MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

May 22, 2008

 

 

 

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on May 22, 2008 at 1:00 p.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida.  Present were:  Chairman Truman Scarborough, Commissioners Mary Bolin, Chuck Nelson, Helen Voltz, and Jackie Colon, County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Deputy County Attorney Shannon Wilson.

 

 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board can take public comments at the beginning of the meeting, but as the Board moves to the individual subjects, he can recognize the public on the particular subject.  He advised County Attorney Scott Knox stated he may be able to bring the Board a re-draft of the Embraer Contract; and that will give the Board a chance to read it over the weekend.

 

 

 

Deputy County Attorney Shannon Wilson stated on April 23, 2008, the Board approved the establishment of a negotiating committee with respect to Equestrian Recreation Assessment Services; the committee consists of Don Lusk, Parks and Recreation Director, Jeff Whitehead, Parks and Recreation, and Morris Richardson, Assistant County Attorney; and she would like to ask the Board to amend the committee to County Attorney Scott Knox, or his designee, instead of Morris Richardson.  She stated since Mr. Richardson advises that Department, it is a violation of Sunshine Law if he were to try to advise them outside.

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to appoint County Attorney Scott Knox, or his designee to the Equestrian Recreation Assessment Services Negotiating Committee, instead of Assistant County Attorney Morris Richardson, to negotiate with the best ranked proposal received from RFP #P-2-08-05, Equestrian Recreation Assessment Services.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she announced on Tuesday that the South County Boat Ramp meeting is going to be on the June 16, 2008, but it has changed to June 23, 2008, which is a Monday.

 

  

 

Commissioner Voltz advised she just came from the graduation ceremony of the second Amer-I-Can students second graduating class, and it went very well.  She stated it is an impressive program; unfortunately, it is the last graduating class unless someone does something to fund it; and the program is going to look for money outside of government to try to fund it.

 

 

 

Commissioner Colon advised the Palm Bay Firefighters are having an event on Saturday, which will be a fundraiser for the families that have been displaced due to the wildfires.  She stated yesterday there was a closeout, in which the Division of Forestry was able to meet with all the different jurisdictions affected by the wildfires to get feedback from them.  She noted the Division of Forestry indicated Brevard County needs to be a fire wise community; she is working on getting a resolution from Sarasota County, which experienced fires in 2001 and became more in tuned with what is needed for a community to protect itself; and even things such as a porch can prevent firefighters from protecting a home.  She stated she would like to see a commitment from the County and the rest of the municipalities; and she will be bringing a resolution to the Board on May 29, 2008.

 

 

 

Bob Lay, Emergency Management Director, stated in August 1995, the Board approved the transfer of the public safety radio system from the Sheriff’s Office to the Board of County Commissioners and directed that it be housed within Emergency Management; and one of the issues was that the County would hire a consultant to conduct an assessment of the radio system.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if that was in 2005; with Mr. Lay responding yes, it was 2005 and not 1995. 

 

Mr. Lay stated he would like to give the Board a report by the consulting firm and request Emergency Management be allowed to continue making the improvements that need to be made based on the results of the analysis.  He noted it is important for everyone to have a good understanding of the public safety radio system because there cannot be a good community without a good public safety communications system; and that is the backbone of the County’s ability to respond and be able to put the right things in the right place at the right time.  He introduced Leslie Lewis who is the manager of system; she works for the Fire Department and also spends a percentage of her time working with Emergency Management; and also present are representatives Dominique Tusa and Peter Allen from Tusa Consulting Services.

 

Nick Tusa stated the Board has the hard copy of the report; but over the months, the Board has been provided input and submittals.  He stated he is based in New Orleans, Louisiana, and his partner is based in Tampa, Florida; the firm has other consultants in various parts of the United States; and some of the consultants were brought in as resources to get the project completed.  He stated he would like to talk about the project objectives, a description of the results that have been seen in user interviews, and assessment and inspection of the existing radio system equipment; and he will also discuss the conceptual solutions report that describes the methodology   that   was   used   to   assess   different   types  of   technologies   that   could  be advantageous to the County, and a recommendation of what Tusa Consulting believes a radio system should look like.  He stated he looked at developing a five-year detailed plan on system needs, types of equipment, and timelines for procurement costs; the contracted tasks were to evaluate available technology, and determination of user needs; and coverage verification was performed and equipment was brought in to collect signal strength data in the County. 

 

Mr. Tusa advised as he goes through the presentation he is going to highlight the areas that are specifically important to public safety.  He stated the Board embarked on a radio communications network that embraced 800 MHz 15 or 16 years ago; the reason is that 800 MHz was a new radio spectrum that was released by the Federal Communications Commission in the late 1980’s; and as cities and counties throughout the United States have grown in size and more user needs are impressed upon fire and police departments.  He stated fire and police departments had a difficult time securing enough frequencies to provide the communication support needed to conduct operations; when the FCC developed the new 800 MHz frequency band, it was structured in a way that allowed the County to use the spectrum more efficiently; and Brevard County was one of the leaders in embracing the technology.  He stated as technology matures, investments have to continue to be made in order to keep it valid, and also to stay in pace with the growth and expansion in the population and services that have to be provided; and the Board hired Tusa Consulting Services to take a snapshot picture of where the system is today and see if it will meet the needs of the public safety agencies in the future.  He stated a first step was to conduct a user assessment in which users of radio communications were interviewed; and the idea of the interviews was to get a good understanding for the consultants because they were new to the area.  He stated a report was completed that detailed the findings of each agency and the current radio systems; of the 25 agencies that were interviewed, only 12 felt the existing system was adequate based on two parameters; and those parameters are coverage and capacity, with coverage being the most critical.  He noted the highest vulnerability for a fireman is when he has to work a fire scene inside a building and requires the lifeline of communication; and the worst environment for a police officer is a domestic dispute.  He stated there was concern over the age of the system; it was installed 16 years ago, but has had some refreshments since then; and another concern was the user equipment could only be purchased from one vendor because of the proprietary nature of the radio systems at the time the system was purchased.  He stated coverage testing was the second component of the study; and that information is in the body of the Board’s report. 

 

Peter Allen commented on a map in Tab 4 of the Board’s packages and explained the colors as yellow being in-building, green being portable operation on the street, and white representing mobile coverage only. 

 

Mr. Tusa stated when the existing system was first installed it met the standards between growth of new buildings and new construction; existing facilities were looked at from a physical point of view, such as transmitter sites, to determine whether or not they were adequately maintained.  He stated Site 1, Mims, and Site 2, Sharpes, are receive-only sites, not transmitter sites, but are important to receive coverage; the physical structures at those two locations are quite old; and the sites are in need of repair.  He stated the consultants looked at the existing facilities and at the computer and how it logs the calls in terms of where the calls are made and if there is blockage; the equivalent importance to coverage is capacity; and the system must have adequate capacity.  He stated it was found that County growth is at the limit, or in some cases, over the limit, for capacity; there are more users than the system can handle; and that needs  to  be  addressed,  particularly  in  the  Melbourne  area.  He advised coverage has to be corrected, and capacity has to be enhanced to meet industry standards; the existing system design cannot be easily modified; and it was found that there are no options in that regard, and something dramatic has to be done.  He noted what the County has is a multi-site system, which means every site has its own frequencies set; there is a simulcast system in which all frequencies are shared; and in Brevard County’s case, neither of those will work as an enhancement solution.  He stated Brevard County cannot use a simulcast system or the multi-site because of the frequency sets, and it is left with a hybrid solution, which is a combination of the simulcast and the multi-site; and it gives much better coverage than the single existing site does and has better capacity.  He stated 15 to 20 years ago the FCC freed up 800 MHz channels; one reason for the digital television migration is to free up new frequencies; beginning next year, there are going to be 700 MHz channels; but EDACS is not compatible with the new frequencies.  He stated the other alternative to building out EDACS is to build out the EDACS into Project 25 hybrid system; Project 25 is essentially the new industry standard for public safety communications; it allows multiple vendors to provide equipment for the system; and the government mandates Project 25 for all of its radio services. 

 

Mr. Allen stated with the multicast system there would be three sites in the north end of the County, two sites in the central part of the County, and four sites in the south part of the County. He stated those sites are tied together in a multi-site configuration so that users at each cell can communicate countywide if necessary; coverage will be much better; one new site has been located in the Cocoa Beach area; and tied with Rockledge, it provides a good central core.  He noted the Titusville transmitter would be the primary transmitter for the north cell; it is recommended that the water tower site in Mims is a good location for a new tower; and in the south, the existing tower at Sharpes makes the third site.  He stated the Sharpes tower can be used at its present height, but if there is a way to raise it 100 feet, it would perform better.

 

Mr. Tusa stated the configuration allows users to automatically roam from one of the cells to the other and there is no need to touch the radios when transitioning from one cell to another; and the radio automatically senses it has moved into a location with better coverage. 

 

Mr. Allen stated in the south, four sites were chosen, and three of them are in great physical condition; but another site east of Palm Bay would be needed to provide fill-in coverage in the south.  He stated a big difference between a simulcast system and the existing multi-site system is the connectivity requirements between the simulcast sites are much more critical; in order to implement the system, a microwave backbone would also be required; and a microwave backbone has been configured with a combination of loop and stand-by protected, which makes sense because of the way the system is laid out.  He noted loop protection means if a microwave link was lost, the system goes the other way and gets back to the same site; in the north there is no easy way to make a loop; and instead, there are multiple transmitters so that if one is lost, another one will pick up.  He stated what was looked at was to ensure that at least in building coverage, there is better than 95 percent throughout the important areas of the County, which means anything that is not wetlands or strictly agricultural.  He stated the County was asked to define critical buildings that are especially important to have communications within them; and staff came up with 74 locations.

 

Ms. Busacca inquired what buildings in general were identified as being important.  Mr. Tusa replied the buildings were hospitals, shopping centers, government centers, schools, and Port Canaveral. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated there are large areas that seem to be not covered, such as federal properties belonging to NASA; and the County is not responsible for that, but has Tusa Consulting had conversations with NASA.  Mr. Allen responded coverage has not been discussed with NASA.  Mr. Lay stated he did not know if NASA was going to be included in the discussions, but the County’s fire and ambulance crew are sent to the Space Center.  Chairman Scarborough stated it would be a good idea to make the information available to NASA.  Mr. Lay advised NASA uses a different band width than the County uses; and NASA operates on 400 MHz whereas the County operates on 800 MHz.  Chairman Scarborough inquired what County personnel uses when called out to the Space Center.  Leslie Lewis advised the County has a device that attaches the system from the Space Center to the County’s 800 MHz; it is wired at the north end switch; and it allows the two bands to talk to each other; but there are places at the Space Center where the 800 MHz is not intended to cover, such as the VAB. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated he would like to see the system shared with Astrotech at the Industrial Park.  Leslie Lewis stated the presentation will be presented tomorrow to the users in the City of Titusville; and the Titusville Fire Chief has asked to be able to share the system with Space Coast Executive Airport as well as Astrotech. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if communication between towers is by microwave, and if it is subject to problems associated with smoke.  Mr. Allen stated the microwaves do not have a problem with smoke; and the key is to design the microwave system to public safety communication standards. 

 

Mr. Allen stated the recommendation is that the 800 MHz system needs to be upgraded and enhanced to provide the coverage capacity and reliability that is needed by the County users and also as far as the long term liability of whatever solution is put in place; and the recommendation is to develop specifications for a Project 25 compliant system. 

 

Mr. Tusa advised Project 25 is an open specification; at the time the County’s radio system was developed, there was not a digital radio system standard available; Project 16 defined how a public safety trunk radio network should function; and the County’s system is compliant with those recommendations; but that is now a dated specification.  He noted the advantage of Project 25 is that it brings competition to the marketplace; once the County implements a Project 25 radio network, it can look at alternative user radios for the agencies that have lesser needs; and there are alternatives from a variety of different suppliers. 

 

Mr. Allen stated he has put together a good estimate of what such a system would cost based on the competitive procurement; and if it was a sole source procurement the numbers would not apply.  He stated the infrastructure portion would include new radio equipment to sites and the microwave hardware; and the facilities needed to build the two new sites is estimated at approximately $13.1 million.  He stated dispatch and upgrading of the County’s existing system, which is about 41 consoles spread throughout the County, is estimated at approximately $2.5 million to replace those with new modernized equipment compatible with Project 25; and replacement of the existing terminal would be $8.8 million.  He stated as a result of rebanding, the County has some new equipment that can be upgraded by software to Project 25 compatibility; two-thirds of the County’s portables and mobiles in the field can be upgraded by adding that feature to the radio; and it costs money to add that feature, but it can be done without replacing the equipment.  He advised about one third of the County’s radios are not compatible  with  Project 25  and  they  will  have  to  be  replaced at some point to finish out the Project 25 compatible solution; and the net result of the whole project at the end of the line with a Project 25 compliant system is estimated to be $24.4 million.

 

Ms. Busacca inquired of the money, how much would the County be responsible for, and how much of it would other participating agencies be responsible for.  Mr. Lay responded the $13.1 million for the infrastructure would be the backbone structure that the County is responsible for maintaining; however, there are some County agencies that would fit under dispatch upgrade placement; and the number would not be that high for the County, but under terminal upgrade replacement, that deals with mostly radio sets, and that is a figure that is shared between everybody.  Ms. Busacca inquired if Mr. Lay estimates the County has 50 percent of the radios in its system; with Ms. Lewis responding the Sheriff’s Office operates 50 percent of the radios in the system, so 50 percent would be Sheriff Parker’s responsibility; and the County has approximately one-third of the remaining 50 percent.

 

Commissioner Bolin inquired if there is any State or federal money that can be used.  Ms. Lewis replied Emergency Management has tapped almost every source that could be found, and it is in the process of purchasing a new switch that would make it easier for the department to go to the new system. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if there is another system on the market, such as cable; Mr. Allen responded no, there are some other potential solutions mentioned in the review, but they do not fit the County’s application.  Commissioner Voltz inquired what is the 900 MHz system; with Mr. Allen responding 900 MHz is being used by FPL; it is a narrower band, the channels are not optimized, and there is better performance from the 800 MHz than the 900 MHz; and utilities use it because it is an available frequency for them. 

 

Chairman Scarborough expressed appreciation to Mr. Allen and Mr. Tusa for the presentation.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board is going to be looking at coming up with the money for the system; with Ms. Busacca responding the Board will probably not discuss it in the current budget year.  Commissioner Voltz inquired why the issue was brought up today; with Ms. Busacca responding because the consultants had finished the report; and inquired if Mr. Lay wanted any further direction from the Board.  Mr. Lay replied one of the things the Board will see this year is an unfunded requirement for the radio system; and now the Board has idea of what it will cost.  He advised Lake County is putting in a system right now, and it is spending $38 million for the system; but Brevard County already has some things in place, so it will not be starting from scratch.  He noted Emergency Management is receiving $12.50 for every ticket written in Brevard County; and that can help to do a few minor upgrades. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired if there is an incremental approach that can be taken, or is it all or nothing; with Mr. Lay responding he believes there can be an incremental approach, but he is not sure how far an incremental approach can be taken; and certainly, there can be an incremental approach in procuring new equipment. 

 

 

 

Frank Abbate, Human Resources Director, stated the discussion will include looking at the health   plan  demographics,  a   history  of plan  costs,  and  projections  of  what  can  be  seen happening over the next several years; and that is going to drive some of the policy considerations the Board has to look at.  He stated he will present to the Board a variety of policy issues, including some issues that were raised a few weeks ago when dealing with group health insurance with the Clerk of Courts; and the Board will see cost shifting contribution strategies.  He stated the Board will notice that currently between retirees and employees, there are approximately 4,883 participants; over the years the County has maintained a fairly steady number of members that are in the plan compared to employees; and that ratio is 2:1, which is higher than what is typically seen in health plans.  He stated that means the County has more dependents on its health plans than other employers might have; there are other agencies that participate in the Board’s plan where a significant, if not all, portion of their funding is independent from anything from the Board of County Commissioners; and the other agencies are contributing separately to the Board.  He noted there are a total of 11 agencies in the program; there has been dialogue about how much money the Board is putting into the program, and how much other agencies are putting in; and if adding together the five agencies, it is less than 600 employees and their dependents, and retirees.  He stated another interesting demographic deals with the retirees; employee growth has averaged 3.4 percent per year; when looking at the retiree demographic, it is increasing at a significantly higher rate; in 1999 there were 484 retirees, and today there are approximately 841 retirees; and in looking at the growth over that period of time, the annual retiree growth trend is approximately 7.4 percent per year.  He stated that is important because there is implicit subsidy that is built in by statute in retirees in terms of what is paid when they participate in the program; it is mandatory that retirees be permitted to participate in the program; the Board subsidizes a certain level; and as it continues to grow, it is going to have a more significant impact on the health plan over time.  He noted the average retiree has approximately 17 years of service; on total global basis, the average retiree earns approximately $920 per month as an FRS benefit; and that is independent of any other savings they may have such as deferred comp and social security.  He stated retirees also receive a health insurance subsidy which is provided to them through the FRS and is $5.00 for every year of service; and based on the years of service it averages to be approximately $77 per month.  He stated another important demographic the Board needs to be cognizant of is the number of retirees the County has that are under age 65 and over age 65; there are approximately 250 retirees under the age of 65; and therefore, for those retirees, the Board’s health insurance plan is the one that is available to them to look at.  He stated the over age 65 retiree population makes up the vast majority of the retirees; for those retirees, they are all going to be Medicare eligible, so that is primary and the County plan is secondary; but retirees still pose a significant cost to the plan and that will be discussed as well.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if there has been an actuarial done as to how long people stay in the FRS system after they retire, and how many payments the County actually makes.  Mr. Abbate replied staff has not done any research in terms of life expectancy for an average FRS retiree.  He stated the County knows its liability relative to the health insurance program because two years ago it looked at Gasby 45, and the County knows its financial liability, and it can associate that with the life expectancy of retirees.

 

Mr. Abbate stated overall, the County offers two major health plans currently; one is Blue Cross Blue Shield and one is Cigna; there are less than 30 percent overall employees participating in Blue Cross Blue Shield; approximately 70 percent participate in Cigna; and of the retirees, approximately two percent are Health First Medicare participants.  He noted the reason there are more Cigna participants than Blue Cross Blue Shield is because Blue Cross Blue Shield has had  issues  whether  or  not  it  would  have  all  the  hospital  systems  in  the network; in North Brevard, Parrish Medical Center does not have Blue Cross Blue Shield; and therefore, there was a migration to Cigna from Blue Cross Blue Shield participants.  He stated the Health First Medical Plan is for the over age 65 eligible’s; the County has tried to encourage retirees to take a serious look at the Health First Medical Plan option, both in the methodology of how the Board funds it, and in terms of trying to work with Health First to market that particular plan to retirees so they can explore the opportunities in the plan; and it is a more cost effective plan as a fully insured plan that is subsidized heavily through the federal government.  He stated the Board is currently charging $12 for a retiree to participate in Health First, as opposed to the other plans in which the cost for an over age 65 retiree can be $190 per month if in an EPO; and that plan is more expensive for the Board as well. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated retirees pay $180 per month; and inquired why retirees are paying more per month when most are on fixed incomes.  He stated Mr. Abbate explained that the retirees cost of participation is more expensive; and on July 14^th the Board will have a meeting for retirees to be able to tell the Board why the anomaly is occurring.  He stated it is critical to understanding, because if the retirees are put on the other program, 90 percent of the problems being discussed with the retirees is going to diminish; it could be with the pool of doctors in Health First plan, or the ability to move around; and if in the Health First plan, a retiree can opt to go to the other more expensive plan later.  He stated he would like the meeting on July 14^th to be advertised for all Commissioners to attend. 

 

Mr. Abbate stated there has been limited success in moving people; there were 36 people participating in Health First in 2004, and 109 are currently participating out of 592, which is 18.5 percent; and staff has tried to work with Health First to see how it can be increased, and Health First felt that the 20 percent to 25 percent range was reasonable.  He stated there are a variety of factors, such as the prescription program, peoples’ comfort level with where they currently are, and the fact that it is a limited network only in Brevard County; and those are the three primary reasons.  Commissioner Voltz stated many doctors do not take new patients, and the Board needs to make sure people can move from one doctor to another. 

 

Mr. Abbate stated retirees have become an increasingly larger percentage of the overall group membership; and retirees now make up 17.2 percent of the overall membership between retirees and employees.  He stated the current program is an unsustainable rate of growth in the plan expenses; it has gone from $480 in 2000, to $1,030 in 2008; and more alarming is where it will be in three or four years, which will be over $1,500 for every employee per month.  He advised there is a variety of factors for the increase; on the plan expense side, growth is assumed at a medical trend rate of 10 percent per year; additionally, the numbers represent a five percent growth in administrative cost; and the other two factors that come into play is that beginning in 2008, rather than the typical 3.4 percent growth in the employee population, employees will diminish.  He stated premiums are not the only costs that make up the plan costs overall; the Board is paying approximately $45 million currently through premiums as its share of the cost; employees, dependents, retiree dependents, and retirees make up another $10.8 million; $5.7 million of that comes in the form of premiums; and another $5.1 million comes in terms of plan design issues such as copayments and coinsurance.  He stated another important issue is claim and reserve projections; the plans costs in 2007 were approximately $41 million based on the actuarial analysis that is done every year, which says the County needs to have $10.9 million in reserve to cover recurring but not reported claims; in 2007 there was $13.2 million in reserve; and there year there is anticipated to be $45 million of actual claims.  He stated  there  is  no  excess   money   because  of   unfunded  liability  for  retirees;  and  that  is approximately $123 million of unfunded liability that the Board is not working toward funding.  He stated in 2005 the Board took action to try to address the increasing liability that retirees were placing on the fund; the way the Board did that was to create a years-of-service model that said for everyone that is hired, there is only going to be a certain credit toward health insurance based on years of service; and that will reduce any subsidy the Board provides to the retirees.  He stated in the last five years, the employer contribution strategy has risen by 9.06 percent; and the average national medical trend was approximately 12 percent.  He stated another issue is how the contribution strategy works for employees, dependents and retirees; currently, for active employees the Board is paying approximately 97 percent of the premium cost; and employees are paying approximately three percent of the cost in the form of a $24 per month minimum premium.  He noted in terms of dependents, the Board is paying approximately 90 percent of the dependent cost; in terms of the retirees, the Board is contributing approximately 62 percent of the cost toward retirees; and that equates to nearly $4 million based on the current retiree membership. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired of the difference between an EPO and a PPO; with Mr. Abbate responding EPO is when a specific copayment is paid when visiting a physician, and it is more of a limited network; and a PPO has a deductible co-insurance and there is also the option to go out of network.  Mr. Abbate stated there is a high participation rate among retirees in the PPO; and there is a very low participation rate of employees in the PPO.  Chairman Scarborough stated when talking about employee participation, there is an amount of money taken out of paychecks; the County did not have the money to increase wages, and at the same time, the cost of insurance costs more; and that is a way of reducing wages. 

 

Mr. Abbate stated there are other issues staff wants to ask the Board to give guidance on; one is the employer funding methodology; for people who do not take the group health plan, there is something called an opt-out, and that will be discussed along with whether or not the current strategy is the one that should continue.  He stated staff will be asking for Board direction on Interlocal agreements and the need to formalize the relationships with 11 agencies over the last 20 years.  He stated with plan design options, there were a couple that were brought up by the efficiency group; and the efficiency group had a couple of good ideas that staff will discuss with the Board and ask for direction to act in those areas.  He stated there are a variety of different options that should be revisited during the course of the next year such as consumer driven health plans, point-of-service plans, whether anything can be done that is fully insured, whether different opportunities need to be looked at with pharmacies, and different things that can be done with copayments and co-insurance.  He stated the first issue is the employer funding methodology; currently, the way the plan is structured is a $45 million employer contribution requirement; and the way the $45 million employer contribution is provided is through the 11 agencies making contributions based on all full-time eligible positions; and that equates to 4,383 positions.  He stated the way a $45 million need is funded is to take all the full-time eligible positions and divide them into the $45 million and divide that by 12 to come up with the monthly premium that each employer pays on behalf of everyone they have that is eligible to participate; and that comes out to $855 per-month.  He noted that strategy has been used for the last 20 years; that is the way the Board has always had it funded in the program; and the key is that $45 million is necessary in the employer funding.  He stated Clerk of Courts Scott Ellis has certain perspectives on a variety of policy issues that he has previously discussed with the Board; from staff perspective, if the Board changes its strategy to say that instead of those that are full-time eligible’s and dividing that number into what is needed, what could be done is to say that only those employees that  are participating in the program; currently there are 380 that opt-out; and there is only a little over 3,000 people that are participating in the program, but the plan costs are still $45 million; and the Board would divide the 4,015 into the $45 million and establish a new rate which would be $934 per-month. 

 

He stated if there is a small office with five people participating, the Board would pay for the five people the $855 per month multiplied by 12 months and it would collect a total of $51,300 from the office; if the Board went to the act of participant-only methodology in which only three out of five people participate, the Board would fund at the $934 per-month level for the three people, and it would be paying $33,624; the other $20,000 would still be collected, but it would just be distributed at the higher rate of people who do not have people opting out of the plan.  He stated the challenge is that when that is done, what happens mid-year when one or two employees change and there are two employees who leave and two new ones come in, the Board does not have it budgeted to pay at the $934 for those people; and it is an administrative issue that occurs.  He stated that is the methodology used by many employers; most of them fund for all of their full-time eligible positions at the $934 level; at the end of the year when there are a lot of opt-outs there are extra dollars that would end up going in cash carry forward; but when the Board is in the budget reduction scenario, the Board does not want to create more on the front of the budget because if does not know how many may opt-out or not opt-out.  He stated staff believes the current methodology is the best one to continue, and that is one disadvantage he wanted to bring to the Board’s attention if it changes.  He stated there are 380 people opting out; they are opting out in a variety of the agencies; from there Board it is 182, at eight percent that are opting out, the Sheriff has 106 at 9.3 percent, the Clerk has 43, which is 9.8 percent, and the Property Appraiser has 15 at 11.4 percent; those are the people that are opting out; and under the current strategy the employer is still paying the $855 rate for those people.  He stated if the Board changes to the active only rate then everyone would pay $934 for those who are participating; one of the discussion points that comes up with this is that if there are more opt outs it is going to cost less; the way the opt-out program currently works is if a person chooses to opt out they are given $30 per month; currently the 368 people get $30 per month; and that is $132,000 plan cost.  He stated to gain the additional opt-outs it would be costing the Board $1.6 million to the plan to get the additional opt-outs; if there are 120 additional opt-outs, how much will they reduce the plan costs; 80 percent of the plan costs come from 20 percent of the participants; and staff would submit to the Board that very few of the plan costs are going to be out of the 80 percent; therefore, it is staff’s belief that increasing contributions would not be an effective way to reduce the overall programs costs. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated the general reason people opt out is because they have coverage through a spouse or another system; and inquired if the Board looked at not giving $30 to those who opt-out, would it make a substantial difference whether they are in or out.  Mr. Abbate stated the $30 is not a driving force for people who opt out; staff uses it as a tool because it now knows how many of each of the 11 agencies; staff knows exactly how many there are out there and is able to verify that and therefore make sure the County receives the $855 premium for all those eligible employees that are opting out. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired besides the fact of keeping track of the numbers, is there any other reason that the Board pays somebody for not taking our health care plan.  Mr. Abbate replied the people who opt out are not receiving anything else financially for giving up that benefit; it was established as a small incentive for the value, which is substantially more than the $30 per month of them giving up that benefit.  Chairman Scarborough stated the Board has put  employees  at  risk  of  not  having  coverage  by  having them gamble that something is not going to happen to them; and he does not know if that is the most conscionable thing for a public body to do. 

 

Mr. Abbate stated another issue is employer funding target scenarios; staff has looked at a variety of scenarios such as a zero employer increase and what the ramifications would be; the rates of the employees, retirees, and dependents would raise 11 percent, which is the medical trend rate; and if the Board did that, it would be generating $561,000.  He stated staff has looked at scenarios from zero, three, four, six and 11 percent and said if the employer contribution went up by that percentage then what would be the shortfall, assuming that the Board needed to reach 11 percent as additional revenue because of the medical trend next year. 

 

Mr. Abbate stated when staff gives the Board the options, it can look at the whole $561,000 that could be shifted not in premium, but in plan design changes if that is where the Board thought the better approach would be; and staff will look at that option and give the Board the specific numbers for a variety of plan design changes that can be mixed and matched to come up with the best overall package that would work.  He stated the first recommendation staff would make is to continue with the current employer funding methodology; and there are other jurisdictions and private sectors that use the same approach the County does.  He stated the second recommendation is that the Board direct staff to execute Interlocal agreements with the terms of how the County has operated and continues to operate with each of the agencies so that it is in writing and everyone understands what the participation requirements are and what the expectations are from the plan for every agency that participates in the plan; and staff is looking for Board direction to authorize staff to prepare Interlocal agreements and get them reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office, signed by the parties, and brought back to the Board for execution. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to execute Interlocal Agreements outlining the terms for participation with those entities currently participating in the Group Self-Insured Health Plan.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Mr. Abbate stated the third recommendation from staff relates to the current opt out strategy; it is staff’s recommendation to continue the current strategy; and the Board has options to lower it or to raise it.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if the opt out payment was moved from $30 to $10, how would that have an impact; with Mr. Abbate responding it would have an impact of $85,000 because it is a $132,000 impact right now. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to approve staffs recommendation to continue the current opt-out strategy at $30.00.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Mr. Abbate stated the next recommendation is for spousal participation, and specifically to make a requirement that anyone who has a spouse participating as a dependent be required to sign a document indicating they do not have alternative coverage with another employer; and if they do have coverage with another employer, the County will charge what the full spousal cost to the plan is, so the other employer is not benefitting from the employee’s participation and the County’s subsidized dependent rates.  He stated staff is confident there will be many employees who  have  dependents  working  for  other employers  that will have to move the spouses to the other plan because there will be a substantial increase in what they are paying; but it will not affect the spouses of people who do not have alternate coverage.  Chairman Scarborough stated each spouse will use their own employer; and inquired how much of a savings would it mean to the Board.  Mr. Abbate responded spouses are the most expensive dependent the County has.  Commissioner Bolin inquired if it is something that can be implemented right away; with Mr. Abbate responding it can be effective with the new open enrollment period that occurs in October. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve staff recommendation (Efficiency Review Initiative), Spousal Participation, to identify those spouses that have access to health coverage through other employers; charge an unsubsidized premium for those spouses that elect to participate in the County health plans in lieu of another employers plan; and make it as a plan design change, effective with the new open enrollment period that occurs in October.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Mr. Abbate advised another recommendation deals with ineligible dependents, and creating an amnesty where the County would notify all participants and tell them if they have an ineligible dependent, there is a period of time when no questions are asked; and if they tell the County they have an ineligible dependent, they will be taken off the plan.  He stated it has been recommended that the approach will result in a variety of people being eliminated from the program who would not otherwise be found; and after that, the County would conduct an eligibility audit.  He stated ineligible dependents could be people who have gotten divorced, or children who no longer live at home, or are not a student; and creating the amnesty period would result in an opportunity for the Board to reduce the number of dependents.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if anyone who does not come forward is terminated.  Mr. Abbate responded employees will be told if they have someone who they know to be ineligible, and if they do not, then it is a type of insurance fraud to willingly know that and that would jeopardize their employment.  Commissioner Voltz inquired what kind of amnesty period is Mr. Abbate referring to; with Mr. Abbate responding approximately a 60-day period. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve staff recommendation, Ineligible Dependent Amnesty, to provide amnesty to employees that remove ineligible dependents from the health plan prior to initiation of eligibility audits; and employees found to have ineligible dependents enrolled after the audit process has begun will be subject to termination.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Mr. Abbate stated of the options in terms of where the employer contribution strategy would be, staff would recommends a six percent increase to the employer rate next year; over the last five years that increase has been 9.06 percent; six percent is substantially below that amount; and if that was started as a point of dialogue the Board can readdress it later.  Chairman Scarborough stated he is willing to start the discussion this way, but there are too many moving parts.  Mr. Abbate stated the Board is only looking at it hypothetically.

 

Mr. Abbate advised it would be staff’s recommendation that over time the Board work toward incremental decreases in both dependent subsidizes and retiree subsidizes; and staff needs to be moving in the right direction from the Board’s perspective in terms of what it can afford to pay to keep a good program afloat.   He stated what  cannot be made up in the premium because of the incremental decreases in subsidizes in the premium side of it, staff would recommend looking at what needs to be done on the plan benefit design side of it; and staff has a multitude of recommendations to provide the Board about how it can accomplish that. 

 

He noted considerable time was spent with the employment benefits insurance committee looking at all of the kind of issues the Board is discussing, to get their input; staff looked at premium design strategy issues, consumer driven plans, catastrophic coverage, co-insurance,  point of service plans, and self-insured versus fully insured.  He stated the committee, assuming there is a six percent employer increase, said it would recommend that in the employees, dependents, and retirees best interest, it would like to see change on the premium and benefits side to make up the difference; and so staff kept the program at 100 percent viable.  He stated recommendations the committee made was to increase the employee premium rate by 10 percent, and dependent retiree and retiree dependent rates by 16.5 percent. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated he is profoundly opposed to the proposal; as soon as there is a 10 percent increase in employee premiums they are going to walk home with less money; and that means the Board has to pile on a percentage increase in wages for the people at the top end.  Commissioner Voltz stated she agrees with Chairman Scarborough. 

 

Mr. Abbate stated another recommendation was to increase the co-payments to achieve the required funding levels to maintain the program’s integrity and adequate reserves; and he can give the Board the information in terms of where the dollars add up.  He advised the Board can provide direction as it sees fit relative to how to fund the program this upcoming year; staff is looking for a target of six percent; $2.7 million would be the employer contribution; $510,000 would be the premium for employees and their dependents; and $393,000 would be the retiree funding increase.  He stated if the Board increased the medical plan design changes it would generate $415,000; adding 10 percent to the prescription charge for your brand drugs in the second and third tier would be capped between $50 and $65; that would generate $882,000 in savings; and for every .5 percent of an increase it is about $225,000.  He noted if the Board does not want to do that, it can look at a variety of plan design issues to make up some of those premium dollars.  He stated for every $5.00 the Board increases the primary care co-pay, it would generate $121,000 in savings to the plan so it would be less cost that the plan would be paying; a $5.00 co-pay for a specialist would equate to almost $80,000; a $25 co-pay for an emergency would equate to $27,000; outpatient surgery would be $62,000 for a $25 increase; and for every one percent pharmacy is increased, it would be approximately an $88,000 savings to the plan.  He stated those are the recommendations for the Board; over the next couple of months staff will be able to look at different opportunities and come back with a premium structure and plan design change that would meet the Board’s direction.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if Mr. Abbate is saying the Board needs to make up the $4.9 million.  Mr. Abbate replied $4.9 million is what would be needed to generate in order to keep the plan at the current funding level.

 

Chairman Scarborough stated it would be profoundly wrong for the Board to impact the bottom line by reducing wages and then raising contribution; and each increase affects different people in different ways.  He stated he would like to be able to say there is no increase on the employee portion of the funding. 

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired what would happen with the PPO in terms of the numbers; with Mr. Abbate responding the dollars the Board is discussing does not affect the PPO. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board may not decrease any salaries, but the State is not giving any pay increases; and the problem is when employees have to pay more for insurance it is decreasing their salaries; but not everybody is going to be decreased, and the people at the top are going to get increases.  

 

Mr. Abbate stated staff would like to know if the Board would be comfortable addressing the issue of the current employer funding methodology and whether or not the Board should continue with that, which is for all full-time eligible participants. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Bolin, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to continue with the current employer funding methodology.  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to authorize staff to initiate RFP’s to explore pharmacy program options, fully-insured v. self-insured options; and HMO, PPO, Point of Service and Consumer Driven Plan options (high deductible plans with or without HRA’s.)  Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

 

 

 

Vic Brungart stated the County’s mission is to contribute to enhancing and insuring Brevard’s business community organizations and the residents; and the values are honesty, accountability, quality, leadership, openness and innovation.  He stated so far in the Workshop there has been a lot of openness, a lot of sharing of information about the communication system and health insurance.  He stated on the Employee Benefits Florida website it says, “Employees in Florida that apply for jobs determine which jobs they want to apply for, not only based on the salary that potential employers offer, but the healthcare benefits that accompany many positions.  Whether the applicant in Florida is an individual or responsible for a family, employee benefits are a job perk that many applicants seek.”  He advised in regards to the health plan, if he reads the numbers correct on Page 4 as being $45 million, the number goes to $67 million in 2011, which is an increase of 30 percent in four years; and there are 10,000 employees.  He inquired how much money the Commission gets out of taxpayer pockets to pay for County workers; stated there is funding that comes from the State and funding that comes from many sources; but the Board has to pay for the benefits as well as roads and security.  He stated the employees pay approximately 50 percent of the premiums.  Mr. Abbate advised employees and retirees are paying approximately 19 percent out of pocket of the cost.  Mr. Brungart stated the question is how much does the County fund in employee benefits versus someone who has a job; and there are a lot of truck drivers that are having to park their trucks because they cannot make enough to keep up with the rising fuel costs.  He commented on private individuals that have to come up with money out of their pocket to pay for taxes and increases in insurance costs in order to stay in Brevard County; and stated it is fair to say a lot of people are looking to leave Florida if the cost of living gets too high. 

 

 

The Board recessed from 3:35 p.m. to 3:50 p.m. 

 

Chairman Scarborough advised County Manager Peggy Busacca has advised that Eddy Pauley, one of the Board’s lobbyists in Washington D.C., has stated there is a difference in the House Bill of $200 million for return to flight.  He stated $2 billion is what was being sought; and $200 million is one-tenth of the amount.

 

 

 

Mike Zocchi stated he is the president of the Brevard County Professional Fire Fighters; with the recent wildfires in Melbourne, Malabar, Valkaria, and Cocoa, he would like to express appreciation of the support, equipment, and personnel the Board has provided to battle wildfires over the years; and the resources of fire rescue have been stretched thin lately.  He stated he would also like to express appreciation to Chief Farmer and his operations staff on how they responded to, coordinated, and helped extinguish the fires; and without the years of training and preparation Chief Farmer has drilled into the department, the firefighters would not have been prepared to deal with fires of the magnitude that was fought.  He noted for the firefighters in the street to operate and function effectively, a strong and viable leadership and training structure must exist; and Chief Farmer and his command staff have proven to be a valued asset to the community and to the fire department.  He stated at the last Fire Assessment Workshop it was mentioned that the County Manager and the Fire Chief were somehow negligent in their fiscal duties and should be replaced; and he could not disagree more.  He noted as a citizen, taxpayer and employee of Brevard County, it bothers him that things like that would be said about two people that have done so much for the community; after all is said and done, the problem lies in the fact that some budgeted monies were not spent, but saved for the future; and inquired why that would be considered wrong in an economy such as the one currently being faced.  He stated in just the last week, the department was faced with having to replace two existing stations due to fire damage; since modulars have been purchased within city boundaries, the units are costly to replace and do not stand up to the test of time as brick and mortar would; and the replacement cost of the structure and the interior of furnishings are a bit easier to handle when surplus reserves are available.  He stated he began working for Brevard County in 1989 and Chief Farmer has taken Fire Rescue from a small understaffed department to one of the leading fire and EMS services in the State; Chief Farmer has managed to combine leadership skills with an effective management style to expand capabilities and service further every year; with the current Fire Rescue budget issues, and the fire assessment flip it is understandable the Board would be quick to want a solution to the issues; and he implores the Board to think carefully about its actions and public comments.  He noted there are obvious issues with the Fire Rescue budget that need attention; the issues should be solved by initiating corrective actions for the future; the County Manager has done a remarkable job in these difficult budget times; and that needs to be reflected upon before her work is publicly degraded.  He stated as politicians, the Board should understand the sting associated with taking blame for issues beyond its control; and as Commissioners, the Board is charged with final say on all budgetary issues and it would be unjust to cast a shadow upon the Board as well.  He stated the Fire Chief has made the Fire Department what it is today; the Board cannot expect a man in the Fire Chief’s position to be an expert on operations, management, personnel issues, finance, politics, and public relations all in one; and a person in the position of Fire Chief should be given the proper advisors and staff to help accomplish it all.  He inquired what the solution would be to the problems; stated it would seem that providing Chief Farmer and his staff with a competent financial team, compensating the team properly to be able to retain them, and initiating a few more  checks  and balances in the system would accomplish the goal of fiscal responsibility and accountability; the citizens already have competent leaders in place, such as the Board; tools should be provided for every public servant to perform at their best; and the community should be served to the best of abilities.

 

Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated Deborah Bradley-Goode and Jennifer Murtha are part of the Board’s contracted internal auditing team; Ms. Bradley-Good and Ms. Murtha will explain each recommendation, or observations; and on a slide presentation is the follow-up actions.

 

Deborah Bradley-Goode stated the first recommendation is that the Budget Office and County Finance play a more active role in reviewing and critically analyzing the budget initially submitted by Fire Rescue, including estimates of revenues, expenditures, and balances forward; and Internal Audit feels it will help the budgeting process.  She stated there is a lot of detail in the Report, and a high-level summary is given of the areas Internal Audit felt would fix a lot of issues that were seen in the actual budget process. 

 

Mr. Whitten advised recently the Budget Office staff has spent over a week in Fire Rescue reviewing virtually every line item in its budget; staff has analyzed the current budget and also looked at development of next year’s budget; and in addition to the first recommendation, staff is going to work closely with County Finance and advise it when all of the fund balances and revenue projections are made in SAP, and get some concurrence on those estimates.  He stated that follow up not only pertains to the Fire Rescue Department, but to all County Departments; and normally, staff has discussed its major revenue projections with County Finance, but it is going to be extended to departmental revenue projections and fund balance estimates.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired why staff has not done that in the past; with Mr. Whitten responding staff has, to a certain extent.  Mr. Whitten noted the suggestion is to be more aggressive in undertaking that review and analysis; and he would not say staff is not doing it, but it is just going more into depth; and this recommendation speaks to being more aggressive in terms of that type of review.  Commissioner Voltz stated Ms. Bradley-Goode did not read the second part of the first recommendation which says, “We note several of the deficiencies described in this report may have been identified by the Budget Office or County Finance if each was more involved in the budgeting process.” 

 

Ms. Bradley-Goode stated the second observation was to develop a positive and collaborative working relationship between Fire Rescue, County Finance, and the Budget Office; Internal Audit felt each department brought different strengths and working together would enhance those strengths; Fire Rescue knows what it needs and the Budget Office should be able to analyze the number; County Finance also has a lot of technical accounting information; and in working together all three should be able to do a better job of looking at the budget.  She advised Internal Audit recommends the departments work together in preparing the annual budget and monitoring the budget and looking at the performance, and amending the budget if necessary; and Internal Audit felt the roles and responsibilities were not clear among the three departments and they should work together to decide who was going to do what, so that the whole process gets done completely. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated Ms. Busacca began monthly meetings with the County Finance Director a while  ago;  those  meetings  are  being  reinitiated  with  the  Finance Director and his staff; and additionally, the Budget Office and County Manager staff will bring back to the Board some changes in the budget and the Board’s policy that clearly outlines the expectations of both the Budget Office and County Finance in doing budget development.  Commissioner Voltz inquired when those meetings stopped; with Ms. Busacca responding the meetings stopped because the County Finance Department said they no longer wanted to meet; but recently the meetings were reinitiated and County Finance has been willing to meet with County staff.  Commissioner Voltz inquired how long was it that the meetings did not take place; with Ms. Busacca responding approximately one year. 

 

Ms. Bradley-Goode stated the third recommendation from Internal Audit is that budget amendments need to be made more often to reflect cost savings and to move money around to appropriate area; right now, if the Board knew it had more revenue coming in, it might budget the revenue for the grant or budget the expenditure for the grant; but Internal Audit felt if there was some savings to be had then that money should be moved somewhere else; and more budget amendments need to be made on a regular basis.  She stated the budget should be amended during the year; realistically, the Board may only be able to amend it six months and at year-end; but there may be times when the Board comes back and amends the budget because it may know of things that have occurred.  She stated it is also recommended the Board focus more on the budget development based on the prior year actuals; Internal Audit felt the budget was being based on the prior year’s budget; reasons for that are that the actual numbers are not final and it is hard to know; but Internal Audit felt if it were made on preliminary actual numbers, rather than the next year’s budget versus the historical previous year’s budget, the Board would come closer to what a good budget should be. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated the Board is not receiving the quarterly reports it has in the past due to workload and other issues; the proposal is to begin those reports again; and he advised the Board at mid-year that it would be provided a report in July.  He stated the reports will be re-formatted to address the issue of actuals versus budget and to make any necessary budget amendments; typically, the budget has only been amended in formal sense at the mid-year; and that has been an allocation of excess revenues.  He stated on Tuesday, the Board approved the mid-year budget that was re-formatted to address excess balances forward and how staff allocated those; and there was approximately $6 million the Board had to address in terms of balances forward for general revenue accounts and a majority of that was redistributed to the general revenue accounts.  He stated staff has begun the process of re-formatting, or re-defining, the mid-year budget process to be one that addresses whether or not the Board can actually recoup some dollars that were unspent from the previous fiscal year. 

 

Ms. Bradley-Goode stated the fourth recommendation was that County Management provide guidance to Fire Rescue with respect to the sufficiency of its reserves; reserves is always an issue as to what is the appropriate amount; and three to six months would be an appropriate amount of reserves.  She advised the guidance should also include indication of whether the General Fund or the Fire Rescue will maintain those reserves; and will they sit in the Fire Rescue Fund or will they sit in the General Fund; but that is a determination the Board needs to make.  She stated the Board needs to look at that because it may vary by departments by what the needs are; but when the reserve number it should only be based on operating expenditures, not including capital; and it the recurring expenses the Board wants to set money aside for in case of emergencies. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated in July, as part of the revision to the budget an financial policy, staff plans to address that issue; it is an issue that expands beyond Fire Rescue, to talk about reserves for special revenue agencies for other funded agencies; and the difficulty in establishing three to six months or six months or beyond is that the Board has to look individually at each department.  He advised a three month reserve in Fire Rescue is the equivalent of $5.5 million; the department’s requirements for the beginning of the year are a third of that; and the issue for the Board will be whether or not it has a guideline that is industry standard but does not match the operational requirements of the department; and in this case it may be better to establish the reserve that meets the cash flow requirements as opposed as a reserve at three to six months based on agency standards.

 

Ms. Busacca stated staff will also be providing the Board with the amount of money it has spent during a typical large fire storm, such as 1998 or the current fires, and over time the cost of some hurricane events; and the Board can look at those in addition to normal operating expenses since those expenses are very large for the department. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated in the past the Board has always had the option of borrowing from enterprise funds; if the Board wants to plan for a 10 year occurrence by holding reserves for 10 years, he would be more inclined to look at something that occurs annually; and if there is a catastrophic event, there is money in independent funds to borrow from.  Commissioner Bolin stated she agrees with Chairman Scarborough.

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired if any of the outside people went to County Finance and talked about any reserves with any of the departments and not just Fire Rescue.  Mr. Whitten inquired if Commissioner Voltz meant in terms of some threshold for reserves; with Commissioner Voltz responding affirmatively.  Mr. Whitten stated it was looked at; the confusing part was the extent to which those reserves are restricted and those reserves are there as a result of some bond requirement; and if they were there as a result of some capital projects that were not finished; but that issue was looked at. 

 

Commissioner Nelson noted in terms of reserves, the number he heard was $17 million; and inquired how much of that is associated with projects, because the implication has been that those are unexpended capital project dollars.  Mr. Whitten replied in regards to Fire Rescue, the $17 million and the $15 million that was referenced in the report; the Board reallocated $2 million back to the General Fund from EMS on Tuesday; $17 million minus the $2 million is the total department-wide projected savings at the end of the fiscal year; but the fires will somewhat disrupt that.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if any of that is associated with capital; with Mr. Whitten responding a large amount of it is associated with capital; and significant amounts are associated with capital that are derived from a number of different funding sources as they are different programs under Fire Rescue such as dispatch, and emergency medical services. 

 

Fire Chief Bill Farmer advised approximately $5 million is associated with capital projects.  Commissioner Nelson inquired if $10 million is truly excess; with Chief Farmer responding he would not say that it is excess because some of it is also tied into interest and capital projects versus capital outlay.  Mr. Whitten stated the question is the amount that is associated with capital projects are not finished up this year that will roll over into next year; and those dollars are just there because of operating excess and those sorts of things.  He stated emergency medical services was approximately $3.8 of that; dispatch was approximately $.5 million; the MSTU was approximately $4 million; Fire Rescue Operations was approximately $9 million; and that is how staff came to the $17 million.  He stated he is assuming the $5 million is a good number for those items that were approved capital and will rollover; and a portion of that is for dollars that are dedicated to completion of the five-year capital improvement plan. 

 

Ms. Bradley-Goode advised Internal Audit found the number budgeted for interest income was very small compared to the actual number that was earned, and it was because of the cash balances that were in there; Internal Audit felt the projections should be done better on a regular basis throughout the year on what that interest income was going to be; and a template should be provided to project average cash balances because what Internal Audit found was that the trend of the fund balance, the remaining amount of money assets minus liability, was near cash; and if the Board can predict what the cash would be, then it could project what the fund balance is and the left over money.  She stated it is also recommended that the Budget Office review projected interest income prior to being included in the annual budget.

 

Mr. Whitten stated that was less of an issue with regards to the template because the Budget Office currently has a template that was provided as a backup in the audit report; for staff it is a matter of working with the auditors and County Finance and attempting to see if there can be a better template.  He stated part of the issue with regard to interest income will always be hitting the mark on the projection of fund balances; the more the Board knows it has in fund balances, the better able it is to hit its mark on the interest earnings projections; and staff will work with County Finance to see if there can be a better template or improvements made to the template. Commissioner Voltz inquired if that is the methodology that Ms. Bradely-Goode was referring to; with Ms. Bradley-Goode responding affirmatively.

 

Commissioner Nelson inquired what part of the hurricanes of 2004 and the expenses associated with them, play to the ramp of dollars; a whole series of things happened at that time; and the County expended a lot of money and got a lot of money in reimbursements; and it seems that instead of doing an analysis to sort through that and get back to a standard basic year, it just amplified instead of being adjusted accordingly.  Mr. Whitten responded that is part of the issue; staff is just now completing the reimbursement process for the 2004 hurricanes; and some of the issues with fund balances, or cash balances, has to be because the budget was built on an abnormal expenditure year.

 

Ms. Bradely-Goode advised the sixth recommendation, or observation, was the budgets actual comparisons have not been consistently provided to the Board or to County Management; it is very important that those be looked at on a regular basis, and that the Board also looks at the information.  She stated it is recommended the Board look at the budget comparisons at mid-year and consider requesting to review a final budget versus actual comparison for the entire year as it is standard business practice; one recommendation given to the County Manager was in the area of capital outlay and reporting it in an easy format so the Board can see by project how much has been budgeted for the project and how much has been spent, how much is left, and how much is needed to finish the projects, or how much has been approved that has not yet been spent; and capital projects are a big piece of the puzzle. 

 

Mr. Whitten stated that observation speaks to the quarterly reports which were addressed under third recommendation; the response would be to complete the quarterly reports to have those formatted where they look at acutals versus budget amount; and the mid-year process has been tweaked.  He noted it will always be difficult to give the Board an actual versus budget during budget  development  because  when the Board comes back from its break in July, it will get the County Manager’s balanced budget proposal; and it will be three quarters into the fiscal year, but not at the end of the fiscal year, so the actual at that point will be a projected actual and it will always be difficult to do that sort of analysis during budget development. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the sixth recommendation reads, “We noted mid-year Fire Rescue budget versus actual comparisons have not been formally provided to either County Management or to the Board for review since approximately 2005”; and inquired if that is the quarterly report Mr. Whitten is talking about.  Mr. Whitten responded that is the quarterly report; those are as good as the information in SAP; and there are some issues that have to be worked out both within the Budget Office and County Finance to make sure there is some sort of closing of the books and the information is up to date prior to getting the reports to the Board.  Ms. Bradley-Goode stated the next Internal Audit will be on the closing process; and that may also help in financial reporting and in deciding what needs to be done quarterly and what is the timing and how it can be more efficient. 

 

Commissioner Voltz inquired once a transfer takes place, how long before it actually gets in the system.  Mr. Whitten replied the best way to answer is by cost allocation are transfers in between departments, which are annual transfers; and he does not know how often County Finance Director Steve Burdett makes the transfers.  He stated that has been part of the hesitation in regards to issuing the reports; it is just making sure the information staff gives the Board in a report is reflective of what is currently on SAP; and SAP is up to date. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated he has heard that SAP can go to higher levels of sophistication; and inquired if there is the capacity to capture the moment with the data that is available.  He stated it may cost more money, but if the Board is trailing with financial information, it is not giving it the ability to make the right decisions at the right time.  He stated unfilled positions allowed the Board the ability to have a lot of slush money and as unfilled positions move forward, the Board knew where that money would be spent, and the positions were not being filled, but a department head just had less than accountability; and accountability is at multiple levels. 

 

County Finance Director Steve Burdett stated the Board also needs to look at the cost versus the benefit of doing it all; the SAP system is based on cash coming in and cash going out during the year; County Finance disperses for payroll and capital; and that is really what the system operates on; but it also has encumbrances, so if a department incurs a contract, that is encumbered on the system as how the funds are committed.  He stated he is concerned because the Board is talking a lot about enhancing the system.  Chairman Scarborough stated enhancing the system and drawing data from the system are not necessarily the same; there are some key indicators as to whether there are going to be surpluses or not; and in unfilled positions, the Board is carrying salaries in a budget and that position remains unfilled.  He stated the Board looks at it annually, but that data is something a Commissioner should be able to pull up and see it is accruing.  He stated there are departments that are actually increasing annually the amount of cash carry forward; and they are doing it because the Board is overfunding their budget.  Mr. Burdett stated one of the concerns when the budget was presented was that the Board is comparing a budget from this year to a budget from last year; and the Board needs to compare the budget to actuals.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if that data is so difficult to extract if the system is set up to where a Commissioner can find out how many positions are unfilled in Parks and Recreation but that have been budgeted for.  Mr. Whitten  stated  staff  can  give  the  Board  monthly  or   quarterly   vacancy  reports;   and   that information is there.  Chairman Scarborough stated the Board is funding a paycheck twice a month to an employee who is not pulling the paycheck; and that is like dividends coming in and going into the savings account.  Mr. Whitten stated staff can tell the Board what is unspent and what is vacant. 

 

Mr. Burdett stated the way he found the money that was sitting in Fire Rescue was to look at cash at the end of one month and compared it to the prior year; and that gives the Board a starting point as to where to start looking when doing the analysis. 

 

Ms. Bradley-Goode stated what Internal Audit has indicated in the report is that accruals are important, but they are not the end-all to the end-all; and the Board can still do a good comparison by looking at cash basis compared to budget on a quarterly basis and still get a good feel for if there is going to be money left over or if there is extra money.  She stated it becomes a challenge in government because it wants to keep its money because if it gives it up then it does not get as much next year; if the Budget Department is giving the Board the information that says there looks like more money somewhere and asks what the Board wants to do with it, it would include position salaries, which is an important factor in expenditures, along with capital.  Mr. Whitten stated that really is the issue; with Parks and Recreation, if the Board looks at the first and second quarter, there are going to be plenty of dollars that are unspent; but in the third quarter when the department gets into the seasonal operations, that is going to be a different picture; and his point is that there are reasons behind the numbers. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated what has not happened is the Board has not been comparing year-to-year; SAP will give information, but it has to be analyzed; and there are some component pieces of SAP that would help; but the basic unit the Board has now works.  He commented on a program in the Parks and Recreation Department.  He stated when he looked at the recommended actions it looked like Budgeting 101; the report says, “Increased consideration should be given to historical and actual spending.  County Management should focus on identifying operating and capital expenditures.”  He stated he was stunned to see that in an audit report because the County is a $40 million plus operation; the County should have always had that capacity; and with Mr. Burdett just doing a quick check and finding extra money should tell the Board there is a problem. 

 

Commissioner Colon inquired what was the position needed in Parks and Recreation that Commissioner Nelson was looking into.  Commissioner Bolin advised it was for property management.  Commissioner Nelson stated it is a piece to the SAP system, which is a program.  Commissioner Colon inquired what the title of that position would be; with Commissioner Nelson responding it is not a position, as it is a computer program.  Commissioner Colon stated when Commissioner Nelson was director of Parks and Recreation, one of the big concerns was the fact that the Board had no control over the fact that prices went up; and inquired at that point does the Board get upset at Commissioner Nelson because the prices went up.  She stated the same scenario is going to be happening with all the different departments; the Fire Department is going to be the first ones on the firing range; and after that, all departments are going to be under tremendous scrutiny.  She stated she tends to look at it as lessons learned and where the Board should go from here; it is on the record many times that she said she wanted Mr. Burdett and the Budget Office to work together; and she made it perfectly clear in meetings that the two offices should come to her office together. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated what he would have liked is to know how much can be taken out of Chief Farmer’s budget and put back into the General Fund; department directors have different views than Mr. Whitten and sometimes view him as an opponent.  He stated it would be nice if there was something he could look at immediately without waiting on a report.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she will not have the ability to look up the information on the computer, but she will have the ability to call either Ms. Busacca or Mr. Whitten and get the information; and she is frustrated because she feels she has not had a good solid overview of what the budget was and what was in each department to make solid judgments.  She stated she is concerned that it was mentioned that the budget was based on budget-to-budget and not on actual spenditures; and she is glad the Board is going to go back to how much it actually takes to run that department.  She stated she wants more input given to her so she can make good sound judgments; and Commissioner Colon made a good point that Fire Rescue is just the first department.  She stated the Board may be looking at the budget month-by-month; and every amount of money that might be in a department that is not being used may have to go back to the General Fund because the Board does not know what it is going to be hit with from month to month. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated on the flip side, if there are folks who understand their budgets and are doing the analysis on a routine basis, the sweeps do not need to be done because there will be departments that have different needs at different times of the year; and it cannot be taken at face value that money that is there is available to be taken.  Chairman Scarborough stated he understands that.  Commissioner Nelson stated it comes down to if the Board is getting the analytical effort from the department level.  Chairman Scarborough stated with Parks and Recreation, if normally by March it spends only 10 percent of its budget, he is not going to look at the budget any more than that; and the percentage amount that has been historically drawn upon and not reach beyond that.  Commissioner Nelson stated there can be a big project such as a major repair to crossovers; it may have to be before turtle season or after turtle season; and one year it could be spent in one place and the next year in another place; but the department will know that, and there is a duty to explain that.  He stated looking month-to-month is a starting point, and it is not always just as easy as if a threshold is not hit then it comes back.  Commissioner Bolin stated if it is a justifiable and documentable statement, then Parks and Recreation knows how much it spent the year before on mowing in June, then the Board can take that and anticipate a three percent increase in the cost; and then there is a number that can be used.  Commissioner Nelson stated at that point the Board is micromanaging; the Board will have gotten to a level where the departments will be explaining on a monthly basis how they spend their money and that becomes a time consuming effort in and of itself; and for the Board, the big picture question should be annually.  He stated there are levels of responsibility and review that should occur with good documentation, but he does not think it should be done by the Board on a monthly basis.  Commissioner Bolin stated that is Ms. Busacca’s job; and she agrees that it is not a job of the Boards; but to be able to bring forward the budget and be realistic and know where the money is, how it is going to be spent, and be accountable for it is the Board’s job. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated historically, when the Board shifts from letting department directors carry forward to try to pull the money out, the directors will spend their money on things the Board does not want them spending it on because they think that rather than lose it, they will spend it; and if they waited until the end of the year there is a risk of irresponsible spending sprees.   Commissioner  Nelson  stated  purchasing  shuts  down and everything goes before the County Manager anyway beginning in August; there is a system in place that monitors end of the year spending, plus based on the dollar amounts there are many controls in the system.  Chairman Scarborough stated if the Board shifts over where it is pulling out the cash forwards, it will begin to be another problem to be faced.  Commissioner Nelson stated he is not saying the Board should pull out the cash forwards.  Chairman Scarborough stated the whole discussion is not to let the departments carry cash carry forward, but to pull it back into the General Fund; and that is the next problem the Board will be facing in the next couple of years.  Commissioner Nelson stated he does not believe he said the Board needs to pull it back on a monthly basis; he believes the flexibility needs to be preserved within the budget; and there are controls in place that protect against that level of spending.  Chairman Scarborough stated if the departments are allowed to carry it forward it will not occur; but if it is pushed in the other direction that is the next event the Board will be dealing with in a couple of years. 

 

Commissioner Colon stated the times are very unique right now that everybody is in; the kind of recommendations Commissioner Bolin is giving the Board would not have been the recommendations the Board had thought of in the past; but it would behoove the Board to realize that these are unique times.  She stated Fire Rescue is the first department the Board has looked at; and what the Board does with one department it will have to do with all departments.  Chairman Scarborough stated the Board is not going to know what the Charter Officers are going to be doing; the question is if the Board looks at the County from its perspectives as a whole entity; and if it is looked at as a whole entity, can it not have it work as an entity and not as an eclectic group of different departments with different objectives.  He stated until the Board has the ability to look at the Charter Offices accounting systems, it cannot not know what is going on with the Charter Offices.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Burdett knows what is going on in the other offices in the six-story building in Titusville; with Mr. Burdett responding other than the Supervisor of Elections and the Clerk of Courts, he does not know of anything that is going on.  Chairman Scarborough stated the Charter Offices are not plugged into the Board’s system and they do not want to be; and yet, if the Board does not give them what they want, they go to the Governor and the cabinet and then the Board will not have the data to analyze what they are saying because it is not privy to it under the law.  Mr. Burdett stated when County Finance started with SAP, it was offered to the Tax Collector, but as theirs is more complicated they did not join the SAP; it was also offered to the Property Appraiser; and the Sheriff’s Office has a big system of its own, so it would have been complicated.

 

Chairman Scarborough inquired how the Board is different since it received the report.  Mr. Whitten stated he would like to go back to the issue of budgeting for a new year, whether it is based on budget or actuals; in some respect it always has to be based on projected actuals because fund balances are a big part of the budget, so some projection has to be made early in the fiscal year of what is going to spent for the current fiscal year; and the message he is getting is that in the quarterly reports, staff needs to not look at so much current year actuals, but at the historical trends.  He stated the departments are always going to have their operational issues and needs, but if staff can re-tool the reports to give the Board the basic information, then staff will be better off as it begins to develop.  Chairman Scarborough inquired when the Board can have that new level; with Mr. Whitten responding staff can have it to the Board in July.  Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board’s accountants will look at it and say it is up to expectations.  Ms. Bradley-Smith stated there are operating expenditures, reserves, and capital; Mr. Whitten knows how much is in Fire Rescue, but there are a lot of different pools; the Board wants Internal Audit to tell it how much money is there; and she can tell the Board how much is there  for  capital  outlay;  but  whether  the  Board wants to spend it for that purpose or use it for other purposes, that is a determination the Board has to make.  Chairman Scarborough stated normally, when the Board approves another station, it should be in the capital improvement program; and anything in the capital improvement program are things the Board has decided to do.  Ms. Bradley-Smith stated there is $11.7 million in capital outlay, and a lot of that money has been carried forward many times.  Chairman Scarborough inquired how much of that is committed under the capital improvement program; with Ms. Bradley-Smith responding she does not have that exact number.  Chairman Scarborough stated if something is a big project, it should be brought before the Board to be discussed as part of the capital improvement program.  Commissioner Voltz stated on page 19 of the report it says, “We know the proposed 07/08 capital outlay of $11.7 million cannot be supported by the Fire Rescue Department’s capital spending trends in recent years and it must be determined whether or not management will be able to spend these accumulated funds in the near future.  Management should review the five-year plan submitted to the Board in a reasonable time frame.”  Ms. Bradley-Smith advised of that money, $3.2 million is budgeted for Stations 83 and 87, which is $1.6 million each; construction did not begin in 06/07; the projects were re-budgeted in FY 07-08 at a revised estimated total cost of $3 million due to Fire Rescue no longer being required to acquire land for Station 83 offset by other project costs; and that is for the two stations. 

 

Mr. Burdett stated the only real issue why he brought up the money was because the State law requires the Board budget everything that is going to be carried forward; the Board has to anticipate what it is going to expend and what it is going to get; and that has to be put in the proposed budget and not just leave the money out of there and when it appears again next year, it can use it for whatever it wants to.  He stated he is not saying the Chief or anybody else cannot use it for whatever their capital plan is; from the public standpoint, the public deserves to know the money is there.  Mr. Whitten stated he knows Mr. Burdett is not suggesting that staff is hiding money; it is also a product of the projections; staff attempts to make the best projections it can for balances forward; and there are a number of issues, particularly with Fire Rescue, that the Board will have to address when it comes back in July, such as the capital improvement program and capital outlay.  He stated it is staff’s plan to bring all of the items back for discussion because those are decisions that only the Board can make; and those are the decisions the Board is going to have to make in July.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he wants to make sure the firefighters in particular understand that this is not an attempt to not fund the Fire Department; there is an impression the Board is not trying to fund the capital projects; the Board is trying to understand what those capital projects are and that they are funded and that it understands that if there is an excess above that, it has occurred by whatever mechanism has caused it.  He stated it is not about not funding stations or equipment, but it is about trying to understand what dollars may be available from other sources from within their budget that for whatever reason, got there.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated Page 13 states, “Variance due to management budgeting 100 percent collections, net of offsetting 5 percent statutory reduction, but not projecting early payment discounts.  Department-wide, Fire Rescue underestimated FY 06/07 interest income by approximately $1.1 million.  Department-wide, Fire Rescue overestimated the total amount needed for FY 06/07 salaries and benefits by approximately $1.8 million.  Management budgeted based on full value of assessment, although only 95 percent is typically collected, after discount.  The majority of the variance is due to overestimation of required funding.  $113,000 of the variance is due to a grant received in the prior year.  As the funds were expended  in the  current year,  Fire  Rescue  management  did  not realize the expenditure was already budgeted and proposed a budget amendment to record additional revenues and expenditures, effectively duplicating both.  $228,000 of the variance relates to overestimation of Fund 1351’s portion of costs to operate dispatch center.  $132,000 budgeted for property appraiser fees, even though EMS assessment was replaced by General Fund transfer.  Accordingly, management budgeted for the cost in error”; and stated $160,000 was collected for the Tax Collector for the same reason.  “Management projected issuing $1.6 million of debt to fund renovations to station #83. As this project has been postponed, debt proceeds were not recognized.  Capital outlay was under budget by the same amount.  Additional debt service expenditures were also not recognized.  Management under-budgeted costs of parking lot improvements and under-budgeted costs of online background checks by 90 percent.  Management over-budgeted first aid supplies and office supplies by 23 percent and 40 percent respectively.  Variance due generally to total actual expenditures being less than budgeted; however, we also note that five percent statutory reduction should not apply to transfers on fire rescues.”  She stated there are a number of things that have not been done right.

 

Chairman Scarborough stated Page 14 indicates in the balance forward the variance is an increase of 49 percent; that is where the Board is going to begin the discussion and where it is going to end if decided the Board will become more stringent with department directors, and what type of methodologies are developed. 

 

Commissioner Nelson stated Commissioner Colon mentioned the process of the departments going through this; and inquired if that is a different process than what the Board is talking about; stated the Board has tasked the auditors with a process that was part of the work program for next year.  Commissioner Colon stated this is outside of that, but Parks and Recreation is next.  Commissioner Nelson stated Parks and Recreation has been audited more than any department in the County.  Ms. Bradley-Smith stated Internal Audit will use this as a template for the future; hopefully, something was learned during this budget process; and some of the errors need to be fixed.  Commissioner Colon stated when the Board voted to do the report, it was her impression the Board would be able to figure out something positive.  Ms. Bradley-Smith stated hopefully, the Fire Chief will agree that he was given helpful recommendations that will get the Board a better budget, such as reporting that can be done differently; and it was a process in which everyone worked together to make it better. 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board will get the budget on July 15^th; and the Board will not have another audit before the budget.  Jennifer Murtha stated Internal Audit shared a lot of the information in the report; and there are some departments that have books and go line by line.  Chairman Scarborough stated if the Board is not able to implement the template, could the template be moved to a point that it is at least available so it is something the Board could encourage departments to get involved in; and inquired when the Board will set the preliminary millage; with Mr. Whitten responding July 29, 2008.  Chairman Scarborough stated there will be public workshops before then, and if the Board had the template as a tool for the Board in its discussion with department directors it would be helpful.  Ms. Busacca stated as staff has been going through the preliminary budgets that have been provided to her, it has started looking at the percentage of money the Board has spent; but what staff has not done is look at last year; and staff has already started to take the recommendations to heart.

 

Ms. Murtha stated one of the things Internal Audit has already done with each department was the template it created to do its analysis; it goes back five years and looks at cash, budget, and General Fund dollars; and it is a lot of data and graphs; and that has already been distributed to the departments.  Chairman Scarborough inquired when that will come back from the departments; with Ms. Murtha responding it is just data for the departments.  Chairman Scarborough stated his concern is it is just data and not a value unless it comes to the Board in a workshop with that department’s presentation.  Ms. Busacca stated staff can do that when it gives the Board the July 15^th budget; and staff can work with the auditors as the budget is being put together.  Chairman Scarborough stated it needs to be on the Agenda for next Thursday to change the scope. 

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the purpose of the Board wanting to have the Internal Audit report was to make sure the Fire Assessment Fee was equitable and that the Board was not collecting more than what was needed; and she is not sure that has been determined yet.  Chairman Scarborough stated his problem in proceeding too far with Fire Rescue is that there was a massive fire event; and until he understands the implications of that, he feels like the Board has a product and it could come back later. 

 

Commissioner Bolin stated the internal auditors made some very valid recommendations; one was to do more reporting to make it more available to the Board; the other recommendation was to look at reserves and see if the Board should go one, three, five or six months; and Internal Audit brought to light some little hiccups there are in that department.  She inquired if Ms. Busacca feels she has enough direction from the Board to start moving towards solving some of the hiccups or does she need more from the Board.  Ms. Busacca replied staff will be back to the Board with some specific policy direction; and there are some specifics staff needs from the Board as far as reserves and if the Board wants to keep them in the General Fund or in the Department.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he is not as willing to give a free pass as some of his Board members are; what the Board is talking about is basic budget work; it is the kind of thing that should be handled routinely by the County Manager and Budget staff; and what he just heard is the Board is going to let the auditors, in effect, take over the role of the Budget Office because what they are doing is typically what they do.  He stated the Board is acting like it is the first time it has ever done a budget; he is distressed by the whole process because last year the Board cut $5 million out of the budget in August; had the Board known $5 million was available earlier in the year, the whole discussion would have been different; and the Board would have had the ability to talk about raises and implementation of the fire fighters raises and potentially would not have had to lay off people.  He stated the audit the Board went through was to find out what happened; the Board took millions out of it last year and there is still $17 million, which part of is capital, but it is still a significant amount; and it is troubling to him.  He stated the bottom line for him is that he has lost confidence in the County Manager; it is a basic responsibility that should have been addressed routinely by the County Manager’s Office; and having this level of discussion is troubling to him. 

 

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, for a vote of no confidence in the County Manager.

 

 

Chairman Scarborough stated the Board was operating under a system in which a lot of money was flowing in; the Board basically allowed Departments to have the capacity to do their own thing; and the Board was not trying to squeeze the Departments.  He stated it occurred last year because information was provided by Steve Burdett in Clerks Finance that the Board needed to look at the Cash Carry Forward; however, at this moment, it is probably going to lead to things that are at the wrong time and the wrong place; and there are three Commissioners who will not be on the Board in a year.  He noted those three Commissioners would be taking part in something that would be leading to fundamental changes in Government; if there was a majority vote to terminate the County Manager, it is going to be a challenging year; and additional problems for the Commission in dealing with all the multiple issues in departments.  He stated the current County Manager has a knowledge of the County and the Departments and the needs and desires of the community; and inquired if a new County Manager gets hired by the new Commission, or does it get hired by the next Commission in which three of the members have marginal knowledge of the complexities of the issues and concepts.  He stated the Board is putting a tremendous burden on the County by proceeding with the termination of the County Manager; Commissioner Nelson has been elected and he has a right to his opinion; there has to be a more confident relationship between people; and Commissioner Nelson has to feel comfortable with who he is working with.  He stated each Commissioner has her or his own level of comfort; he would just ask them not to proceed down this route because it is not good for the people in the County to take this discussion under consideration with the budget of this nature; and he respects Commissioner Nelson and Commissioner Voltz, but if that is their thoughts and desires he respects them; but he would ask that they measure the moment and time in the County when the motion is made.  He stated if Commissioner Nelson and Commissioner Voltz reconsider the motion and the second, the Board would not have to vote on it.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated she is not going to reconsider, but the decision should fall to the next Commission; but there are people in staff who could be County Manager or the Board could bring back Tom Jenkins until the election; and Mr. Jenkins was good when talking about budgets.

 

Commissioner Bolin stated she does not support the motion; the budget was unique last year; it was the first time she went through a budget like that; and Ms. Busacca is going to be presenting a budget on July 15, 2008 and after the Board sees the new budget and the new method, then that is when she would look to see if the Board needs to address the issue.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he has a lot of confidence that staff would step up to the challenge; as Commissioner Voltz said, the Board has a unique opportunity with a resource available and could convince Mr. Jenkins to come back to the County; and there is no good time to do something like this.  He stated it is a difficult decision, but sometimes in order to move forward a step has to be taken backwards; and he does not see the Board moving forward.  He advised he was cautioned by County staff relating to being in violation of the County Charter; and he is seeing that kind of circumstance happening.  He stated he respects Chairman Scarborough, but he feels strongly about how the Board is supposed to move forward if it does not make a change.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated last year she suggested the Board do an evaluation of Ms. Busacca; she and Ms. Busacca had a face to face conversation; and how she feels has not been hidden from Ms. Busacca at all.  She stated it has been documented in the past; Ms. Busacca is a wonderful person, but the issue is about spending County tax dollars in a way that people know when their tax dollars are being spent and that they are being spent wisely, and she does not know if they are at this point.

 

Commissioner Colon stated it is obvious Commissioner Nelson and Commissioner Voltz do not have the support of the Board; and hopefully it is the end of the discussion.  She stated last year was a difficult year for the entire State of Florida; the biggest frustration was that it was a moving target; and the Board had never dealt with anything like that, and it was frustrating.  She stated the majority of the Board feels it needs to move forward with the County Manager; and she hopes today’s discussion does not demoralize the directors or staff.  She advised she has respect for the County Manager and the Fire Rescue Chief.

 

Commissioner Voltz stated the Board knows it does not have any control over Chief Farmer or his budget; it is the County Manager and staff that has control of the budget.

 

Chairman Scarborough called for a vote on the motion; motion failed with Chairman Scarborough, Commissioner Bolin, Commissioner Colon voting in opposition.

 

 

 

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 3:53 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                        _________________________________

                                                                        TRUMAN SCARBOROUGH, CHAIRMAN

                                                                        BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ATTEST:                                                         BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

 

__________________

SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK 

        (S E A L)

                                                                  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.