County wants to look into but emerging industries as well; and inquired how can the community capture general aviation. She stated they announced Liberty Aerospace a couple of weeks ago; and that is general aviation. Ms. Weatherman stated they are working with a company that developed a project; the company put a half billion dollars investment into the project; it wants to site its sales and after-market office; and if the County is successful in getting this, it will be a crown jewel in the world of general aviation. She stated the EDC can take that information, and if it is good for the company, it will be able to promote it because it will speak for itself as a sales tool; and that is working with the targeted industries and making the case that if this company can locate here, the County has a competitive advantage in the argument for other companies to locate here. She stated in talking about new technologies and emerging technologies, the EDC is not going to have to just work harder than any other EDO, but it will have to work smarter; it will have to talk to those companies that are having 21st-century projects; and advised Toyota is now investigating and developing prototypes to get into the general aviation market to the same extent, focus, and determination it did with the automobile market in the 1960’s and 1970’s. She stated product literature in the general aviation market is saying the market can change in the next two to five years because of developments that are taking place now; Toyota is building an airplane that is low cost and high quality, about the cost of a Lexus; in two to five years, they can change the market; and the EDC needs to talk to those companies now. She stated that is just one example of emerging technology or companies with new products for the 21st century that the EDC needs to talk to now; and compared it to talking to Xerox in the 1960’s. She stated they want to get ahead of the curve; the Toyota airplane is just one example; and manned and unmanned launch is another example. She stated SpaceX is a company that is developing a $6 million unmanned launch vehicle; there are also other companies out there; and the EDC needs to start interfacing with these companies because if they are successful and provide another niche into the unmanned launch market, it should not be assumed they will stay in California. She stated they might develop it now, but the EDC could talk to them now and acknowledge and respect the product being developed and inquired what they will need in the future, so the County can respond. She stated nobody is in line; but once the press releases start, every EDO in town will start coming out, so they want to get ahead of the curve. She stated they can do that by having an intelligent, aggressive, non-complacent approach to economic development; and that moves to the next priority, which is inciting innovation. She stated they want to capitalize on a research infrastructure; they want to increase the activities of patents and have companies involved in entrepreneur development, or have entrepreneurs aware of the patent process; and the EDC can help educate them. She stated the EDC wants to promote academic resources and opportunities, such as lab availability, shared resources, and equipment; if there is lab availability at UCF or Florida Tech that is underutilized, there might be companies that could do a whole product line if they had access to a certain kind of lab oratory; and the EDC wants to help broker that knowledge because the way to develop that critical mass is to create the conversation that is going on. She stated the EDC wants to strengthen academic linkages with local businesses; and it wants to focus on seed financing, research funding, and federal research and development funding. She advised of a co-venture to be held on August 19, 2003 as a promotion for entrepreneurs’ companies and business services involved in the high tech world; they will interface with Richard Fox prior to the 2003 Florida Innovation Venture Capital Forum; and that forum for the last seven years brought $130 million to high-tech companies. She stated before the forum occurs they want to get the man who puts it on face-to-face with resident industries so they can ask what is needed, and what are they looking for in the five-minute presentation; and they want to create that synergy between the entrepreneur, research, and funding before they create the environment to be a smart successful Brevard County. Ms. Weatherman stated under each of the priorities, she has developed action items, which she will not go into; the economic development business is hard; and another factor is to identify university resources and databases. She stated Frank Kinney has in his TRDA office a wonderful database listing all the university professors and what the research expertise is; the EDC, as a partner with TRDA, needs to make sure this information is brought to the attention of the local entrepreneur and business community; and commented on a scenario where a company working on a ceramic product, but experiencing some technological problem could call UCF or Florida Tech. She stated for universities and entrepreneurs to be together is very complex; the product has to work; there has to be the right chemistry; they have to agree on the equity distribution; and it is not going to be possible to get those things together if they do not know how to get to the university and talk to the professor who has the know-how needed for the market. She stated these are things that require some investment; but they make the County, smart, successful, existing, and innovative. She stated the next priority is to maximize ability in research; this is a brain game; and one of the most profound things that has occurred in the last years is the advent of the webpage as a portion of entry for companies. She stated it is a global world; companies are not going to call or fly over to ask for product literature; consultants advise of the need for a good, effective webpage; and the EDC is determined to do that. She stated the EDC needs to enhance its webpage in two ways; if an investor is looking at the webpage, they do now know Brevard County or what a wonderful place it is; and the webpage needs to convince them of that as well as addressing their specific concerns. She stated when they come to the County, they need to know there is an appropriate program they can access, a vendor relationship the EDC can help them with, and a critical mass, so when their tooling breaks down, they will not be the only show in town and there will be appropriate support mechanisms; and the webpage needs to be designed to show the specific interests of investors. She stated when the companies go to the webpage, they need to be able to capture that intelligence; that requires a sophisticated webpage; and that is why they hire someone to do that. She stated she needs to talk to the companies; once they get the companies into the room, she thinks they can get them; but they need to get them in the room. She stated they cannot be ignorant of the fact that there is a massive new process of lead generation through webpages; the County’s webpages can be as big as the biggest EDC in the country; and that is the beauty of webpages. She stated another priority is a local tech-based economy; and there is a list of goals. She stated one is matching business needs with university expertise, which is different than the entrepreneur one in that this is business needs; they already have an agreement with M. J. Soileau, who is head of research for UCF, and has agreed to meet on a consistent basis with local resident industries; and they have already done this with Florida Tech. She stated they can get industries face-to-face with the research dollars and joint venture opportunities that are there and the lab equipment that might be available; that is a brokering of interests; and commented on a local company that has developed an engine test stand that might be used by the students of UCF. She stated another one is expanding opportunities related to homeland security; a whole new market has opened up in this area; and the EDC does not want to wait until there is an RFP to find out someone is trying to buy laser-guided missiles; they want to be proactive and understand that the phenomena is taking place; and advised of a local company that is teaming up with companies from Miami and St. Petersburg for on-the-shelf technology for the self-protection system for commercial airlines, using technology that is currently used for fighter jets, and the argument concerning laser-based technology and infrared technology. Ms. Weatherman stated they want to work with the appropriate congressional offices to see what they can do to promote the use of the on-the-shelf technology. She stated in terms of BRAC, they are going to enhance the defense initiative; that may not be the approach that was taken previously in 1989, 1991, 1994, or 1995; they are not going to say the closing of the base will devastate the economy; and the key is called transformation. She stated the common denominator to military transformation is joint use opportunities; so their approach to BRAC will be to enhance missions, joint use opportunities, and MILCOM because the more investment there is in the next 18 months, and the more important and more valid the base is, the less chance it will be cut. She stated there needs to be research; there need to be funds to study it; and gave an example of enhancing missions at Patrick Air Force Base by capturing a radar production facility and bringing it to PAFB. She stated they need to continue their investment with Congressman Weldon’s office in working with the Space Coast Defense Alliance to continue the military construction that is taking place; in the past five years, $32 million of military construction has been put into PAFB; and they need to continue to see what they can do to support those efforts, which requires a lot of work, meeting with Pentagon offices, having community presentations, and having the Senate Chair of the Arm Services Committee come down. She stated innovation will drive the economy; the innovative economic development program will support the innovative economy; trade research and technology are key elements; they have the power to anchor the region in the global marketplace; and making a strong commitment to economic development will help do that. She stated one Commissioner advised it is between funding the EDC or guardian ad litem, for instance; but a strong economic development program and proven EDC can work together to bring in a tax base that can pay for things like the guardian ad litem program. She advised she is not putting the EDC up against the guardian ad litem; as a foster mother, she would not want to do that; but these are seeds the Board plants. She stated it does not work the other way; it is not possible to fund social services and expect the business; they have to increase business in this area; and they have proven they can do it in an economy that could not be predicted, and they can do it even when the economy turns up.

Mr. Blake thanked the Board; and assured it the EDC of the Florida Space Coast is dollar for dollar, and pound for pound the most effective in the State. He stated he is convinced that they need additional tools to make the economic future of the County what they all want it to be; and they are asking for the Board’s help, which is the reason for the budget increase. He requested other EDC directors to stand; and stated they are investing their time to let the Board know how important this is to the future of the County. He stated he knows the Board has hard decisions to make; the dollars spent on the EDC are investment dollars; for every dollar invested in the EDC over the past three years, there has been a $35 average return on the investment; so this is not an expense, but an investment that is going to come home with increased economic vitality in the County and an increased economic tax base.

Commissioner Carlson stated she supported the EDC all along in the tax abatement program and everything else; obviously they are now in tight times; and she does not know if there is support for an increase of $167,000. She stated Mr. Jenkins asked for ways to find dollars within the current budget; she came up with some ideas; and the Board can decide if they have any merit. She stated Ms. Weatherman emphasized partnerships with the academic sector, etc.; and inquired if the $167,000 is in the marketing arena; with Ms. Weatherman responding it would be in marketing and development; and recommended looking at the action items under each of those things.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired what partnerships can be developed between the EDC and the TDC for marketing dollars; is there a way to find additional dollars for the EDC; and has the EDC worked with the different city EDO’s to leverage marketing dollars. Ms. Weatherman responded there is no one ad that the EDC has ever placed since she has been there that they have done solely; they have a joint ad with Tico; and they had a historical arrangement with the Port of Canaveral in doing ads and sharing trade show costs. She stated concerning the TDC dollars, it would be necessary to have dollars to match it; they are very discriminate in where they place ads; if they do an ad for $3,000, they need to have the $1,500 in place; and if they do not have that, that is where they find the lack in continuing momentum. Commissioner Carlson stated she is talking about discretionary dollars and the TDC, how that would potentially combine with EDC directives, and what they are interested in doing. Mr. Jenkins stated the missions are different; they already look for opportunities to do joint ventures; and they have done some brochures and things like that; but in looking at the Statutory language and the local Ordinance outlining what the tourist tax can be spent for, unless the EDC is doing something that is tourism oriented, it is not up there.

Commissioner Higgs stated there might be some opportunities if they are looking at the marketing dollars; if the EDC is marketing the community through the website or others, there may be some partnerships that could be pulled together; the TDC has a very active website program and outreach advertising; and the EDC may be able to partner, so that is an area to look at. She stated she understands the concern to be sure there is consistency with the law; but that is an interesting idea.

Commissioner Carlson stated she knows the EDC partners with the academic sector; and inquired have there been any agreements put out with academics like UCF, FIT, or BCC to deal with the marketing dollars, with the idea of cultivating the jobs the EDC is trying to bring in with big companies that compete globally. Ms. Weatherman stated that is the best approach; they are a member of the marketing group of the Florida High Tech Corridor; UCF, USF, and Florida Tech are active members of that group; they are able to do projects the EDC would not otherwise be able to do; and they will do ads and place the EDC logo on it, so they are actually piggybacking on that with no cost. She stated they are sharing knowledge and partnering with approximately 18 other EDO’s in the area; and one of the slides was focused on their partnerships. She stated academic partnerships are increasing; the partnerships are focused on what they can offer that the EDC can act as broker to help the existing businesses; but funds have to come to the table to do some creative stuff. Commissioner Carlson stated she is talking about whatever existing dollars the EDC has; if the EDC is going to an event where there is an academic person, they can combine forces specifically for some purpose; and that is what she is looking at leveraging. She inquired if the EDC has worked on product development and fees for services that would generate revenue; with Ms. Weatherman responding they look at that too; they charge for the economic development profile that they do; there was a charge for processing the ad valorem; and there was a fee when they did a TEFRA hearing for industrial revenue bonds. Ms. Weatherman noted with the cost of money now, industrial revenue bonds are not as active as they used to be. She stated they have constantly searched for other grant funds, and have been lucky in some cases; they have done very good outreach for the space industry because Spaceport Florida Authority came to the EDC to do a co-venture; but that was a one-time opportunity, and they did not have money for the next year. She stated while they are diligent in looking for grants, there are no grants that are going to help an EDO compete to get a company out of another state; but there might be community development grants or grants designed to enhance military bases; so the EDC focuses on those. She stated outside of what has already been brought up, leveraging the money by doing joint ventures and sharing ads, etc., they have looked into it, but she would be happy to sit down and come up with some other things. Commissioner Carlson stated she is thinking of additional collateral the EDC could produce and sell to get a return and revenue source, a funding source that would be over and above what the County provides; and inquired how much does the County fund economic development. Mr. Jenkins responded the County’s economic development would be very minimal; there is one position and one part-time secretary who do a multitude of things; that person oversees the County’s industrial park; he helps with any of the TEFRA hearings and with affordable housing financial bond issue things; but there is no economic development at the Board level; and the Board relies on the EDC to do that.

Commissioner Higgs inquired how many occupational licenses are issued each year; with Mr. Jenkins estimating approximately $420,000 a year; and Mr. Whitten clarified approximately 24,000 to 26,000 are issued. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Tax Collector has implemented an increase in that fee in the last years; with Mr. Whitten responding it was done two years ago; and statutorily the Board only had that one opportunity to do it. Mr. Jenkins stated staff will research that.

Ms. Weatherman advised the EDC has increased its fee structure membership base; and it went through a capital campaign bringing in $40,000, so there has been an effort and focus on bringing in private sector dollars.

Mr. Jenkins requested Mr. Knox research the issue of occupational licenses; stated Mr. Whitten does not think it can be increased, but he thinks it may be done every two years. Commissioner Higgs stated she remembers there were some limitations. Mr. Jenkins stated if Mr. Knox could research that, it could be a potential funding source because the occupational licenses are modest.

Commissioner Carlson stated they have tried to get certain departments to be self-sufficient through the fee process; they got a paper on what they are trying to do and how they are doing it; and it said it was being done over a three-year period. Mr. Jenkins advised they are in the third year now. Commissioner Carlson stated as of 2003-2004 they are going to bring up those departments to self-sufficiency; with Mr. Jenkins advising it is the three that were mentioned in the memorandum. Commissioner Carlson inquired are there any other departments that are in the process of becoming self-sufficient; with Mr. Jenkins responding that was the majority of them. Commissioner Carlson inquired if there are departments that have fees that they are looking to stretch out over the three years, is there any way to relieve general fund dollars by getting those fees to speed up sooner. Mr. Jenkins stated the Board can always look at increasing fees; but in most of the permitting fees, they have gotten to where they are self-sufficient; and there was a discussion about Planning and Zoning the other day. Commissioner Carlson inquired if Planning and Zoning is not to that level yet; with Mr. Jenkins responding Mr. Scott said the direct immediate costs are funded, but if things get protracted, they might not be; and generally they are recovering the initial expenses associated with processing the zoning matters. Commissioner Higgs stated there is a real general fund cost that should be allocated; and to carry all of that on fees may not be appropriate.

DISCUSSION, RE: PROPOSED BUDGET OPTIONS AND AMENDMENTS

Chairperson Colon stated the Board needs to discuss what it wants to do; there are still program change priority discussion, discussion of budget options, proposed amendments to the tentative budget; and the CIP.

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the program changes are up to the Board; the Board received the book that has those changes; and the majority are unfunded, with very few funded. He stated he has 12 Department Directors present to make brief presentations as the Board indicated it wanted at the last meeting; but they do not feel necessarily compelled to go through the presentations because the program change requests are self-explanatory.

Commissioner Scarborough stated at the prior meeting, Commissioner Higgs brought up something about the District 1 Parks and Recreation millage; he met with Mr. Nelson; and the issue is the Harry T. Moore site, which is opening and will cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars to operate. He stated because they have the operating costs, they need to have the money from the MSTU; Mr. Nelson reviewed the figures, but is still compelled that it is important; and that is still an open-ended issue, although Mr. Nelson has the capacity to look at different ways of how that opens and how it operates. Mr. Jenkins distributed paperwork containing revised numbers; and stated after those discussions, they have reduced the amount of increase in the District 1 Parks Special District and have reinstated the Road and Bridge millages to the current millage rate. He noted four of the five Districts still have a tax reduction; District 1 is going up $1 for an average home; and if the Road and Bridge MSTU is put at rollback as opposed to current, there would not even be that increase. Commissioner Scarborough recommended doing that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Commissioner Carlson brought up the law library.

Commissioner Pritchard stated his question does not relate to a specific program; the EDC asked for $167,000 to do more things; he looks upon that as a venture capitalism, where the County can provide money, and the return on the investment could be “x” dollars; and inquired if they are expected at this meeting to take a position on certain requests and whether they should be included in the budget or is this going to come back at a later date.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if it is a major thing that is going to impact the TRIM Notice and the millage, the Board needs to discuss it; but if it is a minor thing, it may be worked out with the taxes. He stated some things can be worked out and go ahead and set the millage; but if any Commissioner wants to move to a major item that is going to impact the millage, he would like to discuss it this afternoon because it would not be something he or staff would know about. He noted he does not have anything he is going to propose to do to the millage; but if a Commissioner wants a change, it should be discussed.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he would like to voice strong support for enhancing the EDC’s operation; the potential as well as the previous returns have been significant; and he would hate to lose the economic drive. He commented on Mr. Blake’s earlier comment about fishing and bait. He stated if the Board can provide incentive to get out and do more interactions with businesses, there is a much better opportunity to have them come; they are going to drive the economic engine; and the time to do it is on the economic downswing. He recommended setting out the hooks now to see what they can bring in; and stated a year or two from now, they may find themselves a dollar short.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he is willing to look at anything; but he is becoming more convinced that his role is not to define the dollar, but to define the community’s mood as to it. He stated he has two thoughts; one is that there is law of diminishing returns; if one throws fertilizer on a plant, it grows; but if too much fertilizer is thrown on it, it does not provide much return. He stated last summer he read a book called The Tipping Point; the tipping point is not necessarily where one expects it to be; and that is why he likes the smart thinking like the jail concepts and some of the other things the Board heard today. He stated he is willing to go to the EDC and look at it; but some things that were bothering him have still not been defined; and advised of a St. Petersburg Times article comparing KSC and Johnson Space Center. He stated Johnson gets $4 billion a year for the manned program; KSC gets $800 million; where they were going off to private contractors, they were supposed to get $1.6 billion; but the KSC Director cut it down to half that amount; and that is a partial BRAC occurring. He stated Sean O’Keefe said there is going to be one NASA; a director and deputy director are coming from other centers; and the Board needs to be proactive. He stated he is glad to hear M. J. Soileau’s name mentioned as well as Dr. Richard Fox; but they are going to have to convince him that it is not going to be the same old fertilizer thrown on the same old plant. He stated it is too easy to put out some brochures and go to another trade show; but basically they need to go to who and what they are, and what assets they can utilize to be smart. He stated if they can show him that, the EDC may get his vote, but they have not gotten it yet.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he believes a person makes his own luck; and the more irons one has in the fire, the better. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not disagree.

Commissioner Pritchard stated he agrees it is possible to reach a point with fertilizer where the plant will die; he does not want to see that; but he wants to have an opportunity to drive the economic engine.

Commissioner Higgs stated she is willing to look at it; it is important to continue to have a strong force doing economic development; but she also agrees with Commissioner Scarborough in that she wants to see what they are talking about and understand why the marketing dollars are down when the budget is not down. She stated she is also interested in other sources, as Commissioner Carlson pointed out, that may be available to enhance the effort in a partnership; they are going to come out of the meeting knowing pretty much what the millage will be on Tuesday; and from what she hears, there will be no millage increase. Commissioner Scarborough agreed they can do it this year.

Commissioner Carlson stated she shares the interest Commissioner Pritchard has about making sure not to lose momentum; she has always supported the EDC; they do a good job; and the committees have helped bring in more people. Commissioner Scarborough stated what is occurring with KSC is a sub-BRAC. Commissioner Carlson stated they have a BRAC; with Commissioner Scarborough responding just for Patrick Air Force Base; and they have not focused on KSC. Commissioner Scarborough stated there are some real options; and it is not that they are doing a bad job; but they are here to dig in and do it better next time. Commissioner Carlson stated that is an important angle, but she does not know much about it, although she knows BRAC is focused on Patrick Air Force Base. Commissioner Scarborough stated the thing with KSC is even bigger.

LAW LIBRARY (CONTINUED)

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about the transfer in law library activities; and requested Ms. Schweinsberg give a historical perspective on having law libraries in multiple courthouses.

Library Services Director Catherine Schweinsberg stated the law library now has one library; historically it had three; and the one is now at the Government Center. She stated the activity in the law library is over 50% public; and they maintain law collections at the Central Library for the public, although things have changed now with Article 5. Commissioner Scarborough stated with Article 5, they are not going to have a committee involved or have monies; with Ms. Schweinsberg advising there is no more fee structure for court fees. Commissioner Scarborough stated it will totally be Library Services’ function; he used to go to the law library in Titusville, and was amazed that the users were members of the public rather than attorneys; now there is one law library at the Government Center; but if he goes there at 6:00 p.m. or on Saturday, it is closed; and most public libraries are open on Sunday. He stated what he would like to do is find out what the public is primarily interested in; the more educated a client is, the better an attorney one can be; so it is good for the public to know the law. He stated the public has as much right to know the law as they do to do financial analysis; the County does not have to give financial advice or legal advise; but it could go back to making the law library more of a community asset. He requested staff check what volumes the public is using and advise the Board; and it will be possible to have a better service to the public in providing legal information. He stated he does not think it will cost to do that; and it would be integrated into the program. Mr. Jenkins requested clarification of the initiative. Commissioner Scarborough stated even though the law library is closed in the evening and on the weekends, it has 50% public use; most public libraries are open all the time; and Ms. Schweinsberg can look at integrating those things and perhaps have a questionnaire asking what volumes the individual checked out and why so it can be made more convenient. He stated then Mr. Jenkins and Ms. Schweinsberg would know where to go; and maybe they could start with major libraries.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct staff to look into surveying non-attorney users of the law library to see which volumes are most used and what houses would be most convenient to users. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

NATURAL RESOURCES

Commissioner Carlson stated the book is CIP basically, funded and non-funded; and she has some that cross over both of them. She stated PCNR 1 is under Natural Resources; and there is a funded position for Beach Coordinator staff, which is being transferred over to the TDC. Mr. Jenkins stated the funding is being transferred, but the position stays where it is. Commissioner Carlson stated she was reading the justification; it says the management section currently has one supervisor and two staff members dedicated primarily to beach restoration and other beach issues; the other three staff members are responsible for developing Natural Resources Ordinances and everything else Natural Resources does; and inquired now that the north and south reach are completed, are two staff members needed dedicated primarily to beach restoration just for the mid-reach. Mr. Jenkins stated staff will look at that. Commissioner Carlson states she was looking for dollars for item NR5, which was conservation significant environmental areas; the Board is very supportive of that; and it is in the Comprehensive Plan with a date set for completion by 2002. She stated now it looks like it cannot be finished because there is not staff and equipment; there is a large price tag of $148,000 on it, which is a concern because she does not know what it is for other than two individuals; and there is capital outlay of $51,000. She stated she would like to see if there is any way of moving people around to assist them in trying to continue their efforts.

PARKS AND RECREATION

Commissioner Carlson stated she also has a question about a Parks and Recreation land management position. Parks and Recreation Director Charles Nelson inquired if that is for endangered lands; with Commissioner Carlson responding no. Mr. Jenkins stated it is probably going back to the notion that Board policy is to manage all parklands. Commissioner Carlson inquired can they get some of those dollars from EEL’s since they are also managing the EEL’s properties, and can they partnership there. Mr. Jenkins stated these are not EEL’s properties but parkland that has been purchased another way. Commissioner Carlson inquired if someone was hired for EEL’s management, could they not use any of their time for any other property the County owns; with Mr. Jenkins responding he does not think so as the referendum was to purchase and maintain those environmentally-sensitive lands. Mr. Nelson stated they share expertise, but to have them actively and daily involved in the management of non-endangered lands would be in conflict with the original program.

Commissioner Carlson stated the beach renourishment projects that have been completed on the two ends are the easiest part; the one that will be most challenging and require the greatest resources will be the middle part; and recommended looking carefully at whether now is the time to take out resources. She stated this is similar to the IBM issue; and the Board better invest now because this is the toughest part. Commissioner Carlson stated she understands that, but it seems to be driven by the State and federal government versus the County right now. Commissioner Higgs stated this has been successful because of the resources that the Board has put into it to keep it on the front burner; and she would be skeptical about taking away some of those resources that would allow this to move forward. Commissioner Carlson stated she would like to look at it just because completing those reaches was already a big amount of time. Commissioner Higgs stated there are huge issues that will require scientific data and manipulation of the whole thing. Commissioner Carlson inquired does the County have to be responsible or is the State going to have to do that; with Commissioner Higgs responding it is not going to happen unless the Board continues to be on the forefront of having that looked at.

Chairperson Colon stated today’s newspaper had an article regarding West Nile virus; she is concerned about the community being out in the evenings; and she asked her staff to send a copy of the newspaper article to the School Board as school will be starting soon and to the parks in her District. She stated they do not know for sure if the gentleman has the virus; Mosquito Control is spraying; and inquired about awareness. Mr. Nelson stated they work closely with the Health Department as well as Mosquito Control on those issues; they look for their guidance in terms of posting; and they will start doing the typical use bug spray and wear long sleeves in the evening notices at the park sites.

Commissioner Carlson stated in the funded category, there was discussion last time about the millage rate in District 1 going up versus the others; and a lot of it was absorbed; with Mr. Nelson agreeing they amended it. Commissioner Carlson stated she is still seeing a lot of money there; and inquired what did they forego to get the current budget, which says there are going to be 26 new positions in the North Area Parks operation. Mr. Nelson responded a sizable portion of that is associated with a business operation at the pier; so a number of those positions are in effect paid by what will be an enterprise operation when it gets to that stage; and the way they adjusted was to look at the starting dates for certain positions and based on an up-to-date review of construction schedules and when people would start, they amended some of those. He stated they also looked at some of the operating costs because they are budgetary in nature; next year they may be in a different position and have a better history; and they can adjust next year. He stated they are comfortable that within the parameters before them, they will be able to adjust, and they are going to be okay; and then next year they may be in a position to have a different type of discussion. Commissioner Carlson stated Mr. Nelson is talking about an adjustment in the north area; and it will not affect any other area; with Mr. Nelson advising it is solely handled by the north area.

Commissioner Scarborough stated there were two referendums in the North Brevard area; before they had the one with everybody else, they had one in Port St. John that passed for approximately $5 million; at that time they did not implement within that any operating; so it came on and was absorbed by an MSTU for the entire north area. He stated when they came in with the subsequent referendum, it appeared to be unfair that one came in without operating and the other one would have operating; it was going to be totally absorbed within the overall MSTU; and that is why they are getting a ripple effect as they open the Harry T. Moore site because they have to pick up the operation of the Moore site as they open the park. He stated it is a unique dilemma that was caused by the dual action rather than the single action because they did not do an operating component in the Port St. John referendum.

Commissioner Pritchard stated Commissioner Carlson hit it on the head with her idea of cross-utilization of personnel between departments; people are the best resources; and they need to see if there are areas where they can be used in a more broad perspective to enhance the value of the person and reduce the cost of operation.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to direct that all unfunded programs be prioritized Countywide.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if it is within department or Countywide; with Commissioner Pritchard responding within each department Countywide.

Commissioner Higgs stated she understands why Commissioner Pritchard wants to do that; but in a practical sense she does not see what it is going to get the Board. She stated they have looked at a millage rate that does not increase; and inquired if they go through this exercise, what are they going to get; with Commissioner Pritchard suggesting it could be done next year.

Chairperson Colon called for a vote on the motion to direct that next year all unfunded programs be prioritized within departments Countywide. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PLAN

Commissioner Pritchard stated his second issue is the vehicle replacement plan; they can have a line item identifying the vehicle, an amortization period based on various tables about the useful life of the vehicle based on its use, and having an annualized cost that is divided into monthly payments so that at the end of an amount of time there will be money budgeted for vehicle replacement; and if at the end of the cycle the vehicle is still pretty good, it can always go into reserve and be used in a backup operation. He stated it is a better way to lay out the cost of operating vehicles and replacing vehicles; and the Board would have a better handle on the individual fees. He commented about Commissioner Scarborough’s 27-year old Dodge Dart with 800,000 miles on it that kept going.

Chairperson Colon stated this would also be for next year.

Motion by Commissioner Pritchard, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to set up a vehicle replacement plan for next year’s budget, including line item annualized cost divided into monthly payments. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CITIZEN BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE

Commissioner Carlson stated the Commissioners got a letter from the Citizen Budget Review Committee with some excellent questions; she would have liked to have seen them answered prior to the budget process even starting; but she knows they do not get the budget in time. Mr. Jenkins advised they got the budget at the same time everybody did. Commissioner Carlson reiterated they have good questions; and suggested this could be for next year. Commissioner Higgs inquired why can they not be answered this year.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to respond to the questions of the Citizen Budget Review Committee, and report to the Board on how it might impact the budget this year. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting was adjourned at 12:22 p.m.

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

_____________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)